The F-35 Stealth Fighter vs Russia’s S-300 Anti-Aircraft System

 

As an avid reader of Aviation Week, I became interested in the F-35, the newest Department of Defense fighter plane. The DOD had sold nine initial units to our ally Israel. I thought it was a wise decision for three reasons:

1. It provided actual testing for the new aircraft under realistic battle conditions. Aviation Week noted that Israel used several of its F-35s to attack more than 50 Iranian military installations in Syria. All these were presumably protected by the Russian-built Anti-Aircraft system S-300. Their latest design with more powerful radars, is being sold worldwide.  Israel had a chance to study an earlier version, sold to Cyprus.

The F-35 attack was completed in less than 90 minutes, a notable achievement in military intelligence, as well as in operational planning and coordination.

Aviation Week didn’t tell us how many F-35s took part in the operation, and whether they returned safely; presumably they all did. Nor did Aviation Week reveal the tricks Israeli pilots used to evade the S-300 AA system.

2. A [June 5, 2018] Report of the Government Accountability Office [GAO] is quite critical of the F-35 joint strike fighter-bomber. Many experts doubt the viability of the aircraft to meet the various requirements of all the DOD services. In particular, the Report criticizes the design of the helmet-mounted display that presents the necessary operational data to aid the pilot.

In other words, while the aircraft itself provides propulsion and carries the required air-to-ground and air-to-air missiles, the electronics, associated with the helmet, represent the “brain” of the F-35.

It so happens that Israeli engineers have much experience in this field, following the design of the IAF [Israel Air Force] Lavie fighter [that was never built.] Apparently, the DOD expects that some of the design experience for the display will be carried over to the F-35.

3.  Finally, allowing the F-35 to be sold now lowers the huge procurement cost for the DOD, about 400 billion dollars. The buy-decision is due in October 2019.

In the wake of the successful air strike, what will Russia do now?  Obviously, there will be some redesign and improvement of the Russian S-300 system to make it saleable to “non-captive” customers.

But beyond this, Russia is likely to not become involved further in the mess in Syria. This seems to be the outcome also of the recent Helsinki summit between Trump and Putin. The Pan-Arab paper Al-Hayat, published in London, even suggests that Russia may not object to Israel “clipping the wings” of the Iranian Eagle.

Writing in Ha’aretz, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens, himself chief designer of the Lavie fighter, believes that Russia will not want to tangle with Israel in view of its demonstrated technological superiority.

After all, Israel could easily destroy the Russian-built plutonium reactor at Arak, Iran, after getting permission to overfly Saudi Arabia. (Plutonium is the second way to build a nuclear weapon; Iran apparently has decided to go the route of the enriched Uranium-235. The U.S. used both methods in WW II.)

The Russian naval base at Latakia, Syria, is within easy range. The Russians have deployed a more advanced S-400 system to protect Latakia and other installations, which they claim can take down stealth fighters such as the F-35 at a range of over 150 miles. The S-400 failed to respond to the April 14, 2018 missile strikes by U.S., British, and French forces, leading some observers to conclude that the system was overrated.

I might add that Latakia and the main Russian naval base on the Crimean peninsula outflank Turkey and thus would discourage it from bottling up the Russian Black-Sea fleet.

 

[From an article by S. Fred Singer, published by AMERICAN THINKER]

 

…………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Advertisements

Could YOU survive what liberal, unthinking Americans are trying to do to Donald Trump?

President Donald Trump is apparently not a figure many of us feel empathy for.  Nearly half the country hates him.  Hate may even be too mild a word.  They despise him and equate him with the worst of human history, Hitler and the Nazis.  They want him destroyed, literally and politically, along with his family.  This includes Democrats, the media, and many Republicans.

His resignation or impeachment wouldn’t be enough.  He needs to face treason charges and punishment at the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad, along with his family.  His supporters are guilty by association and must face similar justice.

But in To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch told Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”  This is the essence of empathy.  You can’t understand someone until you’ve “walked a mile in his shoes.”

Let’s for a moment climb inside Donald Trump’s skin and walk around in it.

