RUTHFULLY YOURS

On 6 June 1944 the Western Allies landed in northern France, opening the long-awaited “Second Front” against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

Commanded by U.S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Normandy assault phase, code-named “Neptune” (the entire operation was “Overlord”), was launched when weather reports predicted satisfactory conditions on 6 June. Hundreds of amphibious ships and craft, supported by combatant warships, crossed the English Channel behind dozens of minesweepers. They arrived off the beaches before dawn. Three divisions of paratroopers (two American, one British) had already been dropped inland. Following a brief bombardment by ships’ guns, Soldiers of six divisions (three American, two British and one Canadian) stormed ashore in five main landing areas, named “Utah”, “Omaha”, “Gold”, “Juno” and “Sword”. After hard fighting, especially on “Omaha” Beach, by day’s end a foothold was well established.

GENERAL DWIGHT “IKE” EISENHOWER’S ADDRESS TO THE TROOPS:

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon a great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened, he will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man to man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

— Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

President Barack Obama’s visit to Poland tomorrow is expected to demonstrate U.S. support for this strategically important and historical ally, in the wake of Russia’s aggressive actions against neighboring Ukraine. While Poles will certainly welcome the president’s visit, they will do so with some trepidation.

Obama has upset many Poles by, among other things, unilaterally canceling a negotiated missile defense deal – an action that pleased Russia but jeopardized Poland’s security; publicly referring to Nazi death camps in Poland as “Polish death camps” (for which he later apologized) during a White House ceremony intended to honor a Polish World War II resistance hero; and shunning Poland’s heroic Nobel Laureate and former president Lech Walesa for what his White House describes as him, “being too political.”

It won’t stop Russian regional aggression, but one thing President Obama can do to win the hearts of skeptical Poles is to fully commit the U.S. to getting Poland into the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. The program began in 1986 as a way to foster better relations with friendly countries by allowing their citizens to travel visa-free to the U.S. as tourists or on business for up to 90 days. 29 of 38 countries in this program are European, and there is a strong case for adding Poland.

National wealth, a high Human Development Index, and a low security risk are three important ingredients for gaining VWP status, and Poland scores well on each count. Since shedding communism 25 years ago, Poland has seen its economy dramatically grow to 22nd in the world at $814 billion. The 2013 United Nations Development Report classified Poland as a “very high” HDI country with its 76 years average life expectancy, 99 percent literacy rate for males and females, and $21,000 plus average annual income. And with its strong American ties, NATO membership, and participation in the Afghanistan and Iraq military coalitions, Poland clearly isn’t a security threat. Moreover, it has implemented and adopted all VWP-related security measures and information-sharing protocols asked of them by the U.S. government.

One would be hard-pressed to find a better U.S. ally and friend than Poland and its people. As America fought for its independence, it did so with major contributions from Polish generals Thaddeus Kosciusko and Casimir Pulaski. As the world faced the Cold War’s darkest days, it was two Poles, Pope John Paul II and Solidarity’s Lech Walesa, along with U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who served as the principal catalysts for leading tens of millions out of their communist enslavement and into the sunshine of freedom. Poles continued their tradition of standing beside their American friends in the 21st century by fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.

GOP candidates should be running for president, not just for greater celebrity.
Good for Rick Perry.

After a fairly disastrous first go at the White House, he’s gearing up for a second try. Over the weekend, he told Kasie Hunt of NBC News: “I was not prepared properly.” In 2012, he told CNN that the “idea you can just stroll in there and be in the mix and be successful, I think is a bit of a stretch. But, anyway, you live and learn.”

That’s a bit of an understatement. The last time around, Perry parachuted into the Republican primary right after the Iowa straw poll, effectively landing on the winner, Representative Michele Bachmann. She may have been the shortest-lived front-runner ever.

Things only went downhill from there. His recovery from back surgery clearly played a role — he was on pain medication and had trouble sleeping — but even so, he was a hot mess. He campaigned as if he was running for the job of president of Texas — and that’s when things were going well.

“It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone — Commerce, Education and the, um, what’s the third one there? Let’s see. Oh five — Commerce, Education and the um, um,” Perry rambled during a primary debate.

