Death of Soleimani Ushers in Armageddon

January 8, 2020

Unless you have been for the last week in a coma, one of the World’s greatest terrorists died in a U.S. missile strike at Baghdad Airport. Iranian General Qasem Soleimani — that’s right, an Iranian General who was in Iraq — was the target of that missile strike. Who was this guy, and why did the U.S. take him out?

Follow this Bullet-point explanation:

President Trump ordered the attack on Major General Qassem Soleimani, a master terrorist and the head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), on January 2nd. He was killed along with seven others as he arrived at the Baghdad Airport. Here are key facts about this man, who was responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of people around the world.
Soleimani was the most potent Iranian general. While other generals may have outranked him, as Commander of the Quds Forces, he answered only to Iran’s Supreme Leader. His authority was outside the usual military chain of command in Iran, and he was given carte blanche authority for the export of terror around the world as he coordinated and directed the numerous Iranian militias and proxies worldwide.
The Quds Forces were responsible for assassinations, terrorism, and unconventional warfare that Iran exports and executes globally, including places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. He was the benefactor of Hamas and Hezbollah. Soleimani participated in assassinations and assassination attempts in the U.S., Germany, India, and Argentina.
He was also linked to the deaths of over 600 U.S. service members in Iraq, as he supplied enhanced Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to the insurgency there. Thousands of U.S. troops were wounded and maimed by these weapons. The IRGC was responsible for 17 percent of all U.S. casualties in Iraq between 2003 and 2011.
We are in a War on Terror since September 11, 2001. Iran is the leading state-sponsor of terrorism, and the Quds Forces have been declared a terror organization. In war, a general officer of an enemy force is a legitimate military target. This was not an assassination. It was the killing of an enemy soldier in a war.
According to Secretary of State Pompeo, Soleimani died not killed because of his past deeds, but because the U.S. learned of planned attacks by Soleimani on U.S. personnel and others. The attacks were imminent.
Because of this, President Trump was not required to notify Congress in advance. Under his Article Two powers in the U.S. Constitution, and following the War Powers Act, the president can take military action if a threat against the United States is imminent.
The attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad were not mere demonstrations. They were coordinated attacks on the U.S. compound and its personnel directed by Soleimani and his Quds Forces, in coordination with Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq.
Soleimani was also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of demonstrators in Iran as they protested against government corruption and a failing economy in Iran.
Over the last several weeks, hundreds of Iraqi demonstrators died as they protested against Iranian influence in their own country and government corruption in Iraq. The use of live ammunition against these demonstrations in Iraq can also be traced back to Soleimani.

Reaction

The events of the last several days are a reminder that there are evil people and terrorist forces who seek to do us harm. When they chant “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” they genuinely mean it.

As with the death of Osama bin Laden, one would expect the entire American government to applaud the elimination of the world’s most vicious and most potent general who was personally responsible for the deaths of at least 600 Americans plus involved in the extermination of hundreds of thousands in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. Democrats and Republicans alike in the aftermath of bin Laden’s death congratulated President Obama and those 23 military heroes who sneaked into that Pakistani compound to get Osama bin Laden.

Republicans applaud President Trump’s actions to eliminate Soleimani. Democrats: not so much. Their venomous responses and continued attacks on President Trump just escalated in the wake of Soleimani’s death.

Here are just a few:

Sen.Tom Udall (D-NM) claimed that Trump is “bringing our nation to the brink of an illegal war with Iran with no congressional approval.”
Sen. Tom Carver (D-DE) noted that the Trump administration has “chosen rash provocation over any coherent strategy” and expressed fear that this most recent activity may be more of the same.
Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) noted that he has “serious concerns about this President’s execution of a potential act of war without authorization of Congress.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) “Trump’s apparent assassination of Soleimani is a massive, deliberate, and dangerous escalation of conflict with Iran. The President just put the lives of every person in the region – U.S. service members and civilians – at immediate risk. We need de-escalation now.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) “Trump Admin owes a full explanation of airstrike reports—all the facts—to Congress&the American people. The present authorizations for the use of military force in no way cover starting a possible new war. This step could bring the most consequential military confrontation in decades.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) “When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the region. That fear, unfortunately, turned out to be true. The U.S. has lost approximately 4,500 brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we’ve spent trillions.”
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) “So what if Trump wants war, knows this leads to war and needs the distraction? The real question is, will those with congressional authority step in and stop him? I know I will.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “American leaders’ highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American service members, diplomats, and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions.”

I know of not a single Democrat who has verbalized any support for the elimination of Soleimani. But, of course, the Democrat-News Media were quick to demonize President Trump for the attack, even to the point of memorializing Soleimani!

Breaking news: Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi state television reports https://t.co/NbZW4DaWvD
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 3, 2020

In addition to that quick tweet from The Post, the television leftist shows all abandoned their “normal” Trump-bashing and have gone all-in on Soleimani. I honestly did not know there were so many military and intelligence experts regarding administrative responsibilities for the notification of Congress before such covert actions are taken! Dozens of “military and legal experts” flood news shows on CNN, MSNBC, even the big three, ABC, NBC, and CBS, urging every American to run to their storm shelters to make sure they’re fully stocked for the imminent Armageddon that Soleimani’s death triggered.

