The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
Why Russia Resents Us
by Pat Buchanan
~~~
.
NYC Mayor Turns Up His Nose at Chick-fil-A
New York City's mayor and city council are dismayed that the restaurant with the highest customer satisfaction rating in the industry is expanding in the Big Apple. Mayor Bill de Blasio announced during a press conference that New Yorkers shouldn't eat at Chick-fil-A because its CEO made comments in 2012 supporting the traditional definition of marriage. "What the ownership of Chick-fil-A has said is wrong," de Blasio said. "I'm certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn't urge any other New Yorker to patronize them. But they do have a legal right." The restaurant chain opened its first locations in the city last year, and it has plans to open at least 12 more franchises there in two years.
In 2014, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy said he was distancing himself from the culture struggle over same-sex marriage to focus on the company and improving customer service. In response to de Blasio's comments, the company said it strives "to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect" — and it seems to be working. Lines at the NYC locations spill out the doors and down the street.
As The Wall Street Journal opines, "Good to know [de Blasio] isn't trying to ban the business, though give him time. ... Mr. de Blasio's real objection is that the company's owners won't conform to his political views." Unfortunately for his taste buds, de Blasio lets his ideology and loyalty to the Rainbow Mafia prevent him from enjoying one of the most notable chicken sandwiches around — a chicken sandwich born from a work ethic informed by a Christian worldview. -The Patriot Post
.
'Liberal' Academia Intolerant of Dissenting Thought
Over the weekend, New York Times columnist Nick Kristof devoted his attention to "a liberal blind spot" in higher education: While colleges seek to fill their lecture halls with professors across the spectrum of race and gender, the self-avowed liberal noticed the ivory tower discriminates against conservative Christians. "Universities are the bedrock of progressive values," Kristof wrote, "but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We're fine with people who don't look like us, as long as they think like us."
The numbers are staggering. In the studies of social sciences, about 7-9% of American professors say they are Republican but 18% say they are Marxist, wrote Kristof. In other words, you have a better chance learning under someone who follows the political philosophy responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people than one of the two primary political parties in America today. Often, conservative professors try to hide their beliefs — at least until they can make tenure.
Of course, this means conservative and Christian ideas are marginalized in the place where people go to supposedly experience a cornucopia of thought. It's not just professors, either. Think back to the numerous conservative speakers disinvited from speaking at campus events because they held "incorrect" beliefs. Most recently, this almost happened to Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley. Last week, the University of Virginia apologized after Riley wrote how he was disinvited from the campus because his views on race might spark student protests. The school claims it was all a misunderstanding. Right.
The absence of free thought can be disastrous. When the ultra-liberal thinking takes hold and there's no way to keep it grounded through rigorous debate, then the college floats off to la-la land. Harvard University announced it was going to prosecute any student it found to be a member of a male- or female-only club starting in 2017. Why? Administrators want to combat the bogeyman of sexual assault, and joining a frat also smacks of privilege and exclusion. In other words, students have the freedom to think whatever they want and associate with whomever they want — as long as the university agrees. -The Patriot Post
.
Benghazi Saga: Gowdy v. DoD
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina is intently focused on gathering all necessary information to conclusively record the history of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi. That includes taking on the nObama Defense Department when it's stonewalling. Defense Secretary Ash Carter essentially accused the House Benghazi committee of wasting taxpayer money by requesting dozens of interviews. Carter's complaint sounds suspiciously like the organized talking points of congressional Democrats, however, and Gowdy was having none of it. In a letter, Gowdy responded by citing DoD's quick turnaround on another investigation:
By contrast, the Department was able to complete the recently released review of the bombing of a civilian medical facility in Kunduz, Afghanistan within two months. That review "interviewed more than 65 witnesses, including personnel at the Trauma Center, members of U.S. and Afghan ground forces, members of the aircrew, and representatives at every echelon of command in Afghanistan." It also evaluated "more than 3,000 pages of documentary evidence, much of it classified," three times the number of pages your letter says were produced to the Committee. All of this work was completed without the burdens of which the Department now complains. The Department apparently has a different definition of burden when it is investigating itself as opposed to cooperating with the Congress of the United States.
It's critical to remember that Barack nObama's deceitful post-Benghazi narrative of a YouTube video causing a riot is the whole reason an investigation is even still ongoing. Had the administration — including liar-Hilly Clinton's State Department — simply told the truth about the al-Qaida attack, this would have been long over. Then again, nObama wanted to win re-election, so he perpetuated the myth that he had "decimated" al-Qaida. That leaves Gowdy seeking answers about the deaths of four Americans. And the administration is still stonewalling. -The Patriot Post
.
