How Will Europe Respond to Being the Source of the Crisis?


QUESTION: Dear Martin,
You have discussed the structural design flaw in the euro being due to the lack of consolidation of EU countries’ debt, as well as, EU policies that prohibit bank bailouts. Why could EU policies regarding the prohibition of bank bailouts just not be changed to allow for bailouts? If I understand correctly, wasn’t it also the case that the ECB was not legally allowed to buy EU country sovereign debt? That law was either changed or ignored (I’m not sure which) during the European sovereign debt crisis earlier this decade to allow for the ECB to buy sovereign bonds, which then brought down sovereign debt yields.

Correct?
Thank you for helping us all to grow in our understanding of what confronts us.
Sincerely,
WJ

ANSWER: Everything would function so much better if we had rational leadership. The problem is simply that government will NEVER avert a crisis. They must first experience the crisis before they will ever consider changing the policy. Yes, it seems easy to just fix the problem now. However, I can talk face-to-face until my face turns blue. They will NEVER prevent a crisis. Politicians know that they ONLY look authoritative when they respond to a crisis. Nobody will listen if they say they just prevent a crisis. People assume it is just BS.

Add to this reality the problem between domestic and international policy objectives. Politicians run for election, promising to do this or that, which all seems nice for it is presented to be within their power. That is what is under siege. The Federal Reserve has suddenly realized that it has become the central bank of the world. They were intending to lower rates to help emerging markets, Europe, and Japan. Then the Repo Crisis hit and the Fed was compelled to address the liquidity crisis. This was not about “stimulating” the economy, it was about preventing short-term interest rates from rising. In other words, the QE of 2008-2009 was about buying in long-term debt to try to lower long-term interest rates. Here the short-term rates were rising. Traditionally, the only thing a central bank can control is the short-term. The Repo Crisis exposed the fact that central banks are losing control of even the short-term.

 

Remember the inverted yield curve in the summer of 2019 that everyone said was a precursor to a recession? Ever since the Repo Crisis, the yield curve has steepened dramatically. This is confirming what I have been saying. This was never about stimulation, it was an attempt to prevent short-term rates from rising.

Therefore, the questions become: (1) Will Europe respond and realize that their no-bailout policy will create a worldwide banking contagion and crisis? (2) If they do recognize that they are the source of a worldwide crisis, how long will it take them to respond and reverse their policy? (3) Will they accept responsibility or blame the rest of the world?

Rational people respond completely differently than politicians who cannot publicly admit they were wrong.

Climate Change & Swiss Alps & Glacier Analysis


COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong, the data used by the climate change movement only dates back to 1850. Here in Switzerland, they state that the Alps Glacier peaked with Tambora in 1815 and has been retreating ever since. If the last Little Ice Age ended in 1850, the climate should have been warming naturally from that period. It is indeed getting colder with each year since 2015 as you have warned. It seems as though independently they confirm your forecast yet strangely claim there is global warming due to humans. One only has to scratch the surface to see these claims do not add up.

PN

REPLY: The current glacier retreat in the Alps, which is due to an instrumentally documented temperature increase, constitutes the
most recent phase of a retreat period that started after the last Little Ice Age maximum around 1855. Since that date, about half of
the Alps’ glacier area has been lost. This is by no means due to humans. It grew during the Little Ice Age and it indeed reached its peak during 1815/1816, which was “The Year Without a Summer” due to the volcanic eruption of Tambora that created a volcanic winter.

You cannot analyze all glaciers with the same criteria. Steep smaller glaciers change length more quickly (whether in advance or retreat) subsequent to climate forcing than large and relatively flat glaciers do. Consequently, the Great Aletsch, which is the Alps’ largest glacier, has continuously retreated since its last Little Ice Age maximum about 1850. However, other Alpine glaciers (Gepatschferner, Lower  Grindelwald, and Suldenferner) have re-advanced two or three times during the same period, especially around 1920 and 1980.

Anyone who looks closely at the data from glaciers will see the stark differences affect comparisons of the length change history of different glaciers. Short but strong mass gains during the volcanic “Year Without a Summer” in 1816 have also greatly resulted in dynamic reactions with fast and very rapid advances that a few Alpine glaciers have undergone. One example is the Suldenferner in very short time periods of just a year or two.

It is obvious that very specific topographical situations allow for such sensitive reactions to massive snow/ice mass gains which are dependent upon the dimensions of individual glaciers (1). Comparisons of the Holocene length-change history of Alpine glaciers are
usually based on the relative extents of the same glacier observed for the past 150 years. Therefore, the shape of a retreating glacier’s tongue, as they call it, can differ greatly from that of an advancing glacier and influence the interpretation of a glacier tongue’s relative position.

It is interesting to see how poorly the analysis has been put forth with the claims of shrinking glaciers attributed all to humans. They ignore the fact that not all glaciers are the same and begin with the assumption that the peak of the Little Ice Age in 1850 should be the norm. That is no different than trying to claim the stock market ONLY advances based upon looking at the data only since 2009. They clearly have a hidden agenda and pretend to be putting forth scientific proof which is skewed and manipulated.

The Decline & Fall of Religion?


In truth, everything has its cycle. There is no escaping this reality upon which the entire universe was created. There has been a steady decline in church membership which has been consistent with perhaps the politically correct movement with the broader societal trends that also manifest in the declining church attendance. There appears to be a rising trend of an increasing proportion of Americans with no religious preference which is strikingly similar to the decline in religion which took place within the Roman Empire.

Indeed, Constantine’s (309-337AD) decision to decriminalize Christianity within the Roman Empire was a turning point for religious change cyclically. It was the year 313AD, when Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan decriminalizing Christian worship. Constantine thus became a great patron of Christianity but keep in mind his mother, Helena, was a devout Christian.  She searched all the holy places and constructed churches over them from where Christ was born to where he was crucified.

