Gen James N Mattis.jpg
hope General Mattis is our next Secretary of Defense.Another Patton ...
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Thursday evening, President-elect Donald J. Trump announced that he had chosen James N. Mattis, a hard-charging retired general who led a Marine division to Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to serve as his Secretary of Defense. Whew — Petraues is out of the war, thank goodness.
Mr. Trump made the announcement at a rally in Cincinnati, calling General Mattis “the closest thing we have to Gen. George Patton.”
General Mattis, 66, led the United States Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, from 2010 to 2013. His tour there was cut short by the Obama administration, which believed he was too hawkish on Iran.
But his insistence that Iran is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East, as well as his acerbic criticism of the Obama administration’s initial efforts to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, made him an attractive choice for the incoming president. (NYT)
Obama dismissed him. Right there is a ringing endorsement. Perhaps now the military will get back to the business of defending this country and throw off the nonsensical sensitivity training running the gamut of every left-wing victimhood narrative they could think of.
Mattis, on the other hand, speaks plain and understands the enemy. At times, General Mattis’s salty language has gotten him into trouble. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys that slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” he said in 2005. “So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
But the retired general, a lifelong bachelor who has said that he does not own a television and has often been referred to as a “warrior monk,” is also famous for his extensive collection of books on military history. “Thanks to my reading, I have never been caught flat-footed by any situation,” he wrote a colleague in 2003. “It doesn’t give me all the answers, but it lights what is often a dark path ahead.”
Continue reading the NYT here. In 2013 General James N. Mattis retired after a 41-year Marine Corps career that included field commands in the Persian Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. In the theater of combat the hard-charging general was known by the call sign “Chaos.” But it was his respect for history and studious commitment to training in strategy and tactics that earned him the moniker “Warrior Monk.” As head of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Mattis furthered the efforts of MCCDC’s Center for Lessons Learned and helped compile the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual. He rose through the ranks to head up U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2007 and to replace General David Petraeus at the helm of U.S. Central Command in 2010, with responsibility for ongoing U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since retiring, Mattis, 64, has been a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and taught courses on various subjects at other colleges nationwide. He also plans to write a book about leadership. On Dec. 1, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump announced he has chosen Mattis to serve as his secretary of defense. The general recently spoke with Military History about the importance of educating warriors for the challenges of modern-day warfare.
In 2010 Mattis replaced General David Petraeus at the helm of U.S. Central Command, with responsibility for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. You often quote Ecclesiastes 1:9: “There is nothing new under the sun.” What does it mean to you? Read about history, and you become aware that nothing starts with us. It started long ago. If you read enough biography and history, you learn how people have dealt successfully or unsuccessfully with similar situations or patterns in the past. It doesn’t give you a template of answers, but it does help you refine the questions you have to ask yourself. Further, you recognize there is nothing so unique that you’ve got to go to extraordinary lengths to deal with it.

How did the Marine Corps prepare you for warfare? The Corps made very clear that I was responsible for my own learning, and that it would guide me with a required reading list. We learned the Corps was as serious about that as it was about 3-mile runs and pull-ups. It set an institutional expectation with a moral tone to it: War is bloody enough without having to have amateurs send young men into a fight.
Don’t superior firepower and combat training alone adequately prepare a warrior?
We deal with a fundamentally unpredictable phenomenon called war, and the idea you’re going to solve this with just technology or training alone does not hold up in a study of history. Yes, the training is critical, that you have ingrained the muscle memory, so when you employ this force in close contact with the enemy, you have a vicious level of harmony built on brilliance in the basics. But you educate them for what we don’t know will happen. They’re like two rails of a railroad track. If you want to run your locomotive down a track, you need both rails.