.
EPA Head Boasts of Using
‘Regulations’ to Carbon Tax Us to Death
by S. Noble
.
.
{independentsentinel.com} ~ The leftists in the administration are now bragging about passing laws in the form of regulations or at least Gina McCarthy is... We knew they were doing it but it’s remarkable how out in the open they are now and how apathetic Americans are about it. Karl Marx recommended forcing Socialism on governments by using the unelected toadies in government agencies to pass laws. That is also a tenet of the plan as outlined by the Soros-funded Center for American Progress run by John Podesta, liar-Hilly Clinton’s campaign advisor. It is part of the plan Barack nObama has followed for the past seven years. Gina McCarthy, the EPA head, said Friday that it is her job to create overreaching regulations that take the place of failed carbon tax legislation. She admits with pleasure that she is writing legislation from the EPA and she is doing it to fulfill a treaty not approved by the Senate. Talking to a gaggle of activists and diplomats at a DC gathering, McCarthy said that it is her job to supplant legislation with regulations to fulfill their climate change deal signed in Paris. That deal is actually a treaty which is supposed to be approved by the Senate but it will never be put before them. No one objected to the lawless acts...
.
Modern warfare: Why the US Army must reform
by Phillip Lohaus
.
.
{aei.org} ~ Structural reform in the military is long overdue. Thirty years ago, when the last major overhaul of the military’s structure was implemented due to the passage of the Goldwater Nichols Act, desktop computers and cell phones were largely viewed as novelty items... the Berlin Wall still stood firm, and terrorists were seen as more of a nuisance than an existential national security threat. The world has changed a lot in the past thirty years, and so has the nature of the threats faced by our military. So far, proposals to reform the military’s structure to better address contemporary challenges have been focused on the service Chiefs of Staff and above. That should change, starting with a closer examination of the military’s largest service, the US Army. Structural reform, hardly the stuff of cocktail hour repartee, is finally on the agendas of our most senior civilian officials. Just last month, for example, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter unveiled a plan to reform aspects of the military’s command and control structure, and the issue is currently under discussion as Congress debates the form of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act. One of the themes underlying these conversations is a sense that the service chiefs have been frozen out of major decisions such as acquisition and operational planning—to the detriment of the military as a whole. Another theme is that the military has become too “top-heavy”—i.e., that the sheer number of top brass is depleting valuable resources and detracting from the agility of the force... http://www.aei.org/publication/modern-warfare-why-the-us-army-must-reform/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITODAY&utm_campaign=050916
.
The exit polls and the electorate thus far
by Karlyn Bowman, Eleanor O'Neil, Heather Sims
.
.
{aei.org} ~ *nObama’s Legacy. In every state except Vermont and New Hampshire, a majority or plurality of voters in Democratic contests have said the next president should continue nObama’s policies. Still, in all of those contests, a chunk of Democratic voters wanted the next president’s policies to be more liberal. Bernie Sanders won that group in every state. *Top Issues for Democrats. In every Democratic contest except one for which we have an exit poll, the economy has been the top issue. In Vermont, the economy tied with income inequality. Health care and inequality have been roughly tied for second place in most states. Terrorism ranked behind each of these other issues for Democrats everywhere. *Top Issues for Republicans. The economy has also been the top issue for voters in most Republican contests. Government spending ranked higher in four states — Iowa, Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi — and terrorism ranked higher in one — South Carolina. Immigration ranked lowest of the four issues in every state except Nevada, where 20% named it the most important issue... http://www.aei.org/publication/the-exit-polls-and-the-electorate-thus-far/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITODAY&utm_campaign=050916
.
The Continued Importance of Nuclear Deterrence:
Four Anti-Nuke Myths Busted
by PETER HUESSY
.
.
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ Does the United States need nuclear weapons? What role do they play? And if they are valuable, how much should we spend supporting such a nuclear deterrent?... In addition, what level of nuclear weapons should we aim to achieve to maintain stability and deterrence? And finally, does the type of nuclear deterrent maintained by the United States bear a relationship to whether nuclear weapons proliferate in the world, especially in Iran and North Korea? The Center for Strategic and International Studies held a day long conversation on these questions on May 5th. Joe Cirincione, the President of the Ploughshares Fund laid out a four part narrative that the US was (1) maintaining a vastly bloated nuclear deterrent, (2) unnecessary for our security, (3) unaffordable, and (4) in need of at least an immediate unilateral one-third reduction in American nuclear forces to jump start efforts to get to zero nuclear weapons world-wide. Cirincione further claimed that such an initiative was perfectly sensible because President Ronald Reagan had supported in his second inaugural the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons and had put such a proposal on the table in negotiations with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik in 1986...No way, with the threat from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-continued-importance-of-nuclear-deterrence-four-anti-nuke-myths-busted?f=must_reads
.
