Okinawa – June 1945

Pacific Paratrooper

Last picture ever taken of Lt.Gen. Buckner, the day before he died

By 10 June, the Marines had captured Yuza Hill.  The 10th US Army suffered severe casualties before they and the USMC advanced to Kunishi Ridge, the western anchor of the Japanese defense; a massive fortress.

Gen. Buckner had been sending messages to Gen. Ushijima, urging him to surrender.  So, when over a dozen Japanese wearing white hats appeared, the Marines assumed they were surrendering and they ceased operations.  Shortly after the enemy soldiers ran, a mortar barrage began.

By morning, the Americans had a foothold on the ridge, but reinforcements were cut down when they tried to advance.  Nine tanks were used to deliver 54 fresh men and supplies, but returned with 22 wounded.  As the battle for Kunishi raged on, the tanks opened a road to continue supplying the Americans.

Okinawa

By 16 June, the US 96th…

View original post 558 more words

Canada’s Trudeau says NAFTA deal possible by Friday

H/T CNBC.

America becoming even greater with Donald J. Trump as President.

  • Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that a NAFTA deal may be reached before Friday, but only if it is also a good deal for Canada.
  • Trudeau said this at a press conference on Wednesday.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Wednesday that it may be possible to reach a deal on NAFTA ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’sFriday deadline.

“We recognize that there is a possibility of getting there by Friday, but it is only a possibility, because it will hinge on whether or not there is ultimately a good deal for Canada, ” he said at a press conference in northern Ontario. “No NAFTA deal is better than a bad NAFTA deal.”

 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/08/29/trudeau-possibility-nafta-deal-friday.html

Top Democrats Show Their True Anti-American Colors

H/T Town Hall.

The mask is off of the Dippycrap party and now many people can finally see the true face of the party.

Sadly there are hardcore Dippycraps that will be happy with the new face and will support them come Hell or high water. 

Democrats are showing their true colors — and they’re anything but red, white, and blue.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo slammed our great nation this week while attacking President Trump. “We’re not going to Make America Great Again,” Cuomo said. “It was never that great.”

Cuomo’s grossly offensive and unpatriotic comments are just the latest episode in a growing catalogue of anti-American words and deeds by Democrats.

One might be tempted to assume that this barely-concealed, if not celebrated, hatred of America was the sole preserve of a radical fringe of the Democratic Party. But one would be wrong. A recent poll found that fewer than a third — only 32 percent — of Democrats are proud to be Americans.

The Democrats’ anti-Americanism has been noticeable for some time. While campaigning for President, then-candidate Obama attackedtwo foundations of America — the right to bear arms and the Christian religion — and the patriots who cherish them. Working-class voters “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion,” he said.

Following his election, Michelle Obama remarked, “for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” President Obama then proceeded to go on his infamous apology tour, slamming and slandering America in front of backward, barbaric societies across the world.

Since then, the Democrats’ antipathy towards America has grown only stronger.

Radical Democrat candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Cynthia Nixon are running on explicitly anti-America platforms. Leading Democrat Elizabeth Warren, widely considered a frontrunner among Democrats for the 2020 ticket, called our entire criminal justice system — the envy of most of the world — racist. In July, Democrat supporters of Rep. Maxine Waters burned an American flag outside of her office. Earlier this year, deputy DNC chair Keith Ellisontweeted in support of the far-left domestic terror group Antifa.

Clearly, the election of President Trump only intensified the Democrats’ contempt for their country and countrymen.

In March, the infamous sore-loser Hillary Clinton asserted that“all that red in the middle” — or most of the nation — was racist and “looking backwards.” Meanwhile, Trump supporters face attacks across the country from radical leftists who seek to destroy traditional American values.

Even the Democrats’ major policies threaten America itself.

The Democrats’ immigration policies promote unsustainable mass migration and undermine border security. Their foreign policy, which favors elite interests and promotes globalization, undermines our national sovereignty. Finally, their social policies, which rely fundamentally on big government, undermine our constitution, the Rule of Law, and the very values on which this country was founded. Taken together, these policies would inevitably spell the end of America as we know and love it.

It’s sad that the political party that traces its roots to patriotic Americans such as Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson is consumed with contempt for the United States of America.

Unfortunately, that’s what happens when one chooses partisanship over patriotism, and political radicalism over practical common sense.

Whatever the reasons driving these Democrats’ hatred of America, that hatred is becoming far too entrenched and dangerous to ignore.

It’s Time For A Conservative Purge

H/T Town Hall.