Trump was a successful businessman, a billionaire who owns properties, resorts, golf courses, and hotels around the world.  He owned a huge private jet, only a half-step down from the one he currently uses.  He has a beautiful wife and family; his children are smart and following in his business footsteps.  He hosted a wildly successful television show, was a household name and a darling of the media before he decided to run for president.

Yet he gave that up.  Why would he do that?  As a septuagenarian, did his ego demand one more even bigger prize?  Or, as some have speculated, was he approached by a group of patriots several years ago and told in no uncertain terms about the Deep State and America’s trajectory into the abyss?  Perhaps he was told that he was the only one who could run for president, have a chance of winning, then slow or stop America’s decline.

Did he, as a consummate patriot, take up the challenge?  Someday we may learn why he gave up a comfortable and successful life in exchange for endless scorn and derision.

In Hillary Clinton he fought a political opponent who was challenging, not personally, but for what and whom she represented: the establishments of both parties, the donor classes, the media, Hollywood, academia, and the Clinton machine that has been active since the Clintons’ days in Arkansas.

Donald Trump worked his butt off, campaigning around the clock.  From his tweets at 4 A.M. to his campaign rallies in multiple states in a single day, he worked harder than any candidate in recent memory.  His opponent did the opposite.  Sipping chardonnay and napping, she listened to her cheerleaders in the media as they fawned over her every utterance, telling her repeatedly that she would win the election easily.

Media coverage of Trump was and still is over 90 percent negative.  His own party worked against his election, the party he represented and brought victory to.  The big names in the GOP tried to undermine him – McCain, Romney, Bush, Ryan – all past presidents or candidates, the heavy hitters in the GOP, not to mention the Republican NeverTrump whiners and wimps.

Then there was the Deep State led by a treasonous ex-president and his no-ethics, no-honor Democrats — the unelected and unaccountable three-letter agencies, conspiring and working against Donald Trump not only as a candidate but also after he became president.  They spied on his campaign, creating fictional dossiers used to justify FBI surveillance of Trump, his family, and his entire campaign staff.  It was a concerted effort by the leadership of these agencies to prevent his election, and then to destroy his presidency as a Plan B.

Phony accusations of Russian collusion tainted his presidency and provided a cloud over his election, much like a successful athlete winning a championship fair and square and against all odds, then having his victory tainted with the accusation of rigging or cheating.  How would such a winner react to claims that he didn’t really win…especially when he had worked so hard for victory and had so little help in the process?

The Russian collusion story taints Trump’s successful campaign and election.  The Mueller investigation and drumbeat from the media share the common refrain that Trump is an illegitimate president, that he cheated to win, conspiring with an enemy country.  This is the same country, ironically, that so many of Trump’s critics were in love with only a few years ago.

Trump has been working hard as president, accomplishing more in his first 500 days than any of his predecessors – tax cuts, a roaring economy, record unemployment, a reversal of 50 years of failed policy toward North Korea, strong judicial picks, rebuilding the American relationship with Israel, and so on.  Does he get any credit from the media or his own party?  Hardly.  Instead, scorn and insults continue to rain down on him.  Wouldn’t you be frustrated and bitter standing in his shoes?  Absolutely you would.

Last is the Mueller indictment of 12 phantom Russians over supposedly hacking the DNC computers – computers the FBI did not even examine.  Indictments are simply accusations, not verdicts in a court of law, and were announced the last business day before Trump’s Russia summit.  What a coincidence of timing, putting Trump in a box where he had to either validate the Russian collusion narrative or question the veracity of the U.S. intelligence community.  Always the pragmatic contrarian, he chose the latter option during his press conference with Putin.

Does Trump fully trust the intelligence services, the same ones that conspired to spy on his campaign and undermine his election, then tried to overturn his presidency?  Would you trust these agencies if you were subjected to all the lies and the duplicity they have heaped upon our duly elected president? Of course you wouldn’t trust them. All this is based on the nonsensical assertion that Russia hacked the election, an absurd concept that even Obama said was impossible: “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could ever rig America’s elections.”

