False Flag: Why Queer Politics Mean the End of America By Joy Pullmann  (Regnery, 336 pages, $28) Now that we’ve been relieved from a month of nonstop displays of color and parading from the alphabet soup brigade, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief. The festivities of the month have restored the proper flag to its proper place. While the Fourth of July was a much-needed palate cleanser from the appalling displays of sexual gratification in the streets of San Francisco and throughout U.S. cities, heteronormative cisgender patriots should be weary of letting their guards down too soon. Joy Pullmann’s new book False Flag: Why Queer Politics Mean the End of America, reminds us why. (READ MORE: The Trans Reckoning Is Not Yet Here — But It’s Coming Soon) The short respite will be disturbed by ever-aggressive rainbow displays from the “colorful people,” as one of my relatives calls them, along with demands for “equality.” It must. Queer dogma is more a religion than a civil rights movement, and the 107 gender icons demand worship. After all, the mission — as Pullman so clearly outlines — is nothing other than a complete upending of Western civilization and the norms and rituals that define it. The number one target is the heteronormative family. The alphabet activists will not rest until they destroy it. Gay Marriage Is Radically Different From Its Traditional Counterpart Pullman reminds us that, for many homosexuals, marriage was a “co-option into a straight society.” But leadership in the gay movement preferred to be considered as “outsider(s), anti-bourgeois, radical.” The idea of gay marriage is vastly different than the Judeo-Christian notion of matrimony and as Pullman points out “even when they are in a relationship, many queers have sex with people besides their usual partner.” In other words, non-monogamous relationships are baked into the cake. One cannot separate homosexuality from its culture of promiscuity. According to Pullmann, this inability to control sexual urges displays an immaturity not conducive to the self-governance necessary for a constitutional republic. Exposing children to queer ideology, as so many are determined to do, tears at the fabric of this country. “It should go without saying that subjecting children to sexual chaos retards their ability to govern themselves,” writes Pullman, “and therefore, from the next functioning generation of a self-governing society.” It’s this lack of self-control and desire that leads children, as well as adults, astray. Pullmann even outlines the trend of “furries” — people who have an active interest in animal characters with human characteristics — that emanate from homosexual fetishes. The fact that the words “furry porn” exist should horrify people. The idea that there are adults who dress up as animals for sexual gratification and enjoyment is absurd, and, as Pullman astutely ascertains, “indicates a refusal to assume the responsibilities of adulthood.” Those who spend their days in fantasy are not the type of people who can conduct themselves in ways necessary to “sustain republican freedoms in America.” Queer Politics Threatens Free Society So-called gender-affirming care is another threat to a free society. Transitioning genders and claiming men can become pregnant undermines the natural order on which family structures are based. It’s also a flat-out lie. Insisting that society lives by this lie is something else altogether. Yet, insist they do, and in doing so, the gender and sex activists destroy the fundamental civil liberties protected by everything from the First to the Fourteenth Amendment. Sex-based politics, along with any other politics based on external characteristics or choices like race or religion, is unlawful. Ever since Obergefell vs. Hodges, the 2015 decision that codified gay marriage into law, this country has been on a slippery slope of conflating civil rights with individual preference. Pullmann’s account demonstrates how confused our culture and politicians themselves are about the difference. She walks the reader through the cultural shifts and legal decisions that convinced the American public to acquiesce to a fully queer agenda. This manipulation of public sentiment paved the way for government overreach and Pullman offers an eye-opening evaluation of how every branch of government has been compromised to accommodate an alphabet soup agenda. From our courthouses to our schools, we cannot escape the multicolored indoctrination. Yet, people seem to be mostly unaware of just how dedicated the Biden administration is to progressive sex politics. Pullman exposes it all. From daycare to foreign policy, the current administration ties funding and aid to their ideological sexual agenda. They’ve gone so far as to propose blocking Christian families who refuse to affirm such ideology from fostering or adopting children. This not only goes against the conscience of most Americans but also freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is a colossal waste of money. (READ MORE: Voters Support Faith-Based Foster Families) For example, Pullman describes how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which administers federal food programs, “must investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.” That means anyone who uses biologically correct