Note that the medallion pictured here showed Constantine with Sol, the sun god. The cult of Sol was becoming the supreme god even among the pagans – Sol Invictus (invincible sun because it roise every day no matter what). Constantine had set a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor within the Church and raised the notions of orthodoxy, Christendom, ecumenical councils, and the state church of the Roman Empire was officially declared by edict in 380AD. However, Constantine was not really such a devout believer. He adopted Christianity because the movement was rising substantially when people prayed to the pagan golds and nothing happened. The Christians exploited that and argued that the reason their pagan protectors failed was because they did not exist. The pagans, on the other hand, persecuted Christians because the barbarian invasions and the fall of the Roman Empire was taking place because the gods were angry at the Christians.

Constantine sought to be the sole emperor. He really wages civil war. He took a risk to move against Maxentius’ forces which greatly outnumbered his own. Constantine descended through the Genevre Pass and entered Italy. Several battles were fought as Constantine neared Rome itself. The final battle came on October 28th, 312 AD at Milvian Bridge. It was this battle where Constantine I claimed to have had a vision of Christ and marched against Maxentius under the Christian symbol of the cross. Despite the biased historical accounts, the Battle of Milvian Bridge was less of a battle between Christianity and paganism as it was a battle for power and control. While Maxentius may have been a pagan, he did not persecute the Christians and in fact built the first Christian church in Rome. Many of his own troops were Christians. No doubt, Constantine realized that placing the cross on the shield of his army would disrupt his opposing force. Many were Christian and were reluctant to kill a fellow Christian. It was a brilliant move.

Maxentius-Basilica

Historians have written much of the Battle of Milvian Bridge. It has been characterized as the battle between Christianity and Paganism. As Maxentius’ troops began to retreat across a temporary bridge constructed upon boats, Maxentius fell into the water when the bridge collapsed along with thousands of his troops. His armor proved too heavy and thus he drowned in the waters of the Tiber. That ended the battle.

It is not certain when Jesus Christ was actually born. The census that is the story of having to travel to Bethlehem was actually the Census of Quirinius which took place in 6AD after Herod I the Great had died and the Romans were dividing Judaea into thirds among Herod’s sons. There is no actual evidence of Herod issuing an order to kill the firstborn males when in fact he clearly died about 10 years before. Such an order would have to have been issued by one of his sons, yet there is no surviving evidence to support that as fact.

Nevertheless, our model does place a turning point about late 3AD when most scholars agree that Jesus was born based primarily upon the Census of Quirinius. We then have in 312AD the victory of Milvian Bridge by Constantine the Great who then decrees that Christianity will be the state religion primarily so he got to plunder all the wealth of pagan temples. It is rather stunning how we come to major religious events every 309.6 years. This appears to be a change in beliefs that do not necessarily suggest complete changes in religions. Often these are shifts that become more fundamentalist in their beliefs or a turn toward liberalism.

There are two primary cycles. First we can look at the cycle of change in religion which seems to follow the 309.6 year cycle which is, of course, the 8.6-year frequency. The second is to look at the derivative of the 8.6-year which produces a target for a major collapse in religion, which is underway at this time, by 2033.

From the Battle of the Milvian Bridge which took place between the Roman Emperors Constantine I and Maxentius on the 28th day of October 312AD (312.824), it was 309.6 years until the rise of Islam. At the age of 40 in 610AD, Muhammad is said to have received his first verbal revelation in the cave called Hira.

This was the beginning of the writing of the Quran that continued up to the end of his life. There was also the persecution of the newly converted Muslims like there had been among the Christians. Muhammad and his followers migrated to Medina in 622AD, an event known as the Hegira and the birth of the Islam calendar (622.298).

The next cycle produced the target where we see the beginning of pilgrimages to the Middle East during the 10th century. The belief that the world would end come the year 1,000 was very prominent, so much so that the English King Aethelred II (978-1016AD) replaced his image on the coinage with the symbol of Christianity – the lamb. We seem to fear whole even numbers like the 2000 Y2K bug which was going to destroy all computers.

The next target was 1241 which was the year of the Great Mongol Invasion. Poland fell to the Mongols that year who are eventually beaten back. We also see in this cycle was a new trend of Antipopes when France seized the Catholic Church and installed French popes as puppets of the French king that became known as the Avignon Papacy. This was the period from 1309 to 1376 during which seven successive popes resided in Avignon. The Seventh Crusade was a crusade led by Louis IX of France from 1248 to 1254. This was the cycle that we see Constantinople fall to the Turks in 1453.

The next cycle turning point began in 1551 when the Council of Trent reconvened to deal with the Protestant Reformation. This cycle also marks the attempt of Islam to conquer Europe and impose Islam as the state religion. The invading army was the new Ottoman Empire, which was defeated at the Battle of Vienna which took place on the 12th of September 1683 after the imperial city had been besieged by the Ottoman Empire for two months. The peak of that cycle arrives 212 years from the beginning. That was 1763 and the start of George II restrictions placed upon Americans which led to the American Revolution, which was also about the freedom of religion.

This brings us to 1860 and this is the beginning of the American Civil War, which was rooted in a religious question concerning slavery. This current cycle will reach its peak in 2072 and the next will begin in 2170. We are clearly moving toward a clash of philosophies both within Christianity as well as among different religious foundations. As we move into that major turning point, we will see rising discontent and religious confrontation engulf the world. In the USA, we have the liberal v conservative confrontation which is also incorporating the religious right and anti-abortion movements v women’s liberation factions. They see this as plain and simple – thous shalt not kill. Yet this is inconsistent with the idea of war itself. Perhaps it is ok to kill someone if the government tells you to do it?

This is part of the religious cycle as well. We will also see the conflict between Christianity and Islam build in Europe. This will be no different from the anti-immigration movement that surged into gun battles on the streets of Philadelphia during the economic depression that followed the Sovereign Debt Defaults by states during the 1840s. As the economic decline picks up speed from 2018 into 2020, the tensions against immigration will only rise. This is also behind the separatist movements in Europe.

