When America Is Threatened, Leadership Must Step Up And So Far The ONLY Individuals Who Are Willing To Fight For America Are Trump Or Cruz!

DIARY OF A MAD VOTER

As Terrorism Dominates, Can Trump Be Stopped?

 

BY ROGER L SIMON NOVEMBER 22, 2015

CHAT 764 COMMENTS

Remember the conventional wisdom that Donald Trump was no more than a faddish celebrity candidate who would soon fade and drop out?  Seems like another century, doesn't it?

Ever since he announced, the billionaire businessman has been at the top of the polls and, with barely a ripple, has remained there. Right now he appears to be lapping the field and only three of his opponents -- Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz -- are even making it into double-digits on any of the polls. And Carson seems to be the one who is fading.

In the respected Reuters-IPSOS rolling poll from November 20, Trump is at 38.8%, Carson 14.7%, Rubio 10.3%, Cruz 7.1% with long ago supposed shoo-in frontrunner Jeb Bush 5.5%, trailing even "Wouldn't Vote" (6.3%)  by .8%.

No wonder, according to this weekend's WSJ, the GOP "mainstream" is revving up to "hit Trump." Panic has set in. From the WSJ:  A super PAC supporting John Kasich (3.0% in the IPSOS poll) is apparently planning to blow $2.5 million on an anti-Trump campaign (talk about throwing good money after bad -- how about giving it to cancer research, boys and girls?), Jeb is doubling down on his attacks, the Club for Growth is gearing up further assaults, and a "guerrilla campaign" is starting up by a new outfit called Trump Card LLC.

This last group, spearheaded by Liz Mair, at least has some originality to it.  They're producing parodies dramatizing Trump's old not-so-conservative views (like supporting single-payer healthcare).  But I would be willing  to wager they will all amount to no more than the P-word: piffle. The Donald's not going anywhere, and none of these initiatives seem remotely capable of dislodging him.

Meanwhile, Comrade Trotsky -- as the events of the last few days have underscored, if we were too stupid not to know it -- we're at war.  And in war, you don't look to, say, Bernie Sanders to lead you.  You look to George S. Patton.  You're not interested in nuance á la John Kerry, pathological dishonesty á la Hillary Clinton, or a president whose sympathy might really be for the other side.  You want a real commander in chief, a fearless leader -- you want.... Donald?  Well, yes, Donald. He may have to do.  He won't be afraid to do what's necessary.

Recognizing  that,  everyone,  Republican and Democrat, is piling on.  They jumped to vilify a Trump answer to a question from a sneaky NBC reporter about whether Donald thought we should keep a database of our Muslim population.  Donald may or may not have said yes, and he already retracted it if he did,  but that didn't stop Jeb from characterizing his comment as "abhorrent." It's not even worth quoting what Hillary said (it wasn't positive).  Even Ted Cruz added, "I'm a big fan of Donald Trump's, but not a fan of government registries of American citizens."

Okay, that's the polite, politically correct, way of looking at it. We all want to be "good people," right?  FDR must have been off his meds the day he rounded up all those Japanese and stuck them in internment camps.

But that's far from the full story.  Undoubtedly our government, even after Snowden, has all sorts of lists we don't know about, organized in ways that would make us uncomfortable -- some of them possibly saving our lives.  The truth is PC doesn't hack it in war.  PC is a rich liberal's plaything, a luxury item. It works best as a subject for ridicule on South Park.  And it's not the way we really think.  It's the way we pretend we think.   So  just who is it that is blowing innocent people to smithereens in Paris, Beirut, Sharm, and Mali, and who knows where else next?  Zen Buddhist monks?  The Little Sisters of the Poor?

Everybody knows who it is. Islam has a big problem and although people want to be polite or deliberately lie about it to look "good" to their neighbors or to their cousins at the Thanksgiving table, when they get into a voting booth, many of them are guiltily going to be pulling the lever for someone with the you-know-what to put an end to this global homicidal insanity -- and it's not going to be John Kasich or Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.  It's going to be Donald Trump.  And if not Donald, possibly Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, both of whom seem to be able to find Raqqa on a map. And none of these people are racists, not even faintly, no matter what some NBC reporter wants to imply.

Israel Must Follow Patton's Words “May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I sure as hell won’t.”

America’s Curiously Selective Moral Calculus vis-à-vis Israel

By Michael Freund July 24, 2014 , 10:51 am

111 9

1 0Email 144Share

In most such cases, the US does not even acknowledge its responsibility for its own lethal drone attacks, let alone issue an apology.

With a predictability that is rapidly becoming mind-numbing monotony, various US officials from the president on down have been stressing the need for Israel to exercise restraint in its counter- terror operation in Gaza so as to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties.

