December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany hours after Germany declared war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The vote was 88–0 in the Senate and 393–0 in the House.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

(Signed) Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives
(Signed) H. A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate
Approved December 11, 1941 3:05 PM E.S.T.
(Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt


First and foremost is the truly one-of-a-kind American stealth watercraft designed to provide a swift, supportive role in the open seas. It is the first ship that is virtually undetectable by radar. At only 60 feet long, this is not a battleship by any means, but its size offers the advantage of very quick, evasive movement and has the capacity to attack at these high speeds.Juliet Marine Systems, Inc. Announces the First Super-Cavitating Ship, GHOST
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. —July 2011 For the first time, Juliet Marine is able to release photographs of GHOST, the first super-cavitating craft, to the public. GHOST was designed and built by US citizens for the US Navy at no cost to the government to protect US sailors, servicemen and servicewomen.
Juliet Marine Systems, Inc. Announces the First Super-Cavitating Ship, GHOST

Development of the first-ever, super-cavitating craft, in many ways, is as difficult as breaking the sound barrier. GHOST is a combination aircraft/boat that has been designed to fly through an artificial underwater gaseous environment that creates 900 times less hull friction than water. GHOST technology adapts to manned or unmanned, surface or submerged applications.

Any Navy possessing GHOST technology could operate in international waters undetected and would have an overwhelming advantage against conventional ships. GHOST is specifically designed for Fleet Force Protection at its present size. GHOST technology is scalable and JMS is currently discussing a plan to build a larger corvette-sized vessel (150 feet) by partnering with a large international defense company.

The US Navy could reduce its naval footprint and financial exposure by deploying a squadron of GHOSTs from Bahrain, which would free up larger assets, such as destroyers and cruisers, saving costs in manpower and maintenance. GHOST is ideal for piracy patrols and could be sea-based to provide protection from pirate attacks that cost our government an estimated $1.5 billion each year. The world-wide shipping industry could be provided with substantial fuel savings using JMS hull friction reduction super-cavitation.

A squadron of GHOSTs would not be detectable to enemy ship radar and sensors. GHOST can carry thousands of pounds of weapons, including Mark 48 torpedoes, and would be virtually unstoppable. The GHOST platform and technology could reduce the need for LCS completely with the capability to travel long distances and conduct the same missions. GHOST could make LCS a defensible platform for combat – LCS is not currently rated for combat. Today, Iran has the capabilities to stop the US Navy from operating in the Straits of Hormuz, a critical passage for most of the oil our country uses.

The Navy compares GHOST to an attack helicopter with regard to its capabilities for force protection. GHOST can deliver forces to any beach location quickly and quietly with enough weapons to conduct a hot extraction. GHOST is designed to provide military game-changing advantages for the USA.

Taiwan Is America’s Friend, and Trump Was Right to Speak with Its President A first line in the defense of democracy, its existence depends on American support. By Josh Gelernter


The Taiwan strait has unexpectedly become a major news story this week; generally, it’s the world’s least-talked-about world war waiting to happen. President-elect Trump took a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, who herself was just elected, this past May. As NRO readers are doubtless aware, this was somewhat scandalous: The U.S. has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, having chosen instead to accept, officially, that Taiwan remains part of China and that Beijing is the legitimate seat of China’s government.

Of course, as secretary-of-state short-lister John Bolton said, “China doesn’t tell us who we can talk to.” More than that, we already have extensive unofficial relations with Taiwan — and for good reason: Taiwan is one of our best friends in the world, one of our friends most deserving of support and most in need of it. Taiwan is the Israel of East Asia, a first line in the defense of democracy, a country whose existence is threatened by looming bellicose tyrants.

I had the pleasure of being in Taiwan not too long ago. This was not long after investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann reported that roughly 100,000 practitioners of neo-Buddhist Falun Gong had been arrested and murdered, and had their organs harvested. In Taipei, I saw several groups of Falun Gong peacefully meeting in parks, doing tai chi–type meditative exercises. I saw other groups of Falun Gong protesting China’s treatment of their coreligionists outside tourist attractions popular with Chinese visitors. None of the Falun Gong I saw was attacked, beaten, tortured, or murdered — because, of course, Taiwan has freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. These protests directed at Chinese tourists are a source of embarrassment to the Taiwanese government, which knows that every provocation of China might end in war. Nonetheless, I saw a policeman outside the skyscraper Taipei 101 eye a few Falun Gong protesters and then go back to his work with an implied shrug of the shoulders. Taiwan, of course, has freedom of speech.

