Montana Catholic Priests Believe in American Greatness



vs. EVIL.

Priests’ attendance at Trump rally causes furor


Jul 7, 2018


The attendance of four Roman Catholic priests from Montana at President Donald Trump’s political rally in Great Falls Thursday has created a social media firestorm and apparently incurred the displeasure of the priests’ superiors in the church.

The four, who were seated near the front of the rally, wore their clerical garb, carried “Make America Great Again” signs, and wore VIP badges. They clapped for Trump as he doubled down on his oft-repeated slur of Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas,” mocked the #MeToo movement, and questioned the meaning of former Republican President George H.W. Bush’s “Thousand Points of Light” slogan.

Two of the priests, Father Garrett Nelson and Father Ryan Erlenbush, serve in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Great Falls-Billings. The other two, Father Kevin Christofferson and Father Christopher Lebsock, serve in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena.

Bishop Michael William Warfel, Bishop of the Great Falls-Billings diocese, answered a query about the priests’ attendance on Facebook by saying, “I was not aware that these priests would be in attendance at the rally at which President Trump spoke. Two were from the diocese of Great Falls-Billings and two were from the Diocese of Helena. I will be contacting the two priests from this diocese.

“While they are free to support a political candidate — and I believe they were there in support of Matt Rosendale, who is running for the Senate seat from Montana — they should not have been attired in clerical garb and seated in such a prominent location. I myself had been invited to attend the rally but declined. It has been my experience that people can be manipulated and used unwittingly. I judge that it was an imprudent decision on their parts to allow themselves to be used in such a way though I suspect they had not thought of this. In Christ, Bishop Warfel.”

Christofferson serves parishes in Polson and Ronan with a mission in Charlo. Lebsock is assistant pastor at the Cathedral of Saint Helena.

Erlenbush and Nelson are both based in Great Falls.

As pictures of the priests at the rally circulated on social media Friday, several people posted wording from Catholic Church guidelines regarding priests’ participation in politics.

In April 2011, the Montana Catholic Conference issued the following instruction on political advocacy for use by Catholic clergy and parishioners:

“Religious leaders should avoid taking positions on candidates or participating in political party matters even while acting in their individual capacity. Although not prohibited, it may be difficult to separate their personal activity from their public role as a Church leader.”

The conference posted diocesan guidelines later in 2011 featuring the same wording. According to the conference, the “guidelines were developed using the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 2007 Political Activity Guidelines.

The Diocese of Helena is currently without a bishop. In a statement released Saturday afternoon, Diocesan administrator Monsignor Kevin O’Neill quoted the 2011 statement as the Diocese’s policy and added that “a Diocesan Administrator may not innovate, but is expected to affirm standing policy and practice. With this in mind, I have issued a letter to all diocesan personnel requesting their thoughtful and sincere cooperation with the stated policy and practice of the diocese.”

Erlenbush, a Billings native, found himself at the center of a controversy earlier this year when he called for a boycott of Mayfair, the Billings Catholic Schools’ largest fundraiser, because a gay couple were among the fundraising leaders of the event.

Erlenbush, who is also an alumnus of Billings Catholic Schools, called for a boycott in April saying, the school had lost its way “when a prominent homosexual couple is advertised as the chairs for the annual fundraiser.”

“What does a Catholic school have to do before people say ‘enough’ and take their kids (and their money) elsewhere?” Erlenbush continued. “I am an alumnus of Billings Catholic Schools and I say ‘enough.’”

His comments drew a strong rebuke from Billings Catholic Schools, and Warfel responded to Erlenbush’s comment in part because of the outcry from Erlenbush’s Facebook post.

“The issue is not the principle, the issue is how things were communicated,” Warfel wrote at the time. “I would judge there are better ways to handle it.”

Many on social media suggested the pictures of the priests at the rally were “fake news,” had been “photoshopped,” or that they were “actors” hired to create controversy, although the identities of the priests and their attendance were confirmed by the dioceses and many others.

