washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Trump seeks to boost LGBTQ support amid pushback from left

The opt-in survey by the dating app Hornet was unscientific , yet its finding that 45 % of gay men in the U.S. plan to support President Trump has spurred double-takes and furious debate over whether the left-skewing LGBTQ electorate may be taking a Trumpian turn .
Brandon Straka , founder of WalkAway and an openly gay Trump supporter , said he was leery of the 45 % figure in the Hornet survey , which drew responses from 1,200 gay men , but predicted that Mr. Trump would make inroads with LGBTQ voters .
“ In my gut , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I do believe it is indicative of a larger trend that we ’ re going to see on Nov. 3 , ” said Mr. Straka , who spoke at the Republican National Convention .
“ Will it be 45 % ?
I don ’ t think so , but I think we ’ re going to see movement.
” The liberal LGBTQ group GLAAD fired back last week with its own poll showing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden leading by 80 % to 18 % among registered gay male voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ voters , who include lesbian , bisexual and transgender voters .
“ In contradiction to unscientific polling released by another entity , this survey shows Biden holding a substantial lead among LGBTQ voters of all sexual orientations and gender identities , including those who identify as gay men , ” said Pathfinder Research , which conducted the Oct. 1 poll for GLAAD .
That 17 % is still more than Mr. Trump picked up in 2016 with LGBTQ voters , who made up an estimated 6 % of the electorate in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBT community , they are incredible .
You should see how they ’ ve come out in full force for my father every single day , ” first son Eric Trump said last week on “ Fox & Friends , ” prompting GLAAD ’ s Sarah Kate Ellis to tweet back that his father ’ s “ record on LGBTQ issues is shameful and abysmal.
” Mr. Trump is seeking to improve on the 14 % LGBTQ share he received in 2016 against Democrat Hillary Clinton , boosted by the rising profile of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Log Cabin Republicans and the outreach of his own Trump Pride coalition .
Trump Pride even has its own version of the Make America Great Again ball cap .
Instead of red , it ’ s white with rainbow lettering .
Leading the charge is former U.S .
Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell , co-chair of Trump Pride , who has infuriated liberal LGBTQ groups with his insistence that Mr. Trump is “ the most pro-gay president in American history.
” Mr. Grenell often points out that he became in February the highest-ranking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Mr. Trump appointed him as acting director of national intelligence , a Cabinet-level position .
“ The fact that I ’ m gay didn ’ t even faze Donald Trump , ” Mr. Grenell said in a four-minute Log Cabin video .
“ Joe Biden certainly didn ’ t congratulate the appointment or even acknowledge it , but his silence was deafening.
” He contrasted the president ’ s LGBTQ record against that of Mr. Biden , noting that Mr. Trump was the first president to support same-sex marriage from the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his opposition to same-sex marriage and support of the Defense of Marriage Act .
“ I know firsthand that President Trump is the strongest ally that gay Americans have ever had in the White House , ” Mr. Grenell said .
Liberal gay rights groups argue that Mr. Biden should not be held to the same standard because he was elected to the Senate in 1972 , before the push for same-sex marriage began , and dispute Mr. Trump ’ s record on LGBTQ issues .
The Human Rights Campaign , the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staunchly opposed Mr. Trump , citing his transgender military ban , his move to add religious exemptions to the Obama administration ’ s anti-discrimination executive order and his conservative court picks .
“ Since the moment Donald Trump and Mike Pence walked into the White House , they have attacked the progress we have made toward full equality for the LGBTQ community and undermined the rights of countless Americans , ” the Human Rights Campaign said on its “ Trump ’ s Timeline of Hate ” website .
Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill TV that Mr. Trump was “ the worst president on LGBTQ issues ever.
” His remark prompted bemused speculation from conservatives on the gay rights records of George Washington , John Adams and Thomas Jefferson .
Mr. Grenell cited the president ’ s fight against regimes that criminalize homosexuality and exit from the Iran nuclear deal as examples of his opposition to “ homophobic and barbaric terrorist organization Hezbollah and the Iranian regime that supports them.
” The Trump administration also has made ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic a priority , and at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial nominees are openly gay .
After declining to endorse Mr. Trump in 2016 , the Log Cabin Republicans , the nation ’ s largest gay Republican group , gave him its endorsement last year , prompting the resignation of its president and several board members .
Elliot Imse , spokesperson for the LGBTQ Victory Fund , accused Mr. Trump ’ s team of “ attempting to hide his anti-LGBTQ — and especially anti-trans — record as president.
” “ He opposes our most basic protections .
He appoints a Cabinet full of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-LGBTQ policies throughout the administration , ” Mr. Imse said in an email .
“ He tries to ban trans people from serving openly in the military .
His minions can go out all day claiming he is not anti-LGBTQ , but the vast majority of our community has complete clarity on where he stands on equality for LGBTQ people.
” If any segment of the LGBTQ voting bloc is likely to swing for Mr. Trump , it ’ s gay men , said Mr. Straka .
He said others in the movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I think gay men are saying , enough , ” Mr. Straka said .
“ And I think they ’ re finding it preferable to jump ship and go to the other side than stick around in a community where we ’ re now being bullied from within .
And we ’ re not really experiencing that bullying from the outside anymore.
” Mr. Imse acknowledged that “ white men are the only reason Trump has a chance at reelection and among the LGBTQ community white gay men may be slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But the level of support among gay men claimed in this [ Hornet ] poll is ridiculous based on every other piece of data we have , ” he said .
In Mr. Trump ’ s four years in office , the conservative movement has become more visibly gay-friendly .
At least two openly gay activists , Mr. Straka and Tammy Bruce , are slated to speak at CPAC 2021 .
The conservative Steamboat Institute featured Turning Point USA ’ s Rob Smith at its August conference .
They and other LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murdock , are featured regularly on Fox News and Fox Nation .
Mr. Straka said he spoke last year at 47 Republican and right-tilting events — and those were just the invitations he accepted .
“ Even with the peer pressure of being a gay person and the expectation of hating Republicans , hating Trump , people still at the end of the day see what ’ s going on with the cognitive dissonance , ” said Mr. Straka .
“ If we ’ re so hated by the Republican Party , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much ?
Why does Trump love me ?
”

The opt-in survey by the dating app Hornet was unscientific, yet its finding that 45% of gay men in the U.S. plan to support President Trump has spurred double-takes and furious debate over whether the left-skewing LGBTQ electorate may be taking a Trumpian turn.
Brandon Straka, founder of WalkAway and an openly gay Trump supporter, said he was leery of the 45% figure in the Hornet survey, which drew responses from 1,200 gay men, but predicted that Mr. Trump would make inroads with LGBTQ voters.
“In my gut, I don’t believe 45%, but I do believe it is indicative of a larger trend that we’re going to see on Nov. 3,” said Mr. Straka, who spoke at the Republican National Convention. “Will it be 45%? I don’t think so, but I think we’re going to see movement.”
The liberal LGBTQ group GLAAD fired back last week with its own poll showing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden leading by 80% to 18% among registered gay male voters, and 74% to 17% among LGBTQ voters, who include lesbian, bisexual and transgender voters.
“In contradiction to unscientific polling released by another entity, this survey shows Biden holding a substantial lead among LGBTQ voters of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including those who identify as gay men,” said Pathfinder Research, which conducted the Oct. 1 poll for GLAAD.
That 17% is still more than Mr. Trump picked up in 2016 with LGBTQ voters, who made up an estimated 6% of the electorate in 2018, according to GLAAD.
“The LGBT community, they are incredible. You should see how they’ve come out in full force for my father every single day,” first son Eric Trump said last week on “Fox & Friends,” prompting GLAAD’s Sarah Kate Ellis to tweet back that his father’s “record on LGBTQ issues is shameful and abysmal.”
Mr. Trump is seeking to improve on the 14% LGBTQ share he received in 2016 against Democrat Hillary Clinton, boosted by the rising profile of gay conservatives, an about-face by the Log Cabin Republicans and the outreach of his own Trump Pride coalition.
Trump Pride even has its own version of the Make America Great Again ball cap. Instead of red, it’s white with rainbow lettering.
Leading the charge is former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, co-chair of Trump Pride, who has infuriated liberal LGBTQ groups with his insistence that Mr. Trump is “the most pro-gay president in American history.”
Mr. Grenell often points out that he became in February the highest-ranking openly gay federal official in U.S. history when Mr. Trump appointed him as acting director of national intelligence, a Cabinet-level position.
“The fact that I’m gay didn’t even faze Donald Trump,” Mr. Grenell said in a four-minute Log Cabin video. “Joe Biden certainly didn’t congratulate the appointment or even acknowledge it, but his silence was deafening.”
He contrasted the president’s LGBTQ record against that of Mr. Biden, noting that Mr. Trump was the first president to support same-sex marriage from the moment he was elected. Mr. Biden reversed his opposition to same-sex marriage and support of the Defense of Marriage Act.
“I know firsthand that President Trump is the strongest ally that gay Americans have ever had in the White House,” Mr. Grenell said.
Liberal gay rights groups argue that Mr. Biden should not be held to the same standard because he was elected to the Senate in 1972, before the push for same-sex marriage began, and dispute Mr. Trump’s record on LGBTQ issues.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ group, has staunchly opposed Mr. Trump, citing his transgender military ban, his move to add religious exemptions to the Obama administration’s anti-discrimination executive order and his conservative court picks.
“Since the moment Donald Trump and Mike Pence walked into the White House, they have attacked the progress we have made toward full equality for the LGBTQ community and undermined the rights of countless Americans,” the Human Rights Campaign said on its “Trump’s Timeline of Hate” website.
Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David declared in a 2019 interview on Hill TV that Mr. Trump was “the worst president on LGBTQ issues ever.” His remark prompted bemused speculation from conservatives on the gay rights records of George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
Mr. Grenell cited the president’s fight against regimes that criminalize homosexuality and exit from the Iran nuclear deal as examples of his opposition to “homophobic and barbaric terrorist organization Hezbollah and the Iranian regime that supports them.”
The Trump administration also has made ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic a priority, and at least two of the president’s judicial nominees are openly gay.
After declining to endorse Mr. Trump in 2016, the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest gay Republican group, gave him its endorsement last year, prompting the resignation of its president and several board members.
Elliot Imse, spokesperson for the LGBTQ Victory Fund, accused Mr. Trump’s team of “attempting to hide his anti-LGBTQ — and especially anti-trans — record as president.”
“He opposes our most basic protections. He appoints a Cabinet full of anti-LGBTQ activists and allows them to dismantle pro-LGBTQ policies throughout the administration,” Mr. Imse said in an email. “He tries to ban trans people from serving openly in the military. His minions can go out all day claiming he is not anti-LGBTQ, but the vast majority of our community has complete clarity on where he stands on equality for LGBTQ people.”
If any segment of the LGBTQ voting bloc is likely to swing for Mr. Trump, it’s gay men, said Mr. Straka. He said others in the movement have labeled gay men as “privileged.”
“I think gay men are saying, enough,” Mr. Straka said. “And I think they’re finding it preferable to jump ship and go to the other side than stick around in a community where we’re now being bullied from within. And we’re not really experiencing that bullying from the outside anymore.”
Mr. Imse acknowledged that “white men are the only reason Trump has a chance at reelection and among the LGBTQ community white gay men may be slightly more likely to vote for Trump.”
“But the level of support among gay men claimed in this [Hornet] poll is ridiculous based on every other piece of data we have,” he said.
In Mr. Trump’s four years in office, the conservative movement has become more visibly gay-friendly. At least two openly gay activists, Mr. Straka and Tammy Bruce, are slated to speak at CPAC 2021. The conservative Steamboat Institute featured Turning Point USA’s Rob Smith at its August conference.
They and other LGBTQ conservatives, including Guy Benson and Deroy Murdock, are featured regularly on Fox News and Fox Nation. Mr. Straka said he spoke last year at 47 Republican and right-tilting events — and those were just the invitations he accepted.
“Even with the peer pressure of being a gay person and the expectation of hating Republicans, hating Trump, people still at the end of the day see what’s going on with the cognitive dissonance,” said Mr. Straka. “If we’re so hated by the Republican Party, why does the Republican Party love me so much? Why does Trump love me?”
• Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Donald Trump orders Hillary Clinton, Russia documents declassified

