We Americans are bedeviled night and day by inflation. It’s a curse, an albatross around the necks of homemakers, widows, new entrants to the labor force, old members of the labor force. Rapidly rising prices for goods and services of every kind haunt every person, every family, that wanders in fear and loathing up and down the aisles of grocery stores, shops for airline tickets to see grandparents for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and opens bills for utilities online and in the mail. To be an American in today’s world, whether young or old, retired or toiling, healthy or weak, is to live in fear of bills that terrify day after day. What is to be done? Your humble servant knows this fear well. I have lived through several episodes of panic-inducing fear in my 80-plus years on the globe. There generally is one “approved” way to address this terror: to ratchet up interest rates, curb the growth of money supply, and force our glorious America into a slowdown, usually a recession. The problem is that recessions hurt people. Incomes fall. The value of assets falls. Americans live in fear. “There is nothing to fear but fear itself,” said FDR in his initial inaugural itself in March of 1933. But fear is plenty bad enough. We can see it all around us right now. Through no fault of their own, Americans must live in fear to curb prices. Perhaps there is another way. I know I have seen it before, about 54 years ago. Perhaps there is another way. I know I have seen it before, about 54 years ago. My boss and pal, Richard M. Nixon, was faced with relentless, grinding fear in the early 1970s. His only options seemingly were to throw the nation’s economy into Low Gear and decrease the demand that was jacking up prices cruelly. But Nixon was an experimenter. He had promised that he would not have wage-price controls no matter what. He loved free markets and hated a dictatorial government that would regulate prices and wages via a huge bureaucracy. But he also did not want to throw millions of Americans into unemployment. He wanted stable prices, but he also wanted full employment. And he wanted to win the 1972 election in a big way. Thus, with the enthusiastic support of the Congress and the Federal Reserve Board, he ordered comprehensive wage-price controls in the Fall of 1971. Amazingly, it worked, at least for a while. The nation was stunned, but prices stabilized. Employment stayed strong. I know this well. My father, Herbert Stein, at that time a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, was named by Mr. Nixon to be in charge of the bureaucracy that administered the bitter pill. Mr. Nixon had chosen my father because he knew my father disliked controls and would get rid of them as soon as possible. That worked as well. After about a year, when cracks began to appear in the wage-price ceiling, which was called “Phase One,” my father and the administration started to dismantle the edifice. The public was thrilled. Mr. Nixon won re-election by a huge margin — Mr. Nixon won 49 states, which had never been seen before and has not been seen since Reagan. Of course, a wildly jacked-up media soon started to demolish Mr. Nixon’s legacy. But meanwhile, the back of the inflation had been broken and it never came back until now. Is it time to give it the old college try? Why not? READ MORE from Ben Stein: The Best Thing in Life Liquidity Is Essential to Life The Almighty Power

Will Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords? President Trump has indicated that Saudi Arabia may join the Accords “very shortly,” and Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Sultan (MBS) is scheduled to meet the president at the White House on November 18. In fact, the president stated that “it’s more than a meeting, we are honoring Saudi Arabia,” signaling that something significant may be imminent. This follows President Trump’s phone call with MBS in October, in which, following the Gaza ceasefire, the president stated that he wanted Saudi Arabia to join the Accords. MBS was reportedly amenable to that idea. The two major issues that will be strong indicators of whether Saudi Arabia will join the Abraham Accords are whether the U.S. will allow the Saudis to purchase the F-35 joint strike fighter from the U.S. and if the Saudis are pleased that enough has been accomplished on the pathway to a Palestinian state. (RELATED: Trump Should Expand the Abraham Accords to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) On the issue of the F-35s, President Trump has acknowledged that Saudi Arabia wants to buy “a lot” of them, with the United States reportedly considering selling 48 F-35 jets to the kingdom. The sale of the F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia now rests with the secretary of war, who is expected to approve the deal. Following such approval, the deal would head to an interagency review. (RELATED: Kazakhstan Joins the Abraham Accords. Will Others in Central Asia Follow?) A Pentagon assessment leaked to the New York Times shows reservations within the Department of War (formerly, the Department of Defense) that the F-35 technology could end up in Chinese hands through either Chinese espionage or existing strong Saudi-China defense ties. According to