pronouns for a colleague who feels differently can be lawfully prosecuted. And prosecutions take time and resources. The Total Marxist Cultural Revolution No matter what identity one assumes, all progressive policies have the same motive: To create chaos and destroy the norms and power structures of Western civilization, including the nuclear family, “a key bulwark of limited self-government,” says Pullmann. Nothing does that more effectively than queer ideology. Queer theorists and BLM activists are the same. They want nothing less than a total Marxist cultural revolution. And despite their claim that “love is love,” the movement is quite violent in its methodology. It declares war on bodies and sacrifices biological reality for internal feelings of discontent and rebellion. Normally I would consider equating the demands and activities of LGBTQIA+ (did I miss any letters?) activists to communism pretty hyperbolic, but after the rapid decline of moral values in our communities in just the past three years, I’d say Pullman is pretty spot on with her assessment. In a very short amount of time, the Biden administration has allowed and supported men to compete in women’s sports, young ladies to undergo double mastectomies with alarming impunity from medical professionals entrusted with their care, and half-naked young adults to flail about on the White House lawn. Its cabinet is filled with clowns: Men who pretend to be women (at HHS no less), one of whom was caught and dismissed for stealing a suitcase of women’s clothing. These types of shenanigans serve to prove Pullman’s points. We are a deeply unserious nation at a time when sobriety and clarity are desperately needed. Meanwhile, much of the American public seems to sit idly by, unconcerned with the fraying of the moral fabric. And while “agree to disagree” seems like a nice option, it is no longer a viable one. As Pullman states toward the end of her book: Politics is war by other means, and negotiating with cultural Marxists is like negotiating with terrorists. They do not prefer a different route to the same goal. They want Mad Max. We want peace, the natural order, and beauty. Only one of us can win. For the sake of us all, it better be the Americans who still show allegiance to the original Constitution in our hearts and deeds. The rainbows-love-and-light piece of me, who counts some of the gay people in my life among those I love most, cringes at this thought. The realist, the one who loves God and truth more than I love anything, including myself, cannot deny Pullmann’s evaluation and prescription. The post Why Gay Politics Matters appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

First Lady Jill Biden seems to be stepping into a new, more prominent role. Not only did she escort her husband off the presidential debate stage while excitedly praising him for “answering all of the questions,” she went on the campaign trail this week and promised prospective voters that she is “all in” on her husband’s reelection campaign. (READ MORE: Kamala Kamala Chameleon: Shameful Pretender) On today’s episode of The Spectator P.M. Podcast, hosts Ellie Gardey Holmes and Aubrey Gulick discuss the first lady’s role in hiding her husband’s worsening mental condition. Tune in to hear their thoughts!   Like and share The Spectator P.M. Podcast, and tune in to our next episode! Read Aubrey and Ellie’s writing here and here. Listen to the Spectator P.M. Podcast with Lyrah Margo and Ellie Gardey on Spotify. Watch the Spectator P.M. Podcast with Lyrah Margo and Ellie Gardey on Rumble. READ MORE: ‘Existential Threat to Democracy’ Watch the Podcast Here:   The post <i>The Spectator P.M. Podcast</i> Ep. 60: Is Jill Biden Running the Show? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As the evidence of incompetence among senior American military leaders in the Pentagon continues to mount, President Joe Biden and many members of Congress remain in denial. During his recent debate performance, Biden again stressed the overwhelming superiority of the U.S. military — a superiority that has been steadily eroded over the last decade. Many will blame this on politicians, but they have merely been the enablers of a military that —like a drug addict — refuses to admit that it has a serious problem. That problem is its senior leadership. Let’s briefly review what our senior general officers and admirals have done in the past two decades. Blame ‘Perfumed Princes’ in the Pentagon First, there was the defeat in Afghanistan. For two decades, our commanders in Afghanistan tried to build an Afghan army and air force on the American model that was unsustainable after U.S. forces left. The terrain and lack of roads meant that resupply on the ground to the remote districts where the Taliban were strongest would have to be by air. We failed to build an air force that could do the job. (READ MORE from Gary Anderson: What Will Replace the Marine Corps?) The Obama administration can be faulted for trying to prematurely turn over whole districts and provinces to the Afghans, but not a single U.S. commander put his stars on the line by challenging the concept and insisting on a decentralized command and control and logistics system that would allow local Afghan commanders to live off the land as the Taliban did. As under-supplied Afghan commanders