Mary Moe of Great Falls, a prominent Democrat and former legislator, posted on Facebook: “Our Catholic priests clapped, there in the front row allowing themselves and the Church to be exploited for political purposes, as President Trump, that exemplar of Catholic teachings, said of Hillary, ‘she got her ass kicked.’ They laughed at his jokes about immigration and laughed again when he used language that they used to beat boys for back when America was great. And Jesus wept.”

Her post generated more than 1,000 comments, predictably mixed.

Many praised the priests and defended their right to be there.

Dave Galt, a prominent Montana Republican and longtime executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, responded to Moe on Facebook: “I was there. I talked to those priests. Hillary did get her ass kicked. Perhaps they really care about the number of babies killed in this country under our abortion laws. I saw their support for the President’s comments about late-term abortion votes. Good for them and damn good for President Trump.”






“Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up,” he said in one episode. “Inshallah, the Durand Line issue will be solved soon.”
– Seddique Mateen



Good vs. Evil.

“Evil triumphs when good men do nothing” …Edmund Burke



Important SUA Update:

SUA has received a lengthy report from a Pashtun living in Waziristan, Pakistan. He described the intimate relationship between the Pakistani military and the Taliban. The Taliban are not only being supplied by the Pakistani military, but some members of Pakistani Army and Pakistani intelligence are dressing up as Taliban and operating with them to suppress the new Pashtun freedom movement (PTM) and any political parties in Waziristan deemed hostile to affect the election outcome at the end of this month., Pakistan announces to the international media that these operations are anti-terrorism operations, but they are not. The so-called Peace (Aman) Committees are Taliban and the Taliban are freely moving in urban areas, collecting taxes from businesses and enforcing Sharia under the very noses of of the Pakistani authorities. The Taliban are noticeably wealthier than the other inhabitants and have confiscated schools as their local headquarters.These are also the same Taliban groups that are operating in eastern Afghanistan.


The Coalition of Iranian Opposition Groups.


Press Release

Subject: Announcing the Coalition of Iranian Opposition Groups.

July 1, 2018

On June 30, 2018 Iranians from across the world, free from the yoke of the mullahs, joined in Paris, in an annual event “Free Iran; The Alternative” hosted by the National Council of Resistance of Iran. A bomb threat occurred at the event seemingly planned by a regime diplomat from Austria. US Representatives were Rudi Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and John Bolton who spoke in support of the Iranian Opposition Movement.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran is an Iranian political organization based in France and chaired by Maryam Rajavi, the widow of Masoud Rajavi, the founder of the NCRI. The organization has appearance of a broad-based coalition, however many analysts consider NCRI and Islamic Marxist People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) to be synonymous and an umbrella organization for Iranian opposition groups. The NCRI represents a very small group/percentage of Iranian dissidents and appears to lack very little support inside Iran. NCRI presents itself is an umbrella organization of Iranian dissident groups that shared a common opposition to the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was founded in Paris in 1981 by Masoud Rajavi, the leader of the MEK/PMOI/MKO, and Abol-Hassan Banisadr. Since 1983, it has been exclusively controlled by the MEK… The NCRI’s United States operation was listed previously as a foreign terrorist organization but was removed from that list by the State Department four years ago.

