Friday, December 9, 2016

Israel Shows How to Stop Terrorists

American Thinker ^ | December 9, 2016 | Elise Cooper 

Build a wall, secure the border, and vet Muslims to stop the infiltration of terrorists.  This is not Donald Trump speaking – it is what has actually been done in Israel.  Americans can take a page from Israel's Border Guard to protect themselves.

American Thinker interviewed author Samuel M. Katz regarding his book The Ghost Warriors, about Israel's elite force of undercover operatives.  They are drawn from the nation's diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, united in their ability to walk among the enemy as no one else dared.  They are called Ya'mas and use many undercover tactics.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump Is Wise to Surround Himself with Generals for Key National Security Positions

National Review ^ | 12/09/2016 | David French 

We’ve reached an odd point in American political discourse when a civilian president-elect can appoint three civilian former members of the military to key positions in his administration (with his cabinet appointees being confirmed by a civilian Senate) and mainstream journalists fret about whether Donald Trump is forming a “junta.”

Yet that actually happened yesterday, when Politico’s Julia Ioffe tweeted: “Three generals and maybe a fourth. Can we just cut to the chase and call ourselves a junta?” The New Yorker’s Nicholas Thompson mused on Twitter: “How many generals do you need in government before you technically become a junta?” Then, last night the Washington Post picked up on the theme, writing an article titled “Trump Hires a Third General, Raising Concerns about Heavy Military Influence.”

Trump has tapped retired general Michael Flynn to be his national-security adviser, James Mattis to be secretary of defense, and now John Kelly to run the Department of Homeland Security. These choices are causing “worries” at the Post:

Trump’s choice of Kelly — and his continued deliberations about tapping as many as two more military figures for other posts — has intensified worries among some members of Congress and national-security experts that the new administration’s policies may be shaped disproportionately by military commanders.

Trump should ignore these concerns. With the possible exception of Michael Flynn (who has made a number of erratic statements since he retired, although he has a formidable service record), his selections are the right political, operational, and strategic choices.

How can the most disliked and most distrusted president-elect in American history signal that he’s competent and capable of leading the nation? By appointing people from the nation’s most trusted institution to important positions. We can’t forget that in an era when trust for government and other civic institutions is plunging, the military has retained strong public support.

And it has that support for a reason. In 15 years of war since 9/11, the military has consistently fought with honor, courage, and excellence. The best military in the world isn’t built by accident, nor is it maintained through negligence. The generals who are responsible for some of the military’s greatest recent successes — whether it’s the brilliant push to Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq invasion or the intelligence innovations that empowered the deadliest aspects of the Surge — have proven that they’re worthy of respect. And in polarized times, respect is a precious commodity.

But the choices are wise for reasons beyond public support, however well earned. Most Americans can’t possibly understand the immense challenge of leading large formations in the modern military. A general is a warfighter, yes, but he’s also a human-resources officer, a procurements expert, and a manager. A general is accustomed to dealing with bloated bureaucracies and making them bend to his will. The military has an extremely sharp and deadly spear, but behind that small tip is a bureaucracy so unwieldy that it can make you weep with frustration. No general has been capable of stripping down that bureaucracy — no person has proven that powerful — but the best generals can at least shape it, command it, and accomplish the mission.

Selecting retired generals for key national-security posts is a key signal that Trump is shunning a law-enforcement approach to the war on terror. For the time being, the longstanding debate about whether terrorism is primarily a police challenge (like fighting a Mafia on steroids) or a military challenge is over. And that’s very welcome news. Jihadists present a military-scale challenge to American lives and treasure, and we must counter that with a consistent military-scale response.

Critically, however, if Trump truly listens to his generals, that does not mean that America will necessarily be more interventionist. No one is more familiar with the capabilities and (crucially) limits of American power than the class of officers who’ve been fighting jihad since 2001. No one knows the costs of war more than those who’ve led men in combat or — like General Kelly — lost children in war. The crucible of combat combined with the inherent frustration of fighting an enemy such as ISIS or al-Qaeda has created widely divergent viewpoints among senior officers. The military isn’t an ideological or strategic monoculture, and I would expect Flynn and Mattis to clash over strategy and tactics. Managed properly, that’s a good thing.

