There are many people rightly concerned about legislative issues seemingly stuck in the mud. However, what many of those same people seem to forget is the basic reality of President Trump’s America-First agenda being opposed by professional republicans even more than it is opposed by professional Democrats. DC is a UniParty.
Republican and Democrat political leadership, the UniParty writ large, have been paid to protect the legislative priorities of the multi-billion lobbying group known as K-Street.
The fallacy of false choice lies behind the concept of controlled opposition.
Prior to Donald Trump there was only one political party in DC, the Uniparty. President Trump represents the alternative; the second party.
For almost five years we have been pointing out the construct. The UniParty have three unwavering primary objectives as purchased by the lobbying groups: 1) Retention of Obamacare; 2) Budgetary spending to retain growth of government; and 3) comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty.
These three primary legislative issues are not up for debate, modification or discussion. The legislative outcomes have been purchased, multi-million-dollar investments made, and the interests behind the legislative constructs will not allow any elimination or concession.
Beyond that reality, the rest is simply political optics and gamesmanship. If you refuse to accept this baseline, you will continue to find yourself frustrated as you try to reconcile what is not happening.
Congress, as salesmen for the interests funding their activity, does that which is important to it; and congress does not do that which is antithetical to its pre-purchased interests.
President Trump, through his proposed policy objectives, is antithetical to those interests.
FULL STOP.
Essentially, President Trump has requested the following:
A budget with actual baseline reductions in spending. Where Trump’s cabinet, individually and collectively, will actually reduce scale, scope and reach of federal government.
Healthcare reform to include the elimination of ObamaCare and a return to free market principles to drive down the cost of insurance products.
Funding funding to enhance enforcement of existing immigration law and a border wall to ensure the long-term reductions in the ease of illegal, unauthorized migration.
All three of those requests are opposed by Republicans and Democrats in congress. You can beat your head against the wall in frustration, but the reality doesn’t change. The big money interests who write legislation have paid all members of congress to block these basic principles of President Trump policy.
EXAMPLE – You might remember seeing Senator Rand Paul on TV for 10-consecutive-days (March), proclaiming that RyanCare must be defeated. Toward that end Senator Paul put on a tuxedo went to the House of Representatives, lobbied them personally, and handed out instructions and books telling Hillary’s Favorite Caucus (HFC) if they simply blocked President Trump and Secretary Price he (Paul) would, within two weeks, provide a clean repeal bill from the Senate. Senator Rand Paul said he and Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Mike Lee already had the legislation written for the clean repeal. Senator Paul stated if the House members simply followed his plan he would guarantee the “repeal only” bill would advance within two weeks.
.
.
Remember that?
Well?…
This is the same UniParty that approved Trade Promotion Authority, a Republican Bill, that allowed President Obama to construct TPP and congress reversed the threshold for approval – making it necessary for two-thirds of the Senate to oppose passage to stop it, instead of two-thirds necessary to approve passage. Why would a republican controlled congress make it easier for Obama-Trade to pass and make it harder to stop?
This is the same UniParty that has refused to accept the ‘Notification of Intent’ letter from Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross permitting him to renegotiate NAFTA. Why would a republican controlled congress block President Trump from re-negotiating NAFTA?
Go back and look at the lobbying money spent by the U.S. CoC.
You see, this is where CTH refuses to be co-dependents in our own abuse. We fully understand, and more importantly ‘accept’, the DC UniParty congress has no intention of: Providing a budget to lower spending; repealing and replacing ObamaCare; allowing enforcement of immigration law to include deportation and a southern border wall.
It can be difficult to accept these realities. It can be difficult to confront your abuser. However, until the larger electorate understand the structural concept of the UniParty, there will be hours-upon-hours of talking in circles, and tens of thousands of column inches typed in an effort to reconcile the irreconcilable and avoid accepting the diagnosis:
Whether China is right about North Korea conducting a nuclear test on April 25 remains to be seen, but for now Kim Jong-Un is content with merely escalating the verbal warfare and overnight North Korean state media warned the United States of a “super-mighty preemptive strike” following the latest round of comments by Rex Tillerson who said the United States was looking at ways to bring pressure to bear on North Korea over its nuclear programme.
The Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the North’s ruling Workers’ Party, did not mince its words: “In the case of our super-mighty preemptive strike being launched, it will completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists’ invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes” it said according to Reuters.
The threat will hardly come as a surprise: the reclusive communist nation regularly threatens to destroy Japan, South Korea and the United States “and has shown no let-up in its belligerence after a failed missile test on Sunday, a day after putting on a huge display of missiles at a parade in Pyongyang.”
The comments come in response to Tillerson statement in Washington on Wednesday when he told reporters that “we’re reviewing all the status of North Korea, both in terms of state sponsorship of terrorism as well as the other ways in which we can bring pressure on the regime in Pyongyang to re-engage with us, but re-engage with us on a different footing than past talks have been held,”
Furthermore, Paul Ryan said during a visit to London the military option must be part of the pressure brought to bear. “Allowing this dictator to have that kind of power is not something that civilised nations can allow to happen,” he said in reference to Kim. Ryan said he was encouraged by the results of efforts to work with China to reduce tension, but that it was unacceptable North Korea might be able to strike allies with nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the US and Russia clashed at the United Nations on Wednesday over a U.S.-drafted Security Council statement – which has to be agreed by all participants in the 15-member council – to condemn North Korea’s latest failed ballistic missile test. Curiously, diplomats said China had agreed to the statement.
Previous statements denouncing missile launches “welcomed efforts by council members, as well as other states, to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue”. The latest draft statement dropped “through dialogue” and Russia requested it be included again.
“When we requested to restore the agreed language that was of political importance and expressed commitment to continue to work on the draft … the U.S. delegation without providing any explanations cancelled the work on the draft,” the Russian U.N. mission said in a statement.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China believed in the Security Council maintaining unity. “Speaking with one voice is extremely important to the Security Council appropriately responding to the relevant issue on the peninsula,” he told reporters.
With North Korean tensions lingering, there remains some confusion over the whereabouts of a U.S. aircraft carrier group after Trump said last week he had sent an “armada” as a warning to North Korea, even as the ships were still far from Korean waters. The U.S. military’s Pacific Command explained that the USS Carl Vinson strike group first had to complete a shorter-than-planned period of training with Australia. It was now heading for the Western Pacific as ordered, it said.
The incident has also become a source of mockery for China, whose influential Global Times newspaper, which is published by the People’s Daily, wondered whether the misdirection was deliberate.
“The truth seems to be that the U.S. military and president jointly created fake news and it is without doubt a rare scandal in U.S. history, which will be bound to cripple Trump’s and U.S. dignity,” it said.
(Via USA Today) Federal agents ignored President Trump’s pledge to protect from deportation undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children by sending a young man back to his native Mexico, the first such documented case, a USA TODAY examination of the new administration’s immigration policies shows.
After spending an evening with his girlfriend in Calexico, Calif., on Feb. 17, Juan Manuel Montes, 23, who has lived in the U.S. since age 9, grabbed a bite and was waiting for a ride when a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer approached and started asking questions. (read more)
However, the U.S. Border Patrol presents an entire divergent set of facts to the Daily Caller:
[…] David Lapan, a DHS spokesman, told TheDC, “Juan Manuel Montes Bojorquez was apprehended by the Calexico Station Border Patrol after illegally entering the U.S. by climbing over the fence in downtown Calexico. He was arrested by BP just minutes after he made his illegal entry and admitted under oath during the arrest interview that he had entered illegally.”