cut deals with the Taliban, the “perfumed princes” showed maps of districts and whole provinces under Kabul’s control. The debacle of the U.S. withdrawal from the Afghan theater rests with the careerist generals who meekly acquiesced to the State Department’s insistence on using the Kabul airport rather than the more defensible Bagram airfield as an embarkation location. Anyone who could read a map should have seen disaster looming, but none of our supposed military leaders — including our inept secretary of defense who is also a retired general officer — had the moral courage to threaten to resign in protest. The result was 13 American service personnel and uncounted Afghans dead. To date, no one has been held accountable. (READ MORE: US Navy Works to Deter Full-Scale War) Then, there is the Navy. Years of mismanagement and corruption have reduced the Navy to a level of unreadiness not seen since the dawn of World War II. Carriers and amphibious ships, once the backbone of forward presence, are in dry dock for months and sometimes years for needed repair. Another egregious case of high-level military incompetence comes from the Marine Corps. In 2019, the former commandant of the Marine Corps embarked on a plan to put small Marine units ashore on the disputed islets and shoals in the South China Sea armed with anti-ship missiles that the corps did not yet possess. To afford the purchase of the missiles, he divested the corps of all of its tanks, its assault engineers capability, much of its artillery, and many aviation assets. What he forgot to do was to ask the nations whose territory he intended to occupy if they were willing to go along with the plan. None have so far signed up. Even the Philippines — our closest ally in the region — has indicated that she will not allow U.S. troops to mass there in a war over Taiwan. We have wasted billions of dollars on the whim of a zany and ill-considered concept. Americans Are Ahead of Their Politicians On this issue, the American public is ahead of politicians. Once considered the most trusted government institution, confidence in the military has dropped dramatically in recent years. According to a recent Gallup poll, public confidence in the military has fallen to a little over 60 percent. Despite this, the administration and Congress have remained remarkably unconcerned. That is not surprising for Democrats, given that they have run the Pentagon for four years and their woke policies are a large part of the decline in military recruitment among rural and southern areas that have traditionally provided the services with their most qualified recruits. They own the problem. What is surprising is the relative passivity among Republicans. This should be a major campaign issue. President Trump did touch on it during the recent debate. But when Biden trumpeted his leadership of what he described as the greatest military on Earth, Trump did not challenge him with specifics. At that point in the debate. Biden had done enough damage to himself that Trump probably did not think he needed to follow up. He should at the next debate if Biden shows up. (READ MORE: Here’s How Biden Stays in the Race) If the Republicans want to regain control of the White House and Senate and widen their lead in the House of Representatives, military reform should provide them with a “Reagan moment.” The great communicator blasted Jimmy Carter over his handling of national security and the bungled failure of the Iranian hostage rescue mission. The Democratic inability to properly get a handle on senior military incompetence should be a major campaign issue. So far all we have heard from the Republican National Committee is crickets. Civilian control of the military is a key cornerstone of American democracy. If the civilians do not exercise that control, they abrogate it to the military. At this point, that control is in the hands of leadership that is at best incompetent, and corrupt at worst. Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel. He served as a special advisor to the deputy secretary of defense and was a State Department advisor in Iraq and Afghanistan. He lectures on alternative analysis at the George Washington University’s Elliott Scholl of International Affairs The post It’s Time to Fix Incompetence in the Pentagon appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I wasn’t surprised to see Donald Trump choose Ohio’s junior senator JD Vance as his running mate Monday. You almost assuredly already know Vance’s biography. It’s classic rags-to-riches, American Dream stuff. That’s very much on-brand for Trump. And there is clearly rapport between the two, even though Vance started as a Trump critic. (READ MORE: The Democrats’ Panic Reveals Vance’s Strength) Vance represents a segment — a large segment — of the center-right sphere that was not on board with Donald Trump during the GOP primaries. And I can understand why. Because I was part of that group. Call me a disaffected conservative. I’ve moved on from that and I call myself a revivalist, rather than a conservative at all. Because after 16 years of Barack Obama being the most consequential figure in American politics, there is almost nothing left to conserve. Remember 2016? Conservatives Weren’t Hopeful. And here’s what was true in 2016: The people in charge of the “conservative” movement had so completely debauched and corrupted themselves that nothing was left either of conservatism or of the Republican Party which was supposed to be its political receptacle. At that point more than a generation had gone by since a conservative of any credibility had represented the GOP as its presidential nominee. Following Ronald Reagan’s exit from the stage in 1989, the Republican nominees were: George H.W. Bush — who did what he could to repudiate all of Reagan’s core governing principles; Bob Dole; George W. Bush — who insulted us by calling himself a “compassionate” conservative, as though conservatism wasn’t compassionate; John McCain — one of the most corrupt, unprincipled, and petty politicians in modern American history; and Mitt Romney — who called himself a “severe” conservative while running the weakest, most incompetent campaign of the bunch. The GOP lost four of those seven elections to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, a pair of middling political talents who became untouchable due to abject incompetence at the top of the opposition party. This despite massive popular uprisings against both Clinton (the Newt Gingrich-led 1994 Contract With America midterm wave election) and Obama (the Tea Party movement in 2009-2010 leading to another midterm wave election). Both times the Bush Republican party establishment suppressed populist elements within the party and insisted on running weak opponents in Dole and Romney who excited no one. (READ MORE from Scott McKay: Advice To Trump: Fire The Secret Service) I mention all of this history because by 2016 you couldn’t be a conservative voter and have any faith in the GOP’s old guard. But more than that, it was even more difficult to have faith in the promises of others without pedigrees. Conservative voters had been lied to so many times since Reagan that faith in politicians was akin to stupidity. Trump Was Responsible for Revitalizing Conservativism For me, that meant great skepticism about Trump. I was with Ted Cruz for the simple reason that Cruz had at least shown the stones to challenge Mitch McConnell and the elders of the GOP by demanding a budget war and a government shutdown if that’s what it took to stonewall Obama’s efforts at “fundamental transformation.” To me, Trump looked like a grifter and an egomaniac running for president after years in the donor class. He’s not in this to make real change, I thought. He’s doing it as an ego trip. I did appreciate Trump’s takedown of McCain, which probably ended up costing him in Arizona in 2020. McCain deserved every word. Trump outlasted Cruz. It was acrimonious. What he said about Cruz’s father was hard to forgive. And Trump’s relationship with conservative voters was transactional. Trump was never a conservative. He was more of a radical centrist. Remember, the people who had been in charge of conservatism had held that “free trade,” meaning unrestricted trading relations with a communist China leveraging slave labor, intellectual property theft, industrial espionage to undercut American markets, and open borders were conservative positions. They’d exchanged capitalism for corporatism, while then losing Corporate America to Obama’s woke cultural Marxism as they shilled for Big Corp on Capitol Hill. (READ MORE: Did Newsom Save Biden’s Candidacy?) Not to mention they turned Peace Through Strength into a succession of wars having little relationship to American national interest and in so doing producing an exhausted military and a dangerously empty treasury. So what was conservatism in 2016? No one really knew. Trump came along and redefined it in ways that were both old and new, and in doing so he transformed the party. I didn’t see any of that coming until late in 2016. Vance might have missed it until later. A Trump-Vance Ticket Makes the Old Guard Irrelevant. They Don’t Like That. But while Trump might have had a transactional relationship with conservative voters, amazingly he fulfilled his end of the transaction. He didn’t have a pro-life pedigree, but he gave us the Supreme Court justices who obliterated Roe v. Wade. He pulled America back from endless wars and didn’t start any new ones while still robustly projecting power and influence around the globe. He fulfilled the conservative economic impulse and passed tax cuts that sparked great economic growth. He made progress in re-charging American industry. He was fabulous on energy. And lots of other things. Trump made me a believer, and he made Vance a believer. By 2022, when he was elected to the Senate, JD Vance was one of the most passionate, spirited advocates for Donald Trump on the political scene. But in the 24 hours after Vance was nominated, he’s been savaged. By whom? Not so much the Democrats, though they’ve been nasty as always. Instead, it’s been the old Bush Republicans. It’s been the people making demands on Trump that Nikki Haley, pathetically repudiated in the primaries, be given the VP nod. They don’t hate Vance. They don’t give a damn about him. They certainly never gave a damn about the people Vance comes from. What they hate is irrelevance. And a Trump-Vance ticket, should it win, makes them utterly irrelevant. These are the people who have resisted, despite well more than eight years of evidence that Bush Republicanism is far less successful