theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Sunday, May 28, 2017

OpEd: Kill Our Tribe, We KILL Yours

Image result for muslim christian wars

theodore  M I R A L D I.

We are witnessing the Fall of Rome again, Western Culture is under Seige. And yes, there are Barbarians at the Gate trying to smash the engine that feeds the mind of invention, and the mind of hatred.

It is a human dysfunction to blame success on the failure of others. The victims getting revenge for modernity, fast cars and 7 course meals. What's sad is we all want the same things in life. A job, a roof over our heads, food on the table and people around you to love. No longer are these qualities of life important. Now, we size our lives up on the Web, Iphones, Tablets, and through Fake News.

Nearly every successful Culture has been faced with destruction by the have nots. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and others Western Nation States. 

But it doesn't stop at the walls of the West. The Chinese built the Great Wall  to protect them against the Mongolians. Unfortunately this is still a dog eat dog world. Mano e mano and all the rationalizations regarding human behaviors has become more fodder for the evil doers.

 Making excuses for the things that define the severity of our evils is killing us. Thinking we can turn every murderer into a priest is nothing more than a way to hide the truth.

Maybe FDR just needed to sit down with Hitler and WW2 could have been averted. Maybe Mao just needed a good talking to, and millions of Chinese would still be alive.  And Stalin just could get an appointment with a therapist, so he killed millions instead.

The battle the world now faces has been created by the likes of the victims, as it was in the past. Although it frightens us, after Cane killed Abel the world endured and survived.

It all comes full circle. Tribal Behaviors are making a comeback. Success of your Tribe requires it to Win and not Lose. There are no fancy psychological explanations to its members.

So sharpen your swords, the Barbarians are at the Gate once more! 

The Biggest THREAT to the First Amendment is the PRESS Itself

Erik Root

The media has been deceptive and/or outright lying about Trump for a long time now. Mollie Hemingway detailed just a few of their whoppers in a recent piece. When the president exercised his constitutional authority to fire FBI Director James Comey, the New York Times published a story accusing Trump of pressuring Comey to end his investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who is also supposedly related to the story of the Russian collusion canard. Part of the problem with that story is that it was published just in time for the evening news push for “breaking news” and when such stories are rarely properly challenged. The object is ratings.

Never mind that the story was based on complete hearsay, that the reporters never secured the original documents in question (and still haven’t), and that we have testimony from Comey under oath and saying the exact opposite of what this report claims.

Recognizing the genius of the American Founding, Calvin Coolidge once said that democratic forms of government are an exercise in rule and ruled. He believed that the government was controlled by the consent of the governed. The people were sovereign.

Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, the media have sought to undermine his legitimacy. So assured were they of their own superior intelligence about electoral politics, that even Fox News anchor Chris Wallace was astonished at the outcome. Even networks built to counter the left-wing bias of the legacy media could not counter the bias of the new class media elites. They were all certain Trump would be trounced by Clinton. In this our expert elites were all wrong, and that should cause us to pause and consider what else might they have wrong. Can’t we do better than the elites we have now?

Increasingly, the press cares more about competition with “Access Hollywood” than it cares about journalistic ethics, especially when it comes to the overuse of anonymous sources. It used to be a matter of practice that journalists would confirm at least one on the record source before running a story that only relied on anonymous sources.

The elite media, including Fox News, are making a mockery of our freedoms, and especially the freedom of the press. No one represents the mindset of elite media more than Fox News’s Wallace, who also took Trump out of context arguing that his criticisms of the press means that he wants to shut them down.

In fact, Wallace contended that Trump is worse than Obama when it comes to the press. This claim is astonishing in its blatant dishonesty. Wallace, of all people, should know that Obama is known to have spied on another Fox reporter, James Rosen, and then to have leveled an espionage charge against Rosen. In fact, Obama tried to jail more journalists and their sources than any other president. Wallace also said recently, that the press must be free to do its job because it is their right and because they are a watchdog for the people.

There are two significant problems with the Wallace mindset about the First Amendment: 1) the idea of the “press” never meant to imply an institutional right. Rather, the freedom it seeks to protect is an individual freedom. In other words, those rights don’t adhere to any official organization, they adhere to individuals, and 2) any person who speaks, writes, or prints, his or her opinions must also be held responsible for those opinions. The press, as a class, is not by virtue of that status granted a magical pass to utter untruths or to slander people.