Islam: What Lies Ahead for the Next Thousand Years?
by LT. COLONEL JAMES G. ZUMWALT, USMC
.
.
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ Retired U.S. Army Major General Jerry Curry gleaned tremendous insights into the Muslim mindset through his military experiences, both as a junior and senior officer... These insights, ignored by our current president, need to be understood by the next one. As a junior officer, Curry developed friendships with his Arab military counterparts from among the allied nations. His friendship with one officer in particular prompted him to query why Arabs, repeatedly whipped by Israel in Middle East wars, continued to initiate them against their heavily out-numbered neighbor. Acknowledging a poor winning record, the young Arab officer proudly stated, "But have you noticed that with each loss we get better?" He then added a comment causing Curry to realize little hope exists for future change in the Arab mindset. "Sometime in the next thousand years," the Arab said, "we will win."... http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/islam-what-lies-ahead-for-the-next-thousand-years?f=must_reads
.
Netanyahu Offers to
School UN on Jerusalem's History
by Israel Today Staff
by Israel Today Staff
.
.
{israeltoday.co.il} ~ The invitation, which appears to be genuine, came after the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) last month issued a resolution slamming Israel’s presence on the Temple Mount and totally disregarding all Jewish ties to the holy site... “I was shocked to hear that UNESCO adopted a decision denying any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, our holiest site,” read a statement issued by Netanyahu. “It is hard to believe that anyone, let alone an organization tasked with preserving history, could deny this link, which spans thousands of years,” the prime minister continued... http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/29150/Default.aspx
.
Facebook Is Censoring Conservative News And Opinion
by Jeff Dunetz
.
.
{lidblog.com} ~ Facebook has often been accused of being liberal and censoring conservative news and commentary, but now people are offering proof that those accusations may, indeed, be true... The social media site is censoring conservative news and opinion on both their news feed and posts on individual member pages.Gizmodo, a major tech blog, interviewed some of the former editors for Facebook’s news aggregation service Facebook calls them “news curators”. While technically not Facebook employees, these curators have “the power to choose what stories make it onto the trending bar and, more importantly, what news sites each topic links out to.” They contend the selection of stories and sources for Facebook is automated but, based on the directions they received, some sources and topics are “blacklisted” to avoid exposing readers to conservative points of view... http://lidblog.com/facebook-is-censoring-conservative-news-and-opinion/?utm_source=The+Lid+List&utm_campaign=2b5525f488-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_597b72c01c-2b5525f488-291705165
.
Secret Meeting Suggests Ex-GOP Nominee
May Try Third-Party Run
by Scott Mason
.
.
{westernjournalism.com} ~ Longtime conservative stalwart William Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard, confirmed to CNN that he met with Romney on Thursday to discuss third-party options... Kristol, who is leading the charge to find an alternative to presumptive Democrat nominee liar-Hilly Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee Donald liar-Trump, joins many other prominent conservatives who have pledged to not support liar-Trump’s bid for president under any circumstances, a movement that has now become known as #neverliar-trump. The meeting, Kristol said, was to gauge Romney’s thoughts about the logistics of running a strong third-party candidate, who it might be and whether or not he “might be the candidate himself.”...
.
Iran's Plans to Control a Palestinian State
by Khaled Abu Toameh
by Khaled Abu Toameh
.
.
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ The Iran nuclear deal, marking its first anniversary, does not appear to have had a calming effect on the Middle East. The Iranians seem to be deepening their intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general and in internal Palestinian affairs in particular... This intervention is an extension of Iran's ongoing efforts to expand its influence in Arab and Islamic countries, including Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon and some Gulf states. The nuclear deal between Tehran and the world powers has not stopped the Iranians from proceeding with their global plan to export their "Islamic Revolution." On the contrary, the general sense among Arabs and Muslims is that in the wake of the nuclear deal, Iran has accelerated its efforts to spread its influence. Iran's direct and indirect presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon has garnered some international attention, yet its actions in the Palestinian arena are still ignored by the world... http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8007/iran-palestinian-state
.
