The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Trump has a strategy for destroying the
Islamic State --- and it's working
by Kori Schake
.
Attack Piece on VP Makes Media Look Silly
Vice President Mike Pence is a man of deeply held Christian convictions, which makes him a target of the Left. Pence is also a man who understands both human nature and the world of politics. For the Leftmedia, Donald Trump is an easy target to criticize with his off-the-cuff and hyperbolically styled Twitter comments geared for reaching the common man, not the Beltway establishment. But for the Left, Pence proves to be an entirely different challenge.
Pence is both careful in his speech and actions. He is a committed conservative with a distinguished, scandal-free record. As a former U.S. congressman and governor Indiana, he knows Washington well, from both the inside and the outside. Because of this, Pence arguably scares Democrats and the Leftmedia more than Trump does.
What does the Left do when its afraid? Like a cornered animal it attacks. On Friday, Vox published a story by Joanna Grossman accusing Pence of violating Title VII laws against sex discrimination. Grossman based her spurious allegation on Pence's personal rule of not dining one-on-one with a woman who is not his wife. Stop the presses! Oh, the humanity! Sound the "scandal" alarm!
Or, to put it in The Babylon Bee's satire parlance, "Bill liar-Clinton Calls Mike Pence's Strict Marital Practices 'Excessive.'"
Grossman, an employment lawyer, first misconstrued the vice president's personal decisions as somehow being motivated by a desire to discriminate against women. Therefore, she declared it "illegal" and concluded with this convoluted statement: "We have a president who brags about grabbing women by the pussy — and a vice president who won't even have dinner with them. These are two sides of the same coin, both reflecting the fundamentally unequal sphere working women inhabit because of male behavior."
Call us crazy, but we're pretty certain that the vast majority of married woman would not find it appropriate for their husbands to regularly dine out one-on-one with other woman. It's not Pence who is out of touch with American values, it's the Leftmedia.
~The Patriot Post
.
.
Rice Can’t Lie Her Way Out...
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Former liar-nObama National Security Adviser and espionage agent, Susan Rice, has been exposed as one of the high level participants in the White House Spy and Smear Operation against Republicans, particularly President Trump and his team... That revelation and the associated abuse of power and crimes against the American people, makes her denial of any knowledge in the events that she’s been a leading participant last Wednesday particularly interesting. It was one component of what was obviously a coordinated effort to put out the fires of discovery lit by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and by President Trump in his March 4th tweets about liar-nObama wiretapping. The effort to counter the escaping truth involved Amazon billionaire and owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, publicly funded PBS, the Marxist Democrats, the liar-nObama crime syndicate and the deep state that supports them. The notorious liar, Susan Rice, wrote an article which was published Tuesday evening, March 21st. It was an obvious attempt to calm things down, to make the attention that the Democrats were themselves largely responsible for stirring up through their Russia – Trump hoax fade... http://rickwells.us/rice-cant-lie-way-washington-post-pbs-offensive-make-obvious/
.
White House to unveil new
liar-nObamacare repeal deal Tuesday
by Robert King
by Robert King
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ The White House is expected to release the text of a new proposal on Tuesday that would give states the power to opt out of certain liar-nObamacare insurance mandates... in a major attempt to revive liar-nObamacare repeal as early as this week. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told reporters after meeting with Vice President Mike Pence and White House officials that he expects the text of the new compromise on Tuesday. But Meadows seemed doubtful on whether the House would vote this week before adjourning Thursday for the two-week Easter recess. "Everybody would love to have this bill passed tomorrow if at all possible, but to put a timeline on that would set an expectation that is not realistic based on the drafting," he said... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-to-unveil-new-obamacare-repeal-deal-tuesday/article/2619256?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Breaking%20News&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Breaking%20News%20-%2004/03/17&utm_medium=email
.