It is revealing that Wallace defends his profession and not the free speech rights enjoyed by all, including the president. He sees only a right people like him enjoy by means of their employment and position in society. How oligarchical.

During the congressional debate over the Bill of Rights, James Madison proposed the wording this way: “the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.” In the original wording of the 1789 Amendment, these freedoms were thought of as “great bulwarks of liberty.” Freedom of speech or press are synonymous terms.

With all of the media’s hysterical bloviating about their superiority and unquestioned authority protected by the right of a free press, we should remind them that the First Amendment is not merely a natural right to comment publicly on politics, but that speech carries with it a duty to be truthful.

Since free speech is an individual right, it should be protected as long as it isn’t injurious. That is, in keeping with the understanding of natural right to speak freely, there is an equal and corresponding duty not to violate that right in another person. In other words, those who exercise a right must respect another person’s right to the same or void theirs. Since individuals have a right to free speech, there is a duty not to abuse it, or to violate another person’s right to speak.

There is no requirement for the government to protect injurious speech. In fact, punishing injurious speech is a means of protecting the natural right to free speech. Such false speech that harms others is punishable. And it is the province of the government to protect the natural rights of individuals in such cases. As Thomas G. West has noted, “freedom of speech is not freedom for licentious speech.” Injurious speech includes injury to the character or reputation of an individual. To engage in such an act is to abuse the liberty an individual possesses.

Far from protecting the First Amendment and exercising it in the manner it requires, the media and the elitist press have continuously flaunted the intent of that protection and absconded in their duty. With each fake news story, they have engaged in licentious speech harming not only the president in his reputation, but those of people who are associated with him.

They have breathlessly blamed Trump for revealing information that they cannot prove he has revealed even as they then reveal classified information themselves. Only the most irrational and propaganda driven press could defend such an indefensible act.

Hiding behind a limited and perverted view of the First Amendment, the press is trying to usurp the consent of the governed by overturning the election and by lying about the events of the day through gossip and deception. Their intent is to confuse the public so that they, in their infinite and superior wisdom, might choose our representatives for us.


After the Confederates, WHO"S Next?