President Trump pulled the nuclear option Tuesday , ordering mass declassification of all documents related to Russia and Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday evening a claim that the FBI and CIA knew Russia collusion was a political @ @ @ @ @ response .
“ I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents @ @ @ @ @ political CRIME in American History , the Russia Hoax , ” he said .
His @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton Email Scandal , ” which conservatives have long charged was a half-hearted “ @ @ @ @ @ cover for Mrs. Clinton .
The kicker was at the end : “ No redactions @ @ @ @ @ t immediately clear what documents would be released and what they might reveal , but @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday that the CIA wrote a highly classified three-page memo to FBI Director James B.
@ @ @ @ @ telling them Mrs. Clinton had approved a plan to blame Russian computer hacking of her @ @ @ @

President Trump said he pulled the nuclear option Tuesday by ordering mass declassification of all documents related to Russia and Hillary Clinton.
Then he said he’d already done this.
Mr. Trump approvingly retweeted Tuesday evening a claim that the FBI and CIA knew Russia collusion was a political hoax and then added his response.
“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax,” he said.
His order also covered “the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal,” which conservatives have long charged was a half-hearted “investigation” intended to provide cover for Mrs. Clinton.
The kicker was at the end: “No redactions!”
I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions! https://t.co/GgnHh9GOiq — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2020
Later, he walked the news back, saying everything already was declassified but bureaucrats were slow-walking the releases.
“All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago. Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly, especially since it is perhaps the biggest political crime in the history of our Country. Act!!!” he wrote.
It wasn’t immediately clear what documents would be released and what they might reveal. But the Washington Times reported earlier Tuesday that the CIA wrote a highly classified three-page memo to FBI Director James B. Comey and agent Peter Strzok telling them Mrs. Clinton had approved a plan to blame Russian computer hacking of her on Mr. Trump.
• Victor Morton can be reached at vmorton@washingtontimes.com.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Cheryl Chumley in 'Socialists Don't Sleep' argues America is sliding into socialism

Editor ’ s note : The following are excerpts from “ Socialists Don ’ t Sleep : Christians Must Rise or America Will Fall ” by Cheryl K. Chumley , online opinion editor of The Washington Times .
Socialism is not the same as big government .
But the left has taken the word “ socialism ” and reshaped , redefined and reworked it to suit its needs , so that it ’ s nearly impossible to reach consensus on what ’ s socialist , what ’ s not — what ’ s democratic socialism versus social democracy versus social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest .
This confusion is not without its benefits for the left .
After all , what better way for a socialist to disguise socialist intent than by pretending not to be a socialist ?
By loosest definition , socialism means force — a forced government taking , a forced government redistribution , a forced government takeover of the means of production .
That ’ s different from big government — from a government that grows big on the entitlement-minded wings of entitlement-minded politicians and people .
But big government and socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tip into socialism .
And America ’ s actually been tip , tip , tipping that way for some time now .
Today ’ s socialists are yesterday ’ s progressives are last week ’ s Democrats are last month ’ s democratic socialists are last year ’ s communists — are last decade ’ s socialists .
It ’ s a constant morphing , a constant redefining , a constant convoluting , and conflating of policies , platforms and politics , designed to constantly change so as to avoid detection .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weeds .
Here ’ s the real enemy : collectivism .
Let ’ s not get hung up on the ever-changing definitions , and in so doing , play right into the left ’ s hands .
Instead , let ’ s keep it simple .
There ’ s the notion of God-given rights — and there ’ s a government that treads on those rights .
Socialism may be the latest attention grabber for today ’ s youth .
Socialism may be perceived as today ’ s biggest threat in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of capitalism and free market and freedom .
But really , it ’ s the seeds of socialism we need to beware .
It ’ s the change of mindset that comes from a nation of people who are taught in public schools that America is not exceptional ; who are told by politicians that hard work means nothing and that if you live , if you breathe , you are owed ; who are trained to believe that absolutes are the chains that enslave and that boys can be girls , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clothing ; who are brainwashed into scorning once-admired traits like self-rule , self-governance , and self-sufficiency ; and who are raised without God , or with a god that can be whatever is wished at the time — so that courteous culture crashes , polite society falters , and voila , government whisks into the picture to instill control .
Want an up-front and close encounter with seeds of socialism as they grow and spread ?
Look at the video of Black Lives Matter riots in the streets at the police killing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the summer of 2020 .
Scour the YouTubes of Antifa thugs as they smashed windows , burned up cars , destroyed and defaced monuments and memorials and statues of America ’ s history — all sparked by the death of Floyd .
Watch the news feeds of the militants and anarchists who took over the city streets of Seattle and set up a Capitol Hill “ Autonomous Zone , ” or CHAZ area , barricaded and patrolled by armed guards who kept out police , shook down residents and businesses for cash and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a myriad of demands to local and state political leaders — all due to the horrible white officers ’ handling of Floyd .
… … These are all seeds of socialism — ignorance , entitlement and victimhood mentalities , secularism and immorality , jealousies and frustrations born of lies , indoctrination of the greatness of government and weakness of the individual .
And it ’ s all these seeds and more that grow cultural socialism , then political socialism , then a government of socialism led by card-carrying socialists .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprout , spread , stifle and choke all concepts of freedom .
When it comes to socialism in America , it ’ s not socialism , it ’ s collectivism that must be fought .
It ’ s collectivism that must be stomped and killed and eradicated from U.S. soil .
It ’ s anything that ’ s not freedom .
To do that , we must recognize the seeds of socialism when they ’ re planted , where they ’ re planted , how they ’ re planted — so we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprout .
It ’ s the seeds of socialism we want to pluck .
And we need to do it quickly , with bold determination and fearless focus .
Why ?
Because socialists don ’ t sleep .
Socialists don ’ t quit .
Socialists don ’ t abandon the battlefield .
Not all do-gooders do good The Open Society Institute run by world renowned anti-American philanthropist George Soros gave $ 3.4 million to the United Nations Development Fund in 2010 .
That was after giving $ 2.3 million in 2008 and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
The Soros Foundation network , another George Soros organization , gave more than $ 2 million to UNDP between the years of 2004 and 2010 .
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation , the Ford Foundation , the Rockefeller Foundation — these are all organizations with far-left ideologies that have donated , collectively , millions of dollars to UNDP .
The left loves to showcase these nonprofits and these billionaire foundation examples of goodness as compasses of virtue and generosity .
But gifts of money don ’ t a saint make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from love .
Sometimes , charity is motivated instead by desires to spread influence , stretch one ’ s power — sow seeds of socialism .
The Gates Foundation was in large part responsible for bringing America the disastrous , top-down , heavily bureaucratic and federally mandated — for schools that wanted substantial funding , that is — Common Core education program .
The Ford Foundation has an entire Center for Social Justice building in New York City dedicated to bringing “ social good ” to the world — meaning , the far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by taking from one to give to another — and to honoring “ the courageous people who devote their lives to achieving it.
” The Rockefeller Foundation counts among its causes the 2015–2017 Transform Finance project in Virginia , a $ 150,000 endeavor aimed at “ empower [ ing ] investors to make capital allocation decisions based on an enhanced understanding of racial justice.
” The coursing of dollars from the elite flow widely from foundation to organization to UN mission to globalist cause .
It ’ s a seamless transference that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most powerful socialist-minded elitists all traveling the same massively bureaucratic circles , all funding the same sorts of bureaucratic causes — all falling under media and watchdog radars by cloaking their socialist , collectivist designs in altruistic wrappings .
What ’ s wrong with the Ford Foundation helping UNDP provide financially for poorer nations ?
Nothing .
Nothing at all — so long as Americans aren ’ t caught in the trap of believing all these billionaires ’ do-goodisms are simply acts of charity , no strings attached .
Nothing — so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t used to bolster and pad the endeavors of the global bodies , and therefore , either directly or indirectly , the agendas of global-minded billionaires .
When Bill Gates in 2020 pushed hard for Americans to stay home , stay away from work , stay on the stimulus check dime until his foundation , working in partnership with the World Health Organization and other groups , could develop a vaccine for the coronavirus , members of the media fawned , big government types cheered .
This is the same World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in 2017 : “ Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island .
Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva.
” Watchdogs in the press should ’ ve been all over these connections .
Watchdogs should have barked up that age-old follow the money tree and called out the inherent conflicts of interest with a guy who on the one hand runs a foundation with a stated mission to develop vaccines for the world and on the other pushes the WHO to declare coronavirus a pandemic — thereby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine .
Watchdogs should have hesitated more in offering a guy with a vested financial interest in developing vaccines for the world a national and even international platform to talk about the dangers of coronavirus , and the need for a globally administered vaccine .
But they didn ’ t .
“ Bill Gates Might Save the World .
Or Waste Billions on Vaccine Hunt , ” one April headline from The Daily Beast read .
Watchdogs were too busy carrying water for Gates — simply because Gates seemed so giving of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cause that he said would save lives .
… Americans shouldn ’ t be afraid to call out these conflicts of interest , or at least question these perceived conflicts of interest , out of fear of offending billionaires and globalists with power .
That ’ s what the left counts on as a means of spreading its leftist views and agendas .