The spokesman added, “His DACA status expired in Aug. 2015 and he was notified at that time. In addition, he has a conviction for theft for which he received probation.” (read more)
Oh what a tangled web is weaved…. Apparently, the FBI used the Jeb Bush/DNC Commissioned opposition research dossier on candidate Trump as evidence to the FISA court to gain a warrant for surveillance. Things just got more interesting.
If this report via CNN is factual in its baseline accuracy, methinks the motive for the stuttering obfuscation of FBI Director James Comey just gained some sunlight.
Washington (CNN) – The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump’s campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.
The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.
This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said. Last year, Page was identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser on national security. (read more)
Remember the comments from Chairman Devin Nunes when he shared: Mike Rogers (NSA) was very willing to provide the intelligence committee with evidence; however, James Comey (FBI) was not forthcoming with the requests made by the committee.
Why would FBI Director James Comey be vested in keeping information withheld from the oversight committee? Ah, now it’s time to bring back the public hearings.
FBI Director James Comey unmasked as a Deep State Black Hat Operative.
Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area. And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.
Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.
In the segment of the questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.
The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.
With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:
…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?
BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.
.
Watch it again.
Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.
The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.
The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.
Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives. Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.
The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.
There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.
As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is now clear -at least to me- that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.
Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:
No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (Clapper) and the White House?
….. then it would get a little ugly:
Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?
With all the banter about these hearings, and against this slight moment of clarity of purpose, it bears repeating:
There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.
FBI Director Comey states his organization is “investigating”. Fair enough, however – not a single congresscritter asked HIM if he is the source of the unmasking or leaks.
♦ How can a congressional committee conduct an investigation if they don’t know if the primary witness, the lead investigator, is the source of the leaks?
♦ Wouldn’t the very first step, the actual basis of the foundation for the investigation itself, be to ensure the person conducting the investigation did not participate in the illegality of the conduct being investigated?
Think.
Avoid the shiny things.
Why wouldn’t congress ask this simple question?
Admiral Mike Rogers answers that approximately 10-20 people within his NSA organization had the potential to unmask and/or leak to the media. Fair enough.
♦ Wouldn’t the first question as follow-up be to ask Admiral Mike Rogers if he is one of those numbered possibilities?
♦ Wouldn’t the second follow-up question, in an authentic inquiry, be to ask Mike Rogers: if he is one of the possibilities with access to that information, then was he actually the person who unmasked or leaked?
If Mike Rogers and James Comey admit they are in charge of two of the possible source organizations for leak activity (expressly known illegal behavior)… then what affirmative confidence has either person expressed to congress to ensure the inquiring body that they personally were not the originating source?
Occam’s Razor – Because the question(s), the brutally obvious question(s), then lead to the follow-up: If the only criminal activity is the sourcing of the leak, and the two people giving testimony are potential suspects in that criminal activity, then: A) How can we trust their testimony, and B) Why are we even having this hearing”? (with two people who are suspects in an ongoing investigation)…
The answers reveal the current intention of the intelligence committee is not to actually investigate, but rather to give the outward illusion of investigation.
If they were not merely giving an illusion…. Congress would be pointing out that FBI Director James Comey has a direct and specific conflict of interest that is so glaringly obvious it’s unfathomable no-one see it.
Director Comey, and to a lesser extent Rogers, would have been in direct contact with the prior administration individuals, and entities acting on their behalf, who were politicizing the information being gathered and lying about (ie. leaking to the media) the content therein.
“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Didn’t Comey further claim in this hearing that lying about the content of (or even the existence of) a counter-intelligence investigation was not itself a criminal act? Hello?
That said, James Comey has an expressed interest in claiming an ongoing investigation exists (even if it doesn’t) just to ensure the prior administration contact and behavior was shielded behind the wall of “an ongoing investigation”. Comey says: “Because of the sensitivity of the matter”.. Where “the matter” is the politicized and entirely false information from the White House.
FBI Director James Comey has singularity of knowledge and has cleverly placed himself in a position where there is no “oversight” of his claims.
