President Trump: With tax reform we can make it morning in America again

Today is the anniversary of former president Ronald Reagan signing into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The act was the second major law he signed to reform the tax code for the American people.

Republicans and Democrats came together to cut taxes for hardworking families in 1981, and again in 1986 to simplify the tax code, so that everyone could get a fair shake. The rest, as they say, is history.

The economy boomed, launching into one of the largest peacetime economic expansions in history. Dormant small businesses and factories sprung back to life. The famed American Worker produced at unprecedented levels. The median family income rose. And more American products than ever before reached foreign shores, stamped with those four beautiful words: “Made in the USA.”

The 1980s also saw extraordinary ideas transformed into reality by American inventors and entrepreneurs. Many of those creations dramatically improved our quality of life. Others connected us like never before and put an entire universe of information at our fingertips. Still others, like the space shuttle after its first launch in 1981, stretched the bounds of what we thought was possible for humankind.

It was a time of extraordinary optimism — it was truly “Morning in America,” an economic miracle for the middle-class.

A lot has changed since then, especially when it comes to taxes.

While our economic competitors slashed their taxes in hopes of replicating America’s success, our leaders remained complacent or, in some cases, reversed course.

We are now among the highest taxed nations in the developed world. Our tax code and laws have nearly tripled in length since the 1986 reforms. They now span 2,650 pages, with another 70,000 pages of forms, instructions, court decisions, and other guidance.

We have watched our leaders allow other countries to erode our competitive edge, take our jobs, and drain our wealth. And, for the first time in our history, Americans have feared that their children will not grow up to be better off financially than they are.

That era of economic surrender is now over.

In the nine months since I took office as president, we have removed intrusive, job-killing regulations at a record pace. We are leaving lopsided international deals that hurt America like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Paris Climate Accord. We have unleashed American energy by ending the war on coal and approving major projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines. And earlier this month, I signed an executive order to take important steps to free our people from the grip of Obamacare.

And now, unemployment is at a 16-year low. Wages are rising. Manufacturing confidence is higher than it has ever been. The stock market is soaring to record levels. And GDP growth climbed to more than 3% in the second quarter.

The optimism has returned — the sun is once again rising over America.

But our economy cannot take off like it should unless we transform our outdated, complex and burdensome tax code, and that is exactly what we are proposing to do.

Revising our tax code is not just a policy discussion — it is a moral one, because we are not talking about the government’s money – we are talking about your money, your hard work.

According to the Tax Foundation, taxes cost Americans more out-of-pocket than housing, clothing, and food — combined.

Somehow, this has become “normal” in the Land of the Free, but it should not be.

American families should not have to send more money to the government than they spend on building a better life for themselves and their children. You are the ones who carry this nation on your back, and it is time for you to get the relief that you deserve.

That is why we are taking action to dramatically reduce the burden that the sprawling federal tax code has become on our citizens.

Our plan will transform the tax code so that it is once again simple, fair and easy to understand. We want you to spend your valuable time pursuing your dreams, not trapped in a tax compliance nightmare.

We will cut taxes for hardworking, middle-class families.

We will double the standard deduction, which means the first $24,000 of a family’s income will be tax-free. We will also expand the child tax credit. And we will lower rates so that families will keep more of their hard-earned money.

We will also restore our competitive edge so we can create better jobs and higher wages for American workers.

Our plan will provide tax relief to businesses of all sizes, and deliver our small and medium-sized businesses the lowest top rate in more than 80 years.

Finally, we will bring back trillions of dollars in American wealth currently parked overseas.

Today’s tax system foolishly penalizes companies that bring foreign profits back to the United States. Our plan encourages companies to bring this money home, where it can be invested in American companies, American jobs and American workers.

If Congress comes together to enact this commonsense plan, the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that it will raise the annual income of a typical, hardworking American household by an average of around $4,000.

Just imagine the possibilities.

We have the benefit of hindsight as we look back at the three decades since our country’s last major tax reform. We can see what worked and what did not. And most importantly, we can apply the lessons learned to the challenges of today.