While I was in Taiwan, I had a chance to talk to two students who had been part of the Sunflower protests of fall 2014; they had marched in opposition to a proposed cross-strait agreement with Beijing that many Taiwanese felt would make Taiwan too beholden to China. They succeeded in getting the new pact postponed, and not a single protester was run down by a tank, or thrown into a labor camp without trial. Because, of course, Taiwan has an independent judiciary.

Partly because of the sentiment of the protests — opposition to increased closeness with Beijing — the majority party that negotiated the tentative deal became the minority party. Because, of course, Taiwan has free elections. While I was there, I had a chance to attend a pre-election presidential press conference, where then-president Ma Ying-jeou was asked by a (rude) Taiwanese reporter about his very low approval numbers. The reporter wondered if Ma was bothered by people making fun of him. President Ma gave a polite politician’s answer; the reporter was not arrested or dressed down. Because, of course, Taiwan has a free press.

Our American free press is having a conniption over President-elect Trump talking to President-of-Taiwan Tsai. They foresee dire consequences — ruined diplomatic relations, treaties sunk, maybe even war. What they don’t understand is that Taiwan doesn’t exist just as bargaining chip to be played against Beijing. We support Taiwan not because it’s in our interest (though frequently it is) but because it’s the right thing to do. General James Mattis said we pay a price in the Arab world for supporting Israel. He’s right, and it’s a price worth paying. When Soviet premier Alexei Kosygin asked LBJ why the United States chose to side with tiny Israel against 80 million Arabs, Johnson said, simply, “Because it is right.” There are only two true, liberal democracies that, without American support, might be obliterated tomorrow. The other is Taiwan.

No Need To Fear Russia. The Bear Is Broke by Tim Congdon

Twisting a quotation variously attributed to Talleyrand, Metternich and Churchill, Vladimir Putin opined in 2002 that Russia is “never so strong as it wants to be and never so weak as it is thought to be”. Sure enough, Russia has probably never been as strong as it wants to be. Geopolitical over-ambition may be a permanent curse on a nation which lies straddled between Europe and Asia, and does not know to which continent it belongs. But, whatever the situation in 2002, there is no truth in the claim that today’s Russia is more powerful than the standard media representation. On all the key metrics except one, Russia is far weaker than most people realise.

The size of its economy is fundamental in assessing any country’s global importance. The ability to create goods and services is correlated with the ability to export those goods and services, and hence to pay for imports. The ability to spend money on imports then matters to suppliers in every country and to all the world’s citizens. Big nations with open markets can impress and influence small nations, simply because prosperity is inter-linked and mutual. Further, a country with a large national output can readily afford the expenditures associated with both soft and hard power. It can spread a favourable image of itself and its culture, disburse aid and support international organisations, and yet at the same time build up its military strength. Ultimately, the dominance of “the West” (meaning Western Europe and North America, with some Asian adjuncts) in the last two centuries has been based on economics. The West has been home to only a fraction of the world’s population, but these have been by far the richest people. Indeed, so high has been the typical income per head that the combined output of Western nations has been well over half the global total for most of the time since 1800.

Is Russia a great power in economic terms? One method of comparing national outputs is to calculate them at current prices and exchange rates. It is certainly relevant to the ability of a nation to import, to invest in soft power and to cover military expenditures in foreign currencies. World Bank data show that in 2015 Russia’s gross domestic product on this basis was $1,326 billion, which made it the 13th largest in the world. It was therefore in the select group of 15 nations that had a GDP above $1,000 billion.

But a glance at Chart One shows that Russia is a dwarf compared with the world’s only two economic superpowers, the US and China. The US’s output is almost 13 times Russia’s while China’s is more than eight times as large. Evidently, on the most familiar and basic criterion of international significance — national output expressed in dollars — Russia is not among the top nations. It is at best a medium-weight power, jostling for position with countries such as South Korea and Mexico — hardly major players in 20th-century global diplomacy. Let it immediately be conceded that the numbers in Chart One, despite having the World Bank as their source, are not conclusive.

Make It 52: John Neely Kennedy Wins Senate Runoff in Louisiana No Russians were involved in the completion of this runoff. By Stephen Kruiser

GOP not sick of winning yet.

Republican John Neely Kennedy easily defeated Democrat Foster Campbell in Saturday’s runoff election for Louisiana’s open Senate seat, marking the official end of the 2016 election.

Kennedy, the state treasurer, and Campbell, a public service commissioner, advanced to the runoff election after none of the 23 candidates who ran in November won a majority of the vote. Under the state’s rules, if no candidate wins a majority of the vote, the top two candidates enter a runoff election.

The race had far-reaching implications in Washington, D.C. Republicans won control of the Senate last month with a razor thin margin. By picking off a seat in Louisiana, Democrats had hoped to deny the GOP its 52nd vote in the upper chamber and possibly block portions of President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda in the capitol. A closer margin also would have threatened some of his more controversial Cabinet picks, which are subject to confirmation by the Senate.