There is simply no good reason to be suspicious of retired generals unless we see specific evidence of moral, intellectual, or strategic failings. At the same time, no one should presume they’ll be successful in civilian office. American history is littered with examples of retired warriors who simply couldn’t lead civilians effectively. Others have been outstanding. But we can’t know the future. We only know the present and the past. We should judge Trump’s picks on what we know, not what we can’t predict.

Civilian control of the government is indispensable to the American republic, but if the Founders of that republic had the slightest concern that former officers were less qualified to govern, they wouldn’t have wanted the commander in chief of the Continental Army to become our nation’s first president. It was that retired general who established many of the traditions and customs of the presidency — traditions and customs that limited the control and influence of that office. He could have been a near-king, a warrior-leader of our new nation. Instead, he chose to be a constitutional president.

Trump’s generals aren’t “dangerous.” They fit within a long and distinguished line of military leaders who went on to serve their nation as civilians. We now hope they will serve as well in business suits as they did in combat boots.

— David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, an attorney, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Global Warming Protesters Met With Bitter Cold, Snow! ^ | 12/8/2016 | Michael Bastasch 

A small group of global warming activists protesting oil and gas drilling outside the Department of Interior office in Colorado Thursday morning were met with bitter cold weather and snow.
About 10 “Keep It In The Ground” activists waved signs next to a busy road in the Denver area, calling for the Obama administration to stop issuing leases so companies can drill on public lands. Activists say drilling only exacerbates global warming.
The irony, however, is activists stood outside about 4 inches of snow with temperatures hovering in the 20s — in degrees Fahrenheit. The official low temperature was negative 10 degrees early Thursday morning, according to the National Weather Service.
Activists with and Food & Water Watch braved the cold to protest hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” after two measures to restrict the drilling technique failed to make November’s ballot. The pro-fracking Western Energy Alliance took photos of activists trying to stay warm. You can view the photos here.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's National Security Report Card -- Unsatisfactory ^ | December 9, 2016 | David Limbaugh 

In his speech at MacDill Air Force Base, President Obama bragged that he has made America safer while preserving America's values.
The incessant self-absorption is annoying enough, but the self-delusion puts it over the top. Whether he's talking the economy or national security, he always paints a picture of his performance that contradicts reality.
Do Americans actually feel safer under his watch than they did under that of President George W. Bush? Has he inspired confidence that he is aggressively fighting terrorism at home and abroad and that he is administering a coherent foreign policy? Or does he come off more concerned with apologizing for America's past "sins" and appeasing Islamists?
Obama's inflexible ideology drove his obsession to withdraw our troops from Iraq so precipitously as to guarantee a void that would spawn the likes of the Islamic State group. It explains his stubborn refusal until recently to do anything to violate his sacred pledge not to place American boots on the ground.
Obama boasts that he ended two wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- but neither his withdrawal of American forces from Iraq nor his drawdown of our troops in Afghanistan ended a war. The wars mushroomed rather than ended because of his actions, and Iraq is still in far worse shape -- by any measure -- than when Obama took office. We are finally taking action there, but only after Obama pooh-poohed the Islamic State, said it was contained and then admitted he had no strategy -- after saying he did.
His belated reversals on Iraq weren't in time to prevent the immeasurable damage occasioned by the manner of his withdrawal, which virtually beckoned the Islamic State and other terrorist groups to set up shop there and organize global mischief and emboldened Islamists throughout the world.
Would you rather talk about Libya and Syria? I didn't think so, but suffice it to say Obama's record with both takes "leading from behind" to a new level. And the nuclear deal with Iran -- coupled with turning hundreds of millions of dollars over to that sinister, terrorist-sponsoring regime -- was even worse.
There is certainly room for reasonable disagreement on foreign policy among interventionists, isolationists and those who favor striking a balance between those two approaches, using America's national security interests as the driving yardstick. These disagreements transcend party lines.
But what concerns me most about Obama and the left on national security is their Pollyannaish attitude toward the terrorist threats we face. Liberals always seem more concerned with making America likable than with making us safe -- and they miserably conflate the two.
We don't hear enough from them about the importance of strength and vigilance. Instead, they talk about preserving our values, ending enhanced interrogation techniques and closing Gitmo, as if Islamic terrorists hate us because we aren't kind and lawful. Seriously?
On the heels of terrorist attacks by Islamists, whether on foreign or American soil, we rarely hear outrage or a commitment to redouble our effort to aggressively counter Islamic extremism. Rather, we are lectured not to discriminate against Muslims because of the attacks. And that's only after liberals first deny terrorism was involved. Even when we have conclusive proof that Islamic terrorists caused the attacks, Obama et al. refuse to utter the words "Islamic terrorism."
A few of Obama's statements in the MacDill speech illustrate the problem. "No foreign terrorist organization," he said, "has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland. ... The most deadly attacks on the homeland over the last eight years have not been carried out by operatives with sophisticated networks or equipment directed from abroad. They've been carried out by homegrown and largely isolated individuals who were radicalized online."
The problem is that many national security threats we face are asymmetrical and unconventional. Terrorists don't have to be attached to a major Islamic group to strike with deadly force. By dismissing these increasingly frequent attacks as isolated downplays their epidemic nature. To say these "lone wolfs" are unconnected with foreign terrorist organizations is inconsistent with saying they were radicalized online. Who do you think is doing the radicalizing? It implies that an otherwise innocent internet surfer turns to murderous activity after serendipitously clicking on a provocative website.
What do we expect when we invite people into this nation who have no allegiance to -- and sometimes even hatred for -- America?
Obama says, "People and nations do not make good decisions when they are driven by fear." I'm tired of hearing such cliches from both parties. What's wrong with a healthy fear of people who want to kill you? What is ignoble about recognizing deadly threats and preparing for them?
We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The best way to counter that is through strength, not weakness and unilateral disarmament (and this is a cliche I'm not tired of). But Obama has downsized and degraded the military, increased burdens on American gun owners and vilified law enforcement, our first line of defense in all American cities.
It is encouraging that Americans have voted to reverse these disastrous policies and to move America's national security interests from the back burner to the front burner, beginning in January, which can't come soon enough.