In addition to President Barack Obama, this concern has been voiced in recent days in one form or another by none other than US Secretary of State John Kerry, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, as well as the spokesmen for the State Department and the White House.

And just in case we didn’t get the message the fourth or fifth time it was delivered in public, both the president and the secretary of state are said to have repeated it in private telephone conversations with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

As the late Ronald Reagan might have put it, “there they go again.” And again, and again, and again.

But Washington’s recurring mantra about restraint is not merely tiresome, it is profoundly hypocritical, and it highlights just to what degree Obama’s foreign policy resembles the parent who tells his child, with cigarette in hand: “do as I say, not as I do.”

Take, for example, America’s policy of carrying out drone strikes against al-Qaida affiliates in places such as Yemen, where terrorists have succeeded in seizing territory and transforming it into a platform for violence (sound familiar?).

In a 102-page report released on October 22, 2013, by Human Rights Watch, entitled “Between a Drone and al-Qaida: The Civilian Cost of US Targeted Killings in Yemen,” the group examined six strikes carried out by US forces in that embattled country. They found that at least 57 of the 82 people killed in the attacks were in fact innocent civilians.

In other words, for all of its sermonizing to Israel about restraint, America had few qualms about killing twice as many civilians as terrorists in its drone strikes in Yemen.

Among the incidents cited in the report was one in September 2012 in Sarar, in central Yemen, when a passenger van carrying 12 civilians was blown to bits by mistake. In another incident, in December 2009, the US carried out a cruise missile strike on a Beduin camp in the Yemeni village of al-Majalah which killed 14 al-Qaida terrorists and 41 civilians, two-thirds of whom were said to be women and children.

Whatever happened to Obama’s “serious concern about the growing number of casualties,” which a White House statement on Sunday said the president had raised with Netanyahu during a phone conversation? Apparently, as far as Washington is concerned, the ends justify the means in the war on terror, unless the one pulling the trigger to defend himself happens to be Israeli.

Interestingly, on the same day that the Human Rights Watch report regarding Yemen was made public, Amnesty International released a study of US drone strikes in Pakistan. Entitled “Will I Be Next?”, the document assessed nine drone attacks that took place between January 2012 and August 2013 in Pakistan’s North Waziristan province. Here too, there were “incidents in which men, women and children appear to have been unlawfully killed or injured,” the report noted.

These include the inexplicable US drone attack in October 2012 in which a 68-year-old grandmother, Mamana Bibi, was blasted to smithereens in front of her grandchildren while gathering vegetables in an open field.

Earlier that year, on July 6, American drones attacked and killed 18 Pakistani laborers who had gathered for dinner after a day’s work, and then carried out a second strike on the first responders who came to help the wounded.

In most such cases, the US does not even acknowledge its responsibility for such attacks, let alone issue an apology.

And it certainly does not heed calls for restraint.

NOW DON’T get me wrong. I fully support Washington’s policy of using drones to take out terrorists, a policy that has weakened al-Qaida and its affiliates in a variety of countries. But I find it hard to fathom America’s curiously selective moral calculus when it browbeats Israel to be extra careful vis-à-vis civilians in a war zone even as the US itself fails to show such caution.

Sure, the Obama administration has voiced its support for Israel’s right to defend itself. But by couching this phrase alongside an overly insistent need for restraint, Washington is in fact sending the following message: you Jews can of course defend yourselves, but only up to a point.

The bottom line is that in the first 13 days after the start of Operation Protective Edge, the Palestinians fired 1,780 rockets from Gaza at Israeli towns, villages and cities. That averages out to about 137 rockets a day, or more than five per hour, every hour, for nearly two weeks.

This is unconscionable, unacceptable and it must be stopped.

In this war, we should bear in mind the immortal words of the late General George S. Patton, Jr., who commanded the US Third Army after the invasion of Normandy in 1944. Once, before heading into battle, he reportedly declared, “May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I sure as hell won’t.”

Sounds callous? Perhaps.

But in a war of survival against a determined foe, it is the only way to prevail.

Reprinted with author’s permission

Urination-Gate

We have been thinking about the Marines relieving themselves onto the dead bodies of Taliban fighters and have had a hard time finding the right words to make my point. However, the following article got me thinking. War is Hell and those who are participants sometimes lose their way.  This is the case of these Marines.

We cannot document it, but feel secure in saying that this is not the first time in the history of man (or the United States) that a soldier has relieved himself onto a vanquished foe.  However, it might be the first time we can see the intentionally degrading event. For those who have not been in combat, it is hard for us to understand the range of emotions that course through the body when we are involved in a kill or be killed situation. We won, they lost. That has to be a really big high!

Yet taking a move of the event is, in a word, stupid and we would expect that those who did "star" would agree with that assessment.  They will pay a price and in today's politically correct world, it will be high.   