The tax cuts and reforms of the 1980s show that when we empower the American people to pursue their dreams, they will not only achieve greatness and create prosperity beyond imagination, they will build an entirely new world.

It is time to ignite America’s middle class miracle once again.

An Interview with Sebastian Kurz By Michael Walsh

They call him Wunder-wuzzi — the whizzkid — and he’s poised now to become the next chancellor of Austria. Sebastian Kurz, elected on an “anti-immigration” platform (translation: no more Muslims), is yet another in the wave of new leaders in central and eastern Europe who have had it up to their keisters with Mutti Merkel’s insane “immigration” policy, and are about to say Nein! to the European Union’s demands that the cradle of western civilization admit even more of these culturally, morally, ethically, and religiously inimical people. Der Spiegel has the interview. Note the hostile tone right out of the box from the mouthpiece of west German groupthink:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Kurz, you’re 31 years old and poised to become the new Austrian chancellor. Do you sometimes spook yourself?

Kurz: Not in the least. I am aware of the responsibility I am taking on. Things have developed very quickly for me in recent years, but they didn’t happen from one day to the next. I have more than six years of experience in government. I took the decision to run as a candidate very seriously. In May, I decided to change the Austrian People’s Party and to start a broad-based movement aimed at changing this country for the better.

SPIEGEL: Can you understand that some people are a little spooked to see such a young man in charge of a country?

Kurz: If that’s how the Austrian public thought, they wouldn’t have voted for me. Austrians have had a while to get a sense of who I am. Other candidates have been on the political stage for a much briefer period than I. Voters probably were much less familiar with some of the candidates in the German elections, who were previously in Brussels.

SPIEGEL: Do you sometimes wish you had more life experience to bring to your new office?

Kurz: We are who we are. You can’t become 30 years older just like that. People who are older have the advantage of more experience. But you don’t have to despair just because you’re young. If young age is the problem, you can take comfort in the fact that it gets better with each passing day.

Ach, du lieber… After wasting time and space fretting about Kurz’s age, the interviewer finally gets to the heart of the matter:

SPIEGEL: In the election on October 15, your center-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) together attracted 60 percent of the vote – marking the biggest share for parties to the right of center since World War II. How do you explain this slide to the right?

Kurz: The ÖVP and the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) also had combined support of 60 percent. But clearly, the FPÖ increased its support. That would seem to indicate that more voters were drawn to the party’s platform. As a big-tent party, we take our momentum from mainstream society. When I assumed leadership of the party in May, we made a decision to launch a broad-based movement. In recent months we’ve gained 200,000 new supporters – and that in a small country with a population of 9 million.

SPIEGEL: Are you trying to say that the view that there’s been a slide to the right is nonsense?

Kurz: I’m not going to cast aspersions on DER SPIEGEL’s ideas. But the result of the vote is unambiguous. The People’s Party won. Parties other than the Social Democratic Party have only won twice in the last 50 years. We know we picked up a lot of votes from people who previously voted for the Green Alternative.

Kurz, wisely, deflects some of the interviewer’s hostility by couching his victory in economic terms, and those are certainly worth emphasizing; they also help to broaden the coalition’s appeal to voters for whom Muslim “immigration” is not the top priority. But let’s not kid ourselves: Kurz’s election is a part of the broader swing to the right we’ve already seen in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Let’s hope the wave eventually hits Germany — and let’s hope it’s not too late when it does.

Notable & Quotable: Six Seconds to Live ‘Two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber.’

From a Nov. 13, 2010, speech by then-Lt. Gen. John Kelly to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis, describing a 2008 suicide bombing in Iraq that killed two Marines, Cpl. Jonathan Yale, 22, and Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter, 20. Gen. Kelly’s son, Second Lt. Robert Kelly, 29, was killed in action in Afghanistan Nov. 9, 2010:

What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.” The two Marines had about five seconds left to live.

It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was halfway through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.

For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing nonstop, the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have known they were safe, because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber. The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread shoulder width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God. Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty—into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.

Trump Caves on Ethanol The biofuels lobby overwhelms a core campaign promise.

