.
TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Can America Fight Two Cold Wars at Once?
.
Gloria In Excelsis Deo
by Menagerie
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Glory to God in the highest, the Greater Doxology, is the song the angels sang at Christ’s birth... Perhaps no other song, no other phrase, so greatly expresses the joy of the moment. I love all the children in this video. One of my favorite memories of Christmases past is that of our sons placing baby Jesus in the manger after coming home from Midnight Mass. Our nativity always had an empty manger until Christmas, as a way to help our sons remember and anticipate the birth of our savior. Now we still follow that tradition and have a grandchild place Jesus in the manger. May all hearts be opened as the moment we celebrate, remember, treasure, and rejoice in comes closer. May we unite in this ancient call to our God as we celebrate His gift to all mankind.
Mark Meadows Discusses
Border Security and Appropriations
by sundance.
IDF chief: US troops leaving Syria is ‘significant,’
but no need to overstate it
by JUDAH ARI GROSS
{timesofisrael.com} ~ IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot on Sunday called the White House’s decision to pull its troops from Syria a “significant event,”... but said the Israeli military would continue to independently fight Iran’s military presence in the neighboring country. Last week, US President Donald Trump announced he was withdrawing the approximately 2,000 US troops currently stationed in northeastern Syria, a move many analysts fear will allow Iran to more easily spread weapons and fighters throughout the Middle East. The US soldiers had been specifically deployed there to fight the Islamic State terror group, but had also helped block the establishment of an Iranian-controlled land corridor from the Islamic Republic through Iraq and Syria, into Lebanon and to the Mediterranean Sea. “The American decision to withdraw troops from Syria is a significant event, but there’s no need to overstate it. We’ve been dealing with this front for decades, alone,” Eisenkot said, speaking at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya at an annual event honoring former IDF chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. These were the Israeli general’s first public comments about the American withdrawal decision....
Mike Pompeo’s State Department mocks US anti-ISIS
envoy over resignation: ‘Good job, Brett’
by Joel Gehrke.
scumbag/clown-Schumer Demands Trump
Re-Open Government, Suggests President
Outright ‘Abandon’ National Security Goals
by CILLIAN ZEAL
{westernjournal.com} ~ Senate Minority Leader Charles scumbag/clown-Schumer has made it abundantly clear he’s going to do anything to stop President Donald Trump from securing border wall funding... At this point, that means the filibuster and a bunch of ill-tempered, Democratic appearances on those Sunday morning chat shows where the audience consists of political geeks such as myself. However, I wouldn’t put it past him to chain himself to the White House door, a la Laura Loomer, and refuse to leave until the president acknowledges the error of his ways. scumbag/clown-Schumer hasn’t pulled out the handcuffs just yet, but his ultimatums are getting even more, well, ultimatum-y. Now, he not only says he’s not going to give Trump the $5 billion in funding for the wall, he says the president must abandon the wall concept entirely if the government is to reopen.“Mr. President, President Trump, if you want to open the government, you must abandon the wall, plain and simple,” scumbag/clown-Schumer said from the Senate floor Saturday. scumbag/clown-Schumer, apparently unaware of the irony, called Trump’s position “a destructive, two-week temper tantrum, demanding the American taxpayer pony up for an expensive and ineffective border wall that the president promised Mexico would pay for.” Yes, Trump’s demanding Americans pony up for a border wall which, um, was a key part of his platform when they voted him in. scumbag/clown-Schumer, meanwhile, is demanding that no money be spent on the border wall in a house of Congress where his party remains in the minority. While they have filibuster power over border wall funding, let’s please not pretend he’s representing the will of the people on this issue....
Was The Russia Conspiracy
scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton's Doomsday Scenario?
by DANIEL GREENFIELD
{freedomoutpost.com} ~ The Steele dossier, a document produced by Christopher Steele at the behest of the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign is ground zero for the Russia conspiracy theory... that is tearing apart the country. Even the dirty cop-Mueller investigation has its ultimate roots in the eavesdropping carried out by the scumbag/liar-nObama administration using the dossier as evidence and the dubious and unverified claims made by Steele in the dossier. But why did the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign ever set out to create such a document? The Steele dossier has been described as opposition research and it was certainly circulated among reporters in order to spread the Russia conspiracy theory in the media, but its contents were circulated more in the scumbag/liar-nObama era FBI and the DOJ, and its media rounds seemed more geared to creating stories that would justify a FISA warrant than to any serious effort to sway the electorate with its attacks. The dossier was never convincing opposition research because its central claim, that Trump was a Russian agent, was too far fetched and detached from election issues to ever connect with voters. It required the complicity of the FBI and the DOJ, and dirty cop-Mueller’s sanction, to give it any credibility. The dossier’s real role was legal, not political. It wasn’t meant for the tabloids, but to create a pretext for an investigation of Trump and his associates. And so it’s easy to see its usefulness to the Dems today. But why create a pretext for a secret investigation of Trump before the election was even done?....
