The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Donald Trump, Draft Dodger: Why It Matters
Source:
The Resurgent
URL Source: http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-draft-dodger-why-it-matters/
Published: May 18, 2016
Author: Anne Evans
Post Date: 2016-05-31 19:18:56 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 23586
Comments: 67
The United States drafted both my grandfathers and my great uncle for World War II. They weren’t eager for war. They weren’t eager to pick up a gun. But when Uncle Sam called, they answered. They did their duty and they fought for their country because that’s who they were, men of integrity. Not quite thirty years later, war once against engulfed the United States and the draft was re-instituted for men of Donald Trump’s age. Trump also wasn’t eager for war or to pick up a gun, so he invented fallacious medical reports about bone spurs and dodged the draft multiple times. The United States now has a volunteer military force and many years have passed since the draft. Our men and women in the armed forces are still courageous and patriotic. My husband volunteered to fight. He has served in the Army coming up on ten years now and has deployed with the current conflict. Yet, as a volunteer army has become normal to America, we have forgotten what draft-dodging says about a man’s character. I didn’t know my grandfathers well. My maternal grandfather died when I was a baby and my paternal grandfather became very ill when I was just a young child, but I remember my great uncle talking about World War II. He’d sometimes reminisce about the year his brother and he were drafted. They were the children of Hungarian immigrants, the first generation to be born American citizens. Their dad had died in the coal mines and my uncle and grandfather struggled to finish their schooling while also working odd jobs to help their widowed mom put food on the table. The law in my uncle’s hometown said only one son from a family could be drafted, my uncle told me. But the rich families, my uncle said, they rigged the lotteries so their sons didn’t get drafted and the poor families had to send multiple sons to war. So my uncle and my grandfather, the only surviving sons of a widowed mother, had to leave for war while rich men’s sons sat comfortably at home multiplying their wealth. Almost thirty years after my grandfather and great uncle served, nothing had changed. Rich men like Trump dodged the draft, leaving poor men like my relatives to take on a double burden. My great uncle often told me, “I gave the best years of my life to the Army.” He was proud to serve, but serving took a large toll on him and his family. My great uncle was wounded in the war, and even when he’d reached ninety years of age, I remember the wound still hurting him sometimes. Is Trump ashamed that he skirted the law and so forced poor men to serve and die in his place? Not at all. Instead, he boasted about how many women he slept with during those years, calling the STD risks he took his ‘personal Vietnam.’ Unlike Trump, my relatives never would have thought of running for office. They worked hard just to put food on the table and to provide for their children. Yet they were good men who would never lie, cheat, or steal and chose to answer their country’s call despite great personal sacrifice. Trump inherited millions from his father and will pass more millions on to his children. That’s quite the inheritance, but I’d much rather have the legacy my relatives passed onto me, the legacy of honor (spelled correctly) and integrity. No matter your political leanings, I hope you can agree that’s the kind of legacy we need in our nation’s capital. We need a president who will follow his conscience no matter the cost, not a draft dodger who let poor men’s sons serve and die so he could pursue some playboy dream.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
#5. To: Willie Green, misterwhite, All (#0)
(Edited)
The words, “fallacious medical reports” in the article is a hyperlink. After clicking on the link, I expected to find a “fallacious medical report.” There was none. The link lead to another article with basically the same allegations. I actually believe the author expected no one to click on the link and intended to plant in the reader’s subconscious mind that one existed. I am looking for factual confirmation that Trump “invented fallacious medical reports” about bone spurs and “dodged the draft multiple times.” If anyone knows where I can find this information, please be so kind and point it out to me. I have searched the Internet for information on Trump looking for a reason(s) Trump never served. Besides more smear articles, all I can determine from my findings is that Donald Trump did receive a minor medical deferment for bone spurs on both heels of his feet. The medical deferment was short-term and he was entered in the military draft lottery where he received an extremely high number, 356 out of 365. When the draft occurred, they never got near his number and therefore he was never called to serve in the military. This information was released by someone close to Trump. It may have been his lawyer, I just can’t remember. This article is just another of the far too many yellow journalism articles I see posted on LF. It has turned out to be nothing but a negative political smear tactic that launches an unfair political attack using lies, half truths and innuendos. Gawd, I hate yellow journalism … with a passion.
You miss the entire point about MANY wanna-be ... post WW2 USA presidential candidates. They are applying for a job as President to lead the military as Commander in Chief, yet lack the bona-fide skils of actual experience in the US military; take a case, as one example that you possess, tater: peelin' potatoes in the mess hall. Get with the program, soldier!