Editor’s note: The following are excerpts from “Socialists Don’t Sleep: Christians Must Rise or America Will Fall” by Cheryl K. Chumley, online opinion editor of The Washington Times.
Socialism is not the same as big government.
But the left has taken the word “socialism” and reshaped, redefined and reworked it to suit its needs, so that it’s nearly impossible to reach consensus on what’s socialist, what’s not — what’s democratic socialism versus social democracy versus social justice versus progressivism versus communism versus all the rest. This confusion is not without its benefits for the left. After all, what better way for a socialist to disguise socialist intent than by pretending not to be a socialist?
By loosest definition, socialism means force — a forced government taking, a forced government redistribution, a forced government takeover of the means of production. That’s different from big government — from a government that grows big on the entitlement-minded wings of entitlement-minded politicians and people. But big government and socialism are linked. Big government can oh-so-easily tip into socialism. And America’s actually been tip, tip, tipping that way for some time now.
Today’s socialists are yesterday’s progressives are last week’s Democrats are last month’s democratic socialists are last year’s communists — are last decade’s socialists. It’s a constant morphing, a constant redefining, a constant convoluting, and conflating of policies, platforms and politics, designed to constantly change so as to avoid detection. But let’s not get caught in the weeds. Here’s the real enemy: collectivism.
Let’s not get hung up on the ever-changing definitions, and in so doing, play right into the left’s hands. Instead, let’s keep it simple.
There’s freedom — and there’s not.
There’s sovereignty — and there’s globalism.
There’s the Constitution — and there’s unconstitutional.
There’s the notion of God-given rights — and there’s a government that treads on those rights.
Socialism may be the latest attention grabber for today’s youth. Socialism may be perceived as today’s biggest threat in America, and to America’s system of capitalism and free market and freedom. But really, it’s the seeds of socialism we need to beware. It’s the change of mindset that comes from a nation of people who are taught in public schools that America is not exceptional; who are told by politicians that hard work means nothing and that if you live, if you breathe, you are owed; who are trained to believe that absolutes are the chains that enslave and that boys can be girls, and girls, boys, simply by trading clothing; who are brainwashed into scorning once-admired traits like self-rule, self-governance, and self-sufficiency; and who are raised without God, or with a god that can be whatever is wished at the time — so that courteous culture crashes, polite society falters, and voila, government whisks into the picture to instill control.
Want an up-front and close encounter with seeds of socialism as they grow and spread? Look at the video of Black Lives Matter riots in the streets at the police killing of black suspect George Floyd, right around the summer of 2020. Scour the YouTubes of Antifa thugs as they smashed windows, burned up cars, destroyed and defaced monuments and memorials and statues of America’s history — all sparked by the death of Floyd. Watch the news feeds of the militants and anarchists who took over the city streets of Seattle and set up a Capitol Hill “Autonomous Zone,” or CHAZ area, barricaded and patrolled by armed guards who kept out police, shook down residents and businesses for cash and protection money, and facilitated the distribution of a myriad of demands to local and state political leaders — all due to the horrible white officers’ handling of Floyd. …
… These are all seeds of socialism — ignorance, entitlement and victimhood mentalities, secularism and immorality, jealousies and frustrations born of lies, indoctrination of the greatness of government and weakness of the individual.
And it’s all these seeds and more that grow cultural socialism, then political socialism, then a government of socialism led by card-carrying socialists. It’s all these seeds and more that sprout, spread, stifle and choke all concepts of freedom.
When it comes to socialism in America, it’s not socialism, it’s collectivism that must be fought. It’s collectivism that must be stomped and killed and eradicated from U.S. soil. It’s anything that’s not freedom. To do that, we must recognize the seeds of socialism when they’re planted, where they’re planted, how they’re planted — so we can rip them from the soil before they sprout. It’s the seeds of socialism we want to pluck.
And we need to do it quickly, with bold determination and fearless focus. Why? Because socialists don’t sleep. Socialists don’t quit. Socialists don’t abandon the battlefield.
Not all do-gooders do good
The Open Society Institute run by world renowned anti-American philanthropist George Soros gave $3.4 million to the United Nations Development Fund in 2010. That was after giving $2.3 million in 2008 and other amounts totaling into the millions in other years. The Soros Foundation network, another George Soros organization, gave more than $2 million to UNDP between the years of 2004 and 2010. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation — these are all organizations with far-left ideologies that have donated, collectively, millions of dollars to UNDP.
The left loves to showcase these nonprofits and these billionaire foundation examples of goodness as compasses of virtue and generosity. But gifts of money don’t a saint make. Charity doesn’t always come from love. Sometimes, charity is motivated instead by desires to spread influence, stretch one’s power — sow seeds of socialism.
The Gates Foundation was in large part responsible for bringing America the disastrous, top-down, heavily bureaucratic and federally mandated — for schools that wanted substantial funding, that is — Common Core education program. The Ford Foundation has an entire Center for Social Justice building in New York City dedicated to bringing “social good” to the world — meaning, the far left’s vision of social good, by taking from one to give to another — and to honoring “the courageous people who devote their lives to achieving it.” The Rockefeller Foundation counts among its causes the 2015–2017 Transform Finance project in Virginia, a $150,000 endeavor aimed at “empower[ing] investors to make capital allocation decisions based on an enhanced understanding of racial justice.”
The coursing of dollars from the elite flow widely from foundation to organization to UN mission to globalist cause. It’s a seamless transference that makes for some of the world’s most powerful socialist-minded elitists all traveling the same massively bureaucratic circles, all funding the same sorts of bureaucratic causes — all falling under media and watchdog radars by cloaking their socialist, collectivist designs in altruistic wrappings.
What’s wrong with the Ford Foundation helping UNDP provide financially for poorer nations? Nothing.
Nothing at all — so long as Americans aren’t caught in the trap of believing all these billionaires’ do-goodisms are simply acts of charity, no strings attached. Nothing — so long as American tax dollars aren’t used to bolster and pad the endeavors of the global bodies, and therefore, either directly or indirectly, the agendas of global-minded billionaires.
When Bill Gates in 2020 pushed hard for Americans to stay home, stay away from work, stay on the stimulus check dime until his foundation, working in partnership with the World Health Organization and other groups, could develop a vaccine for the coronavirus, members of the media fawned, big government types cheered. This is the same World Health Organization, mind you, of which Politico wrote in 2017: “Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva.”
Watchdogs in the press should’ve been all over these connections. Watchdogs should have barked up that age-old follow the money tree and called out the inherent conflicts of interest with a guy who on the one hand runs a foundation with a stated mission to develop vaccines for the world and on the other pushes the WHO to declare coronavirus a pandemic — thereby opening the doors to global need for a vaccine. Watchdogs should have hesitated more in offering a guy with a vested financial interest in developing vaccines for the world a national and even international platform to talk about the dangers of coronavirus, and the need for a globally administered vaccine. But they didn’t. “Bill Gates Might Save the World. Or Waste Billions on Vaccine Hunt,” one April headline from The Daily Beast read.
Watchdogs were too busy carrying water for Gates — simply because Gates seemed so giving of his time and money and attention for a cause that he said would save lives. …
Americans shouldn’t be afraid to call out these conflicts of interest, or at least question these perceived conflicts of interest, out of fear of offending billionaires and globalists with power. That’s what the left counts on as a means of spreading its leftist views and agendas.
• Published Sept. 22 by Humanix, 256 pages.
• Cheryl K. Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Cunningham, Mace hit same themes at SC 1st District debate