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
See how that works?
At one point in his political life Comey may have been a White Hat, but there’s no doubt his behavior is exactly what a black hat operative would be doing to shield his connection to the black hat activity of the prior administration.
Summary: Hillary Clinton political operatives manufactured the illusion of a computer connection between Russian entities (financial banks) and the Trump campaign/organization. Those manufactured points of evidence were then passed along to White House entities who used the political intel community (Clapper to Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness – to nowhere. The mere existence of that investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization. FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies, became part of that political apparatus. Now, usefulness exhausted and with the media engaged, it’s CYA time all around for the originating entities.
“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”
“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”
“So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.”
This is really quite incredible and I’m not sure if I can do justice to the significance of it. Earlier today President Trump directly called out President Obama for the explosion of MS13 gang violence.
President Trump is 100% correct in doing this.
It was President Obama’s Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) Program that created the policy vehicle for Central American gang members to deliver their MS13 foot soldiers into the U.S.
Take a close look at the following three graphics. The first is a graphic of the ICE offices with multiple arrests of MS13 gang members:
The second graphic is from our previous deep research into the distribution of President Obama’s UAC immigration program:
The evidence is overwhelming. It is beyond refute, the Obama UAC program is what led to the explosion of Central American MS13 members into the United States.
Now the job falls to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to capture these violent criminals. In a great interview with Tucker Carlson AG Sessions explains his approach:
It’s not on the official public press release page yet, however several media are reporting a call between President Trump and President Erdogan.
(click to enlarge)
Taken in the abstract it’s disconcerting for President Trump to be congratulating Erdogan on the controversial referendum. However, I had a sense this was going to happen because Press Secretary Sean Spicer really FUBAR’d a diplomatic protocol earlier in the day when questioned about yesterday’s election result in Turkey.
.
The brief, albeit painfully poorly worded response from Sean Spicer comes at 14:50 of the video below [Prompted – just hit play]. Spicer unintentionally pushed President Trump into an subtle and uncomfortable diplomatic position with his response:
.
[@15:00] …”My understanding is there’s an international commission that is reviewing this and issues a report in ten to twelve days, and so we’ll wait and let them do their job – there were international monitors throughout Turkey.”
… “I think at this point, we’d rather not get ahead of that report and start to make decisions without knowing, there were observers there as there routinely are, and I’d rather wait and see”…
…”Again, I’m not going to, they have every right to have elections, and their people participate in that before we start getting into their governing system, let this commission get through its work.”
By referencing an international commission reviewing the validity of the election, Press Secretary Spicer appeared to be calling the election results into question.
The optic of the U.S. President questioning the validity of a democratic election within a strategically needed NATO country could end up being a major media issue. Micro FUBAR.
Shortly after Spicers’ remarks the phone call to Erdogan appears to have taken place.
During a February interview which broadcast just before the Superbowl, President Trump recalled riding with former President Barack Obama to the Inauguration on Jan. 20 when he asked Obama to list the three greatest issues America was facing.
[…] “I asked him what you think our biggest problem is and he told me,” Trump said, recalling the limousine ride to the U.S. Capitol with Obama.
“I can’t tell you,” Trump said after O’Reilly interrupted to ask about specifics. “But it’s a problem, its a military problem with a certain place. No, it’s not China. But it is – he did mention, cause I did ask him what would you say our number one, two, three problems are and the number one problem that he felt – I was a little bit surprised, but I fully understand.” (link)
Almost every mainstream political pundit and political observer believes the concerning country within that conversation was North Korea. Indeed, if you were to evaluate the comment in isolation, against the backdrop of world media headlines, N-Korea seemingly becomes a natural conclusion.
However, CTH does not believe North Korea was the country of concern. President Obama viewed and acted upon all foreign affairs through the prism of ideological belief. Every action taken by the Obama administration was in furtherance of an ideological world-view that was personal to the small circle of like-minded fellow travelers.