.
Can America Fight Two Cold Wars at Once?
by Pat Buchanan
{townhall.com} ~ Kim Jong Un, angered by the newest U.S. sanctions, is warning that North Korea's commitment to denuclearization could be imperiled and we could be headed for "exchanges of fire."
Iran, warns Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is testing ballistic missiles that are forbidden to them by the U.N. Security Council.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned that, within days, he will launch a military thrust against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northern Syria, regarding them as allies of the PKK terrorist organization inside Turkey.
Vladimir Putin just flew two Tu-160 nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela. Ukraine claims Russia is amassing tanks on its border.
How did the United States, triumphant in the Cold War, find itself beset on so many fronts?
First, by intervening militarily and repeatedly in a Mideast where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, and thereby ensnaring ourselves in that Muslim region's forever war.
Second, by extending our NATO alliance deep into Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Baltics, thereby igniting a Cold War II with Russia.
Third, by nurturing China for decades before recognizing she was becoming a malevolent superpower whose Asian-Pacific ambitions could be realized only at the expense of friends of the United States.
The question, then, for our time is this: Can the U.S. pursue a Cold War policy of containment against both of the other great military powers, even as we maintain our Cold War commitments to defend scores of countries around the globe?
And, if so, for how long can we continue to do this, and at what cost?
Belatedly, the U.S. establishment has recognized the historic folly of having chaperoned China onto the world stage and seeking to buy her lasting friendship with $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense since Bush 41.
Consider how China has reciprocated America's courtship.
She has annexed the South China Sea, built air and missile bases on half a dozen disputed islets, and told U.S. ships and planes to stay clear.
She has built and leased ports and bases from the Indian Ocean to Africa. She has lent billions to poor Asian and African countries like the Maldives, and then demanded basing concessions when these nations default on the debts owed for building their facilities.
She has sent hundreds of thousand of students to U.S. colleges and universities, where many have allegedly engaged in espionage.
She kept her currency below market value to maintain her trade advantage and entice U.S. corporations to China where they are shaken down to transfer their technology secrets.
China has engaged in cyber theft of the personnel files of 20 million U.S. federal applicants and employees. She apparently thieved the credit card and passport numbers of 500 million guests at Marriott hotels over the years.
She has sought to steal the secrets of America's defense contractors, especially those working with the Navy whose 7th Fleet patrols the Western Pacific off China's coast.
She is believed to be behind the cybersecurity breaches that facilitated the theft of data on the U.S. F-22 and F-35, information now suspected of having played a role in Beijing's development of its fifth-generation stealth fighters.
Christians are persecuted in China. And Beijing has established internment camps for the Uighur minority, where these Turkic Muslim peoples are subjected to brainwashing with Chinese propaganda.
China's interests, as manifest in her behavior, are thus in conflict with U.S. interests. And the notion that we should continue to cede her an annual trade surplus at our expense of $400 billion seems an absurdity.
We have, for decades, been financing the buildup of a Communist China whose ambition is to expel us from East Asia and the Western Pacific, achieve dominance over peoples we have regarded as friends and allies since World War II, and to displace us as the world's first power.
Yet if engagement with China has failed and left us facing a new adversary with 10 times Russia's population, and an economy nearly 10 times Russia's size, what should be our policy?
Can we, should we, pursue a Cold War with Russia and China, using Kennan's containment policy and threatening war if U.S. red lines are crossed by either or both?
Should we cut back on our treaty commitments, terminating U.S. war guarantees until they comport with what are true vital U.S. interests?
Should we, faced with two great power adversaries, do as Nixon did and seek to separate them?
If, however, we conclude, as this city seems to be concluding, that the long-term threat to U.S. interests is China, not Putin's Russia, President Trump cannot continue a trade relationship that provides the Communist Party of Xi Jinping with a yearly $400 billion trade surplus.
For that would constitute a policy of almost suicidal appeasement.
Comments