NC Gov. on DOJ Bathroom Mandate: 'It's the Federal Government Being a Bully'
by Susan Jones
.
.
{cnsnews.com} ~ Today (Monday) is the deadline for North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) to respond to a Justice Department letter warning him that the law passed by the state legislature in March... requiring people to use the restroom that corresponds with the sex listed on their birth certificate -- violates federal civil rights law, which protects "gender identity." McCrory on Sunday said that three days is not enough time to respond, but the Justice Department has refused his request for a week-long extension unless McCrory admits publicly that the law does in fact discriminate. "Well, I'm not going to publicly announce that something discriminates, which is agreeing with their letter, because we're really talking about a letter in which they're trying to define gender identity. And there is no clear identification or definition of gender identity," McCrory told "Fox News Sunday."... http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/nc-gov-there-no-cleardefinition-gender-identity-its-federal-government
.
.
Why Russia Resents Us
by Pat Buchanan
.
.
{freedomsback.com} ~ Friday, a Russian SU-27 did a barrel roll over a U.S. RC-135 over the Baltic, the second time in two weeks.
Also in April, the U.S. destroyer Donald Cook, off Russia’s Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, was twice buzzed by Russian planes.
Vladimir Putin’s message: Keep your spy planes and ships a respectable distance away from us. Apparently, we have not received it.
Friday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work announced that 4,000 NATO troops, including two U.S. battalions, will be moved into Poland and the Baltic States, right on Russia’s border.
“The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the border with a lot of troops,” says Work, who calls this “extraordinarily provocative behavior.”
But how are Russian troops deploying inside Russia “provocative,” while U.S. troops on Russia’s front porch are not? And before we ride this escalator up to a clash, we had best check our hole card.
Germany is to provide one of four battalions to be sent to the Baltic.
But a Bertelsmann Foundation poll last week found that only 31 percent of Germans favor sending their troops to resist a Russian move in the Baltic States or Poland, while 57 percent oppose it, though the NATO treaty requires it.
Last year, a Pew poll found majorities in Italy and France also oppose military action against Russia if she moves into Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Poland. If it comes to war in the Baltic, our European allies prefer that we Americans fight it.
Asked on his retirement as Army chief of staff what was the greatest strategic threat to the United States, Gen. Ray Odierno echoed Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, “I believe that Russia is.”
He mentioned threats to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine.
Yet, when Gen. Odierno entered the service, all four were part of the Soviet Union, and no Cold War president ever thought any was worth a war.
The independence of the Baltic States was one of the great peace dividends after the Cold War. But when did that become so vital a U.S. interest we would go to war with Russia to guarantee it?
Putin may top the enemies list of the Beltway establishment, but we should try to see the world from his point of view.
When Ronald Reagan met Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik in 1986, Putin was in his mid-30s, and the Soviet Empire stretched from the Elbe to the Bering Strait and from the Arctic to Afghanistan.
Russians were all over Africa and had penetrated the Caribbean and Central America. The Soviet Union was a global superpower that had attained strategic parity with the United States.
Now consider how the world has changed for Putin, and Russia.
By the time he turned 40, the Red Army had begun its Napoleonic retreat from Europe and his country had splintered into 15 nations.
By the time he came to power, the USSR had lost one-third of its territory and half its population. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were gone.
The Black Sea, once a Soviet lake, now had on its north shore a pro-Western Ukraine, on its eastern shore a hostile Georgia, and on its western shore two former Warsaw Pact allies, Bulgaria and Romania, being taken into NATO.
For Russian warships in Leningrad, the trip out to the Atlantic now meant cruising past the coastline of eight NATO nations: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway and Great Britain.
Putin has seen NATO, despite solemn U.S. assurances given to Gorbachev, incorporate all of Eastern Europe that Russia had vacated, and three former republics of the USSR itself.
He now hears a clamor from American hawks to bring three more former Soviet republics — Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine — into a NATO alliance directed against Russia.
After persuading Kiev to join a Moscow-led economic union, Putin saw Ukraine’s pro-Russian government overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup.
He has seen U.S.-funded “color-coded” revolutions try to dump over friendly regimes all across his “near abroad.”
“Russia has not accepted the hand of partnership,” says NATO commander, Gen. Philip Breedlove, “but has chosen a path of belligerence.”
But why should Putin see NATO’s inexorable eastward march as an extended “hand of partnership”?