He’s lucky he’s not a horse, because they shoot them after stumbles like that.

I don’t say good for Perry because I’m endorsing him; I say good for him because he’s doing what he should have done the first time: his homework.

The fate of nations can turn faster than we anticipate — and experts are often the last to know.
The worst part of the zeitgeist is the sense of inevitability. We just have that feeling that it will all go along the same or get worse. As in some combo of Friedrich vs. Hayek and Peter Rabbit: “Lippity, lippity, not very fast, down the road to serfdom.” After President Obama comes President Clinton. After “Race to the Top” or “No Child Left Behind” comes “Common Core.” After Chinese autocracy at home comes the expansion of Chinese autocracy into obscure corners of Africa.

But the political direction of nations can turn faster than we anticipate. To recall that, look not at Tiananmen Square, whose anniversary is marked this month, but rather at another country where something happened 25 years ago: Germany. The toppling of the Berlin Wall was a greater event even than Tiananmen. Tiananmen, after all, left the “one child” policy and most of the rest of the apparatus of China’s government in place. The opening of the Brandenburg Gate and Checkpoint Charlie forever changed the political configuration of a continent. A big Communist country became un-Communist and disappeared into another country. One of the globe’s most feared powers, Germany, was restored to its old imposing scale. The rest of Europe rearranged itself as well. Yet if you scrutinize reports of Germany from the seasons and months before November 9, and the evening when the guards let the East Berliners through, you’ll find scant portent of the transformation.

Indeed, many articles in the papers argued that it was all going the other way, away from reunification. “Despite New Stirrings, Dream of One Germany Fades,” read the May 14, 1989, headline in the New York Times story by Serge Schmemann. Schmemann allowed that the conservative Bild Zeitung, a West Berlin paper, had polled East Germans and found that 80 percent of them desired reunification of East and West. But Schmemann simultaneously noted that the Western newspaper’s poll of voters in Communist East Germany was “unofficial,” and he commented, snidely, that East Germans’ desire for change might rest on the rather suspicious fact they were “constantly reminded how much better and freer life is in the West.” (Yes.) The Times author laid more weight on a poll by the much-respected West German firm Wickert, which showed that 70 percent of West Germans believed the Wall would still stand in 2000.

Also in the Times, a month later, in June, West German author Peter Schneider suggested that West Germans, especially, had grown used to the Wall and might take comfort in having it around forever. “I have a hard time understanding why our neighbors are so afraid that we West Germans will seize the first opportunity to sell out the Western alliance in exchange for ‘reunification,’” Schneider wrote, placing reunification inside sneer quotes. Germans had no interest in the German question, Schneider insisted. That was June 25. Other reporters deployed elaborate metaphors to depict some kind of complicated and unfathomable Euro-architecture that necessitated near-forever German division. Other writers simply proffered opinion: “Go Slow on Germany,” admonished the senior pundit of the Herald Tribune, Flora Lewis, in September 1989, a time when the anti-regime protesters were already coming together weekly at the Nikolaikirche in Leipzig. A cultural report in the Times featured photos of the Berlin Wall that made it look as monumental and timeless as the Parthenon.

My wife and I are on a book tour by bus through several states, and I have been struck by the number of people who already have read One Nation, but also by the large, enthusiastic crowds whose constituents include all political parties. People are concerned about our future as a nation and the poor prioritization of issues by our leaders, to put it mildly.

We wrote One Nation to convince our fellow Americans that “we the people” are not enemies and that our strength is derived from unity and common sense, which should be ubiquitous. The real enemies are the forces that are constantly trying to divide and conquer. They create divisions based on race, gender, age, education, and, especially, income. It is important that we discuss who the purveyors of division are and what drives them to seek a radical alteration of the American way of life.

We discuss the tools used to manipulate the populace into feeling that they should be offended so easily by words, while diverting their attention away from the real issues that desperately cry out for solutions. One of the major keys to avoiding manipulation is knowledge. Our system of government was designed for people who could easily understand the issues and vote intelligently based on knowledge, rather than blindly following political leaders who are often enshrouded with less-than-honorable motives.