This is the same intelligence community that exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes proven but never investigated, yet indicted Donald Trump for crimes investigated ad nauseam but never proven.  The same Intelligence Community that told the world that Saddam had WMDs and then dragged the U.S. and other countries into a costly and counterproductive war.

Put yourself in Trump’s shoes: a highly successful businessman, in the latter years of his life, taking on the Herculean task of running for and winning the U.S. presidency.  In victory he finds nothing but abuse, scorn, and betrayal by friend and foe alike.  He is surrounded by landmines, and the US intelligence agencies do all they can to make sure he steps on one landmine after another.  This is a journey few mortals would undertake, much less survive.

Is it any wonder he is pushing back against those trying to destroy him and his presidency, including the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all in the thick of seditious activity against our duly elected president?  He has few friends in Washington, D.C.; many who should have his back seem only eager to bury a knife in it instead.

Donald Trump is a man chosen by ordinary people, a man trying to make America great again despite only scorn and opposition coming back from those he wants to help.

[From an article by Brian C. Joondeph, a Denver-based physician and writer]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note: All those Americans who can never find anything good to say about Mr. Trump should try to reflect honestly on what this country might now be like had Horrible Hillary won the election…a woman who proved, just like Obama did, that the primary qualifications in a Democrat candidate for political office are a complete lack of honor, a lack of any sense of ethics, and a willingness to lie in any situation.  There are lots of countries around the world where you can find precisely this kind of person occupying the top office.  Thank God the USA isn’t one of them anymore.

 

…………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Looks like Democrats don’t even like Democracy any more…

It’s pretty clear that Democrats — the politicians, not all the people who vote for them — hate democracy.  Democrats don’t believe power is from the people; rather Democrats believe that the elites, which in the minds of Democrats is made up, of course, only of Democrats, should rule the rest of us.

We can see this in the Democrats refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election.

We can see it in the Democrats’ enthusiasm for the administrative state…where unelected, unaccountable, unfireable bureaucrats can create thousands of rules and regulations which the rest of us Americans have to follow.

But we see it most clearly in the panic that Democrats are experiencing over the idea that Trump will be nominating someone to the Supreme Court who will decide cases based on what the law says, rather than what they think the law should say.

According to the editors of the New York Times,

“This call to arms may sound overly dramatic. It’s not. As hyperpartisanship, gridlock and a general abdication of responsibility have rendered Congress increasingly dysfunctional, the judiciary is taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas ranging from immigration to guns to ballot access to worker rights.”

This is a clear indisputable example of the elite Democrat establishment, of which the NYT is a card-carrying member, saying that the Supreme Court should be making policy rather than simply deciding what the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution say.

Essentially the Democrats who run the NYT are saying that because Congress won’t do what they want it to do — that’s what they mean by “gridlock” — a group of rich white lawyers on the Supreme Court should take over the job of running the country. This is nothing less than a call for revolution and a demand that America become a banana republic ruled not by the people but by a few rich lawyers.

While this openness about their beliefs is new for Democrats, they’ve been espousing their desire to turn America into an authoritarian state for decades.

Not a single significant Democrat initiative has been passed by Congress.

For example, legalizing pornography, coddling criminals, declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, redefining libel/slander, and redefining marriage have all been the result of the Supreme Court defining policy, not interpreting the Constitution and the law.

In most cases the Court went directly against the expressed will of the people and imposed laws on Americans that were only supported by the tiny elite who run the Democratic party.

The Court’s declaration that there was an unassailable right to kill one’s unborn child went directly against what the people of America wanted.  Even in the most liberal states, abortion was only legal for what would now be considered the hard cases.  There was clearly no mandate for abortion for any reason at any time during pregnancy.  Yet the Court imposed unrestricted abortion on the people.

55,000,000 Americans had voted against redefining marriage — even uberliberal California resoundingly passed Prop 8, which declared that marriage was between a man and a woman, but the Supreme Court decided that the people didn’t know what was best for them and imposed on the people what Democrats wanted.

But wait, you say, what about ObamaCare?  While ObamaCare was passed by Congress, it was passed because it contained no new taxes.  Democrats, led by Obama, told everyone who would listen that ObamaCare contained no new taxes.  It’s unlikely that even with the Democrats controlling everything, they could have gotten sufficient votes if they’d have said that they were voting for a massive tax increase.