The purpose of this press release is to redirect the focus and attention of the US Representatives and the State Department to the new broader Coalition of Iranian Opposition Groups that conducted their first meeting on June 9th that convened at George Washington University. The Coalition represented the many and varied cultural groups that comprise the Iranian population such as representatives of Iranian Kurds, Azeris, Baluchies and Arabs. The conference attracted a significant number of highly regarded former US officials and former senior military personnel. Dr Alireza Nourizadeh, the director of Centre for Iran and Arab Studies and Executive Director of Iran Farda TV opened the conference stating the primary goal of this first meeting of Iran’s opposition group would be to unite all opposition parties against the Islamic Republic under the overarching framework of One Flag, One Nation, One Iran. “The conference in its essence was the first stepping stone to demonstrate the unity and solidarity of different Iranian opposition groups against the Islamic Republic. All participants stressed the shared values of unity and equality and joining forces to protect Iran’s territorial as well as national integrity and dignity”, emphasized Dr Nourizadeh. Dr Shahrokh Mireskandari, a co-organizer of the conference, also addressed the gathering by stressing that the conference would be a focal point in realizing the fragile situation that the Islamic Republic is gripped with and pointed out the importance of improving human rights in Iran, mending bridges between Iranian people and the US as well as furthering efforts aimed at positive role of Iran in the region. For many decades, the quest for democracy in Iran has been overshadowed by the perceived notion of Iran’s potential disintegration should all citizens’ fully exercise their socio-political and cultural rights.

The other main message of the conference was to ensure that all ethnic Iranian opposition groups agreed to pursue the common goal of removing the current discriminatory constitution and replace it with a free and fair national constitution guaranteeing every Iranian citizens’ right regardless of their ethnicity, religion or orientation under one umbrella. President Trump’s pulling out from Iran’s nuclear deal dubbed as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA), along with Iran’s increasing regional interferences and support of terrorist groups, has brought the US administration to a realization that the Islamic Republic in its current form and shape has two options, only: Either to fundamentally change behavior on a verifiable basis or be removed from power so an inclusive and national transitional government could be introduced by all Iranians ending the tyranny of the Islamic Republic. The conference also recognized the legitimacy of working with powerful international partners to build up a global consensus against the Islamic Republic while safeguarding that such collaboration would ensure Iran’s national integrity and dignity. It is recommended that President Trump and Secretary Pompeo focus its support for the new Coalition as it represents a very broad support of the multiple Iranian Opposition groups and not just the NCRI.


Contact: Paul E Vallely MG, US Army (Ret) Chairman, Stand Up America US Foundation Chairman – Legacy National Security Advisory Group Co – Trustee , Soldiers Memorial Fund Foundation



Phone (c): 406 890-4201

Skype: paulvallely




MG Paul Vallely on Donald Trump’s Iran Policy and the U.S. Military

MG Paul Vallely on Donald Trump’s Iran Policy and the U.S. Military


I wonder what they missed.


Treaty with Iran Spells Disaster for the Middle East, and for the US.

By MG Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.)

A speech from 7-11-2015


Over the past 12 years, I have had the honor of being a member of the Iran Policy Planning Group and have been engaging with the Iran Opposition who defected from Iran after the Shah fell. My heart and soul yearned with them for the tyrannical government under the ayatollahs to be replaced by a democratic government. But that has been a failure thus far as we all know. All we have seen is an evil and radical Islamic regime gain in strength over the years; supporting international terrorism, torture, and murdering its own people and others throughout the world. Can you only imagine what chaos and turmoil will occur with much stronger, bolder, and expanded Iranian Armed Forces – armed with nukes that can reach any target by air, land, and sea launched systems?

Aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States (and Iran is our avowed enemy), is a treasonous offense under the Constitution.

From 2009 to the present, Obama, with the guidance of Valerie Jarrett, has been involved in clandestine negotiations with Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.  Americans will recall that on November 4, 1979 Iran “Declared War on the United States” when it invaded the US Embassy in Tehran and took all the Americans in the Embassy as hostages. Iran feared Ronald Reagan and his peace through strength and released our hostages very soon after Reagan was elected.  Since then, for over 35 years, Iran has been killing thousands of Americans and expanding its hegemony throughout the Middle East and the world.