In their second and final planned debate for the 1st Congressional District seat in South Carolina , the surprise Democratic incumbent and his Republican challenger continued Tuesday to hit on the same themes of missing votes and the future of the Marine base on Parris Island .
The attacks were still there , but a bit softer .
Republican challenger state Rep. Nancy Mace stuck to her line of attack over the past few weeks in saying U.S. Rep. Joe Cunningham ’ s vote on a military budget bill meant he wanted to close Parris Island , the South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a century .
“ You put Parris Island on the chopping block , ” Mace said several times to various questions .
That accusation opened the door for Cunningham to point out his bipartisanship .
Six of the state ’ s seven Republicans in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate voted with Cunningham .
The bill calls for the Marines to make sure women and men can go through basic training together at Parris Island in five years .
Gender-integrated training already takes place in other military branches .
“ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parris Island .
Those aren ’ t my words .
Those are Sen. Tim Scott ’ s words , ” Cunningham said of South Carolina ’ s junior Republican U.S. senator .
The leader of the Marines told military.com last month that all options are on the table to bring men and women together for training , including closing Parris Island and a second base in San Diego and possibly build a new base .
Republican Gov .
Henry McMaster said last week the state will do anything the Marines want to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men and women together .
Other Republican leaders echoed there is no way the Marines would close their South Carolina base .
Cunningham , 38 , stunned state and national political observers by winning the South Carolina coastal district that runs from Charleston to Hilton Head Island by more than a percentage point in 2018 .
It was the first time the district voted Republican in 40 years and the first U.S. House seat flipped by Democrats this century .
President Donald Trump won the district 54 percent to 40 percent for Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the smallest margin of the six Republican controlled districts in South Carolina .
The 1st District is also richer and better educated than most of the state .
Unlike their first debate where Mace , 42 , accused Cunningham of denigrating single mothers when he pointed out Mace missed a number of votes during a special session in September , things were less personal on Tuesday .
Both candidates accused the other of lying .
Mace tried to link Cunningham to more liberal U.S. House members , including Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the time .
That ’ s not leading by example when you follow as a foot soldier or a lackey , ” Mace said .
Cunningham said he works with anyone who will help make the Lowcountry a better place , from Trump to Pelosi and said Mace kept bringing up the U.S. House Speaker because she didn ’ t want to talk about her own record .
“ It ’ s obvious that Rep. Mace wants to run against Nancy Pelosi or the California liberals .
but the fact is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home and run against me and my voting record , ” Cunningham said .
“ She wants to talk about Nancy Pelosi because she does not want to talk about Nancy Mace.
” There were also questions about COVID-19 .
Both Mace and Cunningham contracted the coronavirus and agree that masks , hand washing and social distancing are the best ways to fight the disease .
But Cunningham pointed out Mace called Dr. Anthony Fauci a liar .
Fauci is the infectious disease chief at the National Institutes of Health and has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fighting COVID-19 .
“ Dr Fauci did lie , ” Mace said .
“ He said masks don ’ t work in February and then in March ; I think we have to hold our elected officials accountable and those that serve the United States .
That ’ s why there was a lot of skepticism.
” WCIV-TV in Charleston produced the debate and aired it online .
AP ’ s Advance Voting guide brings you the facts about voting early , by mail or absentee from each state : https : @

In their second and final planned debate for the 1st Congressional District seat in South Carolina, the surprise Democratic incumbent and his Republican challenger continued Tuesday to hit on the same themes of missing votes and the future of the Marine base on Parris Island.
The attacks were still there, but a bit softer. Republican challenger state Rep. Nancy Mace stuck to her line of attack over the past few weeks in saying U.S. Rep. Joe Cunningham’s vote on a military budget bill meant he wanted to close Parris Island, the South Carolina site where Marines have been trained for more than a century.
“You put Parris Island on the chopping block,” Mace said several times to various questions.
That accusation opened the door for Cunningham to point out his bipartisanship. Six of the state’s seven Republicans in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate voted with Cunningham.
The bill calls for the Marines to make sure women and men can go through basic training together at Parris Island in five years. Gender-integrated training already takes place in other military branches.
“That vote I took in no way endangers Parris Island. Those aren’t my words. Those are Sen. Tim Scott’s words,” Cunningham said of South Carolina’s junior Republican U.S. senator.
The leader of the Marines told military.com last month that all options are on the table to bring men and women together for training, including closing Parris Island and a second base in San Diego and possibly build a new base.
Republican Gov. Henry McMaster said last week the state will do anything the Marines want to help renovate Parris Island so it can train men and women together. Other Republican leaders echoed there is no way the Marines would close their South Carolina base.
Cunningham, 38, stunned state and national political observers by winning the South Carolina coastal district that runs from Charleston to Hilton Head Island by more than a percentage point in 2018. It was the first time the district voted Republican in 40 years and the first U.S. House seat flipped by Democrats this century.
President Donald Trump won the district 54 percent to 40 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016 - although that was the smallest margin of the six Republican controlled districts in South Carolina. The 1st District is also richer and better educated than most of the state.
Unlike their first debate where Mace, 42, accused Cunningham of denigrating single mothers when he pointed out Mace missed a number of votes during a special session in September, things were less personal on Tuesday.
Both candidates accused the other of lying. Mace tried to link Cunningham to more liberal U.S. House members, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“He’s with her 90% of the time. That’s not leading by example when you follow as a foot soldier or a lackey,” Mace said.
Cunningham said he works with anyone who will help make the Lowcountry a better place, from Trump to Pelosi and said Mace kept bringing up the U.S. House Speaker because she didn’t want to talk about her own record.
“It’s obvious that Rep. Mace wants to run against Nancy Pelosi or the California liberals. but the fact is, you’ve got to come back home and run against me and my voting record,” Cunningham said. “She wants to talk about Nancy Pelosi because she does not want to talk about Nancy Mace.”
There were also questions about COVID-19. Both Mace and Cunningham contracted the coronavirus and agree that masks, hand washing and social distancing are the best ways to fight the disease.
But Cunningham pointed out Mace called Dr. Anthony Fauci a liar. Fauci is the infectious disease chief at the National Institutes of Health and has been one of the most prominent federal voices in fighting COVID-19.
“Dr Fauci did lie,” Mace said. “He said masks don’t work in February and then in March; I think we have to hold our elected officials accountable and those that serve the United States. That’s why there was a lot of skepticism.”
WCIV-TV in Charleston produced the debate and aired it online.
___
Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP.
___
AP’s Advance Voting guide brings you the facts about voting early, by mail or absentee from each state: https://interactives.ap.org/advance-voting-2020/


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Five things to know about the Big Tech antitrust report

After years of calling Big Tech too big , Democratic lawmakers are calling for Congress to rein in Facebook , Google , Amazon and Apple by breaking them up , limiting future mergers and blocking self-dealing that could hurt competitors .
Those proposals are in a 450-page report issued Tuesday by a House antitrust panel , which undertook a 15-month investigation into the companies ’ market dominance .
Here are five big takeaways .
With the election less than a month away and a new Congress due to be sworn in Jan. 3 , there ’ s little chance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
But the report offers Congress a roadmap for 2021 should it choose to follow up on the report ’ s proposals , which seems likely should Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress and the presidency .
The Democratic presidential nominee , former Vice President Joe Biden , has said that he ’ d consider company breakups .
The report said the four companies have abused their market power by charging excessive fees , imposing tough contract terms and extracting valuable data from individuals and businesses that rely on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaring them all monopolists .
The report found that Google holds a monopoly in search and that Facebook has monopoly power in social networking .
But it merely said that Amazon and Apple have “ significant and durable market power ” in , respectively , the U.S. online retail market and mobile operating systems and app stores .
BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO Forcing the companies to break up would be a radical step for Congress to take with a powerful industry .
For decades , the tech giants have enjoyed light-touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but have faced growing scrutiny and criticism over issues of competition , consumer privacy , hate speech and their effects on democracy and the political climate .
Still , the companies have powerful lobbies and many of their CEOs retain some star power in Washington .
There ’ s little question that the companies would wage an all-out fight against any breakup attempts , and it ’ s not clear how many legislators would choose that path .
There are also technological considerations .
Facebook , for instance , is in the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Instagram and soon , WhatsApp .
Once that ’ s complete , breaking up those platforms gets more difficult .
The report attributes the “ significant and durable market power ” of the companies in large part to “ a high volume of acquisitions.
” This , it concludes , has led to fewer choices for consumers .
Facebook “ used its data advantage to create superior market intelligence to identify nascent competitive threats and then acquire , copy , or kill these firms , ” the report states .
Google , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general search through a series of anticompetitive tactics ” including an “ an aggressive campaign to undermine vertical search providers.
” The report suggests placing restrictions , potentially even a ban , on future acquisitions by the companies .
It ’ s worth noting , however , that many of the products people rely on would not be what they are today if the companies hadn ’ t acquired them .
This is true for Google ’ s YouTube and the technology for its maps and Android , Apple ’ s Siri and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though the report was “ bipartisan , ” Republicans issued their own thoughts Tuesday in a report titled “ A Third Way to Take on Big Tech.
” Authored by Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado , it called for “ targeted ” enforcement of existing antitrust laws rather than “ onerous and burdensome regulation that kills industry innovation.
” It ’ s not hard to guess which option Big Tech would get behind if forced to choose .