Hence, when ObamaCare went to the Supreme Court, it should have been rejected, because in their ruling saying that the act was Constitutional, the justices asserted that Congress imposing fees on people who didn’t do what Congress wanted them to do is unconstitutional.

But instead of following what the law said and what all its supporters said when it was being debated, the Court decided to effectively rewrite the law, take a bigger role in defining policy, to use the NYT’s terminology, and change fees to taxes.

Precisely because it was clear that the American people did not support ObamaCare, the Supreme Court decided to ignore the Constitution’s definition of who has the power to make laws, i.e. the Congress, and create a law via judicial fiat.

Democrats knew what was best for America, and while the people didn’t agree with the Democrats, five Supreme Court judges did and that’s all that the Democrats cared about.

Because Democrats have used the Court to impose their will on the people, they know that if the Court returns to its constitutional role as an impartial interpreter of the Constitution, the entire Democrat edifice — ranging from ObamaCare to redefining marriage — is at risk of tumbling down.

Of course, the Democrats really never had a choice; their policies are toxic and rejected by most sane, thinking people so that those policies could never have been passed through the democratic process.

But their winning run is about to end, and they’re furious because they know that they are better, more caring, and smarter than the rest of us.  In their minds, denying them tyrannical powers is an affront to nature, and they’ve long since given up on the idea that there is a God who wants to help direct us in running our country.

That’s why they accept violence and incivility against people who simply stand for the Constitution; because Democrats can’t convince Americans, they must coerce them.

When you talk to your friends about Trump’s nominee, remind them that the judge’s philosophy is that their role will be to decide, to the best of their ability, what the Constitution says and what the people who wrote it meant it to say — that they view their role as being an impartial referee, not a tyrant who imposes their own personal views on the people.

Remind them that if Roe v. Wade is repealed, it will simply mean that each state will be able to define when abortion is legal, not that all abortions everywhere will be illegal.

Ask them if they want the rules we Americans live by to be defined by the people, through our elected representatives, or by a few 1%ers on the Supreme Court.

The NYT is correct in saying that the Supreme Court is the issue, but they refuse to admit that this will be the case only so long as the majority believe in legislating from the bench. Once Trump’s new nominee is on the Court, it will cease being the issue in all our elections because the Court will stop legislating and return to simply interpreting the laws passed by our representatives.

Nothing else Trump will do is more important than returning the Supreme Court to its proper role and returning power to we the people.

 

[From an article written by Tom Trinko and published by AMERICAN THINKER]

 

……………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

It’s a great day to thank God for our independence!

I believe it is a wonderful time to be American and celebrate the 4th of July in America.

But not everyone seems to think so. According to a USAToday poll, only 42% of Americans are proud to be Americans. This, despite the fact that a lot of people from around the world are trying to get in here, and very few of the people who threatened to leave the U.S. if President Trump got elected have kept their promise. Yet here we are. Here’s how USAToday reported it, starting with the mush-mouthed headline:

Poll: On the 4th, what symbolizes the best (and worst) of America? It depends whom you ask

A new USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll about patriotism, pegged to this week’s celebration of the Fourth of July, finds an overwhelming majority of those surveyed say they are proud to be Americans. But they split almost down the middle, 42 percent to 39 percent, when asked whether they are proud of America right now.

I do get a kick out of the federal worker quoted in the article referring to Trump as a totalitarian after he sat through eight years of President Obama. Here’s what the discontented little fellow had to say:

“This is a very difficult time,” says Daniel Kugler, 66, a federal worker from Washington, D.C., who was among those polled. “There’s not the norms that used to hold; they are not holding anymore.” He worries about “a slide toward a totalitarian situation” in which Congress and others are afraid to speak up against President Trump.

As a federal worker, he was obviously extremely proud and happy that Obama was transferring power and money from the rest of the U.S. to the government as fast as he could, and that made the area around Washington D.C. very wealthy. It is sad that he and others don’t recognize how harmful that is to the rest of us, or else doesn’t care.