It is way beyond time to purge so-called Conservatives it is time for a RINO purge also.

You typically don’t grow a movement by subtraction, but it’s become clear that some prominent figures in the world of conservatism are negative numbers. They are net liabilities, and we need to boot them out of the big tent or they will keep stinking up the place. We need to clean house, to send the cruise-shilling hacks, whiny geebos, and the careerist dillweeds of Conservative, Inc., packing. Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and others, I’m looking at you.

We need a purge. Let’s be clear, I am not talking about one of those purges like in those stupid Purge movies where we would hunt these Fredocons dorks for sport. That would be terrible. Most of them are too tubby or/and too delicate to give us a real challenge, and it would just not be sporting.

We can settle for throwing them out of the party. They can drag their stuff over to their liberal pals’ places and crash on their couches for a while.

One of the many great things about the Trump era is the great clarification it has provided. His rise, which challenged the establishment’s iron grip on power, clarified who was truly conservative and who was just pretending to be conservative as a career move. I talk about these hacks in great and vicious detail in my upcoming book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy, except I use a lot of swears there. Their incompetence and treachery earned them.

Who needs to go? How about the aforementioned Mitt Romney, the preening tattle-tale who was Evan McMullin before Evan McMullin was Evan McMullin – we just didn’t know it yet. And to think that a lot of us voted for him in 2012; can you imagine if he won, though? He would have rolled on the climate scam, appointed milquetoast judges, and generally showed his belly to the establishment because he isthe establishment. That’s where his loyalty lies – can’t you just see him after leaving office in 2020 following eight years of wheel-spinning, hanging out with his good friends Bill and George and Barack?

Now this loser is running to replace Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, who we drove out of the Senate in shame, as the high-pitched voice of The Vichy Resistance. Mitt is going to really rub Ben Sasse the wrong way, because the Nebraska Nag wants that gig for himself. Sasse loves talking about how Trump – and by extension, us – fails to meet his exacting standards for decorum, decency, and defeat in the fight against progressivism. Mitt threatens to steal his Strange New Respect spotlight, and watch those two have the world’s most passive aggressive mean girl fight for the mantle of leadership of the anti-Trump GOP Senate contingent.

Insufferable sissy Sasse is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party establishment. He’s boring, sanctimonious, and utterly lacking any accomplishment except for distinguishing himself by running his fool mouth about Trump to any enemy outlet that will listen. Sasse poses as one of us, and even wrote an unreadable book mouthing a conservative critique of our crummy culture. The first line is, and I’m not kidding, “Sheryl Crow rocketed to stardom in 1996 on the strength of a single paradox.” If I ever write something that awful, please hunt me for sport. In any case, his tiresome tome illustrates the problem: He writes a book about the culture war then gets his panties all in a bunch when we elect someone who is finally willing to fight it.

These guys need to go because they aren’t interested in winning; they are interested in maintaining the status quo. Conservative, Inc., is all about talking and not fighting – after all, if we win the cultural war, who needs them to write about it anymore? Victory means the donations dry up, and they’ll have to get real jobs like us Normals. That just won’t do.

By the way, my dream is for Ben Sasse to write an epically fussy review of Militant Normals in the dying cruise trip brochure that is The Weekly Standard which I can then proudly wear like it a medal. Let me help start if off: “This vulgar ruffian Kurt Schlichter is not who we are, and his book made me cry because he was mean to George Will.”

America’s two political parties (I don’t count the ideological Dutch oven that is the Libertarians or the Maoist mongoloids of the Greens as “parties”) are changing. Their coalitions are shifting, dramatically, and we are now seeing an outsider party of conservative-populists (the GOP) and one of insider leftists (Democrats) develop. Of course, this leaves a lot of people who are only nominally within their traditional party. Lots of people no longer fit where they grew up. How many ex-Democrats voted to make Trump president? And how many ex-Republicans collaborated with Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit at the ballot box? So, until we complete the purge, we’ll have treacherous elements within the GOP who should ‘fess up to their embrace of liberalism but can’t because then they would be totally cut off from their cushy gigs

The problem is not people with criticisms of Donald Trump – he’s not an ideological conservative, so we need to keep him focused. It’s the people who hate the Normals who now use the GOP as their vehicle for representation. They should depart. We’re seeing a great sorting – to put it in terms millennials can dig, think of a Harry Potter Sorting Hat that says, “Hmmmm. You won’t fight hard to defund people who are killing babies, think it’s cool to diss the flag at football games, are happy about non-submissive conservatives being silenced by liberal tech companies, write stuff no one reads, and have strong opinions about Star Trek. Yes, you are Never Trump. I know you want to be GOP, but you are a Democrat.”