After years of calling Big Tech too big, Democratic lawmakers are calling for Congress to rein in Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple by breaking them up, limiting future mergers and blocking self-dealing that could hurt competitors.
Those proposals are in a 450-page report issued Tuesday by a House antitrust panel, which undertook a 15-month investigation into the companies’ market dominance. Here are five big takeaways.
MORE BARK THAN BITE?
With the election less than a month away and a new Congress due to be sworn in Jan. 3, there’s little chance of action on the report’s recommendations this year. But the report offers Congress a roadmap for 2021 should it choose to follow up on the report’s proposals, which seems likely should Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.
The Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, has said that he’d consider company breakups.
MONOPOLY OR MONOPOLY-ISH?
The report said the four companies have abused their market power by charging excessive fees, imposing tough contract terms and extracting valuable data from individuals and businesses that rely on them. But it stopped short of declaring them all monopolists.
The report found that Google holds a monopoly in search and that Facebook has monopoly power in social networking. But it merely said that Amazon and Apple have “significant and durable market power” in, respectively, the U.S. online retail market and mobile operating systems and app stores.
BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO
Forcing the companies to break up would be a radical step for Congress to take with a powerful industry. For decades, the tech giants have enjoyed light-touch regulation and star status in Washington, but have faced growing scrutiny and criticism over issues of competition, consumer privacy, hate speech and their effects on democracy and the political climate.
Still, the companies have powerful lobbies and many of their CEOs retain some star power in Washington. There’s little question that the companies would wage an all-out fight against any breakup attempts, and it’s not clear how many legislators would choose that path. There are also technological considerations. Facebook, for instance, is in the process of integrating the chat functions of Messenger, Instagram and soon, WhatsApp. Once that’s complete, breaking up those platforms gets more difficult.
BYE BYE, BUY BUY BUY
The report attributes the “significant and durable market power” of the companies in large part to “a high volume of acquisitions.” This, it concludes, has led to fewer choices for consumers.
Facebook “used its data advantage to create superior market intelligence to identify nascent competitive threats and then acquire, copy, or kill these firms,” the report states. Google, meanwhile, “maintained its monopoly over general search through a series of anticompetitive tactics” including an “an aggressive campaign to undermine vertical search providers.”
The report suggests placing restrictions, potentially even a ban, on future acquisitions by the companies. It’s worth noting, however, that many of the products people rely on would not be what they are today if the companies hadn’t acquired them. This is true for Google’s YouTube and the technology for its maps and Android, Apple’s Siri and Facebook’s Instagram and WhatsApp.
ANOTHER REPORT
Though the report was “bipartisan,” Republicans issued their own thoughts Tuesday in a report titled “A Third Way to Take on Big Tech.” Authored by Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, it called for “targeted” enforcement of existing antitrust laws rather than “onerous and burdensome regulation that kills industry innovation.” It’s not hard to guess which option Big Tech would get behind if forced to choose.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Johnny Nash, singer of ‘I Can See Clearly Now,’ dies at 80

Johnny Nash , a singer-songwriter , actor and producer who rose from pop crooner to early reggae star to the creator and performer of the million-selling anthem “ I Can See Clearly Now , ” died Tuesday , his son said .
Nash , who had been in declining health , died of natural causes at home in Houston , the city of his birth , his son , Johnny Nash Jr. , told The Associated Press .
He was 80 .
Nash was in his early 30s when “ I Can See Clearly Now ” topped the charts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business lives .
In the mid-1950s , he was a teenager covering “ Darn That Dream ” and other standards , his light tenor likened to the voice of Johnny Mathis .
A decade later , he was co-running a record company , had become a rare American-born singer of reggae and helped launch the career of his friend Bob Marley .
Nash praised “ the vibes of this little island ” when speaking of Jamaica , and he was among the first artists to bring reggae to U.S. audiences .
He peaked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970s , when he had hits with “ Hold Me Tight , ” “ You Got Soul , ” an early version of Marley ’ s “ Stir It Up ” and “ I Can See Clearly Now , ” still his signature song .
Reportedly written by Nash while recovering from cataract surgery , “ I Can See Clearly Now ” was a story of overcoming hard times that itself raised the spirits of countless listeners , with its swelling pop-reggae groove , promise of a “ bright , bright sunshiny day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midway , “ Look straight ahead , nothing but blue skies !
” , a backing chorus lifting the words into the heavens .
The rock critic Robert Christgau would call the song , which Nash also produced , “ 2 minutes and 48 seconds of undiluted inspiration.
” Although overlooked by Grammys judges , “ I Can See Clearly Now ” was covered by artists ranging from Ray Charles and Donny Osmond to Soul Asylum and Jimmy Cliff , whose version was featured in the 1993 movie “ Cool Runnings.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Louise ” to a Windex commercial , and in recent years was often referred to on websites about cataract procedures .
“ I feel that music is universal .
Music is for the ears and not the age , ” Nash told Cameron Crowe , then writing for Zoo World Magazine , in 1973 .
“ There are some people who say that they hate music .
I ’ ve run into a few , but I ’ m not sure I believe them.
” The fame of “ I Can See @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own .
He rarely made the charts in the years following , even as he released such albums as “ Tears On My Pillow ” and “ Celebrate Life , ” and by the 1990s had essentially left the business .
His last album , “ Here Again , ” came out in 1986 , although in recent years he was reportedly digitizing his old work , some of which was lost in a 2008 fire at Universal Studios in Los Angeles .
Nash was married three times , and had two children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childhood and as an adult lived with his family on a ranch in Houston , where for years he also managed rodeo shows at the Johnny Nash Indoor Arena .
In addition to his son , he is survived by daughter Monica and wife Carli Nash .
John Lester Nash Jr. , whose father was a chauffeur , grew up singing in church and by age 13 had his own show on Houston television .
Within a few years , he had a national following through his appearances on “ The Arthur Godfrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doris Day ’ s “ A Very Special Love ” and a collaboration with peers Paul Anka and George Hamilton IV on the wholesome “ The Teen Commandments ( of Love ) .
” He also had roles in the films “ Take a Giant Step , ” in which he starred as a high school student rebelling against how the Civil War is taught , and “ Key Witness , ” a crime drama starring Dennis Hopper and Jeffrey Hunter .
His career faded during the first half of the 1960s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and renewed success , in the mid-60s after having a rhythm and blues hit with “ Let ’ s Move and Groove Together ” and meeting Marley and fellow Wailers Peter Tosh and Bunny Livingston during a visit to Jamaica .
Over the next few years their careers would be closely aligned .
Nash convinced his manager and business partner Danny Sims , with whom he formed JAD Records , to sign up Marley and the Wailers , who recorded “ Reggae On Broadway ” and dozens of other songs for JAD .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 1970s when Nash was the bigger star internationally and with Marley gave an impromptu concert at a local boys school .
Nash ’ s covers of “ Stir It Up ” and “ Guava Jelly ” helped expose Marley ’ s writing to a general audience .
The two also collaborated on the ballad “ You Poured Sugar On Me , ” which appeared on the “ I Can See Clearly Now ” album .
After the 1980s , Nash became a mystery to fans and former colleagues as he stopped recording @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press or anyone in the music industry .
In 1973 , he told Crowe that he anticipated years of hard work : “ What I want to do is be a part of this business and to express myself and get some kind of acceptance by making people happy.
” A quarter century later , he explained to The Gleaner during a visit to Jamaica that it was “ difficult to develop major music projects ” without touring and promoting and that he preferred to be with his family .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the people I ’ ve had the chance to meet .
I never won the Grammy , but I don ’ t put my faith in things of that nature , ” he added .
“ A lifetime body of work I can be proud of is more important to me .
And the special folksy blend to the music I make , that ’ s what it is all about.
” AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton contributed to this story from Los Angeles .
Italie reported from New York .