For 6 years, while Iran was employing Iranian manufactured Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to kill and maim (for life), thousands of members of the US Armed Forces, Obama has been involved in secret back channel negotiations in Oman, not negotiating to stop Iran from employing Iranian manufactured IEDs to kill members of the US Armed Forces, or in negotiations to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

For over 3 years, Obama has continued to lie to the American people, by saying first Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry have been engaged in negotiations to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; nothing could be further from the truth.   Obama has only been interested in normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, regardless of the cost to the lives of US military personnel in combat over a 6 year period, regardless whether it resulted in giving Iran nuclear weapons to put atop its intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The treacherous activity with Iran began with Hillary Clinton, and continues with John Kerry.  The Obama’s clandestine activitities have been covered up for 6 years by the left of center, liberal media establishment, and the members of the US Congress who have been kept informed of those step-by-step negotiations.

Obama chose to decouple his negotiations concerning Iran’s development of nuclear weapons from Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East that was killing members of the US Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry backtracked on virtually every demand that would have curbed Iran’s nuclear weapons development program and on international inspection regime that would have detected Iran’s continued violations of every agreement it ever entered into.

The American people should know that Obama plans to give Iran $150 billion of US taxpayers money (that Iran will use to continue destabilize the Middle East), will lift economic sanctions that were imposed on Iran for going forward in the development of nuclear weapons, will enter into a formal agreement that will permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons, will allow Iran to keep 4 innocent Americans in prison (a US Marine, a Christian pastor, a retired FBI Agent, and a journalist), and for that agreement Obama will get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!  I take that back, Iran will be allowed to continue to kill and maim members of the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan with their IEDs

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, stuck to his red lines, whereas, Obama made concession after concession on virtually every Iranian demand, such as excluding inspections by the UN’s IAEA inspectors to ensure Iran is not developing of nuclear weapons at military facilities.  It really didn’t matter to Obama, since preventing the development of nuclear weapons was never the purpose of the negotiations—the goal of negotiations that began in 2009 has always been to focus on normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, just like with Cuba,

Obama will soon authorize Iran to develop nuclear weapons, not with an international treaty required by the US Constitution that would require a 2/3rd approval of the US Senate, but by another of his unconstitutional Executive Orders.  In doing so, Obama will have initiated a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, may be responsible for forcing Israel to take action in self-defense to strike Iran’s nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities, and his ineptness will probably set the stages for escalating events into the beginning of World War III.

In 1815, the European powers met here to establish the post-Napoleonic order and through a balance of power arrangement bring peace to the continent. Obama surely appreciates the historical echo, since 200 years later he, too, means to create a peaceful order in an especially volatile part of the world by balancing the regional powers—Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—to ensure that none of them gets too large a piece of the pie and frightens the others into making war. The Iran nuclear talks are important because Obama, a U.S. diplomat circularly explained here last week, “believes a peaceful Iran could be .  .  . the key to peace.”

The difference between 1815 and 2015 is that Napoleon had to be defeated at Waterloo before the peace forged by the Congress of Vienna could hold, lasting nearly a century. The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, is on the march throughout the Middle East, controlling four Arab capitals, and waging war from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Nonetheless, over the last two and a half years of negotiations with Iran, the Obama administration has offered Tehran virtually every concession it sought, which only spiked its appetite for more. Most recently, the Iranians have demanded that Western powers lift the U.N. arms embargo, a demand that could hardly be less subtle—we want weapons, the Iranians are saying, to make war.

The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to create order. In contrast, the talks with Iran have jeopardized the order of the Middle East that the United States has maintained for more than half a century. The nuclear talks have legitimized and further emboldened a revolutionary regime. The White House’s string of concessions—from sanctions relief to acknowledgment of Iran’s right to enrich uranium—is tantamount to bankrolling Napoleon and arming him. The peace that Obama believes his diplomats are negotiating in the Austrian capital increases the likelihood of war.