than what Trump has brought, modifying their political stances and recognizing that a middle-class and working-class populist approach, which gives no ground on culture, economics, and politics to an anti-American, tyrannical and utterly corrupt Left, is the only way forward. They’re dinosaurs. They allowed “conservatism” to be corrupted and made irrelevant. They fought all the wrong fights, and badly, and ignored the other side’s sapping of our national spirit until it was too late and Obama was nearly a king. And now they’re angry that they don’t control the Republican Party? Give me J.D. Vance. If he’s the next generation and he’s the face of the party in 2028, so be it. We’ll be better off without the globalists, warmongers, China-kissers, and faux libertarians who created the need for Donald Trump in the first place. The post On JD Vance and His Critics appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Last week, Donald Trump challenged Joe Biden to a golf match, continuing a stand-out moment in a debate filled with stand-out moments in which the presumptive presidential candidates argued about which one of them could hit a golf ball the farthest and who had the lower handicap. On the surface, the discussion seemed childish and certainly not relevant for a presidential debate. Those two minutes, however, may reveal more about aspects of the character of these two men running for president than initially meets the eye. Golf is a simple game enjoyed by millions of people. The objective seems easy enough: Hit a small ball into a small hole hundreds of yards away in as few strokes as possible. Whoever does it in the least strokes, wins. A Test of Honesty However, as the late, great economist Armen Alchian asked in 1977, “Despite their intense interest in sports, no golf courses exist in the Socialist-Communist bloc. Why is golf solely in capitalist societies?”  He answered, “Because it is not merely a sport. It is an activity, a lifestyle, a behavior, a manifestation of the essential human spirit… [it requires] self-reliance, independence, responsibility, integrity and trust.” (READ MORE: The Ballot and the Bullet Against Trump) Golf requires these characteristics because of the ease with which one can cheat. Despite each hole being hundreds of yards in length, mere inches can make all the difference. A ball that takes an unlucky bounce can be caught behind a tree, forcing a player to take an extra stroke. Moving the ball to a more advantageous position can be done easily without detection. (It is rumored that Bill Clinton was famous on the course for his “foot wedge.”) Playing partners are also often reluctant to closely monitor one another. As P.G. Wodehouse said, “The man who can go into a patch of rough alone, with the knowledge that only God is watching him, and play his ball where it lies, is the man who will serve you faithfully and well.” This is one reason why golf is the preferred sport of business leaders. The objective of meeting on a golf course is not simply to play golf. It is because by playing golf, you learn about your playing partner’s character. Are they the sort of person who can be trusted? Are they as good as their word? Do they accurately report their scores? Or do they report a better score than they earned? Do they make excuses for poor scores? Or do they accept them unquestioningly? Do they lose their composure after a bad shot, or can they accept mistakes and move on? If someone lies about their performance in a game like golf, they are likely the sort of person who will lie about more serious matters. These are wonderful characteristics to know about potential business partners, or indeed anyone with whom you engage in any major economic transaction. What Golf Reveals About Presidential Hopefuls So when Joe Biden and Donald Trump argued about their respective golf games, the American people got a good look at the character of the two men. President Biden claimed to know he was a six (or was it eight?) handicap when he was vice president. To be fair, there is some evidence to back up his claim. In 2015, Golf Digest published an article claiming Biden had a 6.3 handicap. The same article, however, also quoted John Kasich (then governor of Ohio and Republican presidential hopeful) as saying, “Joe Biden told me that he was a good golfer, and I’ve played golf with Joe Biden…. I can tell you that’s not true, as well as all of the other things that he says.” (READ MORE: The Lies of the Biden Presidency Are a Problem) Likewise, Donald Trump knows whether the club championships that he’s won are legitimate or if he is engaging in mere puffery. In 2019, the Guardian published evidence that these club championships may have been less impressive than the public was led to believe. Golf is a wonderfully clear sport. As Armen Alchian writes, “A stroke was taken or it wasn’t; the ball is out of bounds or it isn’t; on the green or it isn’t; in the cup or it isn’t.”  