It was not like that years ago. For example, during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, there were no enemy soldiers taken prisoner. Prisoners were taken but they did not make it to the POW camps. In the following story we read about Black Jack Pershing in the Philippines and his treatment of Muslim fighters. Seems we have forgotten that war can make men do all sorts of things they normally would not do.

We somehow expect war to be like a video game, where it is clean and only bad guys get killed. If we are unfortunate and lose our life in a game, all we have to do is reboot and we have several lives again.  Unfortunately war is not like that.

Another issue that drives me crazy is the concern for "collateral damage" both of people and buildings. Why were we not concerned when we firebombed Dresden and Tokyo in WWII?  Thousands of civilians died in both of those incidents and please remind me, who was brought up on charges? The answer none.  Yet if some unfortunate Marine fires on a crowd of people after being fired upon, he is up on charges!

This latest event, which I call Urinationgate, is the latest "feminization" of this country. We are becoming, if not already are, wimps. We fail to understand war and what happens when you go to war. It is not pretty, in fact, it is awful, and should only be the last resort for settling a dispute. However, when we use the military option, we cannot piecemeal it. We must fully engage the enemy with overwhelming force. Those enemy non-combatants must understand that their country has gone to war with us and therefore they might be part of the damage that occurs. Next time, the leaders who threaten us will think twice before taking us on.

Unless we put the manhood back in war, we will be pushed around, bullied and then taken over by our enemies.  War is hell but being defeated is worse.

Our brave Marines will be punished for their stupidity but we will be punished in much greater ways when we lose the next great battle. At that time there will be no CNN, CBS or the New York Times to report on the tragedy, we will have lost and we will be the vanquished.  

Conservative Tom

 

Murder, Mayhem and Tinkling on Terrorists

By GOPUSA Staff January 17, 2012 6:57 am

          

Text Size: A A A

The story is told of General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing fighting Islamic terrorists in the Philippines in 1911. It seems that his troops had captured a number of the enemy. Knowing of the Muslim fear of even coming in contact with pigs, the story goes that Pershing forced the prisoners to dig their own graves, then stood all but one of them up in front of a firing squad. He ordered his men to slaughter several pigs and to dip their bullets in the pig’s blood. After the terrorists were executed, their bodies were thrown into the graves and the pig blood and guts were buried with them. The terrified lone survivor was turned loose to return and tell his compatriots what he had witnessed. Rumor has it that Pershing had no further problems with the Islamic population of the Philippines. While the veracity of the story is undetermined, it strikes one as the sort of tale that should have happened even if it didn't.

Can you imagine Black Jack Pershing working for the likes of Barack Obama, Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton? Can you picture General George Patton (no relation to yours truly), the man who proclaimed that "Americans love to win and can’t stand to lose" taking orders from this crowd of wimps? Try to visualize Pershing or Patton’s response to all the feigned outrage coming out of the Obama White House, Defense and State Departments over a video of four U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of a group of Taliban terrorists they had just killed. Obama, Panetta and Clinton, the three stooges of American foreign policy have expressed their outrage at this act because the U.S. is in the midst of trying to negotiate with the Taliban.

Of course, a spokesman for the Taliban concurred with the administration’s outrage. (I know it was a spokesman because any woman who attempted to speak on behalf of these savages would be stoned to death.) At any rate, I can certainly understand Obama’s reluctance to upset the Taliban. After spending the past three years bowing before Islamic radicals and cozying up to South American tyrants on his globetrotting apology tour, the president wouldn’t want to anger the people who aided and abetted Osama bin Laden in the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. That would be wrong. In fact, in the words of liberal pundits Juan Williams and Kirsten Powers on Fox News, what these marines did was "despicable." Really? Annoying, maybe. Stupid, certainly — especially for allowing it to be videotaped in this YouTube age — but despicable isn’t even in the ballpark.

Synonyms for despicable: appalling; dreadful; contemptible; wicked; shameful; disgraceful; vile; loathsome. Sorry. This doesn't even come close. Despicable is what the Taliban and their ilk did to us. Despicable is what happened in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a field near Shanksville, PA, a decade ago. Despicable is what the Iranians are trying to do with their newfound nuclear technology. Despicable is what Kim Il Sung, his son, Kim Jung Il and grandson, Kim Jung Un, have done to North Korea and its people. Despicable is what Hugo Chavez has done to Venezuela. Despicable is what Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot did to the innocents who got in their way. Tinkling on terrorists is in another category altogether.

Like General Pershing, our military should have the authority to do whatever is necessary to win against whatever enemy we ask them to fight. Our enemies should always know that no matter what happens, when we go to war, it's not going to be pretty or dignified or sporting. As Ronald Reagan once said, the strategy should be a simple one: we win, they lose, period.

---

Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at dougpatton@cox.net.