Examples?

Those are just a few. In the last few days, such allegations against the President have escalated dramatically.

The Legality

No President has the unilateral authority to start a war. The War Powers Act details steps mandated for the U.S. to enter into a war. However, since 2001 and the World Trade Center attacks, things in the world of Intelligence and Terror have changed.

Regarding this specific action by President Trump, the Pentagon said Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “actively developing” plans to kill American diplomats and service members when he died. “That would appear to place the action within the legal authority of the president, as commander in chief, to use force in defense of the nation under Article II of the Constitution,” said Bobby Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who specializes in national security issues.

“If the facts are as the Defense Department said, then the president relatively clearly has Article II authority to act in self-defense of American lives,” Chesney said.

“That justification would apply even if Soleimani hadn’t already launched an attack under the established doctrine of ‘anticipatory’ self-defense,” according to Jeff Addicot, a retired Army officer and expert in national security law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio. “Legally, there’s no issue,” Addicot said. “Politically, however, it’s going to be debated, whether it’s the correct response. In my opinion, it’s the appropriate response, but it’s certainly legal.”

Summary

I’m said today — said that our country is so divided and so political. However, history shows us that American citizens have since the first Americans came ashore have had different ideas about government, rules and laws, and the way our country should operate. They with much debate created a template with which the majority agreed to use as the basic structure of living in America.

But things were different then. Early Americans while disagreeing, found ways to work through those differences, discuss, argue, and sometimes even come to blows or duels. But there was one common goal: to reach agreement so as to adhere to the articles of the U.S. Constitution, even when some of those articles were not appreciated by some of those settlers. It was called (and still is) “The Rule of Law.”

I’m disappointed that those from one political party have simply drawn a red line between their party and the party on the other side and said, “It’s our way or the highway.” And that is happening on every issue.

I see no end in sight.

What is causing all this? It boils down to two things: power and control. A large group of bureaucrats have sold their souls to the objective of snatching all the power of government that can be snatched, and with that power, instigate control over every aspect of the government of the United States.

What other explanation for what’s happening is there?

I’ll end with this:

“Tonight, I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out common ground and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people. This, in fact, is our new American moment. There has never been a better time to start living the American dream.”

“So tonight I am extending an open hand to work with members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our citizens, of every background, color, religion and creed.”

Those words came from Donald Trump’s first State of the Union Address. He’s a Republican reaching out to Democrats for unity. Every president reaches to those in the opposition for unity. They each know (and most have adopted that as their policy) that this country — a Democratic Representative Republic — MUST have agreement between those with opposing views of government to maintain its fundament status. Thankfully, our leaders have always ultimately worked through differences to reach a consensus.

It’s critical that we do on this issue, too. Instead of pointing fingers and name-calling, there needs to be an emphasis by all that at the end of the day, we are ALL Americans and we are “One Nation under God.”

It needs to remain what it is today.

Obama Weaponized Foreign Aid

December 2, 2019

President Trump has been demonized in the latest chapter of the “Dump-Trump” movement for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the alleged corruption of former VP Joe Biden and his son. In that telephone call between Mr. Trump and the newly elected president of Ukraine Zelensky, the Biden corruption investigation in Ukraine was mentioned. While Vice President, Biden publicly threatened to withhold an approximate $1 Billion of U.S. aid to Ukraine unless that prosecutor investigating Biden and his son was fired. Biden gave them six hours to do so. They fired the prosecutor and the relief was released.

Democrats have parlayed that phone call into the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” to launch formal impeachment proceedings against the President. It has been a fiasco. Partisan witnesses one after another were paraded before Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee to each demean President Trump’s Ukraine actions in an effort to build support from Americans sufficient to drive Trump from the White House.

The fundamental premise for their actions is the alleged use of U.S. aid to force Ukraine to restart the investigation into the Bidens. Why the uproar? Democrats’ justification (though lame) is that it is somehow unethical to use foreign aid to pressure foreign countries to do the bidding of America.

First, that’s not illegal. Secondly, it has been common practice for president after president going all the way back to the very first time foreign aid from the U.S. was given. And, guess what? Barack Obama used foreign aid multiple times to force countries to subvert to his opinion and policies on various issues. He even weaponized his foreign support for purely social issues — NOT anything involved in U.S. or other nations’ laws!

Obama’s Foreign Aid Blackmail Scheme: “Quid Pro Quo”

In July of 2015, the eyes of the world were on Africa as President Obama welcomed Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari to the White House and, for the first time as president, Obama visited his father’s home country of Kenya.

Reports indicated that Buhari and Obama discussed the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram, as well as possible political and economic reforms for Buhari’s struggling country. Similar discussions took place during the Kenya trip.

While all seemed well on the public front, the reality is that both Buhari’s and Obama’s visits were used by the White House to promote what