Johnny Nash, a singer-songwriter, actor and producer who rose from pop crooner to early reggae star to the creator and performer of the million-selling anthem “I Can See Clearly Now,” died Tuesday, his son said.
Nash, who had been in declining health, died of natural causes at home in Houston, the city of his birth, his son, Johnny Nash Jr., told The Associated Press. He was 80.
Nash was in his early 30s when “I Can See Clearly Now” topped the charts in 1972 and he had lived several show business lives. In the mid-1950s, he was a teenager covering “Darn That Dream” and other standards, his light tenor likened to the voice of Johnny Mathis. A decade later, he was co-running a record company, had become a rare American-born singer of reggae and helped launch the career of his friend Bob Marley.
Nash praised “the vibes of this little island” when speaking of Jamaica, and he was among the first artists to bring reggae to U.S. audiences. He peaked commercially in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when he had hits with “Hold Me Tight,” “You Got Soul,” an early version of Marley’s “Stir It Up” and “I Can See Clearly Now,” still his signature song.
Reportedly written by Nash while recovering from cataract surgery, “I Can See Clearly Now” was a story of overcoming hard times that itself raised the spirits of countless listeners, with its swelling pop-reggae groove, promise of a “bright, bright sunshiny day” and Nash’s gospel-styled exclamation midway, “Look straight ahead, nothing but blue skies!”, a backing chorus lifting the words into the heavens.
The rock critic Robert Christgau would call the song, which Nash also produced, “2 minutes and 48 seconds of undiluted inspiration.”
Although overlooked by Grammys judges, “I Can See Clearly Now” was covered by artists ranging from Ray Charles and Donny Osmond to Soul Asylum and Jimmy Cliff, whose version was featured in the 1993 movie “Cool Runnings.” It also turned up everywhere from “Thelma and Louise” to a Windex commercial, and in recent years was often referred to on websites about cataract procedures.
“I feel that music is universal. Music is for the ears and not the age,” Nash told Cameron Crowe, then writing for Zoo World Magazine, in 1973. “There are some people who say that they hate music. I’ve run into a few, but I’m not sure I believe them.”
The fame of “I Can See Clearly Now” outlasted Nash’s own. He rarely made the charts in the years following, even as he released such albums as “Tears On My Pillow” and “Celebrate Life,” and by the 1990s had essentially left the business. His last album, “Here Again,” came out in 1986, although in recent years he was reportedly digitizing his old work, some of which was lost in a 2008 fire at Universal Studios in Los Angeles.
Nash was married three times, and had two children. He had loved riding horses since childhood and as an adult lived with his family on a ranch in Houston, where for years he also managed rodeo shows at the Johnny Nash Indoor Arena.
In addition to his son, he is survived by daughter Monica and wife Carli Nash.
John Lester Nash Jr., whose father was a chauffeur, grew up singing in church and by age 13 had his own show on Houston television. Within a few years, he had a national following through his appearances on “The Arthur Godfrey Show,” his hit cover of Doris Day’s “A Very Special Love” and a collaboration with peers Paul Anka and George Hamilton IV on the wholesome “The Teen Commandments (of Love).” He also had roles in the films “Take a Giant Step,” in which he starred as a high school student rebelling against how the Civil War is taught, and “Key Witness,” a crime drama starring Dennis Hopper and Jeffrey Hunter.
His career faded during the first half of the 1960s, but he found a new sound, and renewed success, in the mid-60s after having a rhythm and blues hit with “Let’s Move and Groove Together” and meeting Marley and fellow Wailers Peter Tosh and Bunny Livingston during a visit to Jamaica. Over the next few years their careers would be closely aligned.
Nash convinced his manager and business partner Danny Sims, with whom he formed JAD Records, to sign up Marley and the Wailers, who recorded “Reggae On Broadway” and dozens of other songs for JAD. Nash brought Marley to London in the early 1970s when Nash was the bigger star internationally and with Marley gave an impromptu concert at a local boys school. Nash’s covers of “Stir It Up” and “Guava Jelly” helped expose Marley’s writing to a general audience. The two also collaborated on the ballad “You Poured Sugar On Me,” which appeared on the “I Can See Clearly Now” album.
After the 1980s, Nash became a mystery to fans and former colleagues as he stopped recording and performing and rarely spoke to the press or anyone in the music industry. In 1973, he told Crowe that he anticipated years of hard work: “What I want to do is be a part of this business and to express myself and get some kind of acceptance by making people happy.”
A quarter century later, he explained to The Gleaner during a visit to Jamaica that it was “difficult to develop major music projects” without touring and promoting and that he preferred to be with his family.
“I think I’ve achieved gratification in terms of the people I’ve had the chance to meet. I never won the Grammy, but I don’t put my faith in things of that nature,” he added. “A lifetime body of work I can be proud of is more important to me. And the special folksy blend to the music I make, that’s what it is all about.”
___
AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton contributed to this story from Los Angeles. Italie reported from New York.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Illinois sees 1,617 new confirmed COVID-19 cases, 32 deaths

SPRINGFIELD , Ill. ( AP ) - The Illinois Department of Public Health on Tuesday announced 1,617 more people were @ @ @ @ @ The numbers announced by the public health officials were the result of 49,513 tests , @ @ @ @ @ s seven-day average testing positivity rate at 3.4 % .
Overall , nearly 6 million @ @ @ @ @ in Illinois , and more than 305,000 have tested positive since March .
Health officials @ @ @ @ @ deaths to the virus , raising the pandemic death toll to 8,836 .
Illinois hospitals @ @ @ @ @ as of late Monday , with 384 receiving intensive care and 159 using ventilators .

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - The Illinois Department of Public Health on Tuesday announced 1,617 more people were confirmed to carry COVID-19.
The numbers announced by the public health officials were the result of 49,513 tests, which kept the state’s seven-day average testing positivity rate at 3.4%. Overall, nearly 6 million COVID-19 tests have been administered in Illinois, and more than 305,000 have tested positive since March.
Health officials also attributed 32 more Illinois deaths to the virus, raising the pandemic death toll to 8,836.
Illinois hospitals were treating 1,673 coronavirus patients as of late Monday, with 384 receiving intensive care and 159 using ventilators.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Legal squabbling marks campaign over proposed rent controls

LOS ANGELES ( AP ) - State regulators are investigating a claim by supporters of a ballot proposal to let cities expand rent control that opponents have accepted improper campaign donations .
The allegations will be reviewed by the enforcement division of the Fair Political Practices Commission , which said it had made no decision about the validity of the claims .
It wasn ’ t clear when a decision would be reached .
The Yes on 21 committee alleged that in several dozen cases property owners and landlords attempted to conceal the source of donations given to a rival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Skinnell , a lawyer for No on 21 , Californians for Responsible Housing , called the claims “ silly.
” The filing represents the latest in an ongoing squabble between the two sides over campaign rules .
Proposition 21 aims to reduce the impact of a more than two-decade-old state law that says new rent control policies don ’ t apply to properties built since 1995 .
The proposition is supported by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the state Democratic Party .
It is opposed by the California Apartment Association , California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who said the measure “ runs the all-too-real risk of discouraging availability of affordable housing ” and that the law he signed last year already caps rent .
The 43 donations at issue represent a tiny sliver of the money pouring into the race .
Supporters of the measure raised about $ 24 million by late September , while opponents raised about $ 54 million , according to state campaign contribution data .
The complaint pointed to donations from differently named groups that had identical addresses or other common information .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ obscure the true source of money ” from the public .
The facts of the case have not yet been established by the agency .
Skinnell , the lawyer for the No campaign , said the Yes side was misconstruing what could be common accounting practices .
“ The fact that they had the same address doesn ’ t mean anything , ” he said .
The Yes committee had also made campaign finance allegations against a separate committee , No on Prop 21 , Californians to Protect Affordable Housing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigation .

LOS ANGELES (AP) - State regulators are investigating a claim by supporters of a ballot proposal to let cities expand rent control that opponents have accepted improper campaign donations.
The allegations will be reviewed by the enforcement division of the Fair Political Practices Commission, which said it had made no decision about the validity of the claims.
It wasn’t clear when a decision would be reached.
The Yes on 21 committee alleged that in several dozen cases property owners and landlords attempted to conceal the source of donations given to a rival committee attempting to defeat the proposal.
Chris Skinnell, a lawyer for No on 21, Californians for Responsible Housing, called the claims “silly.”
The filing represents the latest in an ongoing squabble between the two sides over campaign rules.
Proposition 21 aims to reduce the impact of a more than two-decade-old state law that says new rent control policies don’t apply to properties built since 1995.
The proposition is supported by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the state Democratic Party. It is opposed by the California Apartment Association, California Republican Party and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said the measure “runs the all-too-real risk of discouraging availability of affordable housing” and that the law he signed last year already caps rent.
The 43 donations at issue represent a tiny sliver of the money pouring into the race. Supporters of the measure raised about $24 million by late September, while opponents raised about $54 million, according to state campaign contribution data.
The complaint pointed to donations from differently named groups that had identical addresses or other common information. The complaint said those listings represented an attempt to “obscure the true source of money” from the public.
The facts of the case have not yet been established by the agency.
Skinnell, the lawyer for the No campaign, said the Yes side was misconstruing what could be common accounting practices. “The fact that they had the same address doesn’t mean anything,” he said.
The Yes committee had also made campaign finance allegations against a separate committee, No on Prop 21, Californians to Protect Affordable Housing. The agency found insufficient evidence to open an investigation.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Hickenlooper, Gardner tangle in translated Spanish debate