But here’s how I, and most of us in the heartland of America, sees it:

I am truly proud to be an American, as I always have been, especially since we now have a president who:

• Has a goal to “Make America Great Again,” instead of a president who wants to remake America.
• Is trying to give the power and purse back to the people through fewer regulations and lower taxes, instead of a president who does everything he can to make the government more powerful.
• Has given us economic policies that have lowered unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics to all-time lows, instead of a president whose policies encourage people to be more dependent on government.
• Focuses on bringing back manufacturing jobs instead of constantly increasing regulations and declaring manufacturing jobs gone for good.
• Understands that if goods production continually moves to other countries, then eventually the same will come to our service industries, destroying our economy.
• Knows that capitalism is great and allowing corporations to keep more of the money they earn will help achieve economic growth and give people the opportunity to move up the economic ladder. That beats the confiscation seen in the previous administration.
• Seeks to enforce immigration laws that Congress passed and who recognizes that a country without borders is a very dangerous country; instead of a president who picked and chose which laws to enforce.
• Absolutely never considered ISIS the JV Team.
• Has not left Americans to die while concocting a lie about a video to protect his political power.
• Has helped Ukraine defend itself against the Russians as we promised to do instead of being “flexible” with the Russians.
• Is pushing NATO countries to pay what they promised to pay, instead of having America bear the brunt of the cost.
• Does not give hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran to spread terrorism around the world, let alone pledges death to Israel and America.
• Keeps a promise to move our embassy to Jerusalem instead of previous presidents who made empty promises.
• Gives people the freedom of choice of what type of health insurance to buy instead of a president who wants complete government control.
• Does not illegally spy on thousands of Americans, including those who are political opponents.
• Does not use the IRS to stifle the free speech of political opponents.
• Does not have a gun-running operation to service Mexican smuggling cartels called ‘Fast and Furious.’
• Believes that cities and states should follow laws that Congress passes, including immigration laws.
• Understands that the climate has changed naturally through billions of years; instead of a president who is so arrogant he believes the government can control temperatures, sea levels and storm activity forever if people and businesses just fork over trillions of dollars.
• Wants to produce more oil, instead of a president who does not care whether the price rises to unsustainable levels.

I am sure people can think of many more things they are currently proud of after eight years of a president who dictatorially bragged that he could rule with a pen and a phone.

Finally, I am extremely thankful and proud that we had Founding Fathers who knew that the power needed to reside in the hands of the people instead of the central government. They understood that if only the king and the government had guns, they would also have all the power. We would not be free if the people were unable to arm themselves in the many necessary wars we have had, as well as in other ways, to protect our freedom.

 

[An article by Jack Hellner, written for AMERICAN THINKER]

 

……………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

How to easily reduce illegal immigration while shutting down the Open-All-Borders Democrats

Today’s lesson on morality and human rights comes from the probable (according to polls) next president of our crime-infested and corrupt neighbor to the south (emphases added):

Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States[,] … declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.

“[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

Apparently, the U.S. must welcome an unlimited number of these unwanted, by their own president, Mexicans, because the U.S. is morally obligated to serve as Mexico’s social-dysfunction safety valve and ATM.

Did you know that “chutzpah” is the same in Hebrew and Spanish?  On the other hand, everyone knows that Obrador can count on a large cohort of Democrats, who share his view:

The reaction among immigration advocates has gone from outrage about family separations to consternation about family detention, because their ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.

Lest anyone misunderstand, when Democrats say “the,” they mean “all.”  Today, it’s “family separations”; tomorrow, who knows?  But whatever the Dems’ démagogie du jour, most Americans want illegal immigration greatly reduced and, ideally, eliminated.  The latter, most likely, is a pipe dream.  But not only can the former be done.  It can be done using methods already tried and proven.

First, yes, we need a wall.  If the tooth-and-nail opposition of our open-border Democratic friends is insufficient evidence that a wall would work, consider, as President Trump has, Israel’s wall.  Israel had an illegal alien problem, too – or she did, until she built a wall, as a February 2017 Senate report confirmed:

The number of illegal crossers on the Israel-Egypt border dropped after the construction of the fence, from more than 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016 – a 99 percent decrease.