The magic hat is right – they are no longer Republicans, and when they pretend to be, they misrepresent who we really are. Jennifer Rubin is not a “conservative commentator” no matter how often the liberals call her that. She’s a lib. Bret Stephens is a lib. Ahoy people – Bill Kristol is a lib. They all tried to fake conservatism to get where they are, then freaked out when they figured out that us Normals are actually serious about all this stuff and that we are not going to wait forever for the likes of them to make it happen. When we toss them out, they should be sent off wearing scarlet letters, IWYGT – “I’m Why You Got Trump.”

These people are no loss to our party – their subtraction is actually addition. Two words to the pseudocons who aren’t happy with where the GOP is today, because the party (for better or worse) is the organized political engine of conservatism. Get out. And be happy we’re not going to hunt you for sport.

VICTORY! Chaplain Cleared of Wrongdoing in Same-Sex Discrimination Case

H/T Todd Starnes.com.

I am glad to hear that Chaplain Scott Squires and Chaplain Assistant Kacie Griffin have been cleared by the Army of these charges brought by militant homosexuals.

Now, will the Amry for the Chaplain and his assistant out of the Army? 

The Army has exonerated a decorated Fort Bragg Army chaplain and his assistant after they were accused of discrimination against a same-sex couple.

Chaplain Scott Squires and Chaplain Assistant Kacie Griffin had been facing “dereliction of duty” charges for declining to lead a marriage retreat that included a same-sex couple.

“We are grateful that the Army has rejected and abandoned these baseless charges,” First Liberty Institute attorney Mike Berry told the Todd Starnes Radio Show.

“The United States military is no place for anti-religious hostility against its own military chaplains,” said Berry, who is representing both the chaplain and the assistant. “Chaplains like Scott Squires and Kacie Griffin do not have to give up their First Amendment rights in order to serve their fellow soldiers.”

Chaplain Squires, in a statement, said he looks forward to resuming his military career and serving his fellow soldiers.

“I am eternally grateful to First Liberty for covering my six and fighting to restore my religious liberty,” he said.

The plight of Chaplain Squires generated national outrage and thousands of my readers and listeners inundated the Pentagon with telephone calls and emails. And several members of Congress urged the military to take swift action.

“The case of Chaplain Scott Squires highlights how imperative it is that we protect freedom of conscience for every individual in the U.S. military – including the chaplains who minister to them as they carry out the military’s mission together,” Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) wrote in a prepared statement.

In January, a same-sex couple asked to participate in a military-sponsored marriage retreat called, “Strong Bonds.” Chaplain Squires had been scheduled to lead the retreat.

On background, the chaplain is endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board. (NAMB).

According to NAMB policy, chaplains are prohibited from conducting “Strong Bonds” events for same-sex couples. The policy clearly states “endorsed chaplains will not conduct or attend a wedding ceremony for any same-sex couple, bless such a union or perform counseling in support of such a union…nor offer any kind of relationship training or retreat, on or off a military installation.”

When Squires realized he could not participate in the “Strong Bonds” event, he rescheduled the conference to accommodate the lesbian couple with a chaplain who could oversee the retreat. However, the same-sex couple chose not to attend.

Had Squires participated in the marriage retreat he would have risked losing his endorsement by the Southern Baptists. Likewise, the Army requires its chaplains to adhere to their endorsers’ rules and religious tenets.

“I simply did what I’m required to do under Army regulations and my endorser’s rules,” Chaplain Squires said.  “I am shocked that I would even be investigated, let alone threatened with punishment, for following the rules.”

The Pentagon was fundamentally transformed during the Obama Administration. It became an institution rife with anti-Christian sentiment.

I documented countless instances of military personnel who were subjected to investigations and punishment because of their religious beliefs.

The Trump Administration is working diligently to undo the damage that was done by the Obama Pentagon.

However, some parts of the Pentagon are still stuck in muck and mire of the so-called swamp.

Just ask Chaplain Squires and his assistant.

Senate Dems: We Must Not Hold Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings Because of the Trump Investigation, Or Something

H/T Town Hall.

Slick Willie Clinton’s appointment of leftists Ruth Buzzi(Bader) Ginsburg and leftist Stephen Breyer to be a Supreme Court Justices with pending investigation and everything was fine.

But Little Chuckie Schumer wants to obstruct the nomination for originalist Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination from getting a vote because there is a bull shit investigation going on that claims President Trump colluded with Russia.

Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley (and even Susan Collins) have basically responded to this hackery with a polite versions of “pound sand,” but this attempted obstructionism by all ten Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats should be mind-focusing and instructive nevertheless.  Following Chuck Schumer’s cynical lead, Democrats on the panel — all drawn from their party’s left flank — are pouncing on the Manafort and Cohen news to invent a justification to stymie the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, something many progressives vowed to do before Kavanaugh was even selected:

Let’s address each argument, one at a time.

(1) The “possibility of criminal wrongdoing” by a sitting president does not revoke or suspend his or her constitutional powers.  For instance, nobody would seriously argue that the Mueller investigation or accusations from the likes of Michael Cohen somehow prevent Trump ordering military action, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.  Similarly, allegations and controversy do not strip the chief executive of his duty to name a candidate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.  There is a zero percent chance that Senate Democrats would allow a potential scandal to stop a Democratic president from fulfilling this constitutional role.  Indeed, this isn’t a hypothetical.  Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley writes:

The constitutional implications are staggering if a president could be effectively blocked by the mere initiation of a criminal investigation on the state or federal levels…Nothing in the Constitution or history supports the claim that any “cloud of investigation” over a president is a barrier to the confirmation of a nominee. Indeed, not a single such objection was voiced when President Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer on April 6, 1994, to replace Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, three months after the appointment of the Whitewater independent counsel. During the summer Breyer was confirmed, Congress subpoenaed 29 Clinton administration officials in its own investigation, and the Clinton legal team ramped up for challenges.

Thomas Jippining of the Heritage Foundation fleshes this point outeven further:

These investigations were live when President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court on June 22, 1993, and when the Senate confirmed the nomination on August 3, 1993. No one said a word about pending investigations affecting the confirmation process…On May 17, 1994, Clinton nominated Judge Stephen Breyer to replace Justice Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on July 12-14, and the full Senate voted 87-9 to approve the nomination on July 26. Again, no one suggested that the confirmation process should be changed in any way to accommodate this investigation. In other words, Clinton appointed not one, but two, Supreme Court Justices while he was under investigation. The second appointment came while he was actually “under subpoena.” 

Judiciary Democrats don’t have a leg to stand on here.

Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley (and even Susan Collins) have basically responded to this hackery with a polite versions of “pound sand,” but this attempted obstructionism by all ten Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats should be mind-focusing and instructive nevertheless.  Following Chuck Schumer’s cynical lead, Democrats on the panel — all drawn from their party’s left flank — are pouncing on the Manafort and Cohen news to invent a justification to stymie the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, something many progressives vowed to do before Kavanaugh was even selected:

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Vanita Gupta

@vanitaguptaCR

All 10 @JudiciaryDems: “Given the possibility of criminal wrongdoing by the President, doubts that Judge Kavanaugh believes a president can even be investigated, and the unprecedented lack of transparency regarding this nominee’s record, we should not move forward with hearings.”

Let’s address each argument, one at a time.

(1) The “possibility of criminal wrongdoing” by a sitting president does not revoke or suspend his or her constitutional powers.  For instance, nobody would seriously argue that the Mueller investigation or accusations from the likes of Michael Cohen somehow prevent Trump ordering military action, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.  Similarly, allegations and controversy do not strip the chief executive of his duty to name a candidate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.  There is a zero percent chance that Senate Democrats would allow a potential scandal to stop a Democratic president from fulfilling this constitutional role.  Indeed, this isn’t a hypothetical.  Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley writes:

The constitutional implications are staggering if a president could be effectively blocked by the mere initiation of a criminal investigation on the state or federal levels…Nothing in the Constitution or history supports the claim that any “cloud of investigation” over a president is a barrier to the confirmation of a nominee. Indeed, not a single such objection was voiced when President Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer on April 6, 1994, to replace Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, three months after the appointment of the Whitewater independent counsel. During the summer Breyer was confirmed, Congress subpoenaed 29 Clinton administration officials in its own investigation, and the Clinton legal team ramped up for challenges.

Thomas Jippining of the Heritage Foundation fleshes this point outeven further:

These investigations were live when President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court on June 22, 1993, and when the Senate confirmed the nomination on August 3, 1993. No one said a word about pending investigations affecting the confirmation process…On May 17, 1994, Clinton nominated Judge Stephen Breyer to replace Justice Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on July 12-14, and the full Senate voted 87-9 to approve the nomination on July 26. Again, no one suggested that the confirmation process should be changed in any way to accommodate this investigation. In other words, Clinton appointed not one, but two, Supreme Court Justices while he was under investigation. The second appointment came while he was actually “under subpoena.” 