One of the book’s major themes is that knowledge is a formidable enemy of falsehood and a formidable ally of truth. There are specific steps that each of us can take, such as reading about something new for a half hour every day for a year. Such a simple move will profoundly change the life of the reader and will vastly increase his effectiveness as an involved and responsible citizen.

In today’s world of widely disseminated information, a person rapidly can become knowledgeable in a variety of areas, regardless of his occupation.

The greatest concerns of the people we are encountering on the road revolve around the future of their children and grandchildren as we continue along the path of government growth and escalating expenditure of taxpayer money, essentially ensuring that future generations have lives characterized by significantly reduced economic freedom.

The president and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class.
Congratulations, Mr. President! And identical congrats to your sorcerer’s apprentice, National Security Adviser Susan Rice. By trying to sell him as an American hero, you’ve turned a deserter already despised by soldiers in the know into quite possibly the most-hated individual soldier in the history of our military.

I have never witnessed such outrage from our troops.

Exhibit A: Ms. Rice. In one of the most tone-deaf statements in White House history (we’re making a lot of history here), the national-security advisor, on a Sunday talk show, described Bergdahl as having served “with honor and distinction.” Those serving in uniform and those of us who served previously were already stirred up, but that jaw-dropper drove us into jihad mode.

But pity Ms. Rice. Like the president she serves, she’s a victim of her class. Nobody in the inner circle of Team Obama has served in uniform. It shows. That bit about serving with “honor and distinction” is the sort of perfunctory catch-phrase politicians briefly don as electoral armor. (“At this point in your speech, ma’am, devote one sentence to how much you honor the troops.”)

I actually believe that Ms. Rice was kind of sincere, in her spectacularly oblivious way. In the best Manchurian Candidate manner, she said what she had been programmed to say by her political culture, then she was blindsided by the firestorm she ignited by scratching two flinty words together. At least she didn’t blame Bergdahl’s desertion on a video.

The president, too, appears stunned. He has so little understanding of (or interest in) the values and traditions of our troops that he and his advisers really believed that those in uniform would erupt into public joy at the news of Bergdahl’s release — as D.C. frat kids did when Osama bin Laden’s death was trumpeted.

Thousands of graduation speeches have been held or will be held during ceremonies at the nation’s 7000 colleges and universities this spring. Some have been inspiring, while most are repetitions of trite sentiments and a few simply sleep-inducing.

Among those thousands, three stand out (though I am sure there are dozens of others that were equally memorable): the first, the President’s at West Point. With his foreign policy approval ratings at 41%, Mr. Obama needed to change perceptions, and define a legacy that has been mired in scandal and ineffectiveness. The second was Michael Bloomberg’s address at Harvard, which addressed a growing problem of the illiberal left – tolerance of intolerance. The third was the speech delivered by Admiral William McRaven in Austin at the University of Texas, an inspiring talk based on his own experiences at basic SEAL training.

Mr. Obama’s address at West Point “was,” according to The New York Times, “largely uninspiring” and “lacked strategic sweep.” The response from the cadets was muted. What the President did was to set up straw men and then knock them down. The problem is that no one, Republican or Democrat, had advocated the policies he suggested they had. Reading the speech, it seemed that the spectre of George Bush hovered over the podium. (Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war.”) Again, sounding like Mr. Bush, he said: “I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe.” But, less anyone mistake him for his predecessor, he set up straw men, adding that while we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders, “not…every problem has a military solution.” He said we must restrain from “our willingness to rush into military adventures” and later added, for the benefit of Mr. Obama’s phantasmal straw men, that “a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.” Of course, no one, not even the despised Mr. Bush, recommended such strategies.

The speech was defensive; it explained why standing on the sidelines would characterize his Administration: crises that “stir our conscience” or “push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly (my emphasis) threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher.” “..We should not go it alone.” Mr. Obama did assert that the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism. Yet his only policy initiative was to call on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnership fund “of up to $5 billion.” That represents .08% of current year’s defense budget. With it, the President expects to “train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines,” countries that harbor those who pose America’s greatest threat – yet it will be done with less than one percent of the defense budget!

