The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Is a Korean Missile Crisis Ahead?
by Patrick Buchan
by Patrick Buchan
.
Top Headlines
Trump faces challenge of visa overstays, the largest source of illegal immigration. (The Daily Signal)
Democrats hint they'll shut down the government to stop funding for Trump's border wall. (McClatchy)
Spicer: Trump plans to donate his presidential salary and "let the press corps determine where it should go." (CNS News)
Trump's skeletal crew — The administration needs to pick up the pace of hiring. (National Review)
liar-nObama lawyers move fast to join fight against Trump. (Reuters)
Putin spokesman contradicts liar-Clinton team's claim they didn't meet any Russian officials during campaign. (The Washington Free Beacon)
Keen Sense of the Obvious: CBO says defunding Planned Parenthood would lead to thousands more births. (The Washington Post)
Ferguson protests after latest Michael Brown video: Shots fired, one officer with a broken nose, attempted arson of a police car. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
Foes of government excess to pick "Champion of Waste" in March Madness parody. (The Daily Signal)
Legal gun ownership surges in Chicago. (The Washington Free Beacon)
Policy: Four common-sense Medicaid solutions House Republicans should put in their liar-nObamacare replacement. (Washington Examiner)
Policy: Don't trust those CBO health care numbers. (Investor's Business Daily) ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Trump Budget Expected To Include Major
Cuts To Wasteful UN Spending
by Rick Wells
Cuts To Wasteful UN Spending
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ The world’s free ride on the backs of the American taxpayers may be slowly coming to an end. The Trump administration is seeking significant cuts in spending in areas of waste... where the spending is excessive, minimally effective or of no benefit to the American people. Some might say that is a definition of the UN itself, that there’s no bigger waste of our money on the planet and that all we get in return is hatred, derisive accusations and most importantly, an effort to take over our nation and subjugate us to their international government. President Trump understands it’s a bad deal for America and he’ taking corrective action. He’s started by instructing the State Department to seek funding cuts in excess of 50% for UN programs. The White House is scheduled to release its 2018 budget proposal on Thursday, which is expected to include cuts of up to 37 percent the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign giveaways. The money saved is expected to be redirected to the reconstruction of America’s military...
http://rickwells.us/trump-budget-expected-include-major-cuts-wasteful-un-spending/
http://rickwells.us/trump-budget-expected-include-major-cuts-wasteful-un-spending/
.
The Trojan Horse of Terrorism
by PAUL HOLLRAH
by PAUL HOLLRAH
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ In a March 7, 2017 story by Dan Bilefsky, headlined "Hungary Approves Detention of Asylum Seekers in Guarded Camps," the New York Times reported that "Europe's simmering backlash against immigration... came into sharp relief on Tuesday when the Hungarian Parliament approved the detention of asylum seekers in guarded and enclosed camps on the country's southern border, in what human rights advocates called a reckless breach of international law." According to the Times, "Prime Minister Viktor Orban justified the measure on the grounds that it would secure the European Union's borders from migrants and act as a powerful deterrent against migration, which he called the ‘Trojan horse of terrorism.' " The Prime Minister is quoted as saying, "We are under siege. The flood of migration has slowed down but has not stopped. Laws apply to everyone. This includes those migrants who want to cross Hungary's border illegally. This is the reality, which cannot be overruled by charming human rights nonsense."...
.Schumer Threatens Government
Shutdown Over Border Wall
by Mathew Vaduim
{frontpagemag.com} ~ After Democratic lawmakers’ years of shrieking and televised temper tantrums over how shutting down the federal government somehow approximates treason... Democrats have suddenly embraced the tactic in their quest to keep the nation’s borders wide open for Muslim terrorists and illegal aliens. Outnumbered in both houses of Congress, and facing a Republican in the White House for the first time in eight years, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats say they will oppose efforts to finance President Trump’s planned border wall in spending legislation needed to keep the government open for business. Adding favored projects to must-pass spending bills, instead of dealing with the projects as freestanding legislation outside the budget process, is a time-honored way of getting things done in Congress. Both parties do it when in the majority. But Schumer is now a professional obstructionist committed to undermining the Trump administration so at long last he sees things differently...I say, let him try. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266097/schumer-threatens-government-shutdown-over-border-matthew-vadum
.ACLU Leading Resistance
Movement Against Trump...
by Trey Sanchez
{truthrevolt.org} ~ According to the Associated Press, the American Civil Liberties Union recently launched a nationwide training event to “urge organized, public resistance by those opposed to policies of President Donald Trump.”... The first one happened over the weekend at a University of Miami sports arena and was streamed to all 50 states. The executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, said 200,000 people attended across 2,000 local events. Romero said the seminar focused on protesters knowing their rights and encouraged them to march for “priority issues” such as immigration, LGBT, free speech, religious freedom, and civil and reproductive rights. Focus was placed on rules for demonstrating in various public locations and what to do after an arrest...AG should investigate the ACLU and shout the business down.