One can argue, as some do, that other Israeli measures contributed to the decrease.  But there can be no doubt that the wall was the primary, and a major, factor.

So a wall – and ending chain migration, and ending the visa lottery, and mandatory E‑Verify – will greatly reduce unlawful immigration.  But there is one more thing government can do.

Allow the writer, whose father immigrated to America as a refugee, in 1948, to elucidate:

When the writer’s dad got off the boat, he did not simply disembark in Manhattan, casually stroll through streets paved with gold and buy the Brooklyn Bridge.  First, he had to stop here:

In the first half of the 19th century, most immigrants arriving in New York City landed at docks on the east side of the tip of Manhattan, around South Street.  On August 1, 1855, Castle Clinton became the Emigrant Landing Depot[.] … [W]hen the U.S. government assumed control of immigration processing, [it moved] the center to the larger, more isolated Ellis Island facility on January 2, 1892 … because immigrants were known to carry diseases, which led to epidemics of cholera and smallpox.

The key word in the above quote is “isolated,” as in no physical route for unlawful aliens on to the mainland.

Then, the dangers were cholera and smallpox.  Today, the dangers are MS-13 violence, lack of education and marketable skills, and the threat of someday becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.  In both cases, the problem was a threat to the population from foreign immigration.  And in both cases, the solution was to isolate new arrivals until they could be properly vetted and admitted into the mainland U.S. lawfully.

This writer lives in New York City, and last time he checked, Ellis Island was still there, repurposed as a museum.  So how about making so-called catch-and-release unnecessary by returning Ellis Island to its original use and supplementing or replacing the current buildings with one or more new, modern dormitories, where illegals seized at the border could be housed comfortably, for as long as required, and with no need to separate families?

On the other hand, Ellis Island is on the opposite side of the country from the Mexican border, where the main problem is.  Alcatraz Island is not.  What about the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any number of U.S. island possessions, where the climate is both comfortable and similar to that of Mexico and Central America?  The specific location is less important than that there be no physical access to the mainland, nor would the housing need to be overly expensive – Quonset huts if space allows, or easily convertible, and stackable, cargo containers.

Or even tents, as the Navy is already planning:

The U.S. Navy drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the Mexican border[.] …

[T]he draft document … also says that a Navy base in California could house up to a further 47,000 people.

Problem solved…almost.  It’s a good plan, but with one major flaw: perhaps the writer is mistaken, but it seems that all of the proposed military bases are on the mainland U.S.  Again, the locations should be isolated, with no physical connection to the mainland.  There is also the issue of cost and not just the $233 million for six months; one company has a $162-million contract “to fly immigrant children to shelters across the United States.”

There is a better, and possibly cheaper, solution.  It’s staring the Navy right in the face.

Surely, most readers know that the Navy maintains a reserve, or “mothball,” fleet of decommissioned ships anchored in various parts of the country, including California.

Your typical aircraft carrier houses about 6,000 sailors.  But think of all that extra space on the (unused) flight deck.  Aircraft carriers also have kitchens specifically designed to feed thousands of people.

America is not suffering from a shortage of decommissioned ships.  Why pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fly apprehended illegals to multiple locations around the continental U.S. when the Navy can move the ships to the immigrants, anchoring as close to the problem as possible but far enough from shore to keep illegals from accessing the mainland?  Other mothballed ships could ferry large numbers of illegals to and from the offshore ships far more cheaply than flying them all over the country.

Additional ships could even return rejected aliens to their home countries – preferably, as Eisenhower did, on the side of the home country farthest from the U.S.

Should any liberal open-borders Democrat complain, just casually mention, publicly of course, that American sailors lived on those same ships for much longer time periods, and then go make popcorn while Democrats explain why what was good enough for American sailors is not good enough for foreigners, who have done nothing for America and who have no legal right to be here in the first place.

Let all potential trespassers know that should they manage to violate our border, the only part of America they will ever see is the part of America they can see from the ship transporting them back to their home countries. If we do this, and create a massive publicity campaign as we do it, unlawful immigrants will quickly stop, drop, and flop.