DENVER ( AP ) - Republican Sen. Cory Gardner and his Democratic challenger , former Gov .
John Hickenlooper , faced off in a Spanish-language debate on Tuesday , tussling over immigration , health care and the response to the coronavirus pandemic .
The debate was taped in English on Sunday and aired with Spanish translations on Tuesday , so neither candidate could address recent events like President Donald Trump ending negotiations over additional coronavirus relief .
Instead , the two candidates both trod familiar ground , with Gardner both attacking Hickenlooper and trying to sell himself as a bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incumbent to Washington and Trump .
“ Nothing ’ s going to change if we aren ’ t able to send new people to Washington , ” Hickenlooper , 68 , said .
Gardner rattled off a list of bills , from a national suicide prevention hotline to a sprawling measure to fund national park maintenance .
“ In these last years , I ’ ve shown the attitude of voting 100 % for Colorado , ” said Gardner , 46 .
Gardner is considered one of the most endangered Republican senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has shifted toward Democrats since he was elected to his first Senate term in 2014 .
The two men ’ s most notable clash was on immigration .
Gardner was a member of the Republican House majority that in 2013 refused to consider a bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for 11 million people in the country illegally , including those brought illegally as children who qualified for the Obama administration program known as DACA .
Since Trump ’ s election , though , Gardner has co-written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator .
Michael Bennet , to legalize DACA recipients .
At the debate , he attacked Hickenlooper for a statement the Democrat made as governor suggesting that Democrats should give up on pushing for a pathway for citizenship in the face of Republican resistance and focus on narrower protections from deportation .
“ It ’ s an attack and a distortion , ” Hickenlooper said .
“ It ’ s not an attack , it ’ s your own words , ” Gardner replied , also noting that Hickenlooper , as mayor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the federal government during a debate with former Rep. Tom Tancredo , a notorious immigration hardliner against whom he was running for governor .
Gardner said he wanted to protect immigrants because “ they ’ re my neighbors , they go to school with my children.
” The two men also argued about energy , with Gardner renewing accusations that Hickenlooper , a former petroleum geologist , would end 230,000 jobs in the fossil fuel industry because of fears of climate change .
Hickenlooper called climate change “ an existential threat ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would create a record number of new jobs .
And Hickenlooper kept returning to health care , Democrats ’ favorite subject .
He slammed Trump for mishandling the coronavirus outbreak and argued Gardner wanted to overturn the Affordable Care Act .
The two men will meet for their next debate Friday evening .
The story has been corrected to say the next debate , not the final one , is set for Friday .

DENVER (AP) - Republican Sen. Cory Gardner and his Democratic challenger, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, faced off in a Spanish-language debate on Tuesday, tussling over immigration, health care and the response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The debate was taped in English on Sunday and aired with Spanish translations on Tuesday, so neither candidate could address recent events like President Donald Trump ending negotiations over additional coronavirus relief. Instead, the two candidates both trod familiar ground, with Gardner both attacking Hickenlooper and trying to sell himself as a bipartisan problem-solver, and Hickenlooper trying to tie the incumbent to Washington and Trump.
“Nothing’s going to change if we aren’t able to send new people to Washington,” Hickenlooper, 68, said.
Gardner rattled off a list of bills, from a national suicide prevention hotline to a sprawling measure to fund national park maintenance. “In these last years, I’ve shown the attitude of voting 100% for Colorado,” said Gardner, 46.
Gardner is considered one of the most endangered Republican senators in the country, partly because Colorado has shifted toward Democrats since he was elected to his first Senate term in 2014.
The two men’s most notable clash was on immigration. Gardner was a member of the Republican House majority that in 2013 refused to consider a bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for 11 million people in the country illegally, including those brought illegally as children who qualified for the Obama administration program known as DACA.
Since Trump’s election, though, Gardner has co-written a bill with Colorado’s Democratic senator. Michael Bennet, to legalize DACA recipients. At the debate, he attacked Hickenlooper for a statement the Democrat made as governor suggesting that Democrats should give up on pushing for a pathway for citizenship in the face of Republican resistance and focus on narrower protections from deportation.
“It’s an attack and a distortion,” Hickenlooper said.
“It’s not an attack, it’s your own words,” Gardner replied, also noting that Hickenlooper, as mayor of Denver, had touted referring 8,000 immigrants to the federal government during a debate with former Rep. Tom Tancredo, a notorious immigration hardliner against whom he was running for governor.
Gardner said he wanted to protect immigrants because “they’re my neighbors, they go to school with my children.”
The two men also argued about energy, with Gardner renewing accusations that Hickenlooper, a former petroleum geologist, would end 230,000 jobs in the fossil fuel industry because of fears of climate change. Hickenlooper called climate change “an existential threat” and argued an investment in green energy would create a record number of new jobs.
And Hickenlooper kept returning to health care, Democrats’ favorite subject. He slammed Trump for mishandling the coronavirus outbreak and argued Gardner wanted to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
The two men will meet for their next debate Friday evening.
___
The story has been corrected to say the next debate, not the final one, is set for Friday.


washingtontimes--2020-10-06--Vladimir Putin funds Russia military modernization at record post-Cold War levels

Rebuilding armed forces decimated by post-Cold War cuts , Russia has poured hundreds of billions of rubles into a military modernization program over the past 10 years .
Today , Moscow ’ s armed forces may still be no match for U.S. and NATO power , but analysts say that is exactly the way Kremlin wants it .
Although a decade of heavy , targeted investment has put the Russian force on perhaps its strongest footing since the days of the Soviet Union , specialists argue that measuring it against the U.S. military in traditional terms is a waste of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin ’ s 21st-century strategy .
Russia ’ s revamped approach has produced tangible results , such as its widely hyped hypersonic weapons program , the popular S-400 missile defense system , advanced artillery and even an Iron Man-style exoskeleton for soldiers that seems on par or perhaps beyond similar U.S. programs .
Still , analysts stress that each project or military advancement must be viewed through a broader lens .
Every step the Russian military takes , they say , is designed to fit into the “ hybrid war ” model that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and elsewhere .
The Kremlin uses its more effective , better equipped armed forces in conjunction with paramilitary mercenary groups for limited missions to accomplish specific strategic goals .
“ Yes , absolutely , the Russian military is more effective than it was five or 10 years ago , ” said Mason Clark , Russia lead analyst at the Institute for the Study of War .
“ But it ’ s really important to keep in mind that while the Russian military is not in any way a match for NATO … they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There are these fascinating internal discussions [ among Russian leaders ] warning themselves of falling into the trap that ‘ If we get this new fighter jet , we ’ ll be able to compete ’ or ‘ If we get this new exoskeleton , we ’ ll be able to compete , ’ ” Mr. Clark said .
“ They are aware that they are not going to be able to go toe to toe with conventional NATO units , and so there ’ s a lot of emphasis on ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hybrid warfare approach includes disinformation campaigns , political pressure , online operations and other steps short of military conflict but central to Moscow ’ s effort to widen its sphere of influence and weaken Washington ’ s hand in key battlegrounds .
But specialists stress that a capable , nimble military remains an irreplaceable component of that bigger scheme .
Russia ’ s ability to conduct limited but highly effective military or paramilitary operations in Syria , Ukraine , Libya and elsewhere is necessary to achieve larger aims .
In Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contingent of Russian forces has been able to turn the tide of the civil war in favor of the regime of its key regional ally , Bashar Assad , and in some ways has allowed the Kremlin to politically outmaneuver the U.S. in the war-torn country .
In Libya , Russia ’ s leading private paramilitary arm , the Wagner Group , is aiding rebel forces led by Gen. Khalifa Haftar , who is battling the United Nations-backed government in Tripoli .
Russia ’ s approach to Libya offers a window into how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence with a relatively modest commitment of material and manpower .
Russia ’ s limited military action last decade in Crimea , which resulted in the annexation of a Ukrainian peninsula , is another instance of Moscow ’ s reliance on calculated geopolitical gambles with limited military engagement , all while getting minimal pushback from the West .
Fifteen years ago , specialists say , such moves would have been all but impossible .
A Russian military built around the idea of fighting a world war against the U.S. and its allies struggled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed force of separatists in Chechnya .
That bloody conflict exposed many underlying problems and planted the seeds for reforms .
Even Russia ’ s 2008 brief border clash with Georgia , specialists say , was plagued by missteps , including an underwhelming performance by its air force and a command-and-control structure that failed to keep all Russian units coordinated against a much smaller and weaker foe .
The brief war in Georgia led Mr. Putin and his commanders to reevaluate their priorities and military structure , and to ramp up spending .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overstate the level of modernization , improvement they ’ ve made to their land forces since the 1990s .
Post-Cold War , that military was an absolute disaster , ” said Gil Barndollar , a former infantry officer in the Marine Corps and now a senior research fellow at the Catholic University of America ’ s Center for the Study of Statesmanship .
Many of those systemic shortcomings left over from the Cold War , Mr. Barndollar said , “ got exposed in Chechnya ” and remained embedded within the Russian military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were kind of a mess going into Georgia in 2008 , ” he said .
Unlike its unwieldy post-Cold War behemoth , Moscow ’ s force today is much smaller , more flexible , better trained , better equipped and better suited to smaller-scale operations .
“ They ’ ve shrunk the military and made it higher readiness , ” Mr. Barndollar said .
“ In a lot of ways , they got away from a mass-conscript army model to what in some ways resembles more closely what we do in the West.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ political leadership , and Mr. Putin in particular , deserve credit for the changes .
“ Without Putin and his political associates , it is at the very least debatable whether Russia ’ s armed forces would have recovered to the extent they have from the vicissitudes of the 1990s , ” according to a study of Russia ’ s military modernization by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies .
In 2010 , Russia was spending under $ 50 billion each year on its military .
That number grew steadily until 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion , according to figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute .
The figure has dropped to $ 60 billion to $ 65 billion each year since , but analysts say that ’ s partly because of a 2016 budget allocation for past deliveries of military equipment that drove up the numbers .
In 2019 , Moscow spent about 3.9 % of its gross domestic product on its military .
During the current phase of Russia ’ s military modernization plan , from 2018 through 2027 , the Kremlin will spend about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to a Congressional Research Service report .
Those numbers put Russia fourth in military spending , behind China and India , and miles behind the world ’ s leader , the U.S .
The most recent Pentagon budget came in at $ 732 billion , a whopping 38 % of all global military spending , according to figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute .
Russia ’ s nuclear arsenal remains a key financial priority , as it has been since for decades .
Specialists say the nuclear stockpile was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequate funding in the immediate post-Cold War years .
Russia has struggled to rebuild all dimensions of its military but has made strategic investments elsewhere to offset its flaws .
Although it still has just one aircraft carrier , Russia has a fleet of more than 40 icebreakers capable of operating in frigid Arctic waters and giving Moscow a serious advantage in a theater expected to become a geopolitical battleground over the next decade .
The U.S. has two just functional icebreakers , one of which is out of service because of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aircraft than the U.S. but has an impressive array of artillery and tanks , though such assets may be of limited use in a new era of warfare .
Russia also has reorganized its command-and-control structure and has made major investments in electronic warfare , reconnaissance , communication systems and other modern elements .
At the end of the day , virtually all analysts agree there is little comparison between the U.S. and Russian militaries when it comes to overall capabilities and the ability to wage and win conventional wars .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t fully come to grips with Moscow ’ s new approach and how to combat it .
“ I think we , the U.S. , have a problem in the way we have framed the Russia challenge , ” said Frederick Kagan , director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute .
“ We identify our objective as preventing great-power war .
And the problem is … the Russians share that objective .
They also desire not to fight a great-power war .
“ We ’ re doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russians don ’ t intend to do , ” he said .

