The New York Times series explores "the history and legacy of Communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution." The Times' essayists are extolling Lenin's fantabulous conservationist programs and "Communism for Kids" propaganda.
In the past, when issues have arisen that are sufficiently disturbing to the American people that they begin to interfere with a president's ability to lead, the president has addressed the nation to set the record straight. I think it is time to do this.
The former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton describes then-Republican nominee Donald Trump as a "creep" and says he invaded her "personal space" during the debates last fall.
The CIA published an assessment in 1985 — "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: Five Years After" — that analyzed Soviet efforts to establish peace and stability in Afghanistan. Read now, the assessment sounds familiar.
The country did not vote for confrontation or war. Can the new custodians of President Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda, the generals and the Goldman Sachs alumni association, be entrusted to carry it out?
Trump is creating jobs, higher incomes and trying to give a better education to every disadvantaged child in America. If only the media would cover what he does with the same intense attention that they pay to what he says.
Trump is as personally radioactive as any president since Nixon during his final descent. But any Trump official who doesn't think he is being forced to violate his personal conscience should stick it out. Crippled presidencies aren't good for the country.
The national Robert E. Lee Memorial reminds the nation of the legacy of leniency pursued by Lincoln and later Johnson that helped heal the nation by reducing violence on all sides — leadership we sorely need today.
Many of the Trump supporters who toiled long payless days last year to get the Republican elected president remain on the sidelines as plum national security jobs go to outsiders.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open debate about government policies and the people who run it. It would be antithetical to that purpose for the government itself to decide what speech is acceptable in public discourse.