Democrats from all over the country were pouring money into this race in the last few weeks, desperately hoping to put at least one significant notch in the “Win” column. Instead they kept the trend going: the Democrat had a lot more money to spend, but lost anyway.

This should make Trump’s honeymoon period a bit easier. He is obviously not going to get one from the press–they’re exhausted after the eight-year honeymoon they’ve given Obama, but he’s got an opportunity to get some things done via legislation. The presence of Pence and Priebus makes it even better. There will be a functional conduit between the West Wing and Congress that will allow the new president to really hit the ground running if he wants to.

Things to Come A Review By Marilyn Penn

Perhaps it was A.O. Scott’s coronation of Isabelle Huppert as “the world’s greatest actress” that sealed my assessment of her latest film, “Things To Come” (L’Avenir in French). In it, Ms. Huppert plays the part of a middle-aged philosophy professor whose biggest problem is her aging, intensely neurotic and demanding mother, a character played more for laughs than for pity. The rest of Isabelle’s life is purring along smoothly; she is adored by her students, her husband, children, publisher and hunky former student who invites her to his home for the weekend, a tease for the audience. Within short order, all the preceding perfections fall apart and Isabelle does get one chance at a good cry. But faster than you can say Mon Dieu, she perks up and resumes her purposeful career, her terrific relationship with her students and a new role as grandmother. It led me to think that Mme Huppert’s stiff upper lip was more British than Gallic and that this part might have been more believable played by Kristin Scott-Thomas who at least is half of each.

This is a movie that remains superficial. Picking up on the banal philosophy quotations sprinkled throughout the script as shorthand for gravitas, the dialogue is sterile and boring. It lacks depth and emotion and Huppert’s performance, as is true of most of her work, lacks affect. By contrast, think of the short scene in Manchester By The Sea in which Michelle Williams and Casey Affleck meet on the street and she insists on explaining her past actions – a few restrained minutes packed with more poignancy, fragility and heartbreak than the total screenplay in Things to Come. Surely being discarded by a long-term husband who shared your life-work, your parentage and your taste in music is worth more than the brief remark “I thought you would love me forever.” Audiences should not be intimidated by serious critics implying that there is more to this film than most of them will experience. It’s a dud. So is Isabelle whose facial expressions remain frozen for its duration. The small bursts of color allotted to us are in the various sundresses and sportswear worn by the actress and these are hardly designer clothes. On the positive side, there is a soundtrack that includes Woody Guthrie, German arias or lieder and the slow harmonic version of Unchained Melody sung by the Fleetwoods – a haunting and unforgettable thing of beauty revived from the fifties. Would that the screenplay had summoned as much feeling as this poetic song.


“I’m grateful to be alive,” say the dhimmies. But for how long his judges, not his peers, may ask themselves? And their children? How long will they be able to live? Such as Maria Ladenburger?

Geert Wilders, the larger-than-life Dutch politician who dared say what was on his mind about the Islamist invasion of the Netherlands (“too many Moroccans?”), has been convicted of the “crime” of “hate speech” by a Dutch court.

And what is “hate speech”? “Hate speech” is any criticism of a member of a “minority” or the “minority” itself that can range from an emotional tirade to an innocuous comment or remark about Muslims or the race of a Muslim. Or even posing a question about the minority. One can be found guilty of “hate speech” by uttering a truth, such as: “Islam is not a race.”

Wilders asked a rhetorical question of his auditors about the presence and behavior of Moroccans in the Netherlands.

As the Telegraph reported:

The case was based on almost 6,500 official complaints after Wilders led a party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.”

The crowd’s response of “fewer, fewer”, was clearly organized, said a judge at the secure court at Schiphol Judicial Complex, near Amsterdam, ruling that Wilders had breached the boundaries of even a politician’s freedom of speech.

The leading judge read out in court:

“It doesn’t matter that Wilders gave another message afterwards [saying he was referring only to criminal Moroccans and benefits claimants],” said the judge. “The message that evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work…The group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”

Wilders is a member of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was created in 2006, and campaigned to “limit the growth of Muslim numbers” in the Netherlands, taking nine out of 150 seats. His party wants to ban the Koran, shut all mosques and asylum centers, and take the Netherlands out of the EU. At the moment it is leading in the polls for a general election in March 2017.

What brought the suit against Wilders on were the offended feelings of Moroccan Muslims, who did not like being singled out for “discriminatory” speech.

In court, the judge called his behavior “unworthy” of a politician, and said there was no question that the case was political, as Wilders claimed.