.9 More Indicted in ‘Fat Leonard’ Investigation;
Retired Admiral Arrested at Home
by Sam LaGrone
Retired Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless
{news.usni.org} ~ A federal court has indicted nine more officers – including a retired admiral — in the ongoing bribery and corruption probe into the operations of the Glenn Defense Marine Asia husbanding operation... the so-called “Fat Leonard” case. On Tuesday, the nine were arrested, “in California, Texas, Florida, Colorado and Virginia. The United States will seek their removal to face charges in San Diego,” read a Tuesday statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. “All are charged as conspirators in working with GDMA’s Leonard Francis to commit, “a colossal fraud that ultimately cost the Navy – and U.S. taxpayers – tens of millions of dollars.” The highest ranking of those charged is retired Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, 53, who was arrested at his home in Coronado, Calif. Loveless was the former Navy director of intelligence operations and had retired from the service in October... https://news.usni.org/2017/03/14/9-indicted-fat-leonard-investigation-retired-admiral-arrested-home?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=e98ce7b1bd-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-e98ce7b1bd-231491269&mc_cid=e98ce7b1bd&mc_eid=3999f18767
.
.
Is a Korean Missile Crisis Ahead?
by Patrick Buchanan
by Patrick Buchanan
{freedomsback.com} ~ To back up Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis’ warning last month, that the U.S. “remains steadfast in its commitment” to its allies, President Donald Trump is sending B-1 and B-52 bombers to Korea.
Some 300,000 South Korean and 15,000 U.S. troops have begun their annual Foal Eagle joint war exercises that run through April.
“The two sides are like two accelerating trains coming toward each other with neither side willing to give way,” says Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, “Are they really ready for a head-on collision?”
So it would seem.
It is Kim Jong Un, 33-year-old grandson of that Stalinist state’s founding father, who launched the first Korean War, who brought on this confrontation.
In February, Kim’s half-brother was assassinated in Malaysia in a VX nerve agent attack and five of Kim’s security officials were executed with anti-aircraft guns. Monday, Kim launched four missiles toward U.S. bases, with three landing in the Sea of Japan.
U.S. response: Begin immediate deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile shield in Korea.
This set off alarms in China. For while THAAD cannot shoot down Scuds on the DMZ, its radar can detect missile launches inside China, thereby, says Beijing, imperiling her deterrent.
For accepting THAAD, China has imposed sanctions on Seoul, and promised the U.S. a commensurate strategic response.
Minister Wang’s proposal for resolving the crisis: The U.S. and Seoul cancel the exercises and North Korea suspends the nuclear and missile tests.
How did we reach this crisis point?
In his 2002 “axis of evil” address, George W. Bush declared, “The United States … will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”
He then launched a war on Iraq, which had no such weapons. But North Korea, hearing Bush’s threat, built and tested five atom bombs and scores of missiles, a few of intercontinental range.
Pyongyang has tested new presidents before.
In April 1969, North Korea shot down a U.S. EC-121 over the Sea of Japan, killing its entire crew. President Nixon, a war in Vietnam on his hands, let it pass, which he regretted ever after.
But this crisis raises larger questions about U.S. foreign policy.
Why, a quarter of a century after the Cold War, do we still have 28,000 troops in Korea? Not only does South Korea have twice the population of the North, but an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons far superior to any in the North.
Why should Americans on the DMZ be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Should the North attack the South, could we not honor our treaty obligations with air and naval power offshore?
Gen. James Mattis’ warning last month was unambiguous:
“Any attack on the United States or our allies will be defeated and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming.”
JFK’s phrase in the Cuban crisis, “full retaliatory response,” comes to mind.
Hence the next move is up to Kim.
New tests by North Korea of missiles or atom bombs for an ICBM could bring U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities and missile sites, igniting an attack on the South.
For China, this crisis, whether it leads to war, a U.S. buildup in the South, or a U.S. withdrawal from Korea, is problematic.
Beijing cannot sit by and let her North Korean ally be bombed, nor can it allow U.S. and South Korean forces to defeat the North, bring down the regime, and unite the peninsula, with U.S. and South Korean soldiers sitting on the Yalu, as they did in 1950 before Mao ordered his Chinese army into Korea.