Had we lost the Cold War and Russian spy planes began to patrol off Pensacola, Norfolk and San Diego, how would U.S. F-16 pilots have reacted? If we awoke to find Mexico, Canada, Cuba, and most of South America in a military alliance against us, welcoming Russian bases and troops, would we regard that as “the hand of partnership”?
We are reaping the understandable rage and resentment of the Russian people over how we exploited Moscow’s retreat from empire.
Did we not ourselves slap aside the hand of Russian friendship, when proffered, when we chose to embrace our “unipolar moment,” to play the “great game” of empire and seek “benevolent global hegemony”?
If there is a second Cold War, did Russia really start it?
Also in April, the U.S. destroyer Donald Cook, off Russia’s Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, was twice buzzed by Russian planes.
Vladimir Putin’s message: Keep your spy planes and ships a respectable distance away from us. Apparently, we have not received it.
Friday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work announced that 4,000 NATO troops, including two U.S. battalions, will be moved into Poland and the Baltic States, right on Russia’s border.
“The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the border with a lot of troops,” says Work, who calls this “extraordinarily provocative behavior.”
But how are Russian troops deploying inside Russia “provocative,” while U.S. troops on Russia’s front porch are not? And before we ride this escalator up to a clash, we had best check our hole card.
Germany is to provide one of four battalions to be sent to the Baltic.
But a Bertelsmann Foundation poll last week found that only 31 percent of Germans favor sending their troops to resist a Russian move in the Baltic States or Poland, while 57 percent oppose it, though the NATO treaty requires it.
Last year, a Pew poll found majorities in Italy and France also oppose military action against Russia if she moves into Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Poland. If it comes to war in the Baltic, our European allies prefer that we Americans fight it.
Asked on his retirement as Army chief of staff what was the greatest strategic threat to the United States, Gen. Ray Odierno echoed Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, “I believe that Russia is.”
He mentioned threats to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine.
Yet, when Gen. Odierno entered the service, all four were part of the Soviet Union, and no Cold War president ever thought any was worth a war.
The independence of the Baltic States was one of the great peace dividends after the Cold War. But when did that become so vital a U.S. interest we would go to war with Russia to guarantee it?
Putin may top the enemies list of the Beltway establishment, but we should try to see the world from his point of view.
When Ronald Reagan met Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik in 1986, Putin was in his mid-30s, and the Soviet Empire stretched from the Elbe to the Bering Strait and from the Arctic to Afghanistan.
Russians were all over Africa and had penetrated the Caribbean and Central America. The Soviet Union was a global superpower that had attained strategic parity with the United States.
Now consider how the world has changed for Putin, and Russia.
By the time he turned 40, the Red Army had begun its Napoleonic retreat from Europe and his country had splintered into 15 nations.
By the time he came to power, the USSR had lost one-third of its territory and half its population. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were gone.
The Black Sea, once a Soviet lake, now had on its north shore a pro-Western Ukraine, on its eastern shore a hostile Georgia, and on its western shore two former Warsaw Pact allies, Bulgaria and Romania, being taken into NATO.
For Russian warships in Leningrad, the trip out to the Atlantic now meant cruising past the coastline of eight NATO nations: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway and Great Britain.
Putin has seen NATO, despite solemn U.S. assurances given to Gorbachev, incorporate all of Eastern Europe that Russia had vacated, and three former republics of the USSR itself.
He now hears a clamor from American hawks to bring three more former Soviet republics — Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine — into a NATO alliance directed against Russia.
After persuading Kiev to join a Moscow-led economic union, Putin saw Ukraine’s pro-Russian government overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup.
He has seen U.S.-funded “color-coded” revolutions try to dump over friendly regimes all across his “near abroad.”
“Russia has not accepted the hand of partnership,” says NATO commander, Gen. Philip Breedlove, “but has chosen a path of belligerence.”
But why should Putin see NATO’s inexorable eastward march as an extended “hand of partnership”?
Had we lost the Cold War and Russian spy planes began to patrol off Pensacola, Norfolk and San Diego, how would U.S. F-16 pilots have reacted? If we awoke to find Mexico, Canada, Cuba, and most of South America in a military alliance against us, welcoming Russian bases and troops, would we regard that as “the hand of partnership”?
We are reaping the understandable rage and resentment of the Russian people over how we exploited Moscow’s retreat from empire.
Did we not ourselves slap aside the hand of Russian friendship, when proffered, when we chose to embrace our “unipolar moment,” to play the “great game” of empire and seek “benevolent global hegemony”?
If there is a second Cold War, did Russia really start it?
Comments