How did such training inform your decisions? It meant I was never really bewildered for very long by anything an adversary did. I remember in 2001 when the fleet commander [Vice Adm. Charles W. Moore Jr.] asked if I could get the Marines from the Mediterranean and the Pacific together and move against Kandahar, Afghanistan. I did my reconnaissance in a Navy antisubmarine plane with beautiful telescopes on board. I could see the fighting up north, a little bit going on further east. Out west there wasn’t much. And then down south at Kandahar, this big dark area—no one down there, not scouts, not even patrols. And I knew right away.…I didn’t care how brave their boys were. I didn’t care how many guns they had. I knew I was going to stick a knife in their back. Based on all that reading the Marine Corps had required at each rank, I could see exactly how to take this enemy down.
What are the origins of the Center for Lessons Learned? It goes back to the interwar period, when the Marines were doing experiments with amphibious warfare and encapsulating lessons from fighting in their Small Wars Manual. Another key development came in World War II, in the midst of the Guadalcanal campaign, when Maj. Gen. Alexander Vandegrift realized his men were not fully prepared for jungle warfare and created schools to take lessons learned and teach the Marines. When I got to Quantico [Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia], the formal organization was already in place.
What changes did you implement? We simply prioritized the center’s mission, incorporating lessons learned. We had to have product, to put out things that changed pre-deployment training, so we put out the Small Unit Leaders’ Guide to Counterinsurgency and the Counterinsurgency (or COINField Manual, written by both the Army and the Marines. It changed the way we trained and codified what we were already doing in some cases.
Who tops your reading list? Colin Gray from the University of Reading is the most near-faultless strategist alive. Then there’s Sir Hew Strachan from Oxford, and Williamson Murray, the American. Those three are probably the leading present-day military theorists. You’ve got to know Sun-tzu and Carl von Clausewitz, of course. The Army was always big on Clausewitz, the Prussian; the Navy on Alfred Thayer Mahan, the American; and the Air Force on Giulio Douhet, the Italian. But the Marine Corps has always been more Eastern-oriented. I am much more comfortable with Sun-tzu and his approach to warfare.
How do you structure your personal reading? I tried to read very broadly during my early years in the Marine Corps. Then, under the guidance of various senior officers who coached us juniors, I turned to reading deeply about a few battles or a few campaigns, and that really helped. I studied the Geronimo campaign in detail, the Great Sioux War, went deeply into Waterloo and Gettysburg.
Henry Kissinger once said that as you fill a kettle full of water, you fill your mind with knowledge, and then, when you’re on those high-tempo jobs, you pour it out. Then you get out of those jobs and refill it.
And then pour out that knowledge to the next vessel in line? Well, yeah. We have an obligation to pass on the lessons we learned oftentimes at great, great cost. I would liken it to running the elevator down, opening the doors, bringing on board young guys, and carrying them up a couple of levels, sharing what we learned so they can go make their own mistakes, not the same ones we made.
What lessons would you like to impart to warriors in training? That small groups of committed people can change things. That ethical, competent and admired leadership is badly needed nowadays. For young officers, certainly to gain trust and respect from their subordinates. But they also have to be able to gain the affection of their troops. Not popularity—affection. By doing that they’ll find people who have coequal commitment across all ranks. That’s what you see in forces that have shown spirit even when a lot of things went wrong.
How would you answer critics who accuse you of espousing “old school” values? It takes a military with what could be considered old-fashioned values or quaint values to protect the country. There’s always going to be a bit of a tension, a dynamic that has to be understood by those responsible for leading a progressive America that does not want to be militarized yet needs certain military attributes for protection.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Slovakia is not wrong.
Islam is much more than just a religion. Islam a comprehensive system — political, military, legal, religious and dietary.
Unlike Canon Law, which pertains only to Catholics, and Jewish law, which  pertains only to Jews, Islamic law asserts its authority over non-Muslims (which is why non-Muslims and secular Muslims are persecuted, oppressed and slaughter in countries under sharia law).
The sharia dictates every basic aspect of human life. There can be no separation of mosque and state. Mosque is state.