The bipartisan pull of corporate welfare—also known as the swamp—is powerful. Last week it swallowed up no less than Donald Trump and his fearless Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt. They caved under pressure from the ethanol lobby and political extortion from Republican Senators Joni Ernst, Deb Fischer and Chuck Grassley.

Mr. Pruitt announced Thursday that EPA won’t reduce its proposed 19.24 billion gallon biofuels quota for 2018, and may even increase it. The EPA will further consider giving biofuels a pass to pollute that no other industry enjoys, via what’s known as a Reid Vapor Pressure waiver for high-ethanol blends.

As bad, the EPA announced it will keep intact a compliance credit scheme that benefits global and integrated oil companies and ethanol producers at the expense of smaller independent refiners and manufacturers. “Renewable identification numbers,” or RINs, are a credit created each time a gallon of ethanol is mixed with fuel. The EPA requires refiners to use RINs as proof of compliance with biofuel standards, and credits can be bought or sold.

Because only major global refiners have the capabilities to blend their own fuel, most small and midsize merchant refiners have no way of producing RINs in-house. Big Oil, the ethanol lobby and speculators have cornered the market for the credits, and RIN prices are soaring.

In 2012 Philadelphia Energy Solutions paid $10 million for RINs. This year, it will spend $300 million, twice the price of payroll. Only crude oil—the refinery’s main input—costs more annually. Because of that skyrocketing expense, Moody’s has dropped the refinery’s credit rating from a B+ to a CCC- in four years. Mr. Pruitt’s announcement means it will get no RIN relief.

These independent refiners provide the sort of blue-collar manufacturing jobs that President Trump promised to protect. Philadelphia Energy Solutions had to lay off 70 workers last year. Ryan O’Callaghan, the president of United Steelworkers Local 10-1, said the EPA announcement makes him fearful for the fate of his 692 members who remain at the refinery. Philadelphia Energy Solutions also uses hundreds of contractors from the building trades unions.

“I voted Donald Trump, I urged my members to vote for Donald Trump, and I urged them to ask their families and friends to vote for Donald Trump,” Mr. O’Callaghan said. “As a union president, to support a Republican candidate for president, there was some backlash. And now we’re left out in the cold. It’s very disappointing. It feels like the government has the chips stacked against us. We’re crushed in between Big Oil and Big Ethanol. I thought President Trump would be able to see through that. Hopefully he changes his mind and goes with workers.”

Russia-Obsessed Media Shocked To Discover Facts About Russia Stories That Discredit Their Narrative By Mollie Hemingway

This morning President Donald J. Trump tweeted:

He’s referring to yesterday’s news that, as CNN headlined its story on the matter, “Fusion GPS partners plead Fifth before House Intel.”

Fusion GPS is the firm that paid for and disseminated the discredited dossier that former FBI director James Comey briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump about in January. The almost immediate and well-sourced leak of that briefing to CNN is what got the Russia scare really going in January. BuzzFeed published the dossier very soon after CNN’s story ran.

So, as Trump and CNN note, folks at the firm took the Fifth in a House investigation into that dossier and the firm that helped put it together (Fusion GPS executives similarly refused to testify under oath in a separate Senate inquiry). As to the questions of who paid for it, we still have absolutely no idea, although there have been published reports in The New York Times and Washington Post that Fusion GPS does anti-Magnitsky Actwork on behalf of Russia, that the dossier was funded by Democrats, and that the FBI also tried to pay for the dossier. Fusion GPS has also made the unsubstantiated claim that an unnamed Republican donor got the ball rolling on the dossier.

You might think that Russia-obsessed journalists would share the president’s curiosity about who funded the dossier and why Fusion GPS partners are worried about their legal jeopardy. You might think otherwise. Jake Sherman, a Politico senior writer, was utterly shocked to learn that there are questions about the FBI paying for the dossier. To wit:

Fun fact: the FBI was also in the U.S. government when word first got out that they tried to pay for opposition research on the out-of-power party’s nominee! Here’s theWashington Post’s Karen Tumulty:

Before I respond, a quick digression. Sometimes readers or viewers complain that “the media” haven’t covered a story. And it will turn out that the story was covered, deep in one media outlet’s newspaper. Or for a few seconds of a newscast. The Journolisters of Twitter don’t help the story go viral. They don’t dig further. It dies. But when readers complain that the story wasn’t covered, they point to that piece on page D14 and say, “See! We covered it!”

