The Democrat’s Hatred of President Trump and America Itself Is Appalling

Over the last three years, these lunatics have tried to fake it, but their mask is off. We have watched them express outright hate for the Founding Fathers, the police, law and order, the rule of law, the Constitution, election results, and, most recently, the electoral college.  When I thought they had reached their wits ends, they put the pedal to the metal with their recent reaction to the killing of Iran’s top military General Qasem Soleimani.

I never thought I would see the day when Americans would be so full of hate toward their own country that they would rally around the terror-supporting nation of Iran. Seriously. Iran is the same country that took over the U.S. Embassy holding 52 American citizens hostage for 444 days. Iran is where they cheered in the streets as nearly 3000 Americans died in the 9-11 attacks on American soil. Iran is where “death to America” is routinely shouted. It’s the place where advocating for wiping the state of Israel off the map is commonplace. Iran continually threatens its neighbors while developing nuclear weapons for offensive purposes.

Need examples? A recent USA Today story reported that demonstrators hit the streets in Philadelphia, New York, and around the White House and that another 70 protests are scheduled. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was outraged after hearing about the airstrike and even referred to him as a “foreign official.” That’s like referring to Osama Bin Laden and ISIS leader al-Baghdadi as foreign officials. Filmmaker Michael Moore sent a message to Iranian leader Khamenei advising him to “let me and millions of Americans fix this.” Also, cop-hating nitwit Colin Kaepernick referred to the US military as terrorists for carrying out the airstrike. How nice. These American-hating liberals mourned the loss of the murdering Soleimani, making him out to be a martyr for heaven sakes. Another story mentioned how NPR reporters covering Soleimani’s funeral referred to it as a “historic day” for the Tehran regime.

Now let’s compare the left’s perspective against what more reasonable American officials say about Soleimani. Pentagon reports refer to Soleimani as a “shadow commander” who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and their allies and that the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks. Soleimani was involved in coordinating rocket attacks to maim and kill troops based in Iraq. Retired General David Petraeus called Soleimani the most significant Iranian adversary during his four years in Iraq and said his killing was impossible to overstate. Former Obama national security adviser Susan slipped up. She said that they weren’t presented with the opportunity to take out Soleimani, but if they had been, they would have considered it. I highly doubt that. Remember Obama’s famous red line in Syria moment.

Even Iranian dissidents had the good sense to celebrate the killing of Soleimani calling the event one step closer to the downfall of the regime in Tehran. They pointed out that he was both hated and feared in Iran and was responsible for the death of thousands of protestors in Tehran. But not the American left.

American foreign policy is always subject to debate in America. That aspect is what differentiates democracies from a dictatorship like Iran, where dissidents are imprisoned. When Americans disagreed with Obama’s foreign policy decisions, however, Obama sympathizers including the liberal media, quickly turned any dissent into an opportunity to call people racist for disagreeing with the first black President. However, Former Senator Joe Lieberman is sensible. Lieberman said, “President Trump’s order to take out Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct and that it deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.”

President Trump laid out the case for taking out Soleimani. He said Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. He said that the head of Iranians ruthless Quds Force himself facilitated horrific acts of terrorism in places like New Delhi, London, and inside the US. His camps trained killers responsible for the deaths of US service members. He was involved in a recent rocket attack that killed an American and severely injured other servicemen. And that he directed the violent assault on the US Embassy in Iraq.

One of the most solemn duties of the President of the United States is to protect the American people at home and abroad. Those aren’t just words a President utters when taking the oath of office. Trump personifies it. Most Americans, not on a partisan rant, appreciate it. 

Trump indeed had other options. But, he alone has to make the decision. It can be the most lonely spot a leader can find themselves in, but Trump signed up for this.

The position that America should not have defended itself using the policy of pre-emptive attack because of possible retaliation is what nations like Iran bolster to carry on their mischief in the region and around the world. We used that failed head in the sand policy prior to 9-11 when the system was blinking red that al Qaeda was planning an attack. A pre-emptive attack would have saved thousands of lives and injury not to mention the damage done to the US economy.

Iran is a menace and has been for a long time in the Middle East. Trump has chosen to deal with this threat and not hide from it. There is an added benefit to dealing forcefully with Iran. Kim Jong-un and North Korea are watching too.

So rather than wish that Soleimani rest in peace, I say may he rest in pieces. And to every other lunatic terrorist or nation that wants to kill Americans, wake up, you’re not dealing with Obama anymore. Trump has been clear from day one, and his correct decision to take out Soleimani proves once again that he keeps his promises.

SOURCE 

************************************

Make presidential debates worth watching

by Jeff Jacoby

I HATE to be the bearer of bad news, but another Democratic presidential debate is coming. It's scheduled for 9 p.m. Tuesday at Drake University in Des Moines. I'm planning to watch, but only because I have to for work. You, on the other hand, are under no such obligation, and if you're like most Americans, you have no intention of tuning in.

In the first of these Democratic debates last June, the total TV audience (over two nights) topped 33 million. In the second debate, in July, the audience totaled 19.4 million. In the third, it was down to 14 million. It dropped again for the fourth, and for the fifth, and by the time candidates and moderators walked onto the stage at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles for the sixth of these affairs, the audience had dwindled to a mere 6.1 million. How low can it go?