SLOVAKIA has passed a law which will effectively ban Islam from gaining official status as a religion, in the latest signs of a growing anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe.
By Rebecca Perring, Daily Express, Dec 1, 2016 (thanks to Christian):

The legislation hints at a dramatic changing attitude towards the religion in the past year across the continent, which has struggled to stem the escalating migrant crisis.The former communist state has fiercely resisted European Union (EU) efforts to cope with an influx of migrants travelling into Europe by turning its back on the bloc’s introduction of migrant quotas.But prime minister Robert Fico’s government has repeatedly said Islam has no place in Slovakia.Attitudes toward the religion appear to reflect fear of so-called Islamization.Robert Fico

Robert Fico has fiercely resisted EU migrant quotas

Parliament adopted a bill sponsored by the Slovak National Party (SNS), which requires a religion to have at least 50,000 members, up from 20,000, to qualify for state subsidies and to run its own schools.The change will make it much harder to register Islam, which has just 2,000 supporters in Slovakia according to the latest census and no recognized mosques.The Islamic Foundation in Slovakia estimates the number at around 5,000.The SNS said the new law was meant to prevent speculative registrations of churches, such as the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which has amassed followers world wide.SNS chairman Andrej Danko said:“We must do everything we can so that no mosque is built in the future.”


Published on Dec 1, 2016
A U.S. Military inteligence group wants to study me and my YouTube channel to figure out why I’m so popular. United States Special Operations Command reached out to me requesting to send a team of researchers to my studio to watch me work for days, and to talk with me about my popularity. 



Sensational plot to sabotage president elect

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In a sensational new development, TV host David Pakman says he was told by a high level source that 15 electors in states Trump won will refuse to vote for Donald Trump.
Pakman went on to say that the electors are also lobbying other members of the electoral college to not vote for Trump.
The goal is to prevent Trump from getting the 270 electoral votes he requires to become president.
If Trump loses 37 electoral votes, it will put him under the 270 benchmark and throw America into a constitutional crisis.
This would be totally unprecedented, and it’s a long shot, but it illustrates the left’s desperation to do anything to sabotage Trump.
Could 15 or more electors really be planning to defy the democratic will of the American people – over 62 million of whom voted for Trump?
Watch the video above for more information on this bombshell story.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reports that the Department of Health and Human Services is cutting funding to domestic programs to pay for room and board for illegal alien youths. HHS must come up with $167 million to cover the costs to feed and shelter the unaccompanied minors through December 9 and has turned to other programs, including Medicare, for the money. And while the programs from which the money is being transferred are unconstitutional uses of taxpayer dollars, the move underscores that the American people are not this administration’s priority.
According to Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center for Immigration Studies, approximately 255 illegal alien youths have been taken into custody by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) every day this month, resulting in the largest number of illegal alien children in government care. As a result, the ORR is in need of more funding to cover the costs associated with caring for the arrivals and is resorting to taking money from domestic programs to cover current costs. Vaughan explains:
To pay for it, the agency says it will need an additional one or two billion dollars for the next year — above and beyond the $1.2 billion spent in 2016 and proposed for 2017 — depending on how many more arrive. For now, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where ORR resides, is diverting $167 million from other programs to cover the cost of services for these new illegal arrivals through December 9, when the current continuing resolution expires.
In order to cover the $167 million needed through the remainder of the budget period, programs that are being raided for funds include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Children and Families Services Program, and the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. The monies will be used to pay for shelter, education, recreation, healthcare, among other services.
While constitutionalists recognize that these programs are unconstitutional as they represent significant overreach by the federal government, most would argue that moving taxpayer dollars intended for domestic programs to support illegal immigrants is a slap in the face to the American people.