 

 

While we are currently in the Seventh Wave 309.6-year cycle following the birth of Christ, from a pure cyclical perspective, the next turning point in 2072 may be a significant religious change. What comes, can only be subject to speculation. We have completed six waves of 309.6 years. The Seventh is where major change and conflict will be unleashed. However, if we just look at Christianity, from the Edit of 313AD decriminalizing this religion, then 2 x 8.6 = 17.2. Therefore, 1720 years from 313AD brings us to 2033 which aligns with the Sixth Wave of the ECM – 2032.

Further confirmation that we are in a major Private Wave is that the belief systems also shifts not merely away from government (Public v Private) but also from formalized religion and even sports. The evidence is very clear that church memberships have been declining. The various church membership data reflected the steady decline from the 76% level to the 50% level. There has been rising discontent even within the Catholic Church over the left-wing statement of Pope Francis. He has been alienating many Catholics. He has adopted the climate change agenda and supported the United Nations in this anti-industrialization movement. He has also adopted the Piketty argument against capitalism supporting the Marxist view of economic inequality. Many feel he has abandoned the faith since one of the Ten Commandments is thou shall not covert what other people have. This has led many to question if he is not just expressing his personal beliefs disguised as religion.

What is clear is that under Pope Francis, the finances of the Church has been declining significantly. Some argue it is due to his political statements that are not grounded in religion. There is a rather famous Italian investigative journalist, Gianluigi Nuzzi, whose new book, Universal Judgmentis the latest in a string of reveling dispatches on financial crises which he has helped to uncover within the church. In his latest book, he warns that the Vatican will run out of funds by 2023. Certainly, the attendance is declining sharply. His previous book, Merchants in the Temple, focused on the internal corruption in the Vatican bank.

 

CNNi Becky Anderson -vs- State Dept. Spox Morgan Ortagus


CNNi  (CNN international) via Becky Anderson, based out of Abu Dhabi, attempts to push a false propaganda narrative against State Dept Spokesperson Morgan Ortagus.   Things didn’t work out as planned.  The pontificating Anderson was left speechless.  Funny.

Ms. Anderson intentionally ignored the E-3 Statement of support from earlier today and attempted to push a narrative of the U.S. being isolated within the international community.  Mrs. Morgan Ortagus shredded the CNNi narrative engineer.  WATCH:

Jim Jordan Contrasts President Trump Foreign Policy Accomplishments Against Impeachment Fraud…


Representative Jim Jordan discusses the ongoing impeachment fiasco and Pelosi still withholding the articles from the Senate; and contrasts the DC nonsense against the foreign policy accomplishments of President Trump.

Devin Nunes Tells Sara Carter: “ICIG Michael Atkinson is Under Active Investigation”…


Sara Carter held a pod-cast interview with HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes.  At approximately 36:25 of the interview congressman Nunes discusses the testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

The transcript from Atkinson’s House testimony has never been released.  Rep. Nunes states the reason HPSCI Chairman Schiff has kept the transcript hidden and classified is because the content is extremely damaging to the origin of the impeachment fraud.  Additionally, the testimony from Atkinson conflicted with evidence which surfaced later:

“[Atkinson] is under active investigation. I’m not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don’t want that transcript out because it’s very damaging”… (Link)

CTH has previously outlined ICIG Michael Atkinson as a dirty player amid a network of very corrupt officials who hold self-interests from participating in unlawful abuses of government surveillance including the DOJ and FBI activity during the 2016 election.

On Sunday, October 6th, 2019, even before the revelations of Schiff working with the whistle-blower surfaced, ranking member Devin Nunes originally discussed his concerns with the testimony of Michael Atkinson.  Nunes noted the testimony “was a joke”.

Nunes told Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Sunday host Matt Boyle, “[The ICIG is] either totally incompetent or part of the deep state, and he’s got a lot of questions he needs to answer because he knowingly changed the form and the requirements in order to make sure that this whistleblower complaint got out publicly.”

“So he’s either incompetent or in on it, and he’s going to have more to answer for, I can promise you, because we are not going to let him go; he is going to tell he truth about what happened,” Nunes added.  (read more)

ICIG Atkinson never reviewed the call transcript and facilitated the complaint processing despite numerous flaws.  Additionally Atkinson ignored legal guidance from both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that highlighted Atkinson’s poor decision-making.

Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.

(Link to Atkinson Career File)

The DOJ-NSD were using sketchy legal interpretations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act  (FARA §901) to justify political surveillance.  Atkinson’s legal guidance within the department would have been critical for them to continue this approach.

[Reminder: The DOJ-NSD was purposefully under no IG oversight. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.]

Additionally, Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

Immediately after the Carter Page FISA warrant is approved, in the period where DOJ-NSD head John Carlin has given his notice of intent to leave but not yet left, inside those specific two weeks, the National Security Division of the DOJ tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) they have been breaking the law. The NSD specifically inform the court they are aware of contractors who have been using FISA 702(16)(17) database search queries to extract information on political candidates.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has looked into the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page. Additionally, U.S. Attorney John Durham is said to be looking at the intelligence communities’ use of systems for spying and surveillance.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.

It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint aka a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative Eric Ciaramella to file as a formal IC complaint.  This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.

Atkinson’s conflict-of-self-interest, and/or possible blackmail upon him by deep state actors who most certainly know his compromise, likely influenced his approach to this whistleblower complaint.   That would explain why the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel so strongly rebuked Atkinson’s interpretation of his responsibility with the complaint.

In the Justice Department’s OLC opinion, they point out that Atkinson’s internal justification for accepting the whistleblower complaint was poor legal judgement.  [See Here]  I would say Atkinson’s decision is directly related to his own risk exposure:

.

Michael Atkinson was moved from DOJ-NSD to become the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in 2018.  What we end up with is a brutally obvious, convoluted, network of corrupt officials; each carrying an independent reason to cover their institutional asses… each individual interest forms a collective fraudulent scheme inside the machinery of the FBI apparatus.