On Sept. 1, 1864, Union forces under Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, victorious at Jonesborough, burned Atlanta and began the March to the Sea where Sherman’s troops looted and pillaged farms and towns all along the 300-mile road to Savannah.
Captured in the Confederate defeat at Jonesborough was William Martin Buchanan of Okolona, Mississippi, who was transferred by rail to the Union POW stockade at Camp Douglas, Illinois.
By the standards of modernity, my great-grandfather, fighting to prevent the torching of Georgia’s capital, was engaged in a criminal and immoral cause. And “Uncle Billy” Sherman was a liberator.
Under President Grant, Sherman took command of the Union army and ordered Gen. Philip Sheridan, who had burned the Shenandoah Valley to starve Virginia into submission, to corral the Plains Indians on reservations.
It is in dispute as to whether Sheridan said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” There is no dispute as to the contempt Sheridan had for the Indians, killing their buffalo to deprive them of food.
Today, great statues stand in the nation’s capital, along with a Sherman and a Sheridan circle, to honor these most ruthless of generals in that bloodiest of wars that cost 620,000 American lives.
Yet, across the South and even in border states like Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, one may find statues of Confederate soldiers in town squares to honor the valor and sacrifices of the Southern men and boys who fought and fell in the Lost Cause.
When the Spanish-American War broke out, President McKinley, who as a teenage soldier had fought against “Stonewall” Jackson in the Shenandoah and been at Antietam, bloodiest single-day battle of the Civil War, removed his hat and stood for the singing of “Dixie,” as Southern volunteers and former Confederate soldiers paraded through Atlanta to fight for their united country. My grandfather was in that army.
For a century, Americans lived comfortably with the honoring, North and South, of the men who fought on both sides.
But today’s America is not the magnanimous country we grew up in.
Since the ’60s, there has arisen an ideology that holds that the Confederacy was the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany and those who fought under its battle flag should be regarded as traitors or worse.
Thus, in New Orleans, statues of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, and General Robert E. Lee were just pulled down. And a drive is underway to take down the statue of Andrew Jackson, hero of the Battle of New Orleans and president of the United States, which stands in Jackson Square.
Why? Old Hickory was a slave owner and Indian fighter who used his presidential power to transfer the Indians of Georgia out to the Oklahoma Territory in a tragedy known as the Trail of Tears.
But if Jackson, and James K. Polk, who added the Southwest and California to the United States after the Mexican-American War, were slave owners, so, too, were four of our first five presidents.
The list includes the father of our country, George Washington, the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, and the author of our Constitution, James Madison.
Not only are the likenesses of Washington and Jefferson carved on Mount Rushmore, the two Virginians are honored with two of the most magnificent monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.
Behind this remorseless drive to blast the greatest names from America’s past off public buildings, and to tear down their statues and monuments, is an egalitarian extremism rooted in envy and hate.
Among its core convictions is that spreading Christianity was a cover story for rapacious Europeans who, after discovering America, came in masses to dispossess and exterminate native peoples. “The white race,” wrote Susan Sontag, “is the cancer of human history.”
Today, the men we were taught to revere as the great captains, explorers, missionaries and nation-builders are seen by many as part of a racist, imperialist, genocidal enterprise, wicked men who betrayed and eradicated the peace-loving natives who had welcomed them.
What they blindly refuse to see is that while its sins are scarlet, as are those of all civilizations, it is the achievements of the West that are unrivaled. The West ended slavery. Christianity and the West gave birth to the idea of inalienable human rights.
As scholar Charles Murray has written, 97 percent of the world’s most significant figures and 97 percent of the world’s greatest achievements in the arts, architecture, literature, astronomy, biology, earth sciences, physics, medicine, mathematics and technology came from the West.
What is disheartening is not that there are haters of our civilization out there, but that there seem to be fewer defenders.
Of these icon-smashers it may be said: Like ISIS and Boko Haram, they can tear down statues, but these people could never build a country.
What happens, one wonders, when these Philistines discover that the seated figure in the statue, right in front of D.C.’s Union Station, is the High Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Christopher Columbus?

Happy Memorial Day!

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Obama STILL Leading from BEHIND

The government in exile — the real one, according to the media — has had a busy week at home and abroad. “President Obama” has given up leading from behind and presumes now to lead from overseas. His secretary of state has a new mission, as missionary to the safe places where snowflakes fall.
Mr. Obama joined German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin to lecture America and the West to quit being so beastly to the strivers of the Third World, and open wider the borders of the West. “We can’t isolate ourselves,” the former president said from a platform at the Brandenburg Gate. “We can’t hide behind a wall.”
This is the message that resonates with Mrs. Merkel and many of the Europeans, even it strikes a sour note at home and even in Britain, coming just days after the spawn of a Libyan immigrant murdered nearly two dozen Britons, including several children, and then blew himself up at a concert arena in Manchester.
Timing is everything, as the man said, and the president in exile used his appearance in Berlin as a coming-out party after nearly six months of playing celebrity in borrowed houses across the South Seas and the Caribbean, playing at golf instead of government. But boredom set it and when Frau Merkel agreed to receive him as a fellow head of state, well, why not? She knew she could count on him to deliver platitudes and goo-goo worthy of an American president in exile.
“One way we can do a better job is to create more opportunities for people in their home countries,” Mr. Obama said. “If there are disruptions in these countries, if there is bad governance, if there is war, or if there is poverty in this new world we live in, we can’t isolate ourselves — we can’t hide behind a wall.”
Then the treacle turned to mush. “A child on the other side of the border is no less worthy of love and compassion than my own child. We can’t distinguish between in terms of their worth and inherent dignity, and that they’re deserving of shelter and love and education and opportunity.” 