The Iran nuclear talks were never exclusively about the clerical regime’s nuclear program. The administration has repeatedly insisted that a firewall separates the nuclear file from all other issues we might have with Iran—the Syrian civil war, the future of Iraq, Iran’s support for terrorism—but from the very beginning of his presidential term, Obama’s engagement with Iran meant everything was up for grabs. The White House believed the two governments had to learn to trust each other and was therefore quietly willing to do favors for the mullahs.

The White House and Iran had “secret dealings” starting in 2009, when the two sides discussed a number of issues—like the three American hikers detained by the Iranians, eventually exchanged for four Iranians held in American prisons. So what if the administration was letting Iran set the terms of engagement by equating college kids, backpackers, with felons who were clearly working for the regime’s intelligence services? The point was to build confidence with the Iranian regime. Eventually they’d settle the nuclear issue and discuss a number of other matters important to both parties.

There were other secret overtures, like Obama’s letters to supreme leader Ali Khamenei. But much more important were the White House’s public shows of confidence-building. The White House gave the regime room to crack down on the Green Movement that took to the streets in June 2009 to protest likely fraudulent elections. And it also left alone Tehran’s friends, like Bashar al-Assad, who is still the president of Syria even though Obama demanded he step aside four years ago.

Further, and this was perhaps the most important aspect of engagement with Iran, the administration showed that it could control and even beat up on Tehran’s enemies, like Israel. The administration not only made a habit of excoriating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it also repeatedly leaked sensitive items, as if it were messaging Tehran directly. Among others, the White House leaked the Stuxnet exploit that had damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, it leaked the fact that Israel was using Azerbaijan’s air space, it leaked Israeli strikes on Iranian arms convoys heading to Hezbollah. It boasted that it had deterred Netanyahu from striking Iranian nuclear facilities. Of course these leaks were damaging to Israel’s security interests, but the real point was to show Iran that Obama was sincere about wanting to bring them into the international community. They could trust him.

Indeed, maybe Iran could even be made to understand that it didn’t need a nuclear weapons program if it saw Washington as an honest broker. This White House, after all, didn’t automatically come down on the side of Iran’s nemeses in Riyadh and Jerusalem.

Obama may once have meant what he said about preventing a bomb, and the administration’s ostensible red lines were in keeping with decades of American policy opposing proliferation: The Iranians were going to have to dismantle their entire program; there would be no enrichment at all; they would have to ship their enriched uranium to Russia; Fordow would have to be shut; the ballistic missile program was a threat that would have to be addressed; Tehran would have to come clean about its past nuclear activities, to satisfy concerns regarding the program’s possible military dimensions.

But there is a very simple reason why the administration started to cave on all these issues with the Joint Plan of Action in November 2013, and why it continues to cave in Vienna today. Even before the Iranians began to talk publicly with the administration about the nuclear program, they saw that the negotiations had already been decided in their favor. When Obama declined to strike Assad in September 2013 and enforce his prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, the nuclear negotiations with Iran were effectively over. If he wouldn’t lob a few missiles into the Syrian desert to protect his own prestige, he certainly wasn’t going to order strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and risk a larger war. The Iranians had nothing to lose by sitting with the Americans and could in fact earn more each time they threatened to walk away.

For nearly two years then, the Iran nuclear talks have been something like a puppet show. Neither side is really negotiating about Iran’s nuclear program since that’s already been decided. And besides, from Obama’s perspective, the nuclear file wasn’t the major issue—the larger point was the regional order and the new balance of power he was building.

The real subject of the nuclear talks is the role that Iran will play in that order. The White House seems to be hoping that if it keeps feeding Tehran concessions, the Iranians will finally see it is in their interest to help stabilize the Middle East. Obama is counting on Iran to be a cornerstone of a regional peace similar to what the Congress of Vienna built in 1815. The more likely result is that he will be party to unleashing the evil monster.

How realistic is regime change in Iran? How and when Can it happen?

MG Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret)

We have a President and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo who are committed to regime change in Tehran, Iran sooner rather than later!