The motive behind the DOJ/FBI effort to cover for Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director James Wolfe’s unlawful classified information leaks, is connected to this network and expands into the SSCI Chairman (Richard Burr) and Vice-Chair Mark Warner.

Security Director Wolfe was working on instructions from inside the committee itself; his leak of the FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins was in alignment with the intents/motives of the SSCI in March 2017.   Dirty politicians corrupting staff.

The DOJ and FBI didn’t charge James Wolfe with the leaking of classified information because it would have exposed corruption within the SSCI.  Wolfe was prepared to call the senators in his defense…. this could not be allowed.  The SSCI has oversight over the intelligence community to include the FBI, DOJ, DOJ-NSD, CIA, ODNI etc.

How does all of this corruption come together?….  More importantly how does this level of institutional corruption create the inability of FBI whistle-blowers to come forward?

♦ The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the approver for any nominations for any executive appointed position involving the intelligence community.

If the senate intel committee wants to block the nomination, likely adverse to their interests, they can… simply, they don’t take it up. (See Trump’s attempt to appoint Representative John Ratcliffe as ODNI as an example.)

However, along with approving Christopher Wray and David Bowditch (recommendations from DAG Rod Rosenstein), the SSCI also approved former DOJ-NSD legal counsel Michael Atkinson to become Intelligence Community Inspector General.

Who would an honest intelligence whistle-blower have to go through?  Dirty ICIG Michael Atkinson.  The same dirty Michael Atkinson who was the top legal counsel to the head of the DOJ-NSD when the corrupt DOJ-NSD agency operations were ongoing.

See how the whistle-blower block works?

Aligned interests – The Senate Intel Committee used the placement of Atkinson to block any whistle-blower action that would be adverse to their interests.  Honest whistle-blowers ain’t stupid, they know what surrounds them.

You might remember recently how Burr and Warner would not support Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National intelligence under the auspices of Ratcliffe not having enough “experience” within intelligence operations. However, those same “experience” concerns were absent when they approved dirty ICIG nominee Michael Atkinson.

Senator Mark Warner […] You’re also aware that this Committee is leading the review into the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During this hearing I want to hear assurances from both of you that you will fully cooperate with this review and provide this Committee with all the information requested in a timely fashion.

Mr. Atkinson, as the Inspector General of the Intel Community your job is especially critical because of the nature of the material that they handle every day, whistleblowers within the IC generally can’t go public to expose misbehavior and misuse of official resources. We the Congress and the American people will depend upon you as an independent agent of accountability for the Office of the DNI and, for that matter, for the whole intel community.

While you don’t have previous experience as an inspector general, I look forward to hearing your plans for the righting
of the ship at the IC’s IG when it comes to both whistleblower protections and investigations.

I’m very concerned by the significant number of open cases that I believe have lingered too long. If confirmed, I will ask you to make the whistleblower program a priority. This is an area that cuts across party lines and committee jurisdictions. (continue transcript)

The intelligence apparatus is a key part of the rogue administrative state that operates in direct alignment with a rogue state department and politicians who use their influence to gain material wealth from sales/control of policy.

It is a synergy of DC interests.

 

Senator Mitch McConnell Delivers Remarks About Soleimani Strike During Chamber Speech…


Earlier today Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered remarks about the U.S. strike in Iraq that killed terrorist Qassem Soleimani:

.

[Transcript] “As the Senate convenes this afternoon, we find our nation facing two grave and serious choices. One concerns our unity at home and the future of our Constitution; the other involves our strength abroad and the security of our homeland.

‘Both situations demand serious, sober treatment from Congress. Both require that we put enduring national interests ahead of the factionalism and short-termism the founding fathers warned us about.

‘But unfortunately, seriousness is in short supply lately from the determined critics of President Trump. And our nation is worse for it.

‘Last Thursday, the United States took decisive action to end the murderous scheming of Iran’s chief terrorist.

‘Qassem Soleimani had spent years masterminding attacks on American servicemembers and our partners throughout the Middle East and expanding Iran’s influence. Despite sanctions, despite prohibitions by the UN Security Council, he roamed throughout the region with impunity.

‘His hands bore the blood of more American servicemembers than anyone else alive. Hundreds of American families have buried loved ones because of him. Veterans have learned to live with permanent injuries inflicted by his terrorists. And in Iraq, in Syria, and beyond, the entire region felt the effects of his evil tactics.

‘We should welcome his death and its complication of Tehran’s terrorism-industrial complex. But we must remain vigilant and soberly prepare for even further aggression.

‘Now, it is completely appropriate this decision would generate interest and questions from this body. We can and should learn more about the intelligence and thinking that led to this operation and the plan to defend American personnel and interests in the wake of it.

‘I’m glad that the administration will hold an all-senators briefing on Wednesday. It will be led by Secretary of Defense Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley, Secretary of State Pompeo, and CIA Director Haspel.

‘Unfortunately, in this toxic political environment, some of our colleagues rushed to blame our own government before even knowing the facts… rushed to split hairs about intelligence before being briefed on it… and rushed to downplay Soleimani’s evil while presenting our own president as the villain.

‘Soon after the news broke, one of our distinguished colleagues made a public statement that rightly called Soleimani a “murderer”… but then, amazingly, walked that message back when the far left objected to that factual statement. Since then I believe all her criticism has been directed at our own president.

‘Another of our Democratic colleagues has been thinking out loud about Middle East policy on social media. Mere days before President Trump’s decision, this senator tore into the White House for what he described as weakness and inaction. “No one fears us,” he complained, “Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East.”

‘But since the strike — a total 180. The same senator has harshly criticized our own president for getting tough. Ludicrously, he and others on the left have accused the administration of committing an illegal act, and equated the removal of this terrorist leader with a foreign power assassinating our own Secretary of Defense.

‘Here’s what one expert had to say about that. Jeh Johnson, President Obama’s own former Pentagon general counsel and Secretary of Homeland Security, said, quote:

If you believe everything that our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective, and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization. Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective.

‘That was President Obama’s DHS secretary.