If I were a Fusion GPS-connected journalist desperate to bury news of the firm’s refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation into Russian meddling in U.S. affairs, that is the approach I would have taken, instead of the one taken by journalists today. The approach they took today was to pretend that the story was made up. Instead, they could have pointed to the story that ran in the Washington Post on February 28 about how the FBI tried to pay the dossier drafter to continue his work:

The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump’s political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement.

When a Twitter interlocutor pointed out to Tumulty that her own paper had published the report that the FBI had tried to pay for oppo on the Republican nominee, she replied:

She’s quoting from the Post story. That story, incidentally, is based on anonymous sources, as all stories these days are. This from The New York Times also says that the FBI tried to, but ultimately did not, pay Christopher Steele for his dossier work. (Read on to get to the part about how the FBI did pay him, according to CNN’s anonymous sources.) It should be the first of many stories digging into how it was possible that the FBI got into the oppo research business on political opponents. As that story itself notes:

Let’s Defame the Jewish State of Israel By Noor Dahri

Noor Dahri is a director of Pakistan Israel Alliance (PIA) and Editor in Chief of the Newspaper Pak Israel News (PIN).

During the many years since I started talking with my fellow Muslims about their baseless arguments against the state of Israel, I could see them arguing without knowledge. I could tell they know nothing about Israel. They had a few topics to discuss, “illegal settlements, Gaza being blockaded, unlawful occupation and Israeli operations against Hamas, the Holy Land belongs to Palestinians and Palestinians are indigenous habitants of the land.” Most are not willing to find accurate facts behind these topics. They are not even interested in listening or reading information when someone shows them the truth; they only know how to single out and bash Israel.

Once they get defeated in speaking with Israelis or they even feel they are not winning the topic they started, they start abusing the other speaker and begin using foul language against and about the Jewish people. I think no one taught them how to win a debate, and they did not learn to defame Israel in a proper way. You cannot win the argument until you have enough knowledge about what you are arguing about. For example, if you are going to single out Israel, but you know nothing about the real history of Israel, you have never met any Israeli or even you have never met any Palestinian either, you simply cannot do the discussion.

Therefore, I am going to help you learn to go about defeating the Israelis (and Zionists) in any debate. I will tell you three important formulas not to bring into the discussion so that you will never be shamed in arguments with any Israelis or Zionists. You just need to grasp and be able to have full knowledge of how to skip these three formulas.

Formula Number 1- No Religious Grounds:

Start by reading your holy Quran, Chapter Number 17, Verse Number 104

“And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, “Dwell in the land, and when there comes the promise of the Hereafter, we will bring you forth in [one] gathering.”

وَقُلۡنَا مِنۢ بَعۡدِهِۦ لِبَنِىٓ إِسۡرَٲٓءِيلَ ٱسۡكُنُواْ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعۡدُ ٱلۡأَخِرَةِ جِئۡنَا بِكُمۡ لَفِيفً۬ا

Next read Chapter Number 05, Verse Number 21.

“O my people (the Jews)! Enter the Holy Land, which God has assigned unto you”

يَـٰقَوۡمِ ٱدۡخُلُواْ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ ٱلۡمُقَدَّسَةَ ٱلَّتِى كَتَبَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمۡ وَلَا تَرۡتَدُّواْ عَلَىٰٓ أَدۡبَارِكُمۡ فَتَنقَلِبُواْ خَـٰسِرِينَ

Notice that both of these verses support the Jewish land of Israel. Now, will you deny these verses or erase these verses from the Quran? I know you will never dare to do this. Stop bringing religion into this conflict, otherwise no one can save you from being defeated and if you deny these verses, you are actually denying your religion and thereby committing blasphemy. Another thing must remember that we Muslims believe Israeli prophets and accept that they all came from the tribe of Israel (Jacob) and belonged to the land of Israel. We could not deny these grounds so better to not discuss religion on this matter and just ignore the religious grounds on this conflict.

