Predator T beats Alien H - J :)
Joshua 24:15 KJV And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Arguably
Senator Cruz was our best choice if we wished to serve the Lord. We
now seemingly have a choice between the gods of Egypt and the gods of
Canaan. We should remember God's judgement. He destroyed the
firstborn of Egypt, man and beast, the Pharaoh and his army. God
directed Israel that all in Canaan should be destroyed, man, woman,
and child, as unworthy to continue to inhabit that land.
Similarly,
to Joshua's nation we are called upon this day to choose whom we
should support: the greatly flawed and worldly Predator or the
completely unworthy Alien. - J :)
In
Alien vs. Predator, I'm for Predator, because he's OUR Predator
pjmedia.com
By David
P. Goldman [aka Spengler of the Asia Times]
May 11, 2016 http://j.mp/0OurPredatorT
aka
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/05/11/alien-vs-predator/?singlepage=true
[Full
Disclosure:
Eight years
ago this author gave me and others ample warning about the sort of
president the present incumbent was apt to make.
- J :)]
A fit
of high dudgeon has gripped many of my Republican friends,
ex-friends, and soon-to-be-ex-friends now that Donald Trump has all
but won the Republican nomination. My advice to them: get over it.
This presidential race will look like Alien vs. Predator. I'm
for Predator, without a second's hesitation, because he's our
Predator. For all his faults Donald Trump would be (and I'm confident
will be) an incomparably better president.
I'm
not pleased about the outcome of the primaries. I supported Ted Cruz
and helped out in his campaign with economic research and news
analysis. Yes, Trump is a vulgarian with poor impulse control.
I don't like him and find his vulgarity objectionable and his
insulting remarks about Mexicans (for example) deplorable.
The mother of my children is Mexican, and I take this sort of thing
personally. If I ever have the opportunity I will give Trump a black
eye.
But
there's a war on--three different wars, in fact. To remain neutral is
moral cowardice; to choose the wrong side would be downright wicked.
First,
there is a war on between Judeo-Christian principles and the
political correctness inspired by the Frankfurt School and
the French existentialists. Lunatics have seized control of our
universities and have stamped out dissent with the zeal and vigilance
of the Spanish Inquisition or the Taliban. The distinguished
historian Paul Johnson said it best in a Forbes essay:
America
has been a land of unrestricted comment on anything–until recently.
Now the U.S. has been inundated with PC inquisitors, and PC poison is
spreading worldwide in the Anglo zone. For these reasons it’s good
news that Donald Trump is doing so well in the American political
primaries. He is vulgar, abusive, nasty, rude, boorish and
outrageous. He is also saying what he thinks and, more important,
teaching Americans how to think for themselves again.
If the
foxes haven't yet seized control of the hen-house, they are running
the hatchery. With the universities in the hands of the American
Taliban, we can't educate a new generation of Americans. Trump is a
bitter antidote, but as Johnson argues, he may be the antidote we
need. One might add that he's the antidote we deserve.
Second,
there is a war on between civilization and barbarism. Hillary
Clinton says that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. That's
partly her liberal ideology, partly a kowtow to the Arab donors who
gave the Clinton Foundation $40 million. Hillary, in short, sells her
virtue for both fun and profit. Donald Trump cut through the Gordian
Knot of political correctness by proposing a temporary ban on ALL
Muslim immigration into the United States, which an absolute majority
of Americans supports. After some stumbles about acting as a neutral
intermediary between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, Trump has come
down unambiguously on the side of Israel, supporting continued
construction in the Judea and Samaria settlements (and that's the
acid test). It's not just that Trump has a daughter who is a serious
and observant convert to Judaism, and that he is surrounded by
pro-Israeli advisers: he instinctively despises sniveling,
backstabbing losers and likes tough, smart and determined winners.
Third,
there is a war over the future of the American economy.
Clinton promises more of the same slow suffocation of American
enterprise that gave us eight years of under-performance from Obama.
Trump offers a supply-side tax plan with a 15% top corporate rate. My
old friend and former colleague Lawrence Kudlow thinks it would be a
huge improvement, and I agree.
One,
two, three. These are the existential issues facing America: our
culture, our safety, and our prosperity, and Trump is on the right
side of all of them. Well, mainly on the right side: his
meandering on the abortion issue outrages religious conservatives
like the brilliant Catholic writer Joseph Bottum, a friend and former
colleague at First Things magazine. Social conservatives feel
offended by his offer to let Caitlin Jenner use the ladies' room at
Trump Tower. Trump isn't a social conservative. But those issues are
not the purview of the presidency, but rather of the legislature and
the courts. Who do you want to appoint the next Supreme Court
justices--Trump or Hillary Clinton?