Well, who could argue with that. Everybody likes children. But like so many liberals and “progressives,” the former president does not mean that what he says should be taken literally, or even seriously. Walls, after all, are relative. America can’t have one, but he can. The president lives in an enormous rented mansion behind a brick and stone wall built just for him, and which he has fitted out as the White House in exile, with a staff and lots of electronic communications gear, requiring the seizure of a quarter of a mile of a quiet residential street to be guarded by a Secret Service detail not much smaller than the platoon of heavily armed agents who kept him safe, sound and ready for action at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. Obama might think (though the Secret Service probably doesn’t) that he is safe from illegal immigrants up to no good simply because of who he is. But more bad timing: Only one day after the former president’s tryst with Frau Merkel, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, revealed that Customs and Border Protection had released, at Mr. Obama’s direction, 16 members of the remarkably brutal MS-13 gang, freed to look at will for opportunities to kill and plunder.
“[The federal authorities] apprehended them, knew they were MS-13 gang members, and they processed them into our communities,” the senator told his committee.
Mr. Obama seems not to understand that an American child on this side of the border is no less worthy of love and compassion than a child on the other side of that border, or, since the former president mentioned it, his own child.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the secretary of state in exile, auditioning to be a stand-up comic, told graduates of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard that in the good old days presided over by Barack Obama the way to get ahead in government was to run for office. “But with this White House,” he said, “I’d say buy Rosetta Stone and learn Russian.” He told the graduates that when he listens to the news now he thinks he’s in a country “the State Department warns Americans not to travel to.”

A presidency in exile is not as good as the real thing, but Mr. Obama and the Democrats clearly think they are the real thing. Donald Trump is merely the interloper, and once he and his administration are destroyed, the Restoration will be at hand.

Globalism Gone OFF the Rails

Westernization brings prosperity while crushing traditional lifestyles

Illustration on the failures of globalism by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
Illustration on the failures of globalism by Alexander Hunter

Victor Davis Hanson

PRAGUE | The West that birthed globalization is now in an open revolt over its own offspring, from here in Eastern Europe to southern Ohio.
About half of the population in Europe and the United States seems to want to go back to the world that existed before the 1980s, when local communities had more control of their own destinies and traditions.
The Czech Republic, to take one example, joined the European Union in 2004. But it has not yet adopted the euro and cannot decide whether the EU wisely prevents wars of the past from being repeated or recklessly strangles freedom in the manner of the old Soviet Union — or both.
In places devastated by globalization, such as southern Michigan or Roubaix, France, underemployed youth in their mid-20s often live at home in prolonged adolescence without much hope of enjoying the pre-globalized lifestyles of their parents.
Eastern Europeans are now discovering those globalized trade-offs that are so common in Western Europe, as they watch rates of marriage, homeownership and child-rearing decline.
One half of the West — the half that lives mostly on the seacoasts of America and Western Europe — loves globalization. The highly educated and cosmopolitan “citizens of the world” have done well through international finance, insurance, investments, technology, education and trade, as the old Western markets of 1 billion people became world markets of 6 billion consumers.
These coastal Westerners often feel more of an affinity with foreigners like themselves than with fellow countrymen who live 100 miles inland. And they are not shy in lecturing their poorer brethren to shape up and get with their globalized program.
Late-20th-century globalization — a synonym for Westernization — brought a lot of good to both poorer Western countries and the non-Western world. Czech farmers now have equipment comparable to what’s used in Iowa. Even those who live in the Amazon basin now have access to antibiotics and eyeglasses. South Koreans have built and enjoyed cars and television sets as if they invented them.
But all that said, we have never really resolved the contradictions of globalization.
Does it really bring people together into a shared world order, or does it simply offer a high-tech and often explosive veneer to non-Western cultures that are antithetical to the very West that they so borrow from and copy?
An Islamic State terrorist does not hate the United States any less because he now wears hoodies and sneakers and can text his girlfriend. More likely, Western fashion and high-tech toys only empower radical Islamic hatred of Western values.
If an airport in Denver looks like one in Beijing, or if a grenade launcher in Syria seems similar to those used at Fort Bragg, are China and the radical Islamic world therefore becoming more like the United States? Or are they adopting Western ideas and weapons while accentuating their far deeper cultural and historical differences?
Iran is desperate for nuclear technology originally spawned from the “Great Satan” in order to better destroy the Great Satan.
Another paradox of globalization is a new passive-aggressive attitude inside the West.
Elites who benefit from Westernized globalization often gain enough wealth and leisure to have the latitude to trash it — almost as a way of dealing with their own guilt over their exalted status.
At no time in the history of Western civilization have American college students ever been so pampered — with latte bars, trauma counselors, rock-climbing walls and upscale student unions — and yet so critical of the very global civilization that guaranteed them such bounty.
Those in the former Third World constantly berate the West for its supposed sins of imperialism, colonialism and exploitation, while millions of their own citizens risk their very lives to cross the Mediterranean or the U.S.-Mexico border to enter and live in the West.
Is the message, “I hate the West, so please let me in”?
The cult of multiculturalism is also a paradox.
Under globalization, the West seeks to spread its values along with its iPhones, as if Western values were far preferable to the alternatives.
But a chief tenet of globalized multiculturalism is to not judge other cultures by “arbitrary” Western standards. Many Western elites implicitly believe that their own ideas about democracy, treatment of minority groups and equality under the law are superior to the alternatives elsewhere — and some expect the rest of the world to eventually look like Malibu, Palo Alto or the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
So if Iran or Chechnya oppresses gays, or if traditional Arab societies institutionalize female genital mutilation, are they homophobic and misogynist, or merely different?
And do Westerners look the other way at phobias and oppression abroad, even though they would never do so at home?
In truth, globalization is a mere amphetamine. It speeds things up and alters superficial behavior. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that globalization has fundamentally altered the nature and culture of those it hooks.