But appropriating taxpayer dollars to pay for services provided to illegal aliens is also inappropriate, and yet it seems that further funding will be designated for this purpose next year. An e-mail from Barbara Clark of the HHS legislative liaison office, informing congressional offices of HHS’s intent to transfer funds to ORR, paints a bleak picture of what would happen should Congress not appropriate more funds for ORR in 2017:
The budget outlook for the remainder of the fiscal year is even more serious. The FY 2017 House and Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bills propose flat funding for FY 2017, which leaves the program significantly underfunded. Based on the information we have and the trends we are experiencing, flat funding for ORR this year will make it impossible to meet our statutory responsibility to provide shelter and care for the children that are referred to ORR. We now calculate that the program will need between $1 billion and $2 billion over FY 2016 levels, depending on the number of children that arrive.
In brief, funds are needed to ensure that ORR can continue to provide shelter to unaccompanied children referred by DHS and other law enforcement agencies throughout FY 2017. With ORR’s balances depleted, and having exhausted the additional funding available through the full exercise of the Secretary’s transfer authority, ORR is not able to meet our legal and humanitarian obligations to shelter these children. HHS cannot continue to provide the services we are statutorily bound to provide and avoid a scenario where children are potentially stranded at the border without additional funding from the Congress.
Vaughan notes that there is a far better use for the dollars being redirected to ORR: “Congress should instead direct funding to the Border Patrol for temporary shelters from which the youths and their families can be swiftly returned to their home countries.”  
According to a Center for Immigration Studies report released earlier this year, the cost per each “unaccompanied alien child” has doubled from $8,217 in 2010 to $17,613 today. Putting that into perspective, the Washington Examiner compares that figure to Social Security retirement benefits, on average $14,772, noting that the amount spent on illegal Central American teens is $2,841 more.
What’s worse is that the Obama administration spent at least $18.5 million to fly unaccompanied minors into the country illegally, according to the Senate subcommittee on immigration. An official with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement defended the practice to Fox News, however, as one that is legal and funded by Congress: “ICE does not transport children directly to parents or final destinations. We should also be clear that Congress has appropriated funds for the sole purpose of transporting these unaccompanied minors — that funding is separate from ICE’s enforcement and other funding. ICE is directed in this process by laws that Congress enacts and with funds they appropriate for that specific purpose.”
Sadly, the federal government believes it knows best how to use the American people’s money, so while it uses taxpayer dollars to fly illegal immigrants into the United States and provide them healthcare, American families are faced with having to decide between paying for expensive health plans or paying a fine for opting out of obtaining healthcare, and veterans continue to die while waiting for medical care. While taxpayer dollars are being used to pay for education for illegal aliens, American families who cannot afford private education are forced to send their children to public schools, where they are often taught to hate their country and to view as racist their parents’ anger about the costs of illegal immigration.
The only true solution to this and other governmental problems, however, is to return to a constitutionally restrained federal government that has limited opportunities to abuse taxpayer dollars.


UN refugee chief urges countries to open their borders to Syria’s refugees
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Incoming United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres last week urged European Union politicians and bureaucrats to ignore voters and open up their borders, claiming the growing Islamic tsunami of African and Middle Eastern immigration into the West was “inevitable” anyway. Critics were outraged. Speaking like a committed globalist, the Socialist UN boss also argued that “multi-ethnic,” “multi-religious,” and “multi-cultural” societies would be the only ones to succeed.  
On a visit to Communist China this week, though, not a word was said by the new UN chief about the brutal regime’s penchant for kidnapping savagely persecuted North Koreans and sending them back to be tortured and then murdered by the most barbarous totalitarian dictatorship on the planet. Instead, Guterres praised the communist tyrants in Beijing, currently engaged in what experts call the “cultural genocide” of Tibet, and encouraged the regime to continue pursuing its leadership role in what the UN refers to as “global governance.”
At a think-tank conference for European policymakers in his hometown of Lisbon, dubbed “Vision Europe Summit,” Guterres attacked the idea that sovereign nations have a right to control their borders. “The idea that management of migration is a matter of national sovereignty is extremely limited,” he was quoted as saying in European media reports later picked up by Breitbart. “The truth is that in the meantime, the real controllers of international mobility are the smugglers and criminal organizations. It must be recognized that migration is inevitable and will not stop.”