news coverage of the leaked report, Pentagon officials are working on ways to decrease the possibility of that happening, though no specifics are mentioned. Concerns about China are notable, given that U.S. concerns about UAE–China relations caused the UAE to back out of its own F-35 negotiations in 2021. According to two Israeli intelligence officials, Israel is seeking to condition the sale of the F-35s to Saudi Arabia, joining the Abraham Accords. “Unlike the supply of F-35s to Turkey that we strongly oppose, we are less concerned about such a weapons system in Saudi Arabia if it’s part of a regional security cooperation as part of the Abraham Accords, like we have with the United Arab Emirates,” one of these officials told Axios. Opposition leader Yair Lapid publicly opposed the prospect of a sale of the F-35s to Saudi Arabia, stating that it was never part of normalization discussions. But given that he is not in the government, his views are not Israeli policy. Currently, as part of the U.S.–Israeli objective to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge in the region, Israel owns all of the F-35s in the Middle East, with 45 of these jets and another 30 ordered. Abraham Accord signatory Morocco is currently reportedly in talks with the U.S. for purchasing its own F-35s. Saudi officials have recently re-stated that their ascension into the Abraham Accords would be conditioned on progress towards a Palestinian state. A potential poison pill for the prospect of Saudi–Israeli normalization would be how much such a deal would push the idea of a Palestinian state. Saudi officials have recently re-stated that their ascension into the Abraham Accords would be conditioned on progress towards a Palestinian state. However, there are indications that Trump’s peace plan in Gaza may have checked that box for the Saudis. For example, in a recent joint statement on the U.N. Security Council’s resolution on Gaza, Saudi Arabia and the United States (in addition to Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey) all supported the U.S.’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict as “offer[ing] a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. We emphasize that this is a sincere effort, and the Plan provides a viable path towards peace and stability, not only between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but for the entire region.” And the specific language of the plan also states that “[w]hile Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.” (RELATED: The Trump Peace Plan: Promise, Pause, or Illusion) While the plan does recognize the aspiration of the Palestinian people to a state, it may have sufficient conditions that if those conditions are enforced (i.e., end of terrorism, disarming of Hamas, returning of all the hostages, barring of Hamas from future government, and reform of the Palestinian Authority), it may enable Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu to come on board. However, Bibi will have to navigate increasing calls from those to the right of him in his coalition, who are looking for the prime minister to “make it clear to the entire world” that “a Palestinian state will never be established.” So far, Netanyahu has been in power when the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and Kazakhstan joined the Accords, and the Palestinian leadership has done plenty of incitement of violence and support of the October 7 attacks to ensure that a Palestinian state is not established, so Bibi might again be spared with an open confrontation on this issue domestically. Will President Trump be able to capitalize on the recent Gaza ceasefire and the ascension of Kazakhstan to the Abraham Accords to bring Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords as well? An F-35 sale, and some diplomatic concessions to a Palestinian state, might be the price. READ MORE from Steve Postal: Kazakhstan Joins the Abraham Accords. Will Others in Central Asia Follow? Peace a Pipedream As Palestinians Continue to Embrace Hamas Israel Finds Peace Through Strength as Lebanon Neglects Trump-Brokered Deal

Americans love their sports — always have, always will. Back in the good ol’ days, the seasons changed, and our sports changed with them. Summer meant pick-up games, wiffle ball, bikes, fishing, swimming. Nobody stressed over “skill progression” or whether we were following the right “player pathway.” We just played. We learned to win, to lose without losing our tempers, and to compete. Coaches were rough around the edges, but you always knew where you stood. Some of us played in high school or college; others moved on. Natural ability plus “want-to” separated the real athletes from the amateurs. Youth sports shouldn’t be mere pipelines for college programs, gambling markets, or the ambitions of adults who forgot what childhood feels like. Today, youth sports feel very different — now a $56 billion-a-year global industry. Families regularly spend over $1,000 per child per year for a single sport. Meanwhile, the beloved local rec leagues that once anchored town life now look like the soft option and seem overshadowed by travel teams, year-round academies, and private coaches promising exposure, scholarships, and elite outcomes. Performance-wise, the