‘And our former colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat Vice-Presidential nominee, wrote this morning that “In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are… creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.”

‘That’s how a former Democrat Senator sees this.

‘Look — the Senate is supposed to be the chamber where overheated partisan passions give way to sober judgment.

‘Can we not wait until we know the facts? Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred, of national unity for five minutes before deepening the partisan trenches?

‘Must Democrats’ distaste for this president dominate every thought they express and every decision they make? Is that really the seriousness that this situation deserves?

‘The full Senate will be briefed on Wednesday. I expect the committees of oversight will also conduct hearings and that senators will have plenty of opportunities to discuss our interests and policies in the region.

‘I urge my colleagues to bring a full awareness of the facts, mindfulness of the long history of Iran’s aggression toward the United States and its allies, and a sober understanding of the threat Iran continues to pose.

‘We are all Americans first and we are all in this together.’”

[End Transcript]

Oh Noes – France Warns U.S. Reciprocal Tariffs Will Lead To “Durably Damaged Relations”…


Any headline that uses the phrase “France Warns” immediately requires a background review to understand the big picture driving French fears.

Just like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinking he could outwit President Trump’s policies on NAFTA trade (he failed), Trudeau’s bestie, French President Emmanuel Macron, has stupidly exhibited similar shortsightedness.  In the case of both leaders their weasel moves have put their nations’ into a precarious economic position.

To consider the future for France, it would be wise to remember last year when President Trump arrived to attend the G-7 in Biarritz, France, President Macron was waiting at the Hotel du Palais to ambush Trump for an unscheduled luncheon (pictured below):

This was just one example in a series of scripted weasel-moves played by Macron in an attempt to pontificate his importance for the international audience.  Another example from the same event was Macron inviting the Iranian foreign Minister to the G7 for sideline meetings unrelated to the topics being discussed in Biarritz.

In an effort to create leverage against the U.S. position, President Macron never discussed his Iranian invitation -in advance- with the U.S. delegation.  It did not go over well.

The EU, and specifically France, have a dependence on foreign energy sources as a result of their ridiculous climate policies and narrow thinking.  In essence the EU wants to do business and receive oil from Iran; however, U.S. sanctions against Iran forbid those business deals.  Ergo Macron attempted to inject influence and position his interests.

As stated, the ambush approach did not go well, but POTUS played it cool.

There have been several other efforts by Macron to undermine U.S. policy out of self-interest.  In each attempt President Trump has noted the issue but never actually directly responded to the moves.  President Trump continues to speak warmly about Macron but is obviously clear-eyed on the small-man lack of character aspect.

Inside this game of snark and weasel-moves President Trump has refrained from disparaging the weasel yet continually reminded Macron, and other EU leaders, about their continued lack of honoring their obligations: (1) not funding 2% GDP for NATO defense; (2) not taking back ISIS fighters; (3) becoming more energy dependent on Russia for natural gas [Nordstream 2]; (4) one-way tariffs; and (5) not having a trade perspective toward the U.S. based on reciprocity.

As a result of the EU’s intransigent selfishness; in combination with an ongoing attitude of pontificating elitism; President Trump has no disposition to grant any favorable terms on anything.   This is the background for United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer calculating a $2.4 billion pending tariff against French products as a result of France’s desperation for income and deciding to tax U.S. digital services:

PARIS (Reuters) – French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire warned the United States on Monday that any retaliation to France’s new digital services tax could “deeply and durably” damage relations.

Washington has threatened to impose duties of up to 100% on imports of champagne, handbags and other French products worth $2.4 billion (1.8 billion pounds) after a U.S. government investigation found the French tax would harm U.S. technology companies.

“If the Americans decide to go ahead and impose sanctions against the digital tax … in this case we would retaliate,” Le Maire told France Inter radio.

“If there were to be sanctions, and it is a possibility that we will take sanctions, we would immediately contact the WTO (World Trade Organisation)”, he added.

Le Maire said he had sent a letter on the issue to U.S. trade negotiator Robert Lightizer and was also going to discuss it with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin by phone.

“If the U.S were to decide to impose trade sanctions against the EU over the French Digital Services Tax, it would deeply and durably affect the transatlantic relationship at a time when we need to stand united”, the minister wrote in the letter seen by Reuters.

Le Maire also said in the letter that France was “in touch with the European Commission and other EU Member States on the subject” and that they were “contemplating the various options to defend our trade rights in a proportionate and determined manner, as we have in the past,” .  (read more)

With the USMCA completed, and with most of the key Asian trade deals finished – sans the watching to see approach with China phase one, the next logical move for President Trump to address the trade imbalance will be to turn attention toward Europe.

The EU is still benefiting from the same trade deals constructed during the Marshal plan. President Trump will use tariffs to fundamentally change this relationship.  The WTO already handed the U.S. legal authority against the EU for a $2.5 billion tariff as a result of the Boeing case.  Combine that with Lighthizer’s calculated $2.4 billion against France and you can easily see how severe these economic weapons will be.

With Britain leaving the EU; and with Germany, France and Italy already suffering from a lack of investment and shrinking sales of industrial products – the EU economy is a sitting duck for President Trump to target.  There is no-way France can lead the charge for a tariff battle against the United States….

As a result watch for them to make geopolitical moves and attempt to threaten Trump over their relationship with Iran in an effort to find leverage.  Predictably U.S. media will attempt to position the EU as victims of President Trump just like they did with China in 2018.

However, unlike China, the EU is precariously positioned as a feather vulnerable to the economic hurricane President Trump can unleash.   This should be fun.

Rush Limbaugh Interviews President Donald Trump – Transcript and Audio/Video


Earlier today President Trump called in to the Rush Limbaugh show for an interview about current political events.  [Transcript Below]

RUSH: Welcome back the EIB Network, and Rush Limbaugh back at it after a couple of weeks off for Christmas. Not much happening. We are happy to have here with us the president of the United States, Donald Trump. It’s so great to have you back here, sir. Thank you for joining us.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush, very much.