The Case for Assyrian Independence Oasis of Peace in the Middle East by Amir George

Amir George, an Assyrian Christian, is the author of “Liberating Iraq – The Story of the Assyrian Christians of Iraq”.

It is a solution to the refugee problem after centuries of persecution. Not only could Assyrian Christian refugees stay where they were, but as Jews did in Israel, they could come “home”.

In the rush to condemn the liberation of Iraq as a mistake, we forget the terror that Saddam Hussein and his two sons inflicted on their people. A visit to nearly every home in Iraq will have a picture of one or more family members among the nearly one million slaughtered by Saddam.

For the Assyrian Christians, this promise of Isaiah 19:23-25 is twofold. First, that “in that day” they will finally have their nation, called Assyria. Second, that their allies will be Israel and Egypt.

Nearly six million Assyrian Christians dot the world.

In 2003, according to the Iraqi government, there were 2.5 million Assyrian Christians in the country, or 10% of the population. Another approximately 3.5 million are scattered from Australia to Europe to Lebanon, Jordan, the US and more.

The Assyrian Christians — descendants of the Assyrian Empire and the first nation to accept Christ — are the indigenous people of Iraq.

In spite of being one of the oldest civilizations, and even today speaking Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, they are refugees in their own homeland.

Following the recent move towards independence by the Kurdistan Regional Government, the Assyrian Christian organizations worldwide have organized formally to request, in accordance with Iraq’s constitution, their own area in their homeland in northern Iraq, on the Nineveh Plain.

In the wake of the “Biden Plan”, put forth by former Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, and then Vice President Joe Biden, the Assyrian Christian area is one of the four areas envisioned as the only long-term solution for Iraq.

According to the plan, Kurdistan, Assyria, Sunnistan and Shiastan — the four dramatically different areas of Iraq — would each be able to evolve into their own areas.

While the Arab areas of Sunnistan and Shiastan in Iraq operate as do most Arab countries — with corruption, terror and civil strife — the non-Arab regions of Iraq, Kurdistan and Assyria in the north are shining examples of what all of Iraq could be, and a testimony to the sacrifice of 4,888 brave Americans who gave their lives for a liberated Iraq, as well as the 35,000 injured and the 2.5 million who served.

In the rush to condemn the liberation of Iraq as a mistake, we forget the terror that Saddam Hussein and his two sons inflicted on their people. A visit to nearly every home in Iraqi will have a picture of one or more family members among the nearly one million slaughtered by Saddam.

For the Assyrian Christians, the move toward the independence of Kurdistan is their encouragement to move forward with their independence as well.

“Czech Donald Trump” Wins Landslide Victory “I am ready to fight for our national interests.” by Soeren Kern

The election outcome, the result of popular discontent with established parties, is the latest in a recent wave of successes for European populists, including in Austria and Germany. The populist ascendancy highlights a shifting political landscape in Europe where runaway multiculturalism and political correctness, combined with a massive influx of unassimilable migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, have given rise to a surge in support for anti-establishment protest parties.

“It is unthinkable that the indigenous European population should adapt themselves to the refugees. We must do away with such nonsensical political correctness. The refugees should behave like guests, that is, they should be polite, and they certainly do not have the right to choose what they want to eat…. There is a deep chasm between what people think and what the media tell them.” — Andrej Babis, in the Czech daily Pravo, January 16, 2016.

As prime minister, Babis would share government with Czech President Milos Zeman, who has described political correctness as “a euphemism for political cowardice.”

Populist tycoon Andrej Babis and his Eurosceptic political party have won the Czech Republic’s parliamentary election — by a landslide — making the “politically incorrect” billionaire businessman the main contender to become prime minister after coalition negotiations.