Outgoing President Obama would not respond to such a question from an abject detachment to the same ideological road-map that drove his foreign policy positions.
No, if it was a country of concern to Obama it would have a personal element to it; North Korea just doesn’t fit.
President Trump went on to say he did not believe Obama would mind if he had shared his answer, but said he did not want that country to know it is viewed as the number one concern to the U.S.
Businessman Trump is President Trump and in both roles Trump has shown through action a keen forward approach. Trump games-out long term objectives and strategies.
Often by the time you see a visible Trump action there has been months of pre-planning.
The President Xi Jinping visit with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago is one example that people are only just now beginning to understand. Trump seeded the objectives of the meeting with President Xi months before their April 6th and 7th meeting (emphasis mine):
[…] “You gotta work on North Korea,” Trump told a Chinese official on February 27, the senior administration official said, apparently pointing to a brief meeting at the White House between Trump and Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi, the highest-ranking Chinese official Trump has met with since taking office. (link)
In the events surrounding Syria and Russia President Trump also had mapped out a long-term strategy. Instructions that did not come from Trump’s team, but rather from President Trump personally.
Back in January, before taking office, President Trump told his National Security landing team to approach the intelligence communities and request “outside the box” solutions to Syria (Via Russia/Iran), as one regional issue; and North Korea (using China) as another.
The responsibility for assembling the information fell upon the administration’s IC liaison Deputy NSA Advisor KT McFarland.
The media do not talk about President Trump having the acumen to approach global issues with specific personally generated strategy. The MSM obviously prefer to sell Trump’s approach as reactionary or emotional; however, as we have seen from the results so far, nothing could be further from the truth than the media’s false narrative.
So where does that bring us?
Well, considering everything outlined above; and considering the location of the MOAB as utilized; and considering the location where President Trump directed his National Security Advisor to go…
Well, I would make an argument the Obama-Trump conversation was about a tenuous nuclear country who hid Osama Bin Laden for ten years, Pakistan.
National security advisor H.R. McMaster, left, with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Islamabad on April 17. /Reuters
(Via World Tribune) […] McMaster visited Islamabad on April 17, a day after holding talks with Afghan leaders in Kabul.
He delivered a public message to leaders in Pakistan, whom Afghan officials accuse of permitting Taliban jihadists to establish sanctuaries and conduct attacks into Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Voice of America reported.
“As all of us have hoped for many many years … that Pakistani leaders will understand that it is in their interest to go after these groups less selectively than they have in the past and the best way to pursue their interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere is through diplomacy not through the use of proxies that engage in violence,” McMaster said.
The Pakistani government said in a statement that the U.S. delegation included Lisa Curtis, a researcher with the Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, who McMaster has hired to oversee South Asia affairs.
In February, Curtis co-authored an article calling for Washington to “levy heavy costs on Pakistan for policies that help perpetuate terrorism in the region.”
In his first trip to the region since being named national security adviser, McMaster met with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his top foreign policy aides before holding talks with the country’s powerful military chief, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa. (link)
Syria (via Russia), North Korea (via China) are, in large measure, diplomatic matters with clear White House objectives and political goals. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been intensely successful so far in handling all of these regional issues with exceptional diplomacy and international support.
President Trump, T-Rex and to a lesser extent Nikki Haley, have aptly navigated through the issues surrounding Syria and China; and with ongoing diplomatic endeavors continuing Vice-President Pence is dispatched as a sincere, stable and trustworthy closer.
However, Pakistan is an entirely different kettle-of-fish. Pakistan policy currently involves higher priority intelligence community and military efforts; ergo, McMasters doing the advanced recon, and a rather noisy knock at the door just prior to arrival.
[…] This is the majors now. Trump has to outwit world-class adversaries and “frenemies” by defining the deals that they will agree to. One minute they will think Trump is their friend – the next minute, a cunning, bitter foe.