results are undeniable. At high school games today, you see stronger, faster, more specialized athletes than ever. Multi-sport kids are rare birds. Early specialization now feels like a prerequisite just to make high school varsity teams, let alone play in college. The downside is that community programs that once welcomed every kid are losing talent, energy, and funding to elite travel circuits. That’s not to say travel sports are all bad. When the intent is developmental rather than purely transactional, they can be tremendous for kids. Playing at a higher level gives young athletes a reality check about what it takes to succeed — discipline, preparation, resilience. Being on a competitive team teaches children to handle stress, navigate pressure, and work with extremely driven peers. Travel leagues expose kids to new places and new people and forge friendships built on shared passion. They get kids outdoors and off screens. The teams are typically led by disciplined, professional coaches who enforce standards, demand accountability, and keep kids locked in. Done right, travel sports deepen a child’s appreciation for a game’s nuances and help form values that transcend the field or court. However, for parents who view the endeavor as a mere financial investment, the economic payoff is modest. According to the NCAA, fewer than 2 percent of high school athletes receive any athletic scholarship — and even fewer receive a full ride. Training a kid like a pro may feel like a wise investment given today’s college costs, but the real beneficiaries are big-time college athletics, pro leagues, and online sportsbooks. For example, the NCAA generates roughly $1.28 billion annually, and the NFL more than $23 billion, with over $13.7 billion tied directly to sports betting, so they love the idea of better athletes increasing the entertainment value of their products. But far more is at stake than money. The “youth-sports-industrial complex,” as Tim Carney writes in Alienated America, has quietly hollowed out parts of American civic life and contributed to the erosion of American education. Highly competitive prep schools increasingly admit students based solely on athletic talent. This isn’t new, but paired with declining academic rigor and rising grade inflation, the effect is greater. The “gentleman’s C,” once a wink-wink joke in major college sports, now feels at home in some American high schools. Some youth sports models are at least transparent about their goals. In Europe, soccer academies like Ajax’s Youth Academy and FC Barcelona’s La Masia openly aim to develop professional athletes — and eventually sell their contracts to the highest bidder. Education exists, but it doesn’t disguise the primary mission. That clarity stands in stark contrast to American high schools and elite prep programs that market themselves as academic havens while functioning as pipelines to the NCAA and beyond. In the United States, similar institutions are emerging. IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida, offers year-round, high-level training across multiple sports paired with academics — but parents know why they’re there. MLS clubs like the Philadelphia Union and Inter Miami are now running professionalized youth academies, offering serious player development with a sprinkling of schoolwork. These programs prove you can cultivate elite talent while staying honest about the mission: developing athletes to compete at the highest level, not pretending they’re secretly minting the next generation of engineers and doctors. Step back further, and the consequences of today’s youth sports model go beyond academics or finances. The American Enterprise Institute warns that when sports lose their moral and communal foundation, they also lose their ability to teach the virtues that matter — discipline, teamwork, perseverance. Another AEI analysis argues that the obsessive pursuit of athletic achievement often comes at the expense of childhood, well-being, and intellectual development. Somewhere along the way, youth sports stopped feeling like childhood and started looking like a Saratoga thoroughbred auction, but no one is arguing against athletic excellence. Youth sports shouldn’t be mere pipelines for college programs, gambling markets, or the ambitions of adults who forgot what childhood feels like. Maybe the simplest reform is the oldest: let kids be kids. READ MORE from Pete Connolly: The Case for the Filibuster: A Check on Zeitgeist Impulses Boys Need More Male Teachers The New York Times Sets a New Low on Israel