Biden: Republicans 'probably would have eaten me alive' if I ran!

The Hill ^ 

Vice President Biden said Thursday that Republicans "probably would have eaten me alive" if he ran ran for president this year.

When asked if he thought that he would have done a better job than Hillary Clinton, Biden speculated that he would have been strongly criticized by his opponents. "Oh I don't know, they probably would have eaten me alive, you know? Who knows what would have happened," he said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "I learned how to become popular. Once you're not running for president I mean boom, you're a popular guy out there."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

John Ratzenberger: With Donald Trump's win, 'adults are back in charge'

FoxNews ^ | 12/8/16 

"Cheers" star John Ratzenberger was one of the first Hollywood types to support Donald Trump, telling "Fox and Friends" on Thursday that he was already on the “Trump train” when he went on Neil Cavuto’s show last year “pledging his support.”

"It’s nice that adults are back in charge," Ratzenberger said of Trump's big win. "[It's like] okay kids, give us the keys to the car, you’ve done enough damage, now we will take over.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sanctuary House

Ricochet ^ | 12/7/2016 | Michael Henry 

On Thanksgiving Day, I stopped by the palatial home of my longtime friend and lawyer, E. Hobart Calhoun, a fellow Mensa member, bon vivant, and part-time oenophile. He was burning leaves in his front yard. I jumped out of my reconditioned hybrid Ford Falcon and raced to stomp out the flames, feverishly checking for any sign of the EPA death squads routinely patrolling our neighborhoods these days.
“Have you lost your mind?” I asked E. as I stepped out of my rugged Duluth steel-threaded overalls, which had caught fire in spite of Duluth’s guarantee that they were flammable or inflammable, whichever word is right.
“Relax,” E. said with his characteristic intelligent chuckle. “You’re standing on hallowed ground. I’ve declared my estate to be a Sanctuary Home.”
“What do you mean?”
“You know how these cities around the country have pronounced themselves Sanctuary Cities, and therefore not subject to the laws of the State or Federal governments?”
“Sure. It’s in all the news.”
“Well, I’ve done the same thing with my home.”
“You mean…?”
“That’s right. I’ve filed affidavits at the court house. Now, nothing is illegal here on my property,” he said, lighting up his favorite crack pipe and blowing the blue smoke into the lower troposphere. “In fact, as soon as I finish raking and burning leaves, I’m going to wash my Escalade in my driveway and let all of the sudsy water run off into the storm drain to commingle with the nation’s water supply.”
“My God, E.,” I said, grasping the enormity of the concept. “The EPA can’t do anything to you if you live in a Sanctuary Home.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why Are Leftists Such Pansies?