 

[From an article by Gene Schwimmer, written for AMERICAN THINKER]

 

………………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Government can solve all of mankind’s problems, and other liberal myths and foibles

Donald Trump’s remarkable and unpredicted victory in 2016 unleashed perhaps the pinnacle of all unintended consequences.  By their ongoing nonsensical reaction to the Trump victory, the American left has exposed and validated their irrationality, obliviousness, and immaturity.  As an immigrant to the United States, and thus a sideline spectator of the panorama that is American society, and someone who has spent most of his adult life in the field of international finance, I have been fascinated by the characteristics of the American left as compared to its counterparts in the rest of the world – and why the vast majority of Americans, who are essentially conservative or moderate, not only tolerate, but acquiesce to the left’s temper tantrums and manipulation of the culture.

On the surface, there may appear to be similarities to the left in other nations; however, when it comes to the motivation and personality quirks, it is only the left in Britain that bears any resemblance to the American left.  In fact, the American version consistently denigrates “old white guys” as the scourge of humanity while ostensibly promoting the philosophy of “old white guys” such as Hobbes, Hegel, and Marx.  In reality, American leftism is a unique amalgamation of socialism, Darwinism, and oligarchism requiring an army of foot soldiers who dwell in a state of permanent adolescence.

Among the traits of those in their adolescent years is the conviction that they are always right and the rest of the world is wrong – that they are, in fact, much smarter than those silly and inane adults around them.  However, being part of the in crowd is really, really important, thus they must look for guidance to the cool guys to establish what they are supposed to believe in.  And, as in the fairy tales relayed to them while in childhood as well as their current enthrallment with movies based on comic book heroes, there will always be some monolithic entity to rescue them and ensure joy and happiness.  Therein are the basic personality parameters of the rank and file of the modern American left.

Membership in the American left is, thus, easily attained.  All one needs to do is believe and accept the following:

1. Those at the top of the pyramid, the self-anointed leaders of the left, claim to always be the smartest and most sophisticated people in any room.  Therefore, to envision oneself as part of this penultimate gaggle, all one has to do is to robotically spout pre-approved talking points and espouse leftist ideology without having the foggiest idea of what it means or its veracity.  Therefore, any and all innuendo regarding Trump, or false narratives of Russian collusion, or accusations of Republican duplicity, or the racism of conservatives is unquestioningly believed and regurgitated.

2. In a corollary to (a) above, the rank-and-file leftists believe that all the really cool people are on the left since the self-proclaimed leaders of the movement have decreed that there are no moral absolutes and Christianity is calculatingly oppressive; therefore, one can party on, having a supposed endless and uninhibited good time.  The modern American left is the current in crowd corralling those mesmerized with celebrity and self-indulgence.  Those who expound on the consequences of an unfettered secular and hedonistic lifestyle are condemned as oppressive proselytizers.

3. Americans are, by and large, obsessed with finding “meaning” in their lives.  For the left and its acolytes, the easiest way to achieve that meaning is either to be a victim or to vociferously champion the cause of those the enlightened leaders of the left christen with exalted victim status.  This has the dual endgame of not only self-righteousness, but blaming the cause of the victimhood on a repressive and unfair society.  However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to be a victim in 21st-century America, therefore new categories of victimhood must constantly be fostered, and the old categories never resolved.  The latest: What heretofore was considered a serious mental health problem, transgenderism or gender dysphoria, is now victimhood on a par with racial discrimination.

4. Government, that great and infallible monolith behind the green curtain, can solve all of mankind’s problems.  Its primary function is to make certain that the people are taken care of and assured of equal outcomes – as long as it is dominated by the leaders of the left, who are equally infallible.

5. Those on the right are mean and determined not only to take away the good times, but make certain that government – see (d) above – will not take care of everyone and too many true believers may actually have to find meaningful work.  Thus, the American right is the declared and unquestioned enemy and must be defeated by any means possible.

6.  It is mandatory, when confronted with an alternative point of view, to throw a tantrum, as one used to do on a school playground, and call conservatives (i.e., adults) any conceivable name or accuse them of anything, since the left’s cause is just and those on the right are Neanderthals who could never be correct about anything.