Seventy years ago, on Nov. 19, 1955, a new conservative journal of opinion announced that it stood athwart history yelling “Stop.” National Review soon became the flagship journal of the modern conservative movement. The masthead of that first issue included Editor and Publisher William F. Buckley Jr., senior editors James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Suzanne La Follette, Jonathan Mitchell, and William Schlamm, associates and contributors L. Brent Bozell, John Chamberlain, Frank Chodorov, Max Eastman, Meford Evans, Eugene Lyons, Karl Hess, Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, Gerhart Niemeyer, Freda Utley and Richard Weaver. It was the beginning of an intellectual and political journey that 25 years later led to the election of Ronald Reagan as president of the United States. Buckley even made being a conservative “cool.” In retrospect, the Reagan presidency was the high point of National Review’s political and social influence. It’s been downhill ever since. But more about that later. The journey from fledgling conservative magazine to the Reagan White House was fascinating. And the key to the magazine’s political success was William F. Buckley Jr., who became a public intellectual and well-known celebrity — writing syndicated columns that appeared in hundreds of newspapers, writing non-fiction books and spy thrillers, hosting Firing Line on PBS where conservative ideas were otherwise absent, running for mayor of New York, and becoming the voice of “respectable” conservatism. Buckley even made being a conservative “cool.” (RELATED: Buckley at 100) Buckley had help, of course. James Burnham was the dominant intellectual voice of National Review and conservatism’s leading anti-communist strategist. Frank Meyer, as Daniel Flynn notes in The Man Who Invented Conservatism, attracted great writers to the “Books, Arts and Manners” section and promoted fusionism to encourage conservative political coherence. Russell Kirk brought Burkean tradition and order to the movement. Whittaker Chambers, for a brief time period, outlined for readers what was at stake in the Cold War. Will Herberg and, later, Michael Novak melded God and conservatism. Richard Weaver brought the South’s voice and its conservative traditions into the fold. (RELATED: The Organizer of Victory: Frank S. Meyer) Buckley kicked out the kooks from the movement and forced them to the fringe where they belonged. He appealed to the nation’s youth by birthing the Young Americans for Freedom at his home in Sharon, Conn., where the group issued the Sharon Statement in September 1960, as a declaration of conservative principles. National Review entered the national political arena in 1964 with its support for the Goldwater campaign, which lost big at the polls but introduced to the nation the conservative political voice of Ronald Reagan. Two years later, Reagan was governor of California, two years after that, he became presidential timber. And by 1976, Reagan and the conservative movement had effectively captured the national Republican Party. In 1980 and 1984, National Review’s candidate won two landslide presidential elections. There was, to be sure, internal divisions among NR’s writers and staff. Burnham, the political realist, was often opposed by Meyer, the counterrevolutionary ideologue. Bill Rusher wanted to form a third party when Nixon founded the EPA, left the gold standard, pursued détente with the Soviet Union, and launched the opening to Mao’s China. There were clashes between traditional conservatives, libertarians, and the growing neoconservative movement. It took the disaster of the Carter presidency to bring them all together for Reagan. By that time, there were other conservative journals contributing to the movement: Human Events, The American Spectator, Commentary, and others. Conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation formed policymakers who filled the ranks of the Reagan presidency. National Review, however, was the heart and soul and mind of the movement. When Reagan’s policies helped bring down the Soviet empire and end the Cold War, it was a victory for National Review, too. Since November 1955, Burnham and others had promoted an offensive strategy of victory — a strategy that Reagan implemented to defeat the “evil empire.” They forgot — or never understood — James Burnham’s political advice that NR should support the most right-leaning electable candidate. Victory can lead to magnanimity (as Churchill counseled) or hubris. In National Review’s case, it led to hubris. The neoconservatives who joined National Review to help Reagan win the Cold War soon looked for other enemies to slay. First came the Gulf War in 1991. Then humanitarian intervention in the Balkans. Then NATO enlargement. Then the Afghan and Iraqi wars and the Global War on Terror. NR mostly cheered on Bush 43 as he sought to remake the Middle East in America’s image. By that time, Burnham was gone, and Buckley had moved away from daily supervision of the magazine. As John Judis, a Buckley biographer, noted, NR’s founder opposed the growing neoconservative influence of the magazine. The neocons were busy fighting World War IV, while Buckley sided with Jeane Kirkpatrick in wanting the U.S. to return to being a “normal country.” Under Rich Lowry’s editorial guidance, NR joined with neoconservatives to support extending America’s “unipolar moment.” But as so often happens, hubris led to nemesis. Afghanistan and Iraq became foreign policy debacles. NATO enlargement helped fuel Russian geopolitical aggressiveness. The failed Bush 43 presidency resulted in Obama’s presidency, which combined foreign policy amateurism with domestic policy radicalism. And after eight painful years of Obama, National Review began its final descent to irrelevance. During the 2016 election season, NR effectively became a never-Trumper journalistic organ. Its editors devoted an entire issue to “Against