If any of the preconditions for regime change are in place, is the time right in the near future? To this, the answer is yes, if, a realistic strategy and foreign policy is developed. And it will certainly require a well-organized and funded coalition that can draw from all supporters inside and outside of Iran for a new, free democratic Iran.

Without underestimating the power in the hands of the mullahs, the truth is that Iran today. Iran is passing through “the deepest crisis the nation has experienced in decades” and is further isolating the country from its neighbors and other nations. A new future must come into being for the younger generations as well as the older generations. Policies since the late 70s have produced nothing but grief for much of Iran’s population. A number of protests took place recently in Iran that received almost no attention anywhere other than inside the country itself. These events occurred in peripheral cities that suffer from rising unemployment, lack of infrastructure, increases in the cost of living, extreme climatic conditions, and air pollution. These cities are marginalized in Iran’s public discourse, which is reflected in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with the needs of the residents – most of whom are classified as “ethnic minorities”. In those residents’ eyes, government policy is negligent and inattentive to their distress. Large-scale violent demonstrations took place recently in the Iranian city of Kazerun, which is under the jurisdiction of the Fars Province. They were the collective response of residents to the publication of a plan for a new administrative division of Fars that intends to remove two densely populated areas from the jurisdiction of the Kazerun municipality and grant them independent status (a sub-province called Koh-Chenar). Underlying the protests is the plight of many residents of the province who have long suffered from difficult working and living conditions. The administrative partition proposal served as a spark that ignited flames of frustration over government neglect.

The fall in the value of the Iranian currency—despite rising oil revenues—and the massive increase in the rate of unemployment over the past decade signal an economic crisis already heralded by double-digit inflation. In some cases, the government has been unable to pay its employees—including over 600,000 teachers—on time. We understand that there is a great transfer of money out of Iran, much of it coming to the US and other countries. Money laundering in South America has been validated. So, the question is, “What is happening in Iran? At the start of the new Iranian year, it was having difficulty financing over half of its projects, forcing hundreds of private contractors into bankruptcy. Meanwhile, fear of an international crisis over the nuclear issue, and the possibility of new sanctions imposed by the U.S. have put a damper on Iran’s economy.

Pompeo left open the possibility of a new deal, but one based on 12 conditions—including a full halt to all uranium enrichment, withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria, and an end to support for groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq—that the current regime would never support. The idea may seem to be that the U.S. will simply continue to ramp up the pressure until the regime capitulates. Any plan must not follow and be close to the neoconservative impulses of the George W. Bush administration people. Or for that manner, follow any of the Obama failed policies that had no specific strategy to assist the Iranian people in their quest for freedom and democracy. Pompeo argued that recent economic protests in Iran are evidence of public anger at a regime that “reaps a harvest of suffering and death in the Middle East at the expense of its own people.”

In a brief question-and-answer postlude with Heritage Foundation President Kay Cole James, Pompeo came even closer to calling for an uprising, saying, “At the end of the day, the Iranian people will decide the timeline. At the end of the day, the Iranian people will get to make a choice about their leadership. If they make the decision quickly, that would be wonderful. If they choose not to do so, we will stay hard at this until we achieve the outcomes that I set forward today.”

Given that there’s almost no chance of Iran meeting the Trump administration’s conditions, the hope seems to be that the Iranian people will take matters into their own hands. This is an enormously risky strategy. Many Iranians who are highly critical of their government’s policies are also resistant to foreign interference in their domestic politics. The regime already depicts anti-government demonstrations as American-inspired regime-change efforts. Pompeo just endorsed that depiction.

Why does the Islamic Republic behave as it does? The answer is that, as the spearhead of a revolutionary cause, it can do no other. The Islamic Republic is unlike any of the regimes in its environment, or indeed anywhere in the world. Either it will become like them—i.e., a nation-state—or it will force them to become like itself. As a normal nation-state, Iran would have few major problems with its neighbors or with others. As the embodiment of the Islamic Revolution, it is genetically programmed to clash not only with those of its neighbors who do not wish to emulate its political system but also with other powers as Iran continues as a threat to regional stability and world peace.