There
is also the matter of Clinton corruption on the grand scale, in
particular the use of the Clinton Foundation to solicit hundreds of
millions of dollars of donations from despicable Third World
kleptocrats and their cronies. Peter Schweizer's book Clinton
Cash shows that Bill and Hillary are the worst scoundrels ever
to crawl out of the cesspool of American politics. What
enrages me is not merely their thievery but their sociopathy:
They like flaunting the rules, just to show that they can get away
with anything. Hillary won't get away with my vote, not unless Hitler
or Goebbels were to rise from the grave and run for president against
her. Goering, I'd have to think about.
Then
there's the matter of foreign policy. Trump is dismissive of
NATO and inordinately appreciative of Russian President Vladimir
Putin. It's a matter of priorities. Writing in the New York Times May
5, made this noteworthy observation about China's response to Trump:
In
China, a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s criticism, he is widely
viewed as a pragmatist who is less hawkish and less focused on human
rights than Mrs. Clinton is.
His
proposal to impose high taxes on Chinese goods receives little
attention there, and his talk of China’s “raping” the United
States in unfair trade deals has been met with shrugs, as if to say
that charge is nothing new. Instead, the conversation focuses on Mr.
Trump’s business success or his pronouncements on preventing
foreign Muslims from entering the United States, an attitude that
jibes with the antipathy in much of China toward the Muslim
population in the western province of Xinjiang.
Radical
Islam is an existential threat to Russia and China, who live in fear
that the United States will once again back jihadists to destabilize
them, as we did during the Cold War, when the Reagan
administration armed Afghani jihadists against their Russian
occupiers. One in seven Russians is Muslim. For the past dozen years
the American foreign policy Punditeska has proclaimed that Russia
would collapse of its own demographic weight. That was calamitously
wrong, as I warned in this space. Russia is the last redoubt of the
nasty old European nationalism that gave us so much conflict in the
past. It is not a revived Soviet empire seeking to conquer the world,
but a come-from-behind spoiler, burning with resentment at its
would-be relegation to the scrapheap of former great powers.
Nonetheless, jihadism is infinitely more important to Moscow
than its border with the Baltic states.
Mitt
Romney was wrong. Russia isn't the biggest threat to the United
States. Russia doesn't want to destroy us. It wants to gain
influence and power at our expense. Radical Islam is the biggest
threat to the United States. Radical Islam wants to destroy us. I'm
for collaborating with Russia against radical Islam where convenient
and thwarting Russia in other matters where it suits us. We
have a lot of conflicting interests and some common interests. The
right way to deal with Russia is case-by-case. As for NATO: Germany
is swimming in tax revenues, but won't spend enough on defense to
keep more than one out of four of its fighter aircraft in service at
any given moment. I'm for a strong NATO, but we don't have one and
can't get one whether we want it or not.
Trump
says he'll rebuild the U.S. military and our missile defense in
particular, but avoid committing U.S. forces overseas. The
neo-conservatives never will forgive him for this. It means that they
are out of a job, and when they say that Trump means "the end of
the Republican Party," they mean the end of the Republican Party
that used to employ them. Robert Kagan and Max Boot have gone to the
Clinton camp.
A
Trump presidency almost certainly means that Chinese and Russian
influence will grow faster and with fewer obstacles than it might
have otherwise. That is not entirely a bad thing: the West is too
squeamish to deal with the monstrous mess that radical Islam has
created. I am not comfortable with Trump's isolationism. If he
rebuilds America's military prowess (and especially our missile
defenses), as he proposes to do, other errors can be fixed. If we
don't restore our military power, nothing else we do will matter. Can
you imagine Hillary Clinton rebuilding the American military?
To
those who abandon the Republican Party in this hour of crisis, I say:
Good riddance! Go now, and never come back. Your bad advice and
dogmatic arrogance brought America from a lone pinnacle of greatness
in 2001 to second-rate status in 2016, the fastest decline of a
dominant power since Napoleon invaded Russia. Go pester the
Democrats, and do as much damage to them as you did to us
Republicans. [My emphasis.]
Repeating
links to
above article:
http://j.mp/0OurPredatorT
aka
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/05/11/alien-vs-predator/?singlepage=true
I2C
160512aa Jos24v15 Alien v Predator | I2C | 160512 1622 et