Trump.” It was the result of a snobbish, insular political deafness to the rising populist movement in the GOP and the country at large. Trump just wasn’t their kind of conservative. He was “anti-intellectual” and crude. The policy-wonkish Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg, and others at the magazine, gradually slipped into Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). They forgot — or never understood — James Burnham’s political advice that NR should support the most right-leaning electable candidate. That candidate in 2016, 2020, and 2024 was Trump. But issue after issue of NR included anti-Trump screeds. And it hasn’t changed even after Trump’s remarkable victory in 2024. So, here’s wishing National Review a happy 70th birthday. I was a subscriber for 40 years until the current editors squandered the great legacy of William F. Buckley Jr.  Perhaps 70 is a good age at which to retire. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: MacArthur Returns to the Philippines: Remembering October 20, 1944 Taiwan and Trafalgar: Lessons From the Past for Today’s US Navy Trump Is the Colossus That Bestrides the World

The year: 1986 Sitting in the White House was one very popular Republican president: Ronald Reagan. The challenge for Reagan’s White House — where I was serving in the White House Political Office — was translating that popularity to a win in the 1986 congressional elections when Reagan himself was not on the ballot. The challenge even had a name: “The Six-Year Itch.” Interestingly, the nickname came from a popular term in marriages — “The Seven-Year Itch” referring to the seventh year of a marriage when things in the once blissful new marital relationship can start to go south. In the case of “The Six-Year Itch,” this trend has been ongoing forever for presidents. From the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction beginning in 1874, with one exception, all the way through to Barack Obama’s 2014 loss of 13 House seats and 9 Senate seats, the Six-Year Itch has worked its curse. That exception? That would be for Bill Clinton’s 6th year, in which Democrats gained 5 House seats while their Senate numbers in the minority remained unchanged. So the question in 1986 was whether President Reagan’s personal popularity could carry into the “off-year” congressional elections when he, himself, was not on the ballot. What to do? Starting with the president himself, the answer was obvious: send the popular president all around the country to campaign for Republican candidates. He had, after all, been elected twice — in 1980 and 1984 — in two landslides. His re-election in 1984, just two years earlier, had Reagan winning in a 49-state landslide. So, send him around the country we did. On one memorable occasion, we youngsters running the Political Office had the then-75-year-old president booked to fly out from Washington D.C. to campaign for a West Coast candidate, Washington State’s GOP Senate candidate, and then, at the rally’s conclusion, fly back to Washington D.C. And then. Ahem. And then Mrs. Reagan called us. Making it plain that while her husband was president of the United States, he was, in fact, 75 years old. And there was no way — say again, no way! — that she would allow us to fly him from Washington D.C. to Washington State and back across America again the same day to Washington D.C. The Reagans, she made clear, would be overnighting in Los Angeles. To which our response (from our office boss) was a quick “Yes, ma’am.” Suffice to say, the political pressure was on. And on election night, alas, Republicans maintained their losing position in the Democrat-held House, and additionally, they lost eight Senate seats, losing their Senate majority. Other Six-Year Itch elections have had various results. But one obvious result is that no matter a president’s winning streak two years earlier in his own re-election, their party can still end up on the losing end of the six-year congressional elections. And that goes for gubernatorial elections as well. In 1966, a mere two years after Democrat President Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide win over the GOP’s Senator Barry Goldwater, California’s supposedly popular Democrat governor, Edmund “Pat” Brown by name, was up for re-election. The California GOP Establishment of the day was aghast at those in its ranks who wanted to try and defeat the popular Governor Brown with a decided newcomer — an untested Hollywood actor named Ronald Reagan. In a shocking upset, Brown lost in a landslide to newcomer Ronald Reagan. And the rest of the story, as they say, was serious history. The lesson here is clear. As America slides into the traditional end-of-year holiday season of Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Christmas, and New Year’s — and the political fevers subside (slightly!) — come January of the New Year, the 2026 election year will begin in earnest. The Six-Year Itch, now magnified in spades with the combined power of the Internet on top of television, will be nigh impossible to escape. The demands for presidential campaign stops for this or that crucial Senate, House, or governor’s race will slowly build to a thunderous chorus. Television and the Internet will be flooded with political commercials, not to mention coverage of President Trump’s campaign rallies and those of his Democrat Party opponents. All of which is to say, enjoy the approaching holiday season. And rest up. The 2026 campaign is soon to begin. Buckle in. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Nick Fuentes: American Leftist The GOP Loss Is Not a Big Deal Three Cheers for Mark Levin