How Team Obama Tried to HACK the ELECTION

 Paul Sperry

New revelations have surfaced that the Obama administration abused intelligence during the election by launching a massive domestic-spy campaign that included snooping on Trump officials.
The irony is mind-boggling: Targeting political opposition is long a technique of police states like Russia, which Team Obama has loudly condemned for allegedly using its own intelligence agencies to hack into our election.
The revelations, as well as testimony this week from former Obama intel officials, show the extent to which the Obama administration politicized and weaponized intelligence against Americans.
Thanks to Circa News, we now know the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama routinely violated privacy protections while snooping through foreign intercepts involving US citizens — and failed to disclose the breaches, prompting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a month before the election to rebuke administration officials.
The story concerns what’s known as “upstream” data collection under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under which the NSA looks at the content of electronic communication. Upstream refers to intel scooped up about third parties: Person A sends Person B an e-mail mentioning Person C. Though Person C isn’t a party to the e-mail, his information will be scooped up and potentially used by the NSA.
Further, the number of NSA data searches about Americans mushroomed after Obama loosened rules for protecting such identities from government officials and thus the reporters they talk to.
The FISA court called it a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue” that NSA analysts — in violation of a 2011 rule change prohibiting officials from searching Americans’ information without a warrant — “had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”
A number of those searches were made from the White House, and included private citizens working for the Trump campaign, some of whose identities were leaked to the media. The revelations earned a stern rebuke from the ACLU and from civil-liberties champion Sen. Rand Paul.
We also learned this week that Obama intelligence officials really had no good reason attaching a summary of a dossier on Trump to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave to Obama just weeks before Trump took office.
Under congressional questioning Tuesday, Obama’s CIA chief John Brennan said the dossier did not “in any way” factor into the agency’s assessment that Russia interfered in the election. Why not? Because as Obama intel czar James Clapper earlier testified, “We could not corroborate the sourcing.”
But that didn’t stop Brennan in January from attaching its contents to the official report for the president. He also included the unverified allegations in the briefing he gave Hill Democrats.
In so doing, Brennan virtually guaranteed that it would be leaked, which it promptly was.
In short, Brennan politicized raw intelligence. In fact, he politicized the entire CIA.
Langley vets say Brennan was the most politicized director in the agency’s history. Former CIA field-operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was “known as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the election. I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says.”
Coyle noted that Brennan broke with his predecessors who stayed out of elections. Several weeks before the vote, he made it very clear he was pulling for Hillary. His deputy Mike Morell even came out and publicly endorsed her in The New York Times, claiming Trump was an “unwitting agent” of Moscow.
Brennan isn’t just a Democrat. He’s a radical leftist who in 1980 — during the height of the Cold War — voted for a Communist Party candidate for president.
When Brennan rants about the dangers of strongman Vladimir Putin targeting our elections and subverting our democratic process, does he not catch at least a glimpse of his own reflection?
What he and the rest of the Obama gang did has inflicted more damage on the integrity of our electoral process than anything the Russians have done.