The case, which has taken 20 months to reach a verdict, comes three months before Dutch general elections and Wilders’ PVV is currently leading in some polls.


THANKS TO TOM GROSShttps://madmimi.com/p/e1f639?fe=1&pact=167016-136085614-7235361215-7f6a300c289d92be207b99d79f68f80ec1588127


It’s the mainstream media that’s selling “BS,” the actor and director Denzel Washington pointed out on Tuesday in a talk at the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

He said: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed.”

Dem Hypocrisy Spotlighted in Criticism of Trump Military Picks By Frank Salvato

Not too long ago the American people were held captive to the Liberal mantra that because President Obama won the election he should be due his picks for his cabinet and agency heads without reservation. This mantra extended to nominees to the US Supreme Court as well. People like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were beside themselves that Senate Republicans weren’t simply rubber-stamping Obama’s nominees.

Fast forward to 2016 and the song is upside-down. Today the buzz in the news and from the corners of Washington where propaganda is created and advanced has Democrats and Progressives “very concerned” about President-Elect Donald Trump’s cabinet and agency picks. They are specifically upset about the number of ex-military officers – Generals – being named. “We don’t want to have an extensive military influence on our government,” they say.

But this avenue of thinking is disenfranchising – or at least disenfranchising for a period of seven years – those who have served the American people in our country’s most important role: that of defender and freedom protector. Those they seek to bar from appointed office have actually put their lives on the line for our country; far more than any non-military service politician has ever done.

When the “War Department” was replaced by the Department of Defense in 1947 – in the aftermath of World War II, Congress added the restriction that no military officer could hold the post of Secretary of Defense until he or she had been retired for 7 years. They expanded this restriction to include presidential cabinet secretaries and agency heads as well. They did this in fear of an undue “military influence” on the civilian-run US federal government. As with everything politicians do, they built into that law a back door; the ability to issue waivers to their own rule, which they have used.

In recent administrations, this restriction has garnered little concern. The occasional waiver has been issued without much concern for any undue military influence on the federal government. But now that the status quo is threatened in Washington, DC – and on both sides of the aisle, the idea of just one too many military officers in positions like Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security, National Security Advisor or Director of National Intelligence is fodder for disingenuous politicians seeking relevance.

The idea that a military leader could go rogue with the Defense Department is an antiquated fear. The DoD is so intertwined with myriad agencies – and has so many civilians in its employ – that a military coup under a “Dr. Strangelove” scenario is the thing of over active imaginations and disingenuous politicians.

Turkey: Between Atatürk’s Secularism and Fundamentalist Islam Harold Rhode

(NOTE: This was written more than 6 years ago, but relevant today, because it explains Erdogan, his attempt to “re-Islamisize” Turkey politically. The article is still continuously cited.)

Vol. 9, No. 24 http://jcpa.org/article/turkey-between-ataturk%E2%80%99s-secularism-and-fundamentalist-islam/

From the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, Atatürk founded a modern democratic state by forging the entirely unprecedented notion in the Islamic world of a secular Turkish identity. Moreover, this identity was to be based on the Western notion of loyalty to a geographic entity rather than religious solidarity.

Today there is an internal battle among Turkish Muslims between forces that want to be part of the Western world and those that want to return Turkey’s political identity to be based primarily on Islamic solidarity. But it isn’t Ottoman Islam that these Islamist Turks seek to revive. Their Islam is more in tune with the fanatically anti-Western principles of Saudi Wahhabi Islam.

It is not clear whether the present government of Turkey really cares to be part of the EU. Thus, when European leaders insist that Turkey has no place in Europe, they may be playing into the hands of the Islamist forces in Turkey who can say, in effect, “The EU is a Christian club which will never accept us, so we need to look elsewhere, to our Muslim brothers.”

In addition, American involvement has not always proven helpful. The U.S. attempted to reach out to radical leaders in a mistaken belief that they were forces of moderate Islam, thus inadvertently granting them legitimacy.

If a moderate form of Turkish Islam is to be revived, it must stand up to the onslaught of Wahhabism and the temptations of Islamism.

Inventing the Modern Turkish Identity

In the nineteenth century, Ottoman Turks borrowed the Arabic word watan, to signify loyalty to the geographic entity called the Ottoman Empire. Until that time, the word at most conjured in people’s minds the very local place where someone was born. The definition of identify defined by place and language is a European concept – not an Islamic or Middle Eastern one. In the Middle East, identity is defined by religion and then by genealogy, which can become ethnicity. The Ottomans were attempting to instill the Western concept of loyalty to a geographic entity into the minds of the people under Ottoman rule. It was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, who created a Turkish identity – a loyalty to a land – from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. It is he and his associates who set Turkey on the road to democracy.