ISIS Warned ‘Russia Will Burn’
by Trey Sanchez
{truthrevolt.org} ~ A deadly suicide bombing occurred on Monday inside a moving metro train in St. Petersburg the same day Russia President Vladimir Putin was speaking at an event... At least 11 people are dead and 50 have been injured. According to multiple reports, a nail bomb was detonated inside the train and another explosive device was found disguised as a fire extinguisher inside a nearby station. That bomb was defused and caused no further injuries. Police suspect terrorism and have named a 23-year-old local man, Jamal, as the suspect. Jamal, who hails from an “ex-Soviet Central Asian nation” is suspected of close links to Islamic terrorists and an image of him in a red jacket, glasses, and green beanie has been released. There were early reports of a second jihadist, but now authorities believe only one was involved. Even though it has yet to be tied to a specific group, ISIS reportedly celebrated the bombing:... http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/russia-train-bombing-claims-11-lives-injures-50-isis-warned-russia-will-burn
.
Sessions DOJ Now Targeting H-1B Visa
Abusing Employers Who Put Americans Out Of Work
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Senator Jeff Sessions was always a champion of American workers and forcefully voiced his opposition to the abuses of work visas that regularly occur and which are used to displace Americans for their jobs... and the workforce in favor of cheap foreign labor. President Trump, while campaigning and since has pledge to eliminate visa abuse as part of putting Americans first and Sessions, as Attorney General, has been expected to lead that effort. Now there appears to be movement in that direction, something that could pay huge dividends for Americans seeking employment in STEM fields for which they are trained but unable to find work. The first steps are being taken for the establishment of consequences for reprehensible employers who put bottom line ahead of what is legal and best for the nation and for a review of the work visa process. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced on Monday that they will initiate steps targeting H-1B abusers and the prevention of abuse and fraud related to the H-1B visa program...
.
In ‘Scary’ Episode, This Employer Is Hoisted
in Effigy by Anti-Trump Agitators
by Ken McIntyre
{dailysignal.com} ~ Anthony J. Saliba is no shrinking violet. As a prominent Chicago financier as well as a trustee of the nation’s leading conservative think tank, he has seen his share of rough-and-tumble battles... But Tony Saliba hadn’t ever seen a crude effigy of himself paraded around, one that represented him a puppeteer manipulating the president of the United States. Until recently at a landmark of Chicago’s financial district, anyway. That’s when 100 to 200 protesters, depending on who is counting, descended on the Bank of America Building on South LaSalle Street, in effect looking for Saliba. His business offices are on an upper floor of the 45-floor structure...
.
Trump has a strategy for destroying the
Islamic State --- and it's working
by Kori Schake
{jewishworldreview.com} ~
{jewishworldreview.com} ~
Defeating the Islamic State was candidate Trump's top national-security priority, one of the few policy issues on which he was consistent.
While his claim to have a secret plan -- and that keeping it secret was good strategy -- was risible to national security experts, his policy goals were and are consistent.
American effort should focus on fighting the Islamic State. Regime change to push Bashar al-Assad out of power was not only a lesser objective, but counterproductive to a stable end-state for Syria that prevents terrorism and too costly given Russia and Iran's support for the regime.
Stability is to be prioritized over humanitarian relief or democracy promotion. Russia is to be palliated, their interests supported.
He proclaimed that "we are going to convey my top generals and give them a simple instruction. They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS." While strictly speaking that deadline has passed without apparent formal approval, the Departments of State and Defense have indeed been prioritizing defeating the Islamic State.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made his first big international event the gathering of the coalition fighting the Islamic State, reinforcing the president's twin messages that it is the administration's top national-security priority, and that "the United States will increase our pressure on ISIS and al Qaeda and will work to establish interim zones of stability, through ceasefires, to allow refugees to return home."
Secretary of Defense James Mattis met early with Middle Eastern partners and has taken a number of decisions that look to strengthen forces in the fight: increasing the number of American servicemen and women in Iraq and Syria, reinterpreting the advise-and-assist mission to put U.S. forces closer to the front, parachuting U.S. forces in to sever routes around Mosul, getting presidential approval for greater delegation of authority for operations, and further delegating that authority to commanders.