RUSH: Okay. I have had a lot of people say to me — they’re reacting to the media reaction of the action we took, that you took against the Quds Force commander in Iran. Mr. President, people are being scared to death, their kids are being scared to death out of their minds that somehow this is gonna start World War III, that we are now more unsafe than we have ever been. Could you explain to people why what you’ve done here makes us safer, why it was necessary, and why what we did was right.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this should have been done for the last 15 to 20 years, him in particular. He was their real military leader. He’s a terrorist. He was designated a terrorist by President Obama, and then Obama did nothing about it except give them $150 billion and — even more incredibly — $1.8 billion in cash. You hear me talking about that all the time, and you talk about it all the time. He gave them all this money. He never wanted to do anything about it. President Bush should have taken him out. He’s responsible for the IEDs.

Those are the roadside bombs and the bombs that blow up all over the place — and then the sister, which is the big one, the big version, that actually knocks out tanks and kills everybody within earshot. A really horrible weapon. He’s responsible for all those incredible young people over at Walter Reed — where they do such a great job, by the way — where they lose their arms and their legs and all. He gave so much of that technology. Much of that stuff was made in Iran. And he should have been taken out a long time ago. And we had a shot at it, and we took him out. And we’re a lot safer now because of it. We’ll see what happens. We’ll see what the response is, if any. But you’ve seen what I said our response will be.

RUSH: Well, yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: Our country is a lot safer, Rush.

RUSH: They said they’ve got 21 targets they’re looking at, and you came back and said, “Fine. I’ve got 52 of yours.” I don’t think that they are accustomed to a president like you, sir. I mean, you just mentioned it. Obama basically appeased them. Obama worked with this guy on the Iranian nuclear deal. What…? A lot of things had to surprise you when you assumed office and found out some things that had been done previously in policy. What was the purpose of American policy with Iran prior to your presidency?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think they had a purpose. I don’t think they knew what was happening. Why did he give them $150 billion, much of it going back into terror? If you look at what’s happening…

When I first came into office, I went to the Pentagon, and they showed me 18 “sites of confliction,” meaning conflict, over there. And every one of them was started by Iran, either their soldiers or they paid for soldiers, soldiers for hire. I have no idea what they tried to do with appeasement.

And I can tell you, the Logan Act… If there was ever an act that should have been used, they should look at the Obama administration and John Kerry, the Logan Act, because what he was doing with Iran and the relationship that they built up and the things that he said, I would certainly love to see that be looked at because I think John Kerry was… Personally, I think he was advising them. I think that the Obama administration was just letting them get away with murder — in the true sense murder.

And, you know, right after they made the deal, it wasn’t like they were respected. They treated the United States worse than ever before. In fact, I said, “At least give him a little respect,” because they treated… They got worse. They actually got more hostile. They took the $150 billion and they took the $1.8 billion in cash, and they got worse. And if you remember, right before the payment was made, they took 10 sailors.

And they humiliated those sailors, and they humiliated our country with the sailors down on their knees. And the only reason they released them was they wanted their first payment. It was just before the payment. If they had taken them after they got the money, they would have never released them. They’d be there now. Well, they would be there now with me. But they would be there for a long period of time. But you remember the 10 sailors that were —

RUSH: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: — 15 feet across the line, probably they weren’t. They don’t even know if they were in Iranian waters. But they said they were slightly in Iranian waters. So they humiliated them. But they released them because the money was due the following day, and they said, “Oh, we don’t want to…” Hey, why should they turn down $150 billion over the 10 sailors? But they humiliated those sailors and our country.

RUSH: Well, he also lifted sanctions on Soleimani as part of the Iran deal. And it looks like, to me, anyway, that Obama looked and that administration looked at building Iran up as some way stabilizing the region. As though Israel’s not the good guys, as though we’re not the good guys, that Iran needs to be made stronger — this is what they believed — otherwise that whole region is kind of a tinderbox. But the thing that really is true about this is the Middle East has changed in priority. Because of the massive improvements made in domestic energy in the United States, we’re no longer dependent on that region.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. Right. Well, it’s right, and one of the things that changed… I know you talk about it. If you go back 10 years or eight years or maybe even five years, Israel was the king of the Congress, right? Our Congress protected Israel and fought for Israel. Now you look at the way the Democrats in Congress are treating them, where you have AOC and you have Tlaib and you have Omar, and they are actually, you know, anti-Semitic. They are totally against Israel. The things that they’ve said…

You go back to the past and you look at the things that they’ve said about Israel and Jewish people, it’s incredible. Ten years ago, that would have been unacceptable. It would have been… It would have been… Nobody could have even believed it. I still can’t believe it! You know, I’m a little bit old-fashioned, right, in that sense, ’cause I’ve grown up and there was always great protection and reverence for Israel, and now it’s the opposite. In the Democrats, it’s almost… It’s almost a negative. They’re going out and what they do for Tlaib and what they do for Omar — Representative Omar, Minnesota — and AOC, I think it’s incredible the way they talk about Israel. It just was unthinkable to do that 10 years ago and sooner.

RUSH: I actually think that you’ve had a role in driving them even more insane than they were. Let me give you some evidence. Let’s go back to the day you came down the escalator and announced your candidacy. You announced the slogan Make America Great Again, and all of a sudden, Make America Great Again becomes some wildly controversial prospect. And I’m asking myself, “What in the world is controversial at all? How can anybody disagree with America being great, becoming great, remaining great?” and yet it was. How do you explain that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, politics has changed a lot over the last couple of years. For instance, I want low taxes. They want to raise your taxes. How do you think that works? I couldn’t win as a politician. I don’t think Abe Lincoln could win as a politician. Borders. They want open borders. When you see the people that we’re sending back and we’re capturing now at record levels, in many cases they’re murderers and they’re people, they’re drug dealers, and it’s incredible. They want open borders. That means all of these people are gonna be pouring in.

