In 2010, General Stanley McChrystal was running the war in Afghanistan. He was chums with Barack Obama and supported Obama’s presidency. He thought granting an interview with the leftist rag Rolling Stone was in keeping with his own political leanings and those of Rolling Stone. Obama nominated him for his post, and McChrystal made it clear he voted for and supported Obama. McChrystal fancied himself a "big thinker." Sacrificing American lives was fine if it was in the interest of winning hearts and minds. His ridiculous "rules of engagement" straight-jacketed the boots on the ground. No matter, McChrystal strictly enforced them. His orders made it difficult to nearly impossible to conduct and win a war, but McChrystal was a "big thinker" like McNamara during Vietnam.  

He banned alcohol on bases and forbade Fox News from being broadcast on base TVs. Rolling Stone listened as McChrystal rambled on about Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry being dummies, out of their depth. Holbrooke was described as ineffectual and frightened of being fired. Eikenberry was a former three-star general, renowned as a professional ass-kisser, most interested in saving his own hide. Eikenberry covered his backside like a new prisoner in the cellblock shower.

When Rolling Stone published McChrystal’s comments, he was shocked that Rolling Stone would throw him under the leftist bus. McChrystal was one of “them.” Stan was canned. Telling the truth wasn’t his sin; he was booted because he told the truth about Obama’s people.   

“We are all on the same team” went only so far. The interview was a disaster for McChrystal. 

Since Rolling Stone published its libelous Duke lacrosse story in 2006, the world recognized it for what it was — a leftist rag in a range between the National Enquirer and scribbles on a bathroom stall. Rolling Stone seems intent on trolling the gutter to find stories that will validate a conclusion and then find something that it thinks will shoehorn into the pre-conceived narrative. 

The narrative now is the unending attacks on Justice Samuel Alito. It started with the claim that flying a flag upside down was a call for insurrection...or something. I wrote about that last month that it was the first of what now seems to be an assembly line of nothingburgers in an election year. 

It was a new "gotcha" story. The left took to it like sharks to chum. The New York Times was the first to “break” this story. Unsurprisingly, the amateur photo of the upside-down flag was almost certainly taken with a cellphone camera. It happened almost four years ago. At Samuel Alito’s home, an American Flag was raised on a flagpole upside down. I couldn’t find any mention of this from January 2021. Not a word. It was clearly kept in the quiver for later use. Like, now.

Then they trotted out the Appeal to Heaven Flag at the Alito’s summer home. That, too, was, as my buddy Sister Toldjah noted, more made-up controversy. 

The "Appeal to Heaven" flag was also flown for several decades at San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza in front of City Hall - until recently. 

Now, Rolling Stone has published  2,000 words of breathlessness nonsense claiming that it has the goods on Alito. They finally got him. I hope you are sitting down. It seems Alito has private opinions. As shocking as that seems – Alito, as a practicing Catholic, has an opinion on Christianity. 

A "journalist" and independent filmmaker named Lauren Windsor gave Rolling Stone an exclusive on "undercover audio" she obtained. Windsor showed up at the Supreme Court’s Historical Society’s annual dinner. She tracked down Alito and, acting like a 12-year-old fangirl, repeated “like” about every other word while asking Alito questions. She tried to get him to say something remotely printable. Remotely controversial. She thought she got it when she pretended to be religious. She said that she hoped the country would return to a "place of godliness." The deeply observant Catholic Alito said, “I agree with you.” 

As stunning as that might sound to an ill-informed ideologue like Windsor and the hacks at Rolling Stone, Alito doesn’t live at the Supreme Court. He doesn’t sleep on the bench. That is his job, not his life. Judges don’t have to give up having opinions that leftists don’t like. A judge can hope that the country moves back toward God without compromising his commitment to the Constitution. 

The Federalist wrote:  

Windsor, faking her entire position, told Alito she doesn’t know “that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito said. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

None of that was said from the bench. None of those comments are prohibited by the rules of judicial ethics. I know plenty of judges who are more conservative than I am yet rule in ways that would please the left because they follow the rule of law. 

Windsor tried to get Alito to offer an opinion about wanting more power for the court, and Alito was having none of it. He said the court has limited power, and limited authority. 

And here's the real kicker: When Windsor set upon Chief Justice John Roberts in similar fashion...he had — wait for it — "a far different response."

In an audio recording of that exchange, Roberts takes issue with Windsor’s assertion that the nation is unusually polarized, historically, citing the high tensions of the Vietnam War era, for example. He also insists that the Supreme Court’s current role is not exceptional. “The idea that the court is in the middle of a lot of tumultuous stuff going on is nothing new,” Roberts says.

Rolling Stone spent about 2,000 words trying to cast Alito as compromised because he has opinions. It didn’t work. Rolling Stone managed to do one thing. It reminded me why no one respects Rolling Stone or hacks like Lauren Windsor.   

Windsor’s fangirls on X (f/k/a Twitter) were aghast at what Alito said. I am convinced none of them listened to what he actually said and I know none of them read what Rolling Stone published. What the leftist Karens did confirm is that Alito is right. The differences on fundamentals cannot be compromised. One side will win this battle, and it can’t be leftists like Windsor. 

If you care to listen to Windsor beclown herself on audio, it starts below. She posted it to her X feed as if she had a Zapruder-like film of a second gunman on the grassy knoll. She advertised her earth-moving gonzo journalism the day before, like she discovered space aliens living in her backyard. 

EXCLUSIVE UNDERCOVER AUDIO:
Sam Alito x John Roberts x The Undercurrent 🧵

1/ Justice Alito admits lack of impartiality with the Left, says: “One side or the other is going to win.” pic.twitter.com/b5nmxToZ9z

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) June 10, 2024

Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication for clarity.