To many observers, the emerging approach looks like the liar-nObama strategy only better resourced. This is especially true of Democrats, but not only -- conservative stalwarts Kimberly and Fred Kagan make the same criticism in their American Enterprise Institute report on Syria.
I have the sense the administration actually is making a departure from the liar-nObama approach, and sees bigger game afoot. The White House may not yet have formally agreed on an anti-Islamic State strategy, but their incremental choices are adding up to a coherent approach that departs from the liar-nObama approach in four important ways.
First, they are prioritizing speed. President liar-nObama's strategy envisioned a years-long campaign to defeat the Islamic State. While that approach had the advantage of affixing responsibility for outcomes on the countries of the region and incentivized them to develop the governing capacity essential to stabilizing the territory once regained, it paid the very steep price of humanitarian disaster for Iraqis and Syrians in the Islamic State's control, escalating pressure on surrounding governments taking in refugees and buffeted by violence, decimation of moderate opposition within Syria, further radicalization within Western societies, and disaffection for our efforts by publics in the region.
As Tillerson said, "Our end goal in this phase is the regional elimination of ISIS through military force." The choices President Trump has made are dramatically picking up the pace of operations. So much so that some have begun to worry we will be the victims of battlefield success, winning before we have stabilization alliances and forces in place.
Second, they are committing the United States to a long-term involvement. President liar-nObama prioritized minimization -- leaving responsibility for the victory and subsequent stabilization on local allies. He patronizingly said "we can't want it more than they do," as though desire and capacity were one and the same, turned a cold shoulder on both territory and governance slipping away from Baghdad. By contrast, Mattis and Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford both said flat out in congressional testimony that unlike the liar-nObama administration's accelerated withdrawal from the region, after the Islamic State fight concludes, the United States would leave troops in Iraq for a long period of time. Signaling our commitment to outcomes rather than imposing arbitrary timelines is a significant change in approach, one providing desperately needed assurance to those who share our objectives.
Third, they are clear about the priority being assisting the countries we want to win the wars now underway. The White House is less conflicted than the liar-nObama administration about authoritarian tendencies, civilian casualties, and domestic human rights records of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other countries fighting insurgent upheavals and Iranian destabilization in the Middle East. They have unambiguously chosen a side in the fight. And while that will create qualms among many about the domestic and warfighting choices of those countries, strategy is impossible without setting priorities. Stable states working with us to stamp out terrorism is this administration's priority for the Middle East. As Tillerson said at the coalition meeting, "When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. We must continue to keep our focus on the most urgent matter at hand."
Fourth, they are laying the foundation for an anti-Iran coalition once the Islamic State problem has been solved. While making concessions on many things, the liar-nObama administration had been inflexible or unclear as to the basis for compromise with regional allies that had been stymieing our campaign to defeat Islamic State. While the Trump administration does not yet appear to have found a formula for agreement with Turkey over the role of Kurdish forces in retaking Raqqa, on most other issues they do appear to have reached consensus with regional allies. The pivot to pushing back on Iran may come as an unwelcome surprise to the NATO allies and others gathered around Tillerson in Washington last week, but it is a shrewd positioning.
And another way to describe shrewd positioning is good strategy.
While his claim to have a secret plan -- and that keeping it secret was good strategy -- was risible to national security experts, his policy goals were and are consistent.
American effort should focus on fighting the Islamic State. Regime change to push Bashar al-Assad out of power was not only a lesser objective, but counterproductive to a stable end-state for Syria that prevents terrorism and too costly given Russia and Iran's support for the regime.
Stability is to be prioritized over humanitarian relief or democracy promotion. Russia is to be palliated, their interests supported.