7. Guilt is the ultimate weapon.  (Remember: it worked with one’s parents.)  There is always something in the United States to be guilty about, and that guilt requires restitution or public humiliation.  Besides, just as there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, there is a bottomless pit of wealth in America, but only the government in the proper hands – see (d) above – can distribute this never-ending bounty.

These character traits are not dominant among the left in the many countries of Europe or elsewhere who have socialist-leaning governments or citizenry.  Dependence on government is a common trait, but the spoiled child approach to ideology and the opposition is not.  It is the sole preserve of the American left.

Perhaps growing up in a nation that has not experienced any national adversity in over seventy-plus years or living in a country that has enjoyed the greatest period of peace and prosperity in the history of mankind has created this mindset.  Unfortunately, there is a belief among a vast segment of the populace that there will never be truly difficult times, as the United States will always remain overwhelmingly prosperous and be able to overcome the foibles of the American left – which accounts for no more than 25% of the population.

But the United States cannot remain overwhelmingly powerful and prosperous if the American left continues to maintain its disparate and overwhelming impact on society and government.  This nation must not be destroyed by a handful of egotistical and permanent adolescents; therefore the counter-strategy is to denigrate the left by never missing an opportunity to call its members out and above all ignore their infantile tactics.  In other words, treat them as the adolescents they are – a strategy currently being utilized, either deliberately or inadvertently, by Donald Trump.  It is a strategy the bulk of the populace must adopt.

 

[From an article by Steve McCann, written for American Thinker.com]

 

………………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over a million Americans have given their lives in defending U.S. interests in conflicts large and small

While remembering those people is a central purpose of this holiday, Memorial Day takes on its deepest meaning when we connect it with our roots.  Americans were unique in sacrificing their treasure and giving their lives to found the first country in history establishing that all people have natural rights that come from God rather than from rulers or government.  The Declaration of Independence affirmed the equality of all people and that they are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Thus, when Americans sacrificed their lives in military service, it was not just to defend the United States, but it was also to uphold the natural rights and spiritual values associated with the nation’s founding that provide inspiration for others worldwide.

There were times and places in human history when there were nation-states of cultural achievement, virtue, and efflorescence, such as in Periclean Athens, in the Florence of the Medicis, and in England of Elizabeth and Shakespeare.  But none was founded the way America was – that is, by a collection of individuals of human genius who prayerfully approached drafting a constitution that would mitigate corruption and abuse of power while also protecting the citizens’ unalienable God-given rights and enabling them to rise to levels closer to the divine image in which all were created than they would have under any government previously conceived.

Yet another significant part of celebrating Memorial Day is associated with the example set by Americans in how they treated their vanquished foes.

The respect that General MacArthur and the occupying American forces displayed after Japan’s surrender surprised and won over many of the people, who assumed that the victorious Americans would execute their beloved emperor and plunder them and treat them in ways similar to what Japanese soldiers did to those they had conquered in East and Southeast Asia.  The courtesy and respect shown by the Americans helped mollify resistance to the occupation’s policies that forced fundamental change on the country – rewriting the constitution and laws; land reform; and the reorganization of business ownership to provide more competition, fairness, and opportunity.

In Europe after armistice, the war-indebted United States launched the Marshall Plan that gave some $125 billion in current dollar value in economic support to help reconstruct war-devastated regions in Western Europe.  Major initiatives included rebuilding industry – even giving the Europeans a leg up on the U.S. with the building of state-of-the-art factories and facilities that were in many cases more efficient than what then existed in the U.S.

In sum, Memorial Day means more than remembering those who died in military service to the country.  It means connecting with a heritage that began with a courageous and faithful group of founders, who risked their lives for the birth of freedom and the establishment of America as a “shining city on a hill.”  It also means remembering all who subsequently died for their nation, and especially “the greatest generation,” who – after forfeiting so many lives to assure victory for the Allied nations in World War II – then sacrificed more to rebuild and preserve the independence of its former enemies.

 

[From an article by Scott S. Powell, published by AMERICAN THINKER]

 

……………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970