The temptation to misreport one’s score is omnipresent. But to do so would fundamentally destroy the game and one’s reputation. As Golf Digest reports, “There is no worse designation for a golfer than a cheater.” Perhaps it is no coincidence that the same country that invented golf also produced the moral philosopher and economist, Adam Smith. Smith emphasized the critical role played by trust and integrity in every human relationship, especially in the workings of a market economy and a flourishing commercial society. Smith understood that a person is either trustworthy or they are not; either they have integrity or they do not. (READ MORE: Kamala Kamala Chameleon: Shameful Pretender) For an American president, these characteristics are of the highest importance. But on a more mundane level, market economies depend vitally on such norms. Without them, we are left with overmighty government trying, invariably ineffectually, to fill the gap. And that is not good for the economy or society’s well-being as a whole. David Hebert is a Senior Research Fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research. John Pinheiro is the Director of Research at the Acton Institute. The views expressed here are their own. The post Your Word, Your Golf Handicap, Our Economy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Elbridge Colby served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development in the Trump administration and is credited with shifting U.S. defense strategy from its focus on the global War on Terror and “small wars” to great power competition, especially in Asia, as outlined in the January 2018 National Defense Strategy. Should Trump regain the White House, Colby will likely play a major role in shaping, if not leading, the country’s national security policy. A Thinly Stretched American Military Recently, writing in the Financial Times, Colby, in advance of the much-heralded 75th anniversary of NATO, poured cold water on the idea promoted by the Biden administration and other NATO leaders that Russia’s war in Ukraine is the greatest threat to global peace and stability and that the U.S. should continue to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe, while simultaneously dealing with China’s challenge in the western Pacific. Colby calls this unrealistic, and recommends instead strategic prioritization by “focusing resources and willpower where America’s most important interests are endangered — Asia.” (READ MORE: NATO Reporters Want Biden Out) The United States, Colby writes, simply does not have a military large enough to fight two large wars in Europe and Asia. We are currently spread too thin, and if fighting broke out simultaneously with Russia and China our vulnerabilities would be exposed because there are “not enough resources to go around.” Part of being strategic is choosing which threat to prioritize and distributing resources accordingly. We haven’t done that. The so-called “pivot” to Asia under Obama was little more than rhetoric. Trump started to move in that direction in the second half of his presidency by deploying more resources to Asia, identifying China as the principal global threat, and pushing our NATO allies to pony up more for Europe’s defense. Russia was quiescent when Trump was president. Its aggression against Ukraine occurred in 2014 when Obama was president, and in 2022, when Biden was president. Our Interests in Asia Are Greater Than Those in Europe The Biden administration has no strategy. It is not prioritizing threats. It portrays Russia’s war against Ukraine as akin to Hitler’s attack on Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s. At his NATO press conference, the president reiterated that if Putin wins in Ukraine, Poland or some other NATO country will be next on his list, even though Russia has, at great cost, gained tenuous control of only about 18 percent of Ukraine’s territory. Colby does not recommend abandoning Europe, but he does write that our allies in Europe must “take primary responsibility for their own defence.” “European rearmament,” he states, “is the way” to defend Europe while shifting U.S. resources to Asia to deal with the greater threat. That has been Trump’s position all along. (READ MORE: Appeasement Didn’t Bear Good Fruit in the Middle East) NATO must be reformed, Colby says, with Europe taking the lead in providing the resources and manpower for its defense. The United States, Colby recommends, “must withhold forces from Europe that may be needed for Asia, even in the event of Russia attacking first … because if the US ties down or loses key forces for a defence of Taiwan in a less significant European fight, it is asking for China to attack.” Colby recognizes two uncomfortable but pertinent facts: Our resources are not unlimited and we have greater interests at stake in Asia than in Europe. The unipolar moment for the United States is over. This isn’t “weakness” or “appeasement” or “isolationism.” It is, instead, realism. It was Walter Lippmann who long ago defined an effective foreign policy as one that aligns commitments with resources. As Colby notes, “we are not in a world of perfect solutions. Those who pretend that we are may be the most dangerous of all. Better to face reality and implement strategies for it. That’s the only responsible course.” Just so. READ MORE: US Navy Works to Deter Full-Scale War The post Former Trump Defense Official Makes the Case for Prioritizing Asia Over Europe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

JD Vance: A Bridge to America's Future

What We Must Learn From Trump Shooting

NBC Omits Biden Scolding Lester Holt as a Trump Enabler

Republicans Backing Away From Most Important Issue of Our Day