However, should U.S. forces withdraw from the South, Seoul might build her own nuclear arsenal, followed by Japan. For Tokyo could not live with two Koreas possessing nukes, while she had none.
This could leave China contained by nuclear neighbors: to the north, Russia, to the south, India, to the east, South Korea and Japan. And America offshore.
What this crisis reveals is that China has as great an interest in restraining North Korea as do we.
While the United States cannot back down, it is difficult to reconcile a second Korean war with our America first policy. Which is why some of us have argued for decades that the United States should moves its forces out of South Korea and off the Asian continent.
Events in Asia — Chinese claims to reefs and rocks in the South and East China Seas and North Korea’s menacing her neighbors — are pushing us toward a version of the Nixon Doctrine declared in Guam in 1969 that is consistent with America first:
While we will provide the arms for friends and allies to fight in their own defense in any future wars, henceforth, they will provide the troops.
Some 300,000 South Korean and 15,000 U.S. troops have begun their annual Foal Eagle joint war exercises that run through April.
“The two sides are like two accelerating trains coming toward each other with neither side willing to give way,” says Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, “Are they really ready for a head-on collision?”
So it would seem.
It is Kim Jong Un, 33-year-old grandson of that Stalinist state’s founding father, who launched the first Korean War, who brought on this confrontation.
In February, Kim’s half-brother was assassinated in Malaysia in a VX nerve agent attack and five of Kim’s security officials were executed with anti-aircraft guns. Monday, Kim launched four missiles toward U.S. bases, with three landing in the Sea of Japan.
U.S. response: Begin immediate deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile shield in Korea.
This set off alarms in China. For while THAAD cannot shoot down Scuds on the DMZ, its radar can detect missile launches inside China, thereby, says Beijing, imperiling her deterrent.
For accepting THAAD, China has imposed sanctions on Seoul, and promised the U.S. a commensurate strategic response.
Minister Wang’s proposal for resolving the crisis: The U.S. and Seoul cancel the exercises and North Korea suspends the nuclear and missile tests.
How did we reach this crisis point?
In his 2002 “axis of evil” address, George W. Bush declared, “The United States … will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”
He then launched a war on Iraq, which had no such weapons. But North Korea, hearing Bush’s threat, built and tested five atom bombs and scores of missiles, a few of intercontinental range.
Pyongyang has tested new presidents before.
In April 1969, North Korea shot down a U.S. EC-121 over the Sea of Japan, killing its entire crew. President Nixon, a war in Vietnam on his hands, let it pass, which he regretted ever after.
But this crisis raises larger questions about U.S. foreign policy.
Why, a quarter of a century after the Cold War, do we still have 28,000 troops in Korea? Not only does South Korea have twice the population of the North, but an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons far superior to any in the North.
Why should Americans on the DMZ be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Should the North attack the South, could we not honor our treaty obligations with air and naval power offshore?
Gen. James Mattis’ warning last month was unambiguous:
“Any attack on the United States or our allies will be defeated and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming.”
JFK’s phrase in the Cuban crisis, “full retaliatory response,” comes to mind.
Hence the next move is up to Kim.
New tests by North Korea of missiles or atom bombs for an ICBM could bring U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities and missile sites, igniting an attack on the South.
For China, this crisis, whether it leads to war, a U.S. buildup in the South, or a U.S. withdrawal from Korea, is problematic.
Beijing cannot sit by and let her North Korean ally be bombed, nor can it allow U.S. and South Korean forces to defeat the North, bring down the regime, and unite the peninsula, with U.S. and South Korean soldiers sitting on the Yalu, as they did in 1950 before Mao ordered his Chinese army into Korea.
However, should U.S. forces withdraw from the South, Seoul might build her own nuclear arsenal, followed by Japan. For Tokyo could not live with two Koreas possessing nukes, while she had none.
This could leave China contained by nuclear neighbors: to the north, Russia, to the south, India, to the east, South Korea and Japan. And America offshore.
What this crisis reveals is that China has as great an interest in restraining North Korea as do we.
While the United States cannot back down, it is difficult to reconcile a second Korean war with our America first policy. Which is why some of us have argued for decades that the United States should moves its forces out of South Korea and off the Asian continent.
Events in Asia — Chinese claims to reefs and rocks in the South and East China Seas and North Korea’s menacing her neighbors — are pushing us toward a version of the Nixon Doctrine declared in Guam in 1969 that is consistent with America first:
While we will provide the arms for friends and allies to fight in their own defense in any future wars, henceforth, they will provide the troops.
Comments