And, of course, good ones will come in too. But you have tremendous numbers of really bad people, including murderers and rapists and others. They want open borders. They want sanctuary cities. They don’t want a strong military based on everything — I mean, we have to fight like crazy to get the strong military, and we have to give up things that we wouldn’t give up if we had the House, as an example, if we were able to have enough. You know, we’ve always needed their vote because it was always very close.

In fact, the first two years we had a very, you know, tiny majority, so we always needed their votes. But when you see they want higher taxes, right? They want much more regulation. You know, I cut regulations more than any president in history by far, even though they were there for four and eight years and in one case more than that, we’ve got the all-time record, that was probably as important or more important as the tax cuts, the biggest — including Ronald Reagan, the biggest tax cut we’ve ever had.

And we’re actually taking in more revenue now than we did when we had the higher taxes because the economy’s doing so well. But, you know, when you see them with open borders, Rush, you say — and sanctuary cities and all of these other things, you say, “Where are they coming from?” Well, Israel is sort of the same. I put that in that same category. As far as I’m concerned, they’re anti-Israel, totally anti-Israel.

RUSH: Well, it’s always perplexed me that you have drawn them out. They have now — with Twitter in the past two or three days since the attack on Soleimani, you literally have the Democrat Party and elements of that party openly supporting Iran, an enemy of the United States, openly supporting the terrorist actions of that country, and this is a country that beheads homosexuals and transgenders –

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

RUSH: — and has no human rights for the very constituency the Democrat Party claims to represent. Yet here they are tweeting their support for these people –

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

RUSH: — simply in opposition to you.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s amazing. Like, as an example, take the wall. They were always for the wall. And then I wanted it, and they went against it. In fact, I said if I had it to do again, I would have come out totally against the wall and I would have gotten their votes. Okay? All I had to do was come out against the wall. “I am opposed to building the wall.” And we would have gotten all the votes we needed.

No, it’s almost like they’ll try and do whatever is the opposite. I think they’ve lost their minds, you want to know the truth. I really do. It’s a terrible thing to say. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Like even impeachment hoax, you take a look at that, and they have nothing, they have nothing. With one of the biggest investigations in history, they found nothing, the Mueller report, they found absolutely — think of it — they spent $45 million, two years, it’s a hoax.

They spent all of that time, all of that money, had brilliant people that happened to be, you know, very, very — they were crazed — they were crazed. I mean, these people were dying to find something on Trump. They found nothing. I think there’s very few people that you’ve ever met who could have had that. They had so many investigators, they were calling people that I haven’t seen in years, and they got nothing.

Think of that, nothing. Very few people — and, by the way, I’m sure they looked at my taxes, they looked at everything you had to look at, they looked at everything. And $45 million, and much more than that in the true sense, you know, the real sense, it was much more than that. And they had 18 — I used to call them 13 angry Democrats, but they increased it to 18 angry Democrats –

RUSH: Full party.

THE PRESIDENT: — and very smart. Many were tied up with Clinton. They were involved with Clinton. But these people couldn’t find anything on Trump. They would have loved — if I had a parking ticket, it would have been a major story. They found nothing. Even I was very impressed with how clean I am, Rush.

RUSH: You ought to be. You may be cleaner than any previous president that we could think of. Anyway, I gotta take a quick time-out. We have President Trump with us for the remaining part of the program, the last of the half hour, and we’ll continue with him right after this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And we are back with President Trump. You mentioned the impeachment hoax. Nancy Pelosi has not delivered these two articles of impeachment that are, frankly, both of them are jokes. What do you suspect is happening here with this? What is the politics of this? What are they trying to achieve here? I mean, I know throw you out of office and all, but what’s the point here, not sending these articles over?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think what they’re trying to do is affect the election illegally. That’s what they’re trying to do. But the reason that they’re not sending it because they’re — they are a joke. They are not crimes. There is nothing there. They found nothing. We went through two years of a Mueller report, you know that better than anybody, nobody covered it better. And we went through two years —

RUSH: I think I’m more frustrated by it than you are. You’ve had to deal with it. But it makes a lot of us livid —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

RUSH: — because there’s nothing, everything to this has been made up. It’s worse than a hoax, the first part of it was a coup, and this is just the continuation of it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, it’s so sad for our country. I mean, think of it. We’re fighting with Iran, we’re fighting with all of these different places, and in many cases doing great, making trade deals, doing so good, our country is doing so good, but I have to spend and my team has to spend time on this stuff. They found nothing. Just think of that. For two years an unlimited budget, unlimited talent and they found nothing, and they came up with two articles that aren’t even a crime.

RUSH: Well, there was nothing to find. It was all made up. I mean, that’s the frustrating thing here. It was all made up. There was nothing to find. There was nothing to investigate.

THE PRESIDENT: They created a situation that was false, that was fraudulent, and then they investigated the false, fraudulent situation, and they found nothing. It’s hard to believe. The whole thing’s hard to believe. And now on top of it, they come up with two articles and they put it before — now, what happened is she doesn’t want to get a vote because how can anybody possibly — it’s totally partisan. You know, this is not what they had in mind as they call them the founders, right, they keep saying the founders, founders, but the founders didn’t have this in mind. You understand, it’s like I’ve never heard the word “founders” so much in my life.

RUSH: They don’t have anything in common with the founders anyway.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. We got I guess 196 or 197 to nothing with the Republican Party, plus we had three Democrat votes, and one person actually left the Democratic — the Democrat Party over it and joined the Republican Party, as you know.

RUSH: Speaking of which, the Republican Party hasn’t been this unified in I don’t know how long.

THE PRESIDENT: Never. It’s never — they say maybe never. And one thing I gave the Democrats credit for, they’ve always been very vicious, and they — and that’s not necessarily a good thing, but what is a good thing is they always stuck together. And here the Republicans stuck together even better than the Democrats. So we had, like, 196 or 197 to nothing. It’s unheard of. You know that because they’re always breaking off and — I don’t know — and this is really for 70 years, 80 years, you know, for some reason it’s in the DNA, they just don’t seem — and in this case they have been so good. And I think the Senate will be the same way ’cause the Senate knows it’s a hoax. Everybody knows it’s a hoax.