Voters usually grow more, not less, interested as an election campaign unfolds, so by now vast multitudes should be avidly following every word of these debates. Instead, multitudes are doing the opposite, repelled by these tiresome, shallow, and predictable scrimmages. Presidential? That's the last thing they are. These gaudy TV events, with their high-tech gimcracks and game-show atmosphere, aren't forums for grappling seriously with genuine disagreements over policy. They're arenas for silly entertainment. Like WWE Wrestling, minus the gravitas, as someone once said.

The deficiencies of our televised debates are an old story. As far back as 1990, the late Walter Cronkite called them an "unconscionable fraud." If you've watched even one of these encounters, you know that they involve no actual debating. The candidates aren't interested in vigorously contending for competing policy differences. Their goals are to deploy their carefully honed talking points, to avoid stumbling into a gaffe, and — if the opportunity presents itself — to zing an opponent with an extemporaneous rebuttal carefully planned in advance.

Nowhere is it written that White House hopefuls must debate. Until Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy met in a CBS studio in Chicago in September 1960, no presidential candidates had ever faced off in that way. But if we are to have debates, they ought to be more than two hours of grandstanding soundbite theater. Their purpose should be not to see who can come up with the most memorable punchline or the sharpest opposition-research barb, but to give voters some insight into the thinking and substance of people who want to be president, and some insight into how they would conduct themselves in the highest office in the land.

How to do that? I offer four improvements:

1. Debate without moderators. If moderators weren't needed for the Constitutional convention debates in Philadelphia in 1787 or for the Lincoln-Douglas Senate debates in 1858, they certainly aren't needed for presidential candidates in 2020. Let two or more candidates sit down at a table with a single microphone and an agreed-upon topic, and have at it for 90 minutes, on air. Viewers could draw their own conclusions: Who drove the discussion? Whose arguments were persuasive? Who had facts and logic and their command? Who merely pontificated?

2. Discuss books. Great literature can shed light on challenging dilemmas and highlight the power of human character and motivation to resolve them. Why not invite candidates to read a classic work, then appear on camera to wrestle with the issues it raises? After studying Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, for example, they could analyze why Brutus feared Caesar's ambition, and whether his assassination was justified. They could take up Lord of the Flies, William Golding's 1954 masterpiece, and explore whether human beings instinctively seek peaceful cooperation, or gravitate to violence and domination. They could read Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and debate how a free society can recognize an unjust law and when civil disobedience is an appropriate strategy for changing such laws.

3. Workshop a crisis. How would a president react in an emergency? Obviously we can't be certain in advance, but candidates could be confronted with an unexpected scenario and forced to "respond" in real time: An Air Force fighter crashes over the Persian Gulf, and an Islamist terror group is taking credit. The "Big One" has struck along California's San Andreas fault, leaving Pomona and San Bernardino in ruins. Cyber-anarchists simultaneously paralyze Bank of America, Chase, and Capital One with a computer virus, unleashing havoc in financial markets and triggering a 1,000-point stock market selloff. What would the candidates do first? Whom would they reach out to? What information would they need? What choices would they face? What would they tell the nation?

4. Conduct formal debates. Real debate could have real value, if candidates were given sufficient time to make their case and rebut their rivals. Instead of the 45-second soundbites they're allowed now, with moderators skipping from question to question, a formal debate would require each participant to address at length a central proposition — e.g., "A wall should be built along the Mexican border" or "The $21 trillion national debt must be paid down." Candidates would be given a block of eight minutes each to make their case, plus two minutes for rebuttal after the others have spoken. The moderator's only role would be to keep time — no questions, no interruptions. Viewers would decide for themselves whose arguments seemed most thoughtful, prudent, realistic, and presidential.

Any of these variations would elevate the tone and deepen the content of the "debates" our candidates engage in now. American democracy deserves better than the spectacle of bickering, quibbling would-be presidents lined up like contestants on "Family Feud." After all, what is the point of debates that fewer and fewer voters want to watch?

SOURCE 

**************************************

Conway: Would Buttigieg Have Invited Soleimani Into the Wine Cave?

During a Saturday night interview with Fox News' Jesse Watters on "Watters World," White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway discussed Democrats continually defending Iranian Qud Force General Qasem Soleimani. She accurately described them as "apologists," the Daily Caller reported.

According to Conway, the 2020 Democrats had no idea what to think of President Donald Trump's order to kill Soleimani.

“I also think the 2020 crowd really didn’t know what to do with this because they’re stuck. Nobody cares what they say. Nobody pays attention to these town halls anymore," Conway explained. "They’re starting to feel the Bern again.

The guy who beat Hillary in 22 contests in the primary is raising all this money and is in it to stay and if you’re a socialist on economic policies, we know what your foreign policy is. They’re becoming apologists for the bad guys and that’s very disappointing.”

In a mocking way, she asked about Mayor Pete Buttigieg's "wine cave," a reference to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-MA) claim that the South Bend, Indiana mayor shmoozes rich people.

“[Pete] Buttigieg, what did he want the president to do?” the White House counselor asked. “Is he going to invite Soleimani into the wine cave? We think that we know where Soleimani is and belongs. We think [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi is looking very lonely in hell and needed a roommate.”

Buttigieg has been an outspoken opponent of Trump's actions against Soleimani.

SOURCE 

*********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated), A Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here  (Personal).  My annual picture page is here 

**************************