I did not miss your point … I say that you have NO point. The connection between service in the military and election to the highest office in the land has been severed. The aspect relationship was severed during the VIetnam War. Military service has long ceased to be an asset when running for POTUS. Some presidential candidates who served struggled to connect with voters who often hated war, and still do. For example, Gore played down his service in Nam and Kerry’s service definitely proved to be a huge liability. You can of course remember “swift boating.” The long period of time from 1944 to 2008 during which time at least one candidate had served in uniform is actually something of an historical anomaly. Check history, and you will find that a very few President or losing nominees had any military experiences at all. I have serious doubts about your idea that serving in the military invests someone with superior qualities that make them uniquely qualified to be president. We are entering an period where the odds of a candidate having served in the military are significantly lower. You can say that it is a bad thing for a president not to have served in the military, while others will say it is not. I will say that it is neither a good thing nor a bad thing … it is merely a fact of life. Bucky, you are a “political dinosaur.” Quit trying to live in the past. Bucky, you are a libertarian and libertarians hate war. Yet the requirement for a president to have served in the military is STRONG for you. I contend that it is not and that you only single this aspect out to use against Trump because you continually look for anything to try to use against him. Because you have a requirement for a president to be a military man, while you are a libertarian … I contend that you are a hypocrite.
Sarge, that is because you don't understand the dynamics of war. You think that when a President sends off American troops into far away nations, that those same troops are having potatoe peelin' contests for phun; kinda like how your cocaine phanatic, GWBush planned and performed in Iraq. Any President that sends troops off to war should have a clear understanding that the troops may die in active combat. The President requires the experience to understand the nature, indeed the gravity of exploitation of American lives in combat, particularly when the wars that the US entertains have little to do with soverign US security.
Absolutely. But a president does not need to have military experience to understand this … all he needs for this is compassion. There is no military service “qualification” to be president, what counts is judgment. The president has a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has the required experience to understand the nature and the gravity of sending American lives into combat. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serves as the principal military adviser to the president and receives a salary of 20,263.50 a month … let him earn his friggi’n pay.
Your recommendation is another source or input about contemporary American fascism.
You call it what you want to. I call it what it is ... FACTUAL.
You can't distinguish FACT from IMAGINATION.
To Gatlin, Obama is just a Kenyan version of George Washington. He's that far out of touch with reality, and into authority figure worship. George Hussein Washington
I would never say that ... you just did. However, now that you bring their names up ... it would be interesting to compare Washington to Obama … let’s do so. On the other hand, President Obama is close-minded and appears to be disengaged. For example, in fighting the war on terror, his advisors have repeated time and again that ground forces are needed to fight ISIS. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated, “When we give our military commanders a mission, we should allow them to execute that mission, and not overly constrain them with approved authorities, but then having to come back to the administration for permission. Either we need to review those authorities and those permissions, or we need to change the commanders because we apparently don’t trust them to do the job that we’ve given them to do
#32. To: Gatlin, shiria law, unrestrained tyranny, jihadi tater (#31)
allow them to execute that mission, and not overly constrain them with approved authorities, but then having to come back to the administration for permission If you want Senator McCain and General Hillary's ISIS to take over your community, elect their "freedom fighters" to your local government. Enjoy your new ISIS mayor and city council executing you without permission from anyone. You do realize that ISIS is trained, equipped and funded by YOU? I didn't vote for any of the Republican and Democrat terrorists running ISIS, but you did. Enjoy your beheading!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest … so he [Trump] invented fallacious medical reports about bone spurs and dodged the draft multiple times.
The Canary Clan is charged with the responsibility to search impartially for the facts or actualities of a subject or situation. It is eminently qualified to perform this charge by devoting considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda. The Canary Clan has a commitment to respect precedent, fairness and a determination to faithfully present the facts.
Long live freedom of speech, long live the Canary Clan and God Bless America!
#6. To: Gatlin (#5)
The Canary Clan is charged with the responsibility to search impartially for the facts ... blah, blah, blah
#13. To: buckeroo (#6)
(Edited)
You miss the entire point about MANY wanna-be ... post WW2 USA presidential candidates.
WHY LIBERTARIANS OPPOSE WAR
Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass-murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force — a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the U.S. has used conscription — legalized slavery — to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries’ affairs. Plus, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.
#15. To: Gatlin (#13)
I have serious doubts about your idea that serving in the military invests someone with superior qualities that make them uniquely qualified to be president.
#18. To: buckeroo (#15)
Any President that sends troops off to war should have a clear understanding that the troops may die in active combat.
The President requires the experience to understand the nature, indeed the gravity of exploitation of American lives in combat, particularly when the wars that the US entertains have little to do with soverign US security.
#19. To: Gatlin (#18)
#21. To: buckeroo (#19)
Your recommendation is another source or input about contemporary American fascism.
#23. To: Gatlin (#21)
I call it what it is ... FACTUAL.
#30. To: buckeroo, tater, George Hussein Washington (#23)
You can't distinguish FACT from IMAGINATION.
#31. To: hondo68, buckeroo (#30)
To Gatlin, Obama is just a Kenyan version of George Washington.
Washington had a unique leadership style. He was courageous, conscientious, honest, and hard working. In his recent book, The Return Of George Washington, Ed Larson writes how Washington was instrumental in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Larson noted to American Thinker, “I call him the general contractor of the Constitution. He wanted to move the country forward and would listen to people about the best way to get there.”
What do you think about the comparison?
Replies to Comment # 31. “When we give our military commanders a mission, we should
I posted an article this morning about the US government inventing Al Queada and ISIS... and you helped by voting D&R Party! Chief Of The CIA’s ‘Bin-Laden’ Unit Tells The World That Al-Qaeda Never Existed
End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]