PJ Media ^ | December 6, 2016 | Andrew Klavan 

Many times we accuse our political opponents of crimes of which we ourselves are equally guilty. Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on dishonesty, hypocrisy, or hyperbole. But there is at least one unpleasant trait that seems to reside almost exclusively in the hearts of leftists: a puling hysterical weakness in the face of setbacks and defeat.
I think President Barack Obama is the worst president of my lifetime: an incompetent ideologue who made the world and the country worse. The economy is not as bad as it was directly after the crash, but it is much, much worse than it would have been had it not been weighted down with Dodd-Frank regulation and the anvil of Obamacare. Racial tension is worse, the national spirit is worse, the wars in the Middle East are worse, our nation's place in the world is worse, our federal institutions are more politicized and corrupt — all because Obama simply did not know how reality worked and would not change his mind.
I knew all this was true or would be true by 2012, and when Obama was reelected over Mitt Romney, a much wiser, more adult, and steadier hand, I was dismayed. I was saddened. I was even distraught.
But I did not become a sniveling, whiny, self-obsessed pansy. I did not, that is to say, behave like leftists are behaving now....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Consumers, businesses, and CEOs are all loving life since Trump's election

Business Insider via AOL ^ | Dec 8th 2016 | Bob Bryan 

Americans from all corners of the economy seem to be enjoying the conditions a lot more since the election of Donald Trump.
Nearly every measure of consumer, business, or executive confidence has gained in the month since the election according to Michelle Meyer, chief US economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
"The data clearly show that consumers, investors, and business CEOs have all become more optimistic since the election," wrote Meyer in a note to clients on Thursday.
Everything from regional manufacturing indexes to consumer confidence surveys to investor sentiment have ticked up since November 8. The only survey that has slid is the ISM-adjusted Empire Manufacturing survey that measures confidence of New York state manufacturers.
"Bottom line: most business activity surveys point to greater confidence following the election," concluded Meyer.
The biggest confidence boost has come from consumers according to Meyer, with both the Conference Board and Investor's Business Daily (IBD) & TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence (TIPP) indexes hitting post-recession highs.
Investors and CEOs have seen jumps, but are still not overflowing with confidence according to the note.
"However, investor and CEO confidence are still subdued, with the former only modestly above its average since 2010 (52.9) and the latter much below (84.1)," wrote Meyer.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Donald Trump Calls Ohio State Attack a ‘Tragic Reminder’ on Immigration

MSN News ^ | December 9, 2016 | JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Thursday that the stabbing attack by a refugee last week at Ohio State University was a “tragic reminder” of the need to take a hard line on immigration, arguing that his administration would put the safety of Americans first in a way the Obama administration never has.
Mr. Trump, who visited the university’s campus on Thursday before speaking at a victory rally in Des Moines, said the attack — carried out by a Somali-born refugee who Mr. Trump has said should not have been in the country — had been “yet one more tragic reminder that immigration security is now national security.”
“No more games, folks, no more games,” he told several thousand people in a large event hall in downtown Des Moines, packed with supporters wearing bright-red caps emblazoned with Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” mantra. “A Trump administration will always put the safety and security of the American people first. It’s going to be the American people first — it hasn’t been that way.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Castro’s Torture of American POWs in Vietnam

Frontpage ^ | December 9, 2016 | Jamie Glazov 

The death of communist tyrant Fidel Castro has yielded much-deserved coverage of the monstrous nature of his tyrannical rule.
What has gone virtually unreported, however, is the direct and instrumental role Castro played in the torture and murder of American POWs in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The story of Castro’s atrocities against American soldiers in this conflict is rarely ever told, least of all by our mainstream media.
During the Vietnam War, Castro sent a gang of his henchmen to run the “Cuban Program” at the Cu Loc POW camp in Hanoi, which became known as “the Zoo.” As Stuart Rochester and Frederick Kiley have documented in their book Honor Bound in a chapter entitled “The Zoo, 1967–1969: The Cuban Program and Other Atrocities,” one of the primary objectives of this “program” was to determine how much physical and psychological agony a human being could withstand.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Can You Tell A Good Trump Pick? By The Establishment Freakout

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 12/8/2016 | Staff 

Regulations: An easy way to tell whether one of Donald Trump's leadership picks is a good one is to gauge the freakout level among the left. By that measure alone, the person Trump is considering as head of the Food and Drug Administration would be an outstanding choice.