Judiciary Democrats don’t have a leg to stand on here.

2) Let’s set aside leftists’ debunked distortions of Judge Kavanaugh’s record and writings on issues surrounding presidential investigations (read thisthis, and this for examples of their desperation and dishonesty on this front).  In their letter, Feinstein and friends cite “doubts that Judge Kavanaugh believes a president can even be investigated.”  Again, click the previous links to see how absurd this claim is.  But beyond the substantive evidence, it’s preposterous that “doubts” over a nominee’s views on controversial topics would being held up as an excuse to prevent hearings, during which Senators would have an extended opportunity to…probe the nominee’s viewson controversial topics, under oath?  The whole purpose of hearings is to address and explore such “doubts.”  Democrats should be eager to pepper Kavanaugh with questions about his views on these and other matters (such questions are entirely appropriate, by the way, and I suspect Kavanaugh will be prepared to address them in detail).  That they’re instead pointing to their doubts as a means to derail the hearings tells us everything we need to know.

(3) These Democrats are exploiting their unrealistic records requests, which have resulted in extraordinary document production, to complain of “unprecedented lack of transparency.”  Writing at National ReviewEd Whelan exposes Democrats’ machinations, including this amusing piece of hypocrisy that gives away the game:

Senate Democrats are complaining that, pending the Bush team’s executive-privilege review and NARA’s own review, documents that have not yet been deemed to be publicly releasable are temporarily being provided to the Committee on a “committee confidential” basis. Hmmm, why would Senate Democrats complain that Committee members—including, of course, the Democrats on the Committee—are receiving documents more quickly than they otherwise would? The Democrats’ game of obstruction and delay is transparent. It is routine for privileged documents to be provided to the Committee only on a “committee confidential” basis. As this SCOTUSblog report on the Kagan nomination discusses (on page 2), “roughly two thousand documents” from the Clinton White House were deemed “committee confidential” and withheld from the public on that basis. Because of the vastly larger volume of Kavanaugh documents, the Bush team is expediting the provision of potentially privileged documents. That is nothing that Democrats can fairly complain about.

(4) More broadly speaking, the weak and specious objections advanced by these ten Democrats underscore the degree to which judicial confirmations would grind to a halt if the opposition party wins back the Senate in the midterm elections. Still irate over Republicans’ application of their own hardball tactics (which was a long time coming), Democrats are signaling how they’ll yet again escalate the confirmation wars just as soon as they have the opportunity — and will push any rationalization to do so, no matter how unserious or unprincipled. Their feeble and likely quixotic attempts to blockade Kavanaugh may fail this time, but they serve as an important reminder of the stakes in November.

Parting Thought: I’ll leave you with a reminder that Schumer also tried to use the Russia investigation as an excuse to stop Justice Gorsuch — thus exposing supposed worries about document transparency and executive immunity views as window dressing.

 

NASCAR Driver Loses Sponsorship Because Father Used Racial Slur 35 Years Ago

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

  NASCAR driver Conor Daly lost a sponsor because of what his father said before he was born is bullshit.

If I was held accountable for things my father said I would have been up shitscreek without a paddle.

My dad was an officer in the Ku Klux Klan for many years.

NASCAR driver Conor Daly lost a major sponsor Friday because his father admitted he used a racial slur the 1980s.

Daly was set to be sponsored by Lilly Diabetes in his first NASCAR race Saturday at the Xfinity Series race at Road America in Wisconsin. Daly himself has Type 1 diabetes and became the first diabetic racer to win in the IndyCar Series.

The day before the race, Daly’s father and former Formula One driver Derek Daly was fired from his job as a racing analyst at WISH-TV after it came to light he used the n-word in the 1980s.

The elder Daly apologized in a statement, saying he was only a recent immigrant from Ireland at the time and the idiom he used—”n***** in the woodpile”—was widely used in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Daly said he was “mortified” to learn the word was derogatory in America, and never used it again.

Despite the apology and the fact Conor Daly wasn’t even alive at the time of the incident, Lilly Diabetes announced it was pulling the sponsorship.

“Unfortunately, the comments that surfaced this week by Derek Daly distract from this focus, so we have made the decision that Lilly Diabetes will no longer run the No. 6 at Road America this weekend,” the company said in a statement.

Conor Daly’s NASCAR debut got off to an admirable start, running 11th with only 10 laps left, but he was forced to exit the race early because of mechanical problems.