Paul Vallely: A Step Toward Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula…and…



Paul Vallely: Summit Step Toward Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula

By Bill Hoffman

Wednesday June 13, 2018

The historic deal President Donald Trump has hammered out with North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un is an excellent first step toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, retired U.S. Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely told Newsmax TV on Wednesday.

“This is not shooting from the hip; this is well thought out,” Vallely told Wednesday’s “America Talks Live.”

“This is what President Trump does: He thinks things out. Diplomacy is ‘The Art of the Deal.’ Now we’ll have any opportunity to move forward.”

The Trump-Kim summit in Singapore provided no details on when Pyongyang will give up nuclear arms or how that might be verified, but Vallely, who served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, said that is “the next step” for the two nations.

“[They have] to lay down what the requirements would – be but again this is going to be a give and take situation,” he told hosts Miranda Khan, John Cardillo, and Gina Loudon.

Vallely added he was also comfortable with Trump’s announcement the United States will halt military exercises with South Korea and Japan because they can easily be restarted if necessary.

“We still have the assets over there, so, while the exercises may stop, they can be renewed or reinvigorated at another time,” Vallely said.

“Keep in mind, we still have our forces in South Korea, we still have forces in Japan, a Marine division in Okinawa and the Seventh Fleet, so there are plenty of assets.

“So that’s why the cessation of joint exercises right now – [exercises] which I’ve been a part of at least four different times – is not going to make a difference.”

Additionally, Vallely said he was impressed with the Hollywood-style video Trump showed Kim extolling the possible development of the North Korean coastline. The four-minute presentation showed part of the heavily developed Miami Beach skyline, which Trump told reporters could potentially happen along the beaches of North Korea.

“A picture is worth a thousand words,” Vallely said. “Just one minute of that video can influence people dramatically. So, I think it was a good move.”



Reporters were shown a video ahead of Donald Trump’s press conference in Singapore, which the US president said he had played it to Kim Jong-un and his aides toward the end of their talks. It was made by Destiny Productions and was presented in Korean and English in the style of an action movie trailer.



Newt Gingrich: China’s embrace of Marxism is bad news for its people

Editors Note: “Fascism rides in from the left…not the right…”

  • Dr. Gordon Prangue, Phd. Professor at The University of Maryland.
  • Attended the Nuremburg Party rallies to gather intelligence.
  • Bio

Now  to the Invisible Fence. (IF)

From our good friend Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich: China’s embrace of Marxism is bad news for its people

By Newt Gingrich


Karl Marx is being celebrated by Chinese President Xi Jinping as the “greatest thinker of modern times.” Western academics are celebrating Marx as a historic critic of the modern world.

Yet what all the pro-Marxist, pro-socialist speakers ignore is the human cost of Marxism.

In the name of Marx, Vladimir Lenin established the Soviet Union as police state that killed millions. Josef Stalin succeeded Lenin as the Soviet leader and proved even more ruthless and committed to killing.

Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party and socialism was central to his taking over the German economy and the German state – a fact the left makes every effort to avoid.

Mao Zedong was the deadliest Marxist of all and killed an uncounted number of millions to impose his will on China.

Fidel Castro turned a prosperous Cuba into a tragic police state in the name of Marxism-Leninism. And Venezuela has been shattered by socialism.

The academic left and its news media and Hollywood acolytes refuse to confront the horrifying record of Marxism’s endless inhumanity.

This would be a good year to begin educating all those who have been lied to as a result of the American academic infatuation with Marxism.

We need a TV series on Marxism (and its evolution through Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, etc.) so that Americans can come to grips with the horrors of centralized government and the cost of tyranny.

The desire of those with power to get more and more power seems insatiable.