In essence, Guterres argued that only open borders and legal mass migration could shut down people-smuggling organizations. Developing “legal migration opportunities,” the incoming UN boss said, is the “only way to fight against criminal networks.” Similar arguments might be made for burglary, rape, racketeering, assassination services, abortion, and more — just legalize it, then criminals will not control the market for it.   
Other top UN officials, such as Bilderberg operative, Goldman Sachs man, and UN migration czar Peter Sutherland have made similarly outrageous remarks. “I will ask the governments to cooperate, to recognize that sovereignty is an illusion — that sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us,” Sutherland argued last year in an official UN publication. “The days of hiding behind borders and fences are long gone.” In short, the UN is waging open war on national sovereignty, in part through its extreme demands for open borders and mass immigration into the West.
Guterres was also clear in his recent remarks: Politicians and policymakers must ignore citizens and voters in order to choose the “values” of open borders and the end of nations. “When elected officials hesitate to choose between values and the next election, I would advise them to choose values,” he said, with “values” standing not for traditional Judeo-Christian values or even democratic values of self-government, but rather, for extremist globalist and socialist values. “If they go for short term [electoral gain] they will lose both, because there will always come a time when they lose an election. At that point, it becomes very hard to recover the values that have been abandoned.”
The longtime Socialist Party leader, who served as the prime minister of Portugal and led the globalist and totalitarian-minded Socialist International alliance for five years, also argued — yet again — that the massive migration swamping the Western world “is not the problem, but the solution.” In a TV interview earlier this year, Guterres, who led the UN “refugee” bureaucracy before being selected to lead the full dictator-dominated UN, referred to opponents of open borders as “irrational.” “Migration is, in my opinion, part of the solution to the global problems,” he added, without specifying which alleged problems open borders would supposedly solve.   
Despite calling for ignoring or outright defying voters, Guterres also suggested that governments should manipulate public opinion by trying to convince their subjects that the open-borders extremism is actually good for them. “We must convince [Europeans] that migration is inevitable and that it is the multiethnic societies which are multicultural and multi-religious who are building wealth,” he said.
Critics, though, blasted the false claims, and suggested the comments urging policymakers to defy the citizens they ostensibly represent and serve were dangerous, outrageous, and extreme. Breitbart London also cited a growing body of data showing that, rather than making European countries more prosperous, massive Third World immigration is serving as a huge drain on public funds. In the Netherlands, for example, some two thirds of non-European immigrants who arrived during the 1990s are still living on tax-funded welfare payments, according to Dutch research. Similar trends have been observed in other European nations with bloated welfare states and massive immigration.   
Other critics of the open-borders extremism touted by Guterres and his comrades have been even more blunt. Hungarian Prime Minster Viktor Orban, for example, has argued that globalist-engineered wave of Islamic immigration into Europe was orchestrated by a “treasonous conspiracy.” The goal of the “internationalist fanatics” behind the plotting, he said, was to undermine the West, Christianity, culture, and the nation-state itself as part of the globalist push to create what establishment figures around the globe often describe as a “New World Order.”
UN and EU bureaucracies are all on the bandwagon, too. UNESCO, for example, which is seeking to globalize the indoctrination of children, recently helped produce a TV commercial encouraging German women to wear Islamic head scarves as part of “tolerance.” The UN refugee bureaucracy, meanwhile, is in charge of selecting immigrants from around the world to be settled in the United States at taxpayer expense. And the extremism is only getting worse.   
Ironically, Guterres’ comments in Lisbon last week were a sharp contrast to those made before a brutal totalitarian regime. The new UN boss, set to take office on January 1, was in China to meet with its brutal Communist Party dictator, Xi Jinping. (His regime fervently backed Socialist Guterres after Bulgarian Communist Party operative and UNESCO boss Irina Bokova’s campaign for the post imploded amid scandal and public exposure.) “China is more and more involved in international affairs, and that is very much welcomed,” Guterres told the regime’s propaganda and espionage service Xinhua.