With all of the votes counted, Babis’s anti-establishment party ANO (which stands for “Action of Dissatisfied Citizens” and is also the Czech word for “yes”) won nearly 30% — almost three times its closest rival — in elections held on October 20. The Eurosceptic Civic Democratic Party (ODS), the anti-establishment Czech Pirates Party and the anti-EU Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD) came second, third and fourth, with around 11% each.

The Communists came in fifth with 7.8%. The Social Democrats, the center-left establishment party that finished first in the previous election, came in sixth with just 7.2%. The Christian Democrats, the center-right establishment party, won 5.8%, just enough to qualify for seats in parliament. In all, nine parties competed in the election.

The election outcome, the result of popular discontent with established parties, is the latest in a recent wave of successes for European populists, including in Austria and Germany. The populist ascendancy highlights a shifting political landscape in Europe where runaway multiculturalism and political correctness, combined with a massive influx of unassimilable migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, have given rise to a surge in support for anti-establishment protest parties.

Babis’s victory will also strengthen the role of the Visegrad Group (V4), a political alliance of four Central European states — the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia — committed not only to resisting mass migration, but also to opposing the continued transference of national sovereignty to the European Union. A stronger V4 will accentuate the divisions between the pro-EU states of Western Europe and the increasingly Eurosceptic states of Central and Eastern Europe. The European Union consequently will struggle to maintain an outward semblance of unity.

In his victory speech at the ANO party headquarters, Babis, who campaigned as a centrist, refused to speculate on the composition of a coalition government, but said he wanted the cabinet to be set up as quickly as possible: “This is a huge opportunity to change our country. I would like to assemble a government that will be of the people and for the people and promotes policies that are in their favor.”

Babis also tried to reassure the public that he would not put the Czech Republic on the path to authoritarianism, as some of his detractors have charged:

“We are a democratic movement. We are a solid part of the European Union and we are a solid part of NATO. I do not understand why some people say we are a threat to democracy. We certainly are not a threat to democracy. I am ready to fight for our national interests and to promote them.”

Peter Smith: The Death Throes of Common Decency

Taboos — traditional ones, at any rate — were the ballast that kept us on an even keel. Increasingly that is no longer the case, as White House Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly so eloquently reminded the Washington press corps. Instead, policy and discourse is shaped by the sensibilities of jackals

If you didn’t catch White House Chief of Staff, General John F. Kelly, talking to the press about the politicisation of President Trump’s condolences to the wife of a fallen marine, Sgt La David Johnson, you should. This is part of what he said.

You know when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with honour. That’s obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life – the dignity of life – is sacred. That’s gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well. Gold Star families, I think that left in the [Democrat] convention over the summer. But I just thought – the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred.

Though clearly emotional at times it is amazing that he was able to speak with such composure. General Kelly lost his son, Second Lt. Robert Kelly, to a roadside bomb in Afghanistan in 2010.

It goes without saying that the action of Democrat congresswoman Frederica Wilson in raising the matter as she did was beyond despicable. It can be made sense of only in a world of seriously declining standards of common decency. This is not about glimpse of a woman’s stocking no longer being shocking. It is about not assuming the worst of each other. I don’t know what Trump said. I believe I know what he meant to say. He meant to say what General Kelly suggested he might say.

He was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining…He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war… and when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this earth; his friends.

Maybe it didn’t come out quite right. I don’t know. I know from experience that trying to remember what you are supposed to say in pressurised and emotional situations can get you into more trouble than extemporising. If he mangled it in any way, a quiet word might have had him making amends in one way or another. But, hey, that would have been the decent thing to do.

Theresa May was mocked because she developed a nagging cough during a speech to the ‘faithful’ at the Conservative Party’s recent conference. Who hasn’t had a coughing fit? How in the world does that reflect on her ability as prime minister? Sympathy and understanding would have been the decent response. Instead jackals spotted weakness and pounced.

Recall Tony Abbott when opposition leader making his overheard and immediately-reported comment “shit happens” in 2011. This followed a firefight in Afghanistan in which an Australian soldier, Lance Corporal Jared McKinney, was killed. It was absolutely clear, in context, that Abbott’s comment was not disrespectful.