Our Founding Fathers understood this and designed the Constitution to distribute power so no one person could establish a dictatorship. American exceptionalism is the opposite of Leninism.

Lenin used Marx’s analysis and rhetoric to justify establishing a secret police-controlled totalitarian system. Within a remarkably few years, he had centralized authority and begun to lock up, torture and kill his critics.

When Lenin died, Stalin took his system of centralized power and refined it with even more brutality. Literally millions were starved to death as a matter of policy to break the middle-class farmers.

As an example of the grip Marxism had on the American news media and intellectuals at the time, The New York Times reporter in Moscow conspired with other reporters to avoid covering the famine and the mass deaths. Diana West’s book “American Betrayal cites the evidence of this deliberate coverup.

Left-wing American academics have always had a soft spot for Marxist regimes.

One of the most widely read economic textbook writers and the first American to win a Nobel Prize in economics, Paul Samuelson, told college students in the 1961 edition of his best-selling “Economics: An Introductory Analysis” textbookthat the Soviet Union’s economy was growing faster than the U.S. economy (never true).

This incorrect information continued to appear in subsequent editions of the textbook for more than two decades. Today the left argues that Marxism didn’t fail in the Soviet Union – only the way the Russians tried to implement it failed.

In fact, I was told by someone who was at a dinner with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and a group of academics that when one of them made that argument Gorbachev responded: “You would have to be an American professor to believe that.”

Hitler studied the Lenin-Stalin police state and modeled much of his own totalitarianism on their design. There was a lot of the KGB in the design of the Gestapo. The central power of the state and its authority over people was central to Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao. The individual human disappeared in the search for historic power and control.

We are about to witness a fascinating experiment in whether combining Marxism with big data can work. Xi Jinping is implementing a system by which Chinese people are heavily surveilled and assigned citizenship ratings based on their social media activity, patriotism, productivity, fitness routines and other behaviors. Those with low scores can be barred from commercial flights, some trains, and from having their children enrolled in some schools.

Deng Xiaoping saved the Chinese communists from popular rejection by advocating a system of free enterprise within the communist structure after Mao’s death. He argued that unless the Chinese economy was dramatically improved, China would not prosper. Further, he understood that if the system didn’t reward the Chinese people, there would be a widespread rejection of the Communist Party.

In his famous Southern Tour of China in January and February of 1992, Deng made the case for free markets in which productivity – not politics – decided winners and losers.

Now Xi Jinping is reversing the market-oriented decentralization of Deng. As he made clear in his recent speech on Marx (have your web browser translate it), he regards Marx – not 18th century Scottish economist Adam Smith – as the central guide for China’s future.

If indeed Marxism has defeated Deng Xiaoping in the corridors of Chinese power, we are in for a terrible experiment in tyranny. I wrote about President Xi Jinping’s aggressive power gathering in China, in my new book, “Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback.” I will doubtless write more on this in future columns, but for the moment, simply note that no experiment in Marxism has come out well.

Centralized control leads people to lie and cheat. Lying and cheating leads to the leadership demanding more secret police with more rules and more punishment. The system becomes a downward spiral in which humans are sacrificed to the power of the few.

This is Marx’s legacy. President Xi should study it carefully before taking China off the path of economic growth and onto the path of tyrannical growth.

Newt Gingrich is a Fox News contributor. A Republican, he was speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Follow him on Twitter @NewtGingrich. His latest book is “Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback.”




“China’s embrace of Marxism is bad news for its people”…has been for years and The Deep State has enabled, aided and abetted along with Americhistan leadership…

Big Data Works: 


Over ten years…lines up with…


Soros’ and the Deep State’s Pick for The Mother of Managers and the Real Time Beta Tests.

SUA Article


“Get them outta here”…
Please define “them”.


Ronald Reagan: ‘If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism’

The former California governor made the comment during a 1975 interview with “60 Minutes” over a discussion of his economic philosophy.




SUA Article


Occidentally yours…