RUSH: The Republican Party’s now the party of Trump, I mean, there’s no question about it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just think it’s the party of common sense. You know, I view it — somebody said, “Are you conservative?” Well, I’m conservative, but I think it’s common sense. It was — like what we did two days ago with this horrible terrorist. He was a terrorist, you know, they don’t want to call him a terrorist. Now the Democrats are trying to make him sound like he was this wonderful human being.

RUSH: He was a poet. Yeah, he was a poet.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, he’s a poet.

RUSH: He’s reading poetry out there.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, when you read the New York Times and you read the Washington Post, that are totally fake newspapers, by the way, that would have both been out of business except I won, I wonder what happens in — hopefully in five years, right? Hopefully in five years. But I wonder what happens to those newspapers. Who knows. But they do well now, although if you look at the unfunded liability probably they don’t do so well.

But you look at what they write, it’s so fake, it’s so phony, and now they’re trying to build him just like they did al-Baghdadi. Al-Baghdadi was the number one terrorist in the world. We got him. They wrote very little about it, relatively speaking. That story disappeared very quickly, as you know. But they tried to build him up into a relatively wonderful man. He was a total bad guy –

RUSH: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: He founded ISIS. He was doing it again. He was trying to do it again. You know, I wiped out ISIS. During our administration, we wiped out the entire caliphate — a hundred percent of the caliphate — and we wiped him out and, you know, got little credit. But our people know that we did it, Rush, because of people like you and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and so many others. Your friends at Fox & Friends in the morning are so good. You know, people are getting it. They really get it. And because of social media and my Twitter. Without Twitter, I think we’d be lost. We wouldn’t be able to get the truth out.

RUSH: Yeah, that’s a good point. People still say to me, “You need to ask him to stop tweeting so much.” I tell ’em, “Look, it’s the only way he can get his message out, and it’s not a negative at all.” People say, “He needs to dial back the drama, needs to dial back the chaos.” I disagree with that talk.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

RUSH: I think you’re doing exactly what you have to do, given the circumstances presented to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wish I didn’t have to do it. I wish we had legitimate newspapers and legitimate media. We don’t. I mean, it’s… Much of it is really… I call it corrupt. It’s the corrupt media. It’s — and, you know, it’s very interesting. You understand this better than anybody. If they do a story on me, I immediately know if it’s false or not false — and I don’t mind a bad story if it’s right. But I know. A person reading the story doesn’t know that it’s false, so I’m able to tell ’em through social media.

RUSH: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t even call it Twitter. I call it social media, ’cause it goes to everything. You know, it goes to Facebook, it goes to Instagram, and we have hundreds of millions of people. You know, we have a tremendous amount of people. Just on one site I’m up to, I guess, close to 70 million people.

RUSH: Yeah, they’re jealous as they can be of that too.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, for Facebook, I had dinner —

RUSH: Of course they want you to stop.

THE PRESIDENT: I had dinner with Mark Zuckerberg the other day, and he said, “I’d like to congratulate you,” in front of a large group of people. So I’m not… (chuckles) But he said, “I’d like to congratulate you, you’re number one on Facebook,” and, you know, it’s incredible, and that’s —

RUSH: Wait a minute! Wait a minute. You had dinner with Zuckerberg?

THE PRESIDENT: I did. I did. I had dinner with him.

RUSH: Oh-ho! Wait ’til the world finds out about that.

THE PRESDIENT: Oh, I know.

RUSH: I guess they just did.

THE PRESIDENT: You have semi-breaking news. I guess a couple of people might have reported it but they’re not like you. So I just got a list, the TSL Power 50. The number one show on radio has a guy named Rush Limbaugh. Did you ever hear of him, Rush Limbaugh?

RUSH: (laughing)

THE PRESIDENT: Number 1. Have you? This is the 50 “most influential and listened to streaming talk show[s] in the country,” Rush Limbaugh number 1. So I hope you saw that. But now we’ve just made your interview.

RUSH: (laughing)

THE PRESIDENT: But your viewers have to know that. Your listeners have to know that. Number 1. Great job.

RUSH: Thank you, sir. You know, your timing is impeccable. You’re a broadcast specialist from The Apprentice and so forth, and you’ve gotten right up to the break here. I can’t thank you enough for this. I wish we had even more time. People love you, sir —

THE PRESIDENT: Well —

RUSH: — and they are grateful, and they know that you still are focused on them —

THE PRESIDENT: I love ’em.

RUSH: — that you’re still implementing the agenda that you ran on.

THE PRESIDENT: I love ’em. I love ’em, Rush.

RUSH: They know that too. Thank you so much for your time and have a great, great rest of this day and year.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. Thank you.

RUSH: I hope it’s the greatest year of your life, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Rush, and thank you for everything, and congratulations on your incredible success. I really… It’s so important for this country what you do. Thank you very much, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. Bye.

U.S. Led Coalition Announces Troop Withdrawal and Reposition From Iraq…


Several days ago CTH pondered the possibility part of President Trump’s decision-making would be intended to provoke a request by Iraq for the U.S. to leave the region….

The United States-led military coalition against Islamic State said on Monday that it was pulling out of Iraq and would be repositioning forces over the next few days and weeks. The authenticity of this letter has been confirmed:

Perhaps this is why Senator Lindsey Graham was so ‘out-of-sorts’ yesterday.  A request for the U.S. to leave Iraq was not against the interests of President Trump; however, it was against the interests of Lindsey Graham’s war-council.

Speaker Pelosi can modify and change all of the War Power resolutions she wants to; it matters not.  President Trump’s preferred weapons are not kinetic, they are economic.

January 3rd:

TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2

By President Trump going full Red Wedding on the Iranian crews in Iraq he could be forcing the Iraqi government to ask us to leave….

🤔 wait a min.. POTUS wants to leave.. So maybe he’s creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and also maximizing the exit value?

View image on Twitter
615 people are talking about this