And he has to do this with evil cheerleaders like Warhead, Linderace, Dipsy Dowd, Maggie Haterman, and Fake Yapper trashing him or praising him alternately, no matter which way he goes. They can’t keep up, either.
Neither can many around him. I think that half of the problem with advisers crashing into each other is they don’t realize what Trump is doing.
And people will trash you, and they will trash me. Get used to it. I’ve already caught plenty of people mocking me. Well, just wait a week in Trump time. Look stupid and conned by Trump one minute, and you look like a sage three days later.
Trump will not find perfect solutions. He will find OPTIMAL solutions. We cannot ask for more. Trump has stood by and watched Perfect murder Good for 8 years – maybe longer. He’s not gonna do it. He’s going to deliver the best outcome possible, and he’s not waiting for us to feel relaxed about it.
[…] Trump is Jupiter moving through the asteroid belt. He is going to pull people into his orbit. A few will get slung off into space, but most will come along for the ride of their lives. (more)
National Security Advisor HR McMaster has been selected by conspiracy nuts and alt-reality moonbats as a necessary evil foil to retain their pearl-clutching placement at the table of doomsday drum-beating.
Apparently, when candidate Trump, then president-elect Trump, and now President Trump said: “bomb the s**t out of ISIS“, “rebuild our military” and recreate “peace through strength” – a sketchy handful of fools perceived such statements possible without actually ‘bombing‘, ‘rebuilding‘ or ‘reasserting strength‘.
Yes, cognitive dissonance relies upon use of the Mamet Principle; and yes, it happens on the fringe elements of both sides of the circular political continuum.
In the most recent proclamations of the Moonbats any adviser to the President who would be connected with presenting ‘bombing‘, ‘rebuilding‘ or ‘reasserting‘ options of military use to the President, necessarily becomes a war-mongering pod carrier intent on lulling a 70-year-old President to sleep and exit the room converted to John McCain.
The people selling this narrative are both nuts and gnats.
Please pay attention to HR McMaster in this interview laying out a very reasonable perspective on the various regional issues, his praise for the diplomatic approach by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and his accompanying overview to include (@10:38) the answer to the question: “do you think we need more troops in Syria?“. McMaster’s response: “I don’t think so“.
Maybe it’s because the complexity is difficult to distill; maybe it’s because some just can’t give President Trump any credit; or maybe it’s because the scope is too challenging to comprehend against the constant belittlement meme du jour; regardless of reason, President Trump is fundamentally realigning international geo-political alliances and almost no-one is connecting the dots.
President Trump obviously held a long-ball strategy with the Chinese; he’s described the approach in his books and lived the approach in his business life:
At the outset, position yourself at the furthest oppositional point when it costs you nothing; then leverage inward toward your opponent as they expend their resources to meet your stance.
Almost no-one is noting the scope of what President Trump has accomplished simply by positioning himself at the furthest extreme from the best interests of China, and then working his leverage back toward dual-interests as the Chinese expend capital to meet the point of mutual benefit.
President Trump has expended nothing other than his sheer will, and yet he has leveraged gains that are jaw-droppingly consequential.
♦ What’s the goal of identifying China as a currency manipulator? To stop China from manipulating currency, right? Well, arm-chair opposition says President Trump has reversed his position simply by ‘not doing something’. However, that opposition doesn’t seem to acknowledge the end-goal of the labeling has been achieved without expending an effort. The doing is unnecessary when merely the threat of the doing changes the behavior of the doer.
In two days, April 6th and April 7th, President Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. What actions has President Trump taken, other than ‘not’ doing something, and what actions has President Xi Jinping taken?
At the outset, position yourself at the furthest oppositional point when it costs you nothing, and leverage inward toward your opponent as they expend their resources to meet your stance.
Think about this when considering the consequences:
♦ China agrees to the framework of a 100 day outline to assemble the trade way-points for renegotiated bi-lateral trade deals.