But unlike his comments to European leaders urging them to defy voters and open the borders, there was no lecturing of the savage Chinese regime by Guterres on refugees or opening its own borders. And that is despite the fact UN itself documented that Beijing has forcibly returned tens of thousands of North Korean refugees — knowing full well that they would be imprisoned, tortured, and executed by Beijing’s close barbarous ally Kim Jong Un. The regime in China calls the North Koreans “economic migrants” and claims they are not entitled to protection, sending them home to face a certain murder following savage torture.   
Instead of urging Beijing to stop murdering North Koreans, persecuting Christians, harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners, censoring the Internet, jailing and torturing critics, forcing women to abort their children, and other barbaric practices, Guterres had nothing but praise for the tyrants in Beijing. According to the left-wing establishment mouthpiece New York Times, “Mr. Guterres’s visit, which ended on Tuesday, was another chance for China to promote its growing role in global governance.” “Mr. Guterres praised China during his visit,” the Times added.
The feeling was apparently mutual, with the dictator, Xi, showering praise on the UN dictators club and calling it “the most universal, representative and authoritative intergovernmental international organization.” Indeed, as The New American has reported in a series of in-depth investigations, the brutal regime in Beijing — installed with crucial support from Western globalists — is set to play a key role in the so-called “New World Order” being imposed on humanity. Guterres expressed delight at the growing role the Chinese Communist Party is playing in “global governance.”  
The new UN chief’s affinity for open borders and brutal communist dictatorships, though, is hardly surprising. As this magazine documented when his selection was announced, Guterres has a long history of promoting socialism, globalism, and other violent extremism. Perhaps among the most significant red flags (no pun intended) on Guterres’ troubling résumé was his presidency, from 1999 to 2005, of the Socialist International. Often referred to as SI, the outfit is a global alliance of socialist and communist political parties from around the world, including many re-branded “former” communist parties from the Cold War era that murdered and tortured huge numbers of people. Despite the lack of coverage the outfit receives from the U.S. establishment media, the SI alliance is extraordinarily powerful — especially at the UN, where its members control a massive voting bloc and multiple UN bureaucracies.
The outfit is also extremely radical and dangerous. To understand just how extreme Socialist International is, consider that, in 2012, the alliance unapologetically held its annual Congress in an African nation led by a Marxist-Leninist SI-member political party that, according to leading genocide experts, was at that very moment engaged in the planning and preparation phase of genocide in a bid to exterminate an embattled minority group. Earlier that year, the president and party chief who hosted the SI Congress even went on national television to sing songs in front of his military celebrating massacring members of the minority group with his “machine gun.” SI profusely praised its hosts nonetheless.
Unsurprisingly, the brutal communist regime in Beijing was represented at the summit, too. “Vice-Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee” Liu Jieyi, for example, lectured assembled attendees on the “social democratic response to the financial crisis.” Seriously. Representatives from murderous and un-free regimes and totalitarian parties from around the world were also in attendance, demanding more “global governance,” more wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to their corrupt governments, what they call “Global Welfare Statehood,” and other extremism. SI has previously called for “world government” in official statements.  
Guterres’ call for Western governments to defy voters and citizens, and his ludicrous claim that immigration policy is not a matter of national sovereignty, illustrate perfectly why the United States must urgently exit the UN and evict its headquarters from U.S. soil. Legislation to do that, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, is already sitting in Congress waiting for enough public pressure to force its passage. With globalists increasingly coming out of the closet with their dangerous totalitarian extremism, the time to demand an American exit from the UN — or an “Amexit” — is now.
Related articles:
Obama Expresses Confidence In Incoming 
UN Chief Guterres
New U.N. chief meets Chinese leaders in Beijing