Rebuilding armed forces decimated by post-Cold War cuts, Russia has poured hundreds of billions of rubles into a military modernization program over the past 10 years.
Today, Moscow’s armed forces may still be no match for U.S. and NATO power, but analysts say that is exactly the way Kremlin wants it.
Although a decade of heavy, targeted investment has put the Russian force on perhaps its strongest footing since the days of the Soviet Union, specialists argue that measuring it against the U.S. military in traditional terms is a waste of time and fundamentally misreads Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 21st-century strategy.
Russia’s revamped approach has produced tangible results, such as its widely hyped hypersonic weapons program, the popular S-400 missile defense system, advanced artillery and even an Iron Man-style exoskeleton for soldiers that seems on par or perhaps beyond similar U.S. programs. Still, analysts stress that each project or military advancement must be viewed through a broader lens.
Every step the Russian military takes, they say, is designed to fit into the “hybrid war” model that has delivered success in Syria, Crimea and elsewhere. The Kremlin uses its more effective, better equipped armed forces in conjunction with paramilitary mercenary groups for limited missions to accomplish specific strategic goals.
“Yes, absolutely, the Russian military is more effective than it was five or 10 years ago,” said Mason Clark, Russia lead analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. “But it’s really important to keep in mind that while the Russian military is not in any way a match for NATO … they’re not trying to be.
“There are these fascinating internal discussions [among Russian leaders] warning themselves of falling into the trap that ‘If we get this new fighter jet, we’ll be able to compete’ or ‘If we get this new exoskeleton, we’ll be able to compete,’” Mr. Clark said. “They are aware that they are not going to be able to go toe to toe with conventional NATO units, and so there’s a lot of emphasis on ways to get around this.”
Fixing its problems
Mr. Putin’s hybrid warfare approach includes disinformation campaigns, political pressure, online operations and other steps short of military conflict but central to Moscow’s effort to widen its sphere of influence and weaken Washington’s hand in key battlegrounds.
But specialists stress that a capable, nimble military remains an irreplaceable component of that bigger scheme. Russia’s ability to conduct limited but highly effective military or paramilitary operations in Syria, Ukraine, Libya and elsewhere is necessary to achieve larger aims. In Syria, for example, a relatively small contingent of Russian forces has been able to turn the tide of the civil war in favor of the regime of its key regional ally, Bashar Assad, and in some ways has allowed the Kremlin to politically outmaneuver the U.S. in the war-torn country.
In Libya, Russia’s leading private paramilitary arm, the Wagner Group, is aiding rebel forces led by Gen. Khalifa Haftar, who is battling the United Nations-backed government in Tripoli. Russia’s approach to Libya offers a window into how the Kremlin believes it can expand its influence with a relatively modest commitment of material and manpower.
Russia’s limited military action last decade in Crimea, which resulted in the annexation of a Ukrainian peninsula, is another instance of Moscow’s reliance on calculated geopolitical gambles with limited military engagement, all while getting minimal pushback from the West.
Fifteen years ago, specialists say, such moves would have been all but impossible. A Russian military built around the idea of fighting a world war against the U.S. and its allies struggled in the 1990s to subdue a poorly armed force of separatists in Chechnya.
That bloody conflict exposed many underlying problems and planted the seeds for reforms.
Even Russia’s 2008 brief border clash with Georgia, specialists say, was plagued by missteps, including an underwhelming performance by its air force and a command-and-control structure that failed to keep all Russian units coordinated against a much smaller and weaker foe.
The brief war in Georgia led Mr. Putin and his commanders to reevaluate their priorities and military structure, and to ramp up spending.
“I think it’s tough to overstate the level of modernization, improvement they’ve made to their land forces since the 1990s. Post-Cold War, that military was an absolute disaster,” said Gil Barndollar, a former infantry officer in the Marine Corps and now a senior research fellow at the Catholic University of America’s Center for the Study of Statesmanship. Many of those systemic shortcomings left over from the Cold War, Mr. Barndollar said, “got exposed in Chechnya” and remained embedded within the Russian military through the next decade.
“They were kind of a mess going into Georgia in 2008,” he said.
Unlike its unwieldy post-Cold War behemoth, Moscow’s force today is much smaller, more flexible, better trained, better equipped and better suited to smaller-scale operations.
“They’ve shrunk the military and made it higher readiness,” Mr. Barndollar said. “In a lot of ways, they got away from a mass-conscript army model to what in some ways resembles more closely what we do in the West.”
Russia has about 1 million active-duty service members.
New investments
Researchers say that Russia’s political leadership, and Mr. Putin in particular, deserve credit for the changes.
“Without Putin and his political associates, it is at the very least debatable whether Russia’s armed forces would have recovered to the extent they have from the vicissitudes of the 1990s,” according to a study of Russia’s military modernization by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
In 2010, Russia was spending under $50 billion each year on its military. That number grew steadily until 2016 and topped out at around $70 billion, according to figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The figure has dropped to $60 billion to $65 billion each year since, but analysts say that’s partly because of a 2016 budget allocation for past deliveries of military equipment that drove up the numbers.
In 2019, Moscow spent about 3.9% of its gross domestic product on its military. During the current phase of Russia’s military modernization plan, from 2018 through 2027, the Kremlin will spend about $330 billion on its military, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Those numbers put Russia fourth in military spending, behind China and India, and miles behind the world’s leader, the U.S. The most recent Pentagon budget came in at $732 billion, a whopping 38% of all global military spending, according to figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Russia’s nuclear arsenal remains a key financial priority, as it has been since for decades. Specialists say the nuclear stockpile was one of the few military sectors that received adequate funding in the immediate post-Cold War years.
Russia has struggled to rebuild all dimensions of its military but has made strategic investments elsewhere to offset its flaws. Although it still has just one aircraft carrier, Russia has a fleet of more than 40 icebreakers capable of operating in frigid Arctic waters and giving Moscow a serious advantage in a theater expected to become a geopolitical battleground over the next decade.
The U.S. has two just functional icebreakers, one of which is out of service because of a fire.
Russia has far fewer military aircraft than the U.S. but has an impressive array of artillery and tanks, though such assets may be of limited use in a new era of warfare.
Russia also has reorganized its command-and-control structure and has made major investments in electronic warfare, reconnaissance, communication systems and other modern elements.
At the end of the day, virtually all analysts agree there is little comparison between the U.S. and Russian militaries when it comes to overall capabilities and the ability to wage and win conventional wars. The problem, they say, is that Washington hasn’t fully come to grips with Moscow’s new approach and how to combat it.
“I think we, the U.S., have a problem in the way we have framed the Russia challenge,” said Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. “We identify our objective as preventing great-power war. And the problem is … the Russians share that objective. They also desire not to fight a great-power war.
“We’re doing all the stuff to deter something the Russians don’t intend to do,” he said.
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.