“This brilliant text has set a new standard for historical scholarship of Latin America,” reads the Amazon description of Eduardo Galeano’s The Open Veins of Latin America, the book Venezuelan leftist Hugo Chavez presented to U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009. “It is also an outstanding political economy, a social and cultural narrative of the highest quality, and perhaps the finest description of primitive capital accumulation since Marx.”

Published in 1971, The Open Veins of Latin America was a bestseller and has become a keystone of the left-wing canon on American college campuses. Trouble is, the book’s 73-year-old Uruguayan author now considers the book’s rhetoric “extremely leaden” and concedes that back in the day he didn’t know much about economics or the way the world works.

“I know it took real courage — even gallantry — for Galeano to publicly correct himself,” wrote exiled Cuban journalist Carlos Alberto Montaner in National Review. “It’s not easy to admit when you are wrong. And it is even more difficult when you are a hero to so many, as Galeano has been.”

In 1996 Montaner teamed with Peruvian author Alvaro Vargas Llosa and Colombian journalist Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza on Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot. One chapter, “The Idiot’s Bible,” Montaner says,

“was devoted to explaining what Galeano himself now confirms: that the author knew very little about economics, and what little he thought he knew was totally wrong.”

The authors’ summary of Galeano’s book, “We’re poor; it’s their fault” even showed up in a New York Times piece by Larry Rohter headlined “Author Changes His Mind on ’70s Manifesto: Eduardo Galeano Disavows His Book ‘The Open Veins.’” The article noted that The Caviar Left author Rodrigo Constantino had blamed Galeano’s analysis for many of Latin America’s ills and said the Uruguayan “should feel really guilty for the damage he caused.”

But the caviar left thought otherwise.

Chilean novelist Isabel Allende, who authored a foreword for Open Veins, told Rohter that Galeano “may have changed, and I didn’t notice it, but I don’t think so.” Michael Yates, of the leftist Monthly Review Press, told the Times that “the book is an entity independent of the writer and anything he might think now.” So in the style of Hillary Clinton, “what difference does it make” if the author changed his mind about his central thesis? Several professors told the Times that they would take account of Galeano’s views but others discount his change of mind.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-va-hospital-scandal-and-double-standards-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang, guest-hosted by superstar Josh Brewster, was joined by Titans Karen Siegemund, Founder of Rage Against the Media, Bill Whittle from BillWhittle.com and TruthRevolt.org, and Mell Flynn, President of Hollywood Congress of Republicans.

The Gang gathered to discuss “The VA Hospital Scandal, Illegals and Double Standards,” analyzing when Obama’s outrage ignites — and when it doesn’t. (starting at 11:45 minute mark).

The Titans also focused on “A Jailed Marine and a Silent Commander-in-Chief,” “Cruz’ing the Tea Party/Republican Divide,” “Ted Cruz Rising,” “The Growing American Police State?” and much, much more.

Don’t miss it!

Originally published by FoxNews.

It is about time that pundits stop describing President Obama’s foreign policy as weak. There is a straight line between emboldening Syria’s Assad by calling him a reformer, Egypt’s Morsi a democrat, Turkey’s Erdogan a friend, Iran’s Rouhani a moderate, and now a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, a peace partner.

Monday’s speedy announcement that the United States will work with and pay for a PLO-Hamas coalition government is a strong and predictable step in an alarming pattern.

Every one of these moves has deliberately driven a wedge between Obama and Israel. President Obama’s priority is, and always has been, the Muslim world. It has made no difference to this partiality that in the latter world American hostages are languishing in prison cells, the killers of Americans are government insiders, official anti-Semitism is flourishing, and the locals are brutalized.

At the same time, President Obama has a recurring problem with his choice of best friends. There is an inconvenient discord between the terrorism and violence emanating from his BFF’s and his putative job as commander-in-chief.

The difficulty presents itself, for example, in the context of Benghazi. The anger over Benghazi is more than justified, but not because it is still a mystery why the president sent no one to bomb Libya in order to save Americans under attack. He may have hurt somebody on the ground who was not American, or he may have stirred up local resentment.

President Obama has never made a secret of his “counter-terrorism” policy. In May 2013 he said quite clearly that even in the face of “terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people,” “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.”

Speaking at West Point on May 28, 2014 he reiterated that in taking direct action “against terrorism,” we may strike “only where there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.”