He proclaimed that "we are going to convey my top generals and give them a simple instruction. They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS." While strictly speaking that deadline has passed without apparent formal approval, the Departments of State and Defense have indeed been prioritizing defeating the Islamic State.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made his first big international event the gathering of the coalition fighting the Islamic State, reinforcing the president's twin messages that it is the administration's top national-security priority, and that "the United States will increase our pressure on ISIS and al Qaeda and will work to establish interim zones of stability, through ceasefires, to allow refugees to return home."
Secretary of Defense James Mattis met early with Middle Eastern partners and has taken a number of decisions that look to strengthen forces in the fight: increasing the number of American servicemen and women in Iraq and Syria, reinterpreting the advise-and-assist mission to put U.S. forces closer to the front, parachuting U.S. forces in to sever routes around Mosul, getting presidential approval for greater delegation of authority for operations, and further delegating that authority to commanders.
To many observers, the emerging approach looks like the liar-nObama strategy only better resourced. This is especially true of Democrats, but not only -- conservative stalwarts Kimberly and Fred Kagan make the same criticism in their American Enterprise Institute report on Syria.
I have the sense the administration actually is making a departure from the liar-nObama approach, and sees bigger game afoot. The White House may not yet have formally agreed on an anti-Islamic State strategy, but their incremental choices are adding up to a coherent approach that departs from the liar-nObama approach in four important ways.
First, they are prioritizing speed. President liar-nObama's strategy envisioned a years-long campaign to defeat the Islamic State. While that approach had the advantage of affixing responsibility for outcomes on the countries of the region and incentivized them to develop the governing capacity essential to stabilizing the territory once regained, it paid the very steep price of humanitarian disaster for Iraqis and Syrians in the Islamic State's control, escalating pressure on surrounding governments taking in refugees and buffeted by violence, decimation of moderate opposition within Syria, further radicalization within Western societies, and disaffection for our efforts by publics in the region.
As Tillerson said, "Our end goal in this phase is the regional elimination of ISIS through military force." The choices President Trump has made are dramatically picking up the pace of operations. So much so that some have begun to worry we will be the victims of battlefield success, winning before we have stabilization alliances and forces in place.
Second, they are committing the United States to a long-term involvement. President liar-nObama prioritized minimization -- leaving responsibility for the victory and subsequent stabilization on local allies. He patronizingly said "we can't want it more than they do," as though desire and capacity were one and the same, turned a cold shoulder on both territory and governance slipping away from Baghdad. By contrast, Mattis and Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford both said flat out in congressional testimony that unlike the liar-nObama administration's accelerated withdrawal from the region, after the Islamic State fight concludes, the United States would leave troops in Iraq for a long period of time. Signaling our commitment to outcomes rather than imposing arbitrary timelines is a significant change in approach, one providing desperately needed assurance to those who share our objectives.
Third, they are clear about the priority being assisting the countries we want to win the wars now underway. The White House is less conflicted than the liar-nObama administration about authoritarian tendencies, civilian casualties, and domestic human rights records of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other countries fighting insurgent upheavals and Iranian destabilization in the Middle East. They have unambiguously chosen a side in the fight. And while that will create qualms among many about the domestic and warfighting choices of those countries, strategy is impossible without setting priorities. Stable states working with us to stamp out terrorism is this administration's priority for the Middle East. As Tillerson said at the coalition meeting, "When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. We must continue to keep our focus on the most urgent matter at hand."
Fourth, they are laying the foundation for an anti-Iran coalition once the Islamic State problem has been solved. While making concessions on many things, the liar-nObama administration had been inflexible or unclear as to the basis for compromise with regional allies that had been stymieing our campaign to defeat Islamic State. While the Trump administration does not yet appear to have found a formula for agreement with Turkey over the role of Kurdish forces in retaking Raqqa, on most other issues they do appear to have reached consensus with regional allies. The pivot to pushing back on Iran may come as an unwelcome surprise to the NATO allies and others gathered around Tillerson in Washington last week, but it is a shrewd positioning.
And another way to describe shrewd positioning is good strategy.
Comments