Jim O'Neill, whose name got floated this week, is a managing director at of Trump pal Peter Thiel's Mithril Capital Management. In addition to private sector experience, O'Neill worked at the Department of Health and Human Services under President Bush.

But he's also — gasp! — a libertarian!

Thus, we're seeing headlines that describe O'Neill as "an insane Silicon Valley libertarian," and that Trump is putting "eccentricity over expertise," and that O'Neill should "scare pharma."

All of these horror stories refer back to a keynote speech that O'Neill gave two years ago, in which he suggested a way to spur investment, innovation and competition in the pharmaceutical industry would be to have the FDA's role be limited to approving that a new treatment is safe.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Chickens Have Come Home To Roost

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 12-9-2016 | MOTUS 

Here’s a pattern you can expect to see more of in the future:
  • Donald Trump says something.
  • Media/Democrats decry his comment as a) untrue b) indiscreet c) unpresidential d) all of the above
  • Facts reveal The Donald is correct
Current example, this tweet:
Maybe the PEOTUS reads foreign newspapers like the Daily Mail, who ran this yesterday:
Trump was RIGHT about Air Force One: Pentagon budget documents show Boeing program is slated to cost more than $4.2 billion
  • The Pentagon program that will replace the pair of aging 'Air Force One' planes is already slated to cost $4.265 billion through the year 2021, according to federal budget and procurement documents obtained by
Apparently these documents are available to the foreign press butt not the domestic MSM who immediately responded to the Tweet with “We found that Trump’s description of the contract lacks some context.” They seem far more concerned with “fake” news – yours and mine butt not theirs – than in the real story of a presidential jet program bearing a $4 billion price tag.
Hillary agrees:
Hillary Clinton on Thursday decried the spread of fake news online, calling it an “epidemic” that Congress should take action against.
“The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” Clinton said during a speech on Capitol Hill. – The Hill
So there you have it, something both sides of aisle can agree on: malicious fake news is a bad thing. Although I don’t think that “malicious fake news” means what you think it means.
In related news we find out that sometimes fake news is actually better than the real thing:
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said Thursday his family's pet chicken named Hillary died right before the election.
McAuliffe, a Democrat and a top Clinton ally, was asked about his four chickens in an interview with the Atlantic.
"I hate to say this, one chicken died," he said. "About a month before the election, Hillary died."
In this case the “fake news” is simply metaphorical.
As one astute commenter noted: The Chickens Have Come Home To Roost.
calvin well adjusted chicken
Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror

Reagan was great, but it's now Trump's turn!

Fox News Opinion ^ | December 9, 2016 | Steve Moore 

Has Ronald Reagan passed the Republican Party baton to Donald Trump?
I suggested as much a few days ago, critics objected that I was blaspheming the Gipper. They said his ideas of limited government, individual freedom, lower taxes and peace through strength will live on forever.
Amen to that. Yes, Reagan's ideals should always be the guiding light of the GOP. Radio talk show host Mark Levin, reminded his listeners that Reagan won two landslide elections, while Trump so far has won one narrow victory. Levin says that Reagan was a real conservative, and Trump isn’t, "Shame on you, Stephen Moore," he lectured.
But the critics are entirely missing my point. ‎Trump won with states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which the GOP has rarely, if ever, carried since 1984. He put together a working-class coalition that included many longtime and union Democrats in a way that few Republicans — even George W. Bush in his two victories — were able to do. He appealed to these voters with a somewhat different set of policy promises than Reagan did.
It is true that many of the voters who crossed over to the GOP were the old Reagan Democrats. But I met many union workers who told me they voted for Trump and who never before voted Republican....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Feel that?


A Democrat Recount


It went well




Got it?


After the election


A better life!


The End


Not brain surgery!




The Legacy




The Recount




The Blame Game




Ramadan decorations


Hill No!


Fixed It


Solving Problems