His comment was aimed, in a comradely manner, at the things that had gone wrong. It was a complete beat-up by some reporters lacking even the rudiments of common decency who took his remarks out of context and tried to make political capital out of a soldier’s death. They were the disrespectful ones.

Fred Fleitz to Lou Dobbs: ‘Tillerson Should be Fired Tomorrow’ By The Editors

Fred Fleitz, who served as John Bolton’s chief of staff at the United Nations during the George W. Bush Administration, joined Fox Business host Lou Dobbs to discuss the fall of Raqqa (good), progress against North Korea’s nuclear program (better), and the appearance of insubordination among certain prominent members of President Trump’s cabinet (very bad).https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/21/fred-fleitz-to-lou-dobbs/

Lou Dobbs: Joining us tonight Fred Fleitz, former CIA analyst, chief of staff to Ambassador John Bolton at the United Nations, now a senior vice president at the Center for Security Policy and Fred great to have you with us.

Fred Fleitz: Good to be here.

Dobbs: And I think it’s terrific that tonight on this 20th of October, nine months ago the president inaugurated and today Raqqa is in the hands of U.S.-backed forces in Syria. ISIS is being rolled back, the successes as the president promised have been incredible, particularly compared to the passivity of the previous administration and its campaign against ISIS, such as it was.

Fleitz: I think that’s right, I mean, President Trump took the gloves off. There were so many restrictions on our operations in Iraq and Syria and it made a real difference against ISIS. Now, we’re not gonna hear this on other networks. I think we’re seeing some cautious signs of progress on North Korea but I don’t know that sanctions against North Korea will ever work but if they’re going to work, they’re gonna work under this president because he’s twisting the arms of the Chinese and the Russians and others to get them to enforce sanctions. We may have to attack but we have to go down the sanctions road and I’m encouraged.

Dobbs: And in the case of North Korea, the Secretary of State today suggesting it might be months before, only months, before North Korea has the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. This has been a stunning ratcheting up of the estimated timetable for the nuclear threat posed by North Korea.

Fleitz: They could have the capability now. We don’t know, the intelligence community says North Korea has 60 nuclear weapons. Whether they detonated a hydrogen bomb last month or not, we don’t know. It was a 250 kiloton weapon, which was 25 times their previous weapon. This is a very serious threat and I think North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is an offensive arsenal, not a deterrent and they will one day use it.

Dobbs: And as we are watching this, we hear from the secretary of state again, almost impossible to contemplate language. Tillerson’s saying that he wants to balance his views with those of the president. Are you kidding me?

Fleitz: I’m very angry with Secretary Tillerson, who told the Europeans today that they don’t have to worry about their trade deals with Iran, that we’re going to go after them. I immediately tweeted that Tillerson should be fired tomorrow for this. He undermined—well he’s trying to undermine what the president did, but I think the Europeans know that Mr. Trump is serious about the Iran deal and if it isn’t fixed, and it isn’t going to be fixed, but if it isn’t fixed, he’s gonna get out.

Dobbs: This is a very difficult moment for many people to understand. The president is tolerating such abuse from his own cabinet that I mean, I don’t react well to it I will tell you. I just cannot imagine a person not deferring to the president of the United States, any American citizen and to have this kind of arrogant insubordination on the part of a secretary of state is just, it’s infuriating and I have to give the president all the credit in the world. This is a man I don’t think most of us would have ever expected to this tolerant, to be this generous and nor would of I expected Rex Tillerson to be such a small and silly person.

Fleitz: You know, I think we should think of this in light of the really inappropriate speech George W. Bush gave yesterday. The Bush circle is not in Trump’s circle and the Bush circle helps staff Trump’s national security team.

Dobbs: Yes.

Fleitz: And that’s why there’s been all this trouble in the Iran deal, the Paris climate accord, radical Islam. At the end of the year, the president has to take account of who gave him good advice, who gave him good advice on personnel and make some major changes.

Dobbs: Yeah, this is truly the . . . It looks to be the contest of purpose, direction, and will between Bush globalists and Trump nationalists, and I thank the Lord the president seems to be winning nearly all of the battles.