Problems with recruiting and retention within the military have been a prominent issue in recent years. When dealing with an all-volunteer force, retention will always be a challenge, especially when civilian society is competing for the same talent.  Of the friends I made while serving, only one reenlisted. The rest of us were gone, or as the once derogatory acronym labeled us: GMFs. Like my growing prostate, yellowing teeth, and shrinking frame — it is a part of my DNA. On a recent online news feed, the question was posted to 10 active-duty Marines if they had planned to reenlist. The Leathernecks were all asked individually, and what was remarkable but quite convincing was that six of the 10 all replied with the same two-word answer: “F*** no.” (RELATED: The Military Recruiting Crisis Starts With the Leadership) The irony was comical and not out of disrespect. Seven of those Leathernecks were set to exit, one was on the fence, and two were likely to ship over. During my own tenure, the pattern was similar: three out of four walked away when their initial EAS — End of Active Service — arrived. (RELATED: Happy Birthday, Marines) Career planners have wrangled with retention since the invention of boot polish. Most of those departing from active duty had a good idea what they were going to do once they made their anticipated return to civilian life. For the majority, the list was relatively short and concise: get a job or go to school and find some part-time gig to keep the wallet balanced, while enjoying plenty of free time pursuits. (RELATED: Real Military Reform Begins) It is said there is no such thing as a sure thing, but whoever said that didn’t know many Marines. What was a guaranteed “sure thing” for those leaving the Corps was a varied list of “never and nots” that was as detailed as it was long. Not getting a weekly haircut. Not shaving every day. Not making one’s rack (bed) — hospital creases be damned. And the only junk (782 gear) on my bunk would be mine. Not making sure your uniform was void of Irish pennants while starched and creased. Not shining another piece of brass, ever. Never calling a hat a cover. Not having to measure to make sure all my underwear is properly folded and marked. Never spit-shine another shoe, boot, pistol holster, whatever, again. Not swabbing a deck or wiping down a bulkhead. Never doing calisthenics or going on a three-mile run before breakfast. Never participating in another Thursday night all-hands barracks field day that always ran much longer than necessary. Never having to clean a rifle again and again to the satisfaction of some armorer with an attitude. Never again going to the field (camping for civilians), eating out of a cold can, or sleeping in a bag. Never again standing for the Friday pre-dawn CO’s battalion barracks inspection or his mandatory five-mile run in combat boots once the inspection finally concluded. In fact, the only running I would be doing from here until eternity was from the refrigerator to the bathroom, and only when absolutely necessary. This list may certainly vary depending on the veteran and their service branch. However, I bet everyone who served can find some commonality. Looking back over the decades, I freely admit that some of these things have slowly crept back into my life.  Granted, it took time, with nostalgia and even practical needs playing an integral part. I have come to prefer working out before breakfast. I still eliminate the run but have replaced it with cycling. I still shine my black leather shoes when needed, and provided the mood strikes me, I will put some spit to the shine. I do make the bed on occasion to surprise the boss (wife) and to the satisfaction of the big dog. There are also many times I will shave daily, and while I do not get a weekly haircut, I remain open to the idea, provided a traditional barbershop is available. I still refuse to have anything to do with camping, preferring a hotel with room service. The one thing that has been a constant through the ensuing decades has been my identity as a Marine. It is the one unbroken link that remains. Like my growing prostate, yellowing teeth, and shrinking frame — it is a part of my DNA. Semper Fidelis. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: Fourth and Funded: College Football’s Fiscal Fumble Off the Radar: Christian Genocide in Africa Truth & Treason: A Tale of Moral Courage

from Redacted News: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Ilana Mercer, The Unz Review: About the Sde Teima leaked rape tape, suffice it to say that, like the Hostage Square demonstrators in Tel Aviv, whose concern was exclusively for their hostages; the same Israeli society is not unhappy about crimes against Palestinians; but that one such crime had been made public, to the […]

you heard him … who are YOU most excited to see at the #CMAawards?