Friday, May 26, 2017

How Obama’s ‘SMART POWER’ Helped Seed the Manchester Attack

Post Editorial Board

The hunt for the terror network behind the Manchester attack is now focusing on Libya, where bomber Salman Abedi’s father and brother were arrested Thursday and from which Abedi himself had only recently returned.
That’s hardly surprising: South Manchester is home to one of the world’s largest Libyan expatriate communities, which in recent years has become a prime recruiting ground for young jihadists.
And Libya itself is the base for an ISIS external-operations wing tasked with plotting terrorist attacks in Europe. Indeed, since the fall of Moammar Khadafy, Libya has become a haven for Islamist terrorist groups.
Such is the result of Barack Obama’s failed policy — which he so confidently announced would prove smarter than his predecessor’s mistakes in Iraq, only to be proved horribly wrong.
Obama (with a huge push from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) effectively brought about regime change in Libya, while avoiding the kind of occupation that proved so deadly and costly to the Bush administration after it ousted Saddam Hussein.
Yet all that did was create a huge vacuum, rapidly filled by civil war among various militias as well as ISIS and other extremists.
Libya’s anarchy is also responsible for a good part of the refugee flows that threaten to overwhelm Europe.
And it’s not as if no one saw it coming. On the contrary, the State Department’s top Middle East hand warned from the start that Libya’s post-Khadafy leadership was hopeless, leaving the country prey to becoming the failed state it now is.
In short, Obama and George W. Bush made the same mistake: They had no real plan for what came next after a despot’s ouster.
Bush eventually stabilized Iraq, though it turned south again after Obama withdrew the last few thousand US troops. Obama, by contrast, essentially gave up on Libya after an al Qaeda offshoot stormed the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012, killing the US ambassador and three others.
Now, as Benny Avni notes, Libya is where ISIS’ leaders will likely flee once they’re driven out of Iraq and Syria.
So much for Obama-era “smart power.”

De Blasio Staffer ARRESTED for CHILD Pornography

 Larry Celona and Bruce Golding

A leading young Democrat and de Blasio administration employee was busted on charges of possessing a huge stash of kiddie porn, law-enforcement sources told The Post on Friday.
Jacob Schwartz, 29, allegedly had several thousand computer images and videos showing children as young as 6-months-old, sources said.
He surrendered to NYPD computer-crimes investigators in Manhattan’s 13th Precinct on Thursday morning, sources said.
Schwartz is the president of the Manhattan Young Democrats and the downstate region vice president of the New York State Young Democrats.
He’s employed as a $66,360-a-year computer programmer analyst in the city Department of Design and Construction, where he works on the “Build It Back” Hurricane Sandy recovery and resiliency program.
Schwartz was hired after working there as an intern in fiscal 2015, records show.
According to his online biography, Schwartz got involved in politics at a young age, helping his father — labor lawyer Arthur Schwartz — campaign for Democratic district leader in Greenwich Village.
The elder Schwartz served as New York counsel to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ failed presidential campaign, and was also the campaign treasurer for law professor and liberal activist Zephyr Teachout when she challenged Gov. Andrew Cuomo for the 2014 Democratic nomination.

Trump Sells Out NATO!

Well, no, but a Trump speech triggers another overwrought uproar.

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) delivers a speech with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the new headquarters of NATO in Brussels, May 25.