What did that action cost Trump?
♦ For the first time ever, China did not support Russia in a U.N. Security Council veto vote surrounding Syria. China abstained.
What did that action cost Trump?
♦ China turned around 12 fully loaded cargo ships laden with imported coal from North Korea. 400,000 metric tonnes refused unloading. China begins an embargo against North Korean coal. China begins importing coking coal for steel-making from the U.S. coal mines.
What did that action cost Trump?
♦ Additionally, in furtherance of economic sanctions – China halts oil exports to North Korea.
What did that action cost Trump?
♦ Additionally, in furtherance of political isolation – China halts direct flights between Beijing, China and Pyongyang, North Korea.
What did that action cost Trump?
♦ And in the most stunning seismic shift of geo-political alliances, China says it is now open to discussions of a denuclearized North Korea, meaning getting rid of N-Korean nukes, WITHOUT N-Korea being included in the talks. Hello? China, the United States, Japan, Russia and South Korea discussing how to de-nuke North Korea. (A new Marshal Plan of sorts)
What did that action cost Trump?
See how this works? What affirmative action did President Trump have to take in order to get China to move toward the position of mutual benefit?
Answer: None!
Foolish people think President Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. Again:
…Position yourself at the furthest oppositional point when it costs you nothing, and leverage inward toward your opponent as they expend their resources to meet the position of mutual benefit…
To gain all of the aforementioned action, massive benefits in U.S. interests, President Trump has done what?
“Not” labeling China as a currency manipulator is not affirmative action. It is actually the absence of action; POTUS Trump is not doing something. President Trump positioned himself at the furthest oppositional point during the election, and immediately thereafter.
He staked out this position with an intention to leverage action toward his needs.
The affirmative action President Trump is doing, very publicly, is complimenting the friendship he has begun with Xi Jinping; and praising President Xi for his character, warmth and leadership.
To build upon that mutually beneficial friendship – President Trump seeded the background by appointing Ambassador Terry Branstad, a 30-year personal friend of President Xi Jinping.
To enhance and amplify the friendship and personal respect – U.S. President Trump used Mar-a-Lago as the venue for their visit, not the White House. And President Trump’s beautiful granddaughter, Arabella, sweetly serenaded the Chinese First Family in Mandarin Chinese song showing the utmost respect for the honored guests.
Unfortunately most people are unfamiliar with the severity of Chinese tradition as it relates to family and respect. However, these gestures are intensely well received. Russia’s Vladimir Putin can deliver nothing even remotely comparable to the charm of the granddaughter of the U.S. President singing for President Xi and his wife in their native tongue.
Do not underestimate the value of these gestures and how it was perceived by the recipients as personal respect – far above the level of traditional political respect which would be customary during such encounters. President Trump made this visit personal, and his words after the meeting were all personal, not positional.
Whether or not people want to give President Trump credit for the approach, no-one should be able to challenge the outcomes all listed above.
Grandfather President Trump has highlighted Grandfather President Xi as a person, not a political figure. Trump sets the relationship as personal, and with mutual human benefit.
One thing is certain, North Korea will NOT make any hostile action toward the U.S. because President Trump has elevated President Xi to a role beyond politics in the words highlighted within Chinese media. The panda fur has not only been stroked perfectly, it has been elevated in its own magnanimity without even so much as a bow.
As a consequence it would now be a matter of personal disrespect for North Korea’s Kim Jung-un to take hostile action toward the U.S. President who has exhibited such personal respect to the regional Goliath.
Three things appear odd: #1) How no-one amid almost all media can see how effective this approach by President Trump has been; and #2) Nothing has been expended in order to achieve these remarkable results; and #3) Accepting all of the above, Donald Trump has planned this out for a long, long time.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Republican and Democrat political leadership, the UniParty writ large, have been paid to protect the legislative priorities of the multi-billion lobbying group known as K-Street.
Centinel2012 