Donald Trump creates many of his own problems, but sometimes he can’t win no matter what he does. Consider the uproar on Thursday because the President supposedly did not explicitly endorse NATO’s Article 5 commitment that an attack on one ally is an attack on all.
Nicholas Burns, a Harvard professor and beating heart of the U.S. diplomatic establishment, followed Mr. Trump’s speech with a Twitter barrage that included: “Every US President since Truman has pledged support for Article 5—that US will defend Europe. Not so Trump today at #NATO. Major mistake.” The herd of independent media minds then stampeded with the theme that Mr. Trump had deliberately failed to commit the U.S. to defending Europe against attack.
But is that really what happened? Mr. Trump was speaking, briefly, at an event at NATO headquarters in Brussels unveiling the Article 5 and Berlin Wall Memorials. The Article 5 Memorial commemorates the only time that NATO has triggered Article 5, which came after al Qaeda’s attack on the U.S. on 9/11. The Memorial includes a remnant of the World Trade Center’s North Tower.
Here is what Mr. Trump said in the third paragraph of his speech: “This ceremony is a day for both remembrance and resolve. We remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 innocent people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on September 11, 2001. Our NATO allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the Article 5 collective defensive commitments.”
So let’s see: By speaking at an event commemorating Article 5, and explicitly citing and praising Article 5’s invocation on 9/11, Mr. Trump was really trying to send a message that he doesn’t believe in Article 5? Who knew Mr. Trump was capable of such messaging subtlety?
Mr. Trump did follow his reference to Article 5 with blunt demands for NATO burden sharing. Critics say this implied that the U.S. won’t come to Europe’s defense until all of NATO’s members spend at least 2% of their national GDP on the military, as NATO’s guidelines demand.
But if that’s what he was trying to say, consider Mr. Trump’s reference in his speech that “the NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders.” The reason that Article 5 was included in the NATO charter in the first place is the threat from Russia, and Mr. Trump mentioned that threat.
Mr. Trump started his credibility problem on NATO with his campaign comments that the alliance was “obsolete.” We criticized him at the time. But as President he has walked at least 90% of that back—by supporting Montenegro’s entry into the alliance despite Russia’s furious opposition; by following through with new NATO deployments on the alliance’s eastern front, including a U.S.-led battalion; and this week with a new NATO commitment to join the coalition against Islamic State.
It’s fair to whack Mr. Trump if he indulges his many bad instincts, but it serves no one other than Vladimir Putin to suggest without evidence that the U.S. won’t honor its NATO commitments—or to drive a wedge between allies simply to make Mr. Trump look bad.

Zuckerberg Calling for GOVERNMENT to Give EVERYBODY Free Money

Todd Haselton
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called on the need to consider universal basic income for Americans during his Harvard Commencement Speech.
Zuckerberg's comments reflect those of other Silicon Valley bigwigs, including Sam Altman, the president of venture capital firm Y Combinator.
"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."
Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.
Altman's view is similar. A year ago, Altman said he thinks "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs—no matter what, especially if there are enough resources to make it possible. We don't yet know how it should look or how to pay for it, but basic income seems a promising way to do this." Altman believes basic income will be possible as technological advancements "generate an abundance of resources" that help decrease the cost of living.

Trump Budget Blasted as Kid-Killing — SERIOUSLY?

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks during a news conference, Wednesday, April 26, 2017, in New York's City Hall. The mayor released his $84.86 billion fiscal 2018 executive budget on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Cheryl K. Chumley

Democrats, party of the breathless, have apparently sent out the mad dogs to rip up President Donald Trump’s budget plan. And boy, have they ever ripped.
It must be fun to be a Dem and say whatever one thinks, absent filters, minus facts — to just throw it on out there for the public to process, to deal with, to try and decipher truth from spin.
Take a look at this, from New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, reacting to Trump’s budget: “Children will die because of this.”
Really, Mr. Mayor? Really?
But to be fair, let’s put that remark in context. Here’s his whole statement, made during a press conference in the Bronx, in the aftermath of Trump’s presentation of his budget.
“Five hundred thousand kids in [Trump’s NYC] hometown will have less food to eat because of this proposal,” de Blasio said, Fox News reported. “It is not an overstatement to say that some children will die because of this.”
Well, yeah, actually, it is kind of an overstatement to say that. Just like it would be an overstatement to sling this right-back-at-ya comment de Blasio’s way: Well, if you know children are about to die, and you do nothing to help them yourself, doesn’t that make you complicit in their deaths?
Wouldn’t that mean you, Mayor de Blasio, are guilty of letting these poor children die?
How about a new headline, reflecting the claim that Trump’s budget is a child-killer, recognizing de Blasio’s statement as more factual than fiery — one that perhaps reads: “NYC’s De Blasio Fails to Save Children Starved by Trump Budget.”
Two can play that game. If de Blasio’s claims of Trump’s kid-killing budget isn’t over-the-top, well then, neither is a claim faulting the prophetic de Blasio for failing to reach into his own pockets to provide for the ailing kids.
But of course, the left is just trying to tear down the idea that Trump’s budget brings — and that’s this: People can indeed be self-sufficient. De Blasio would never reach in his own pocket to provide for these poor children he supposedly care so deeply for because that’s not the way of the left. In his mind, feeding the poor children is a government function, not individual responsibility.
Well, bully for de Blasio’s emotionally charged rhetoric. But here’s the truth: Americans can indeed provide for their own families and selves, absent government subsidies.
The left hates that thought. It messes with their control.
Hillary Clinton weighed in with similarly fiery rhetoric, calling Trump’s budget “an unimaginable level of cruelty” against the poor and needy.
In a speech before the Children’s Health Fund in New York City, Clinton went on, the New York Daily news reported: “This administration and Republicans in Congress are mounting an onslaught against the needs of children and people with disabilities, women and seniors. [Trump’s budget represents a] lack of imagination and disdain for the struggles of millions of Americans, including millions of children. … None of us can remain silent in the face of these attacks. … It hurts the well-being of children.”
Clinton, de Blasio and the rest of their ilk are talking about Trump’s proposed cuts to social programs such as food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance, three areas of government spending — read, taxpayer spending — that have grown to bloated proportions in recent years.
Medicaid spending soared under Barack Obama, for example, more than three times its 2000 numbers, to $389 billion this year. Trump’s budget team says they simply want to reel in the spending with oversight and requirements for efficiency. What’s wrong with that? Even Democrats ought to agree that wasteful spending of Medicaid dollars is not a good thing.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, spending has also rocketed in recent times — again, under Obama’s administration, to the point of earning Barack the monicker as “food stamp president.” In 2000, spending on food stamps stood around $18 billion. Now, post-Obama years? It’s at $71 billion.
Trump’s plan calls for a total of $198 billion worth of SNAP savings spread over a 10-year period, again by focusing on identifying waste and imposing tighter work requirements, and by requiring states to step up to the food stamp plate and match the federal contributions — a happy nod to the Tenth Amendment.
And on Social Security Disability Insurance? Here’s yet another taxpayer-funded program that soared under Obama, from its 2000 level of $56 billion to its present level of $144 billion. SSDI screams for oversight and reform and under Trump’s plan, which trims $72 billion over 10 years, it will very likely see it. Maybe, at the very least, Trump’s plan will put a stop to federal bureaucrats discouraging the disabled from returning to work, yes? That’s be a huge reform plus. Not only would it recognize the idea that disabled does not mean one step from dead. But it also actually incentivizes those disabled who want to return to self-sufficiency. Again, good things that would seem to draw in support from both sides of the political aisle.
But this is where we’re hitting the nerve.
Trump’s plan offers a dramatic deviance from the Obama era — the Obama era that spoon-fed the liberal line that government’s greatest mission was to help.
Well, it’s not. Government’s overall mission is to uphold the Constitution, not create an entitlement nation where those of less fortune are conditioned to look solely on government and the taxpayers for help. We’ve strayed as a nation from the idea of churches, charities and the private sector stepping in to help those with need, and have now turned the corner on expecting the government — the taxpayer — to spread the wealth and pay for the food, the shelter, the clothing, daycare, phones, Internet connections and so forth of the needy.
What’s more, we now scoff at the idea of the private sector, the churches, the charities even being able to provide for such needs — as if this country had been founded on a socialist-minded concept of Government Provides All and not on a Judeo-Christian vision, and a limited government, democratic-republic Constitution.
Trump’s plan gives a shout-out to the concept of accountability, individual boot-strap planning, self-reliance. And that’s what Democrats can’t stand or abide.
A government that is the provider, is a government that decides. A government that doles, is a government that determines who gets what and how much.
For Democrats, budget season is all about wrestling for control. It’s not at all about ensuring the proper constitutional programs of the U.S. government are funded, or that the taxpayer dollars are well and wisely spent. Control, for them, is the crux of the fight. The dollars and cents, disbursements and distributions, are just pieces of the game board of how the whole budget battle is being played, Democrats versus Trump, Democrats versus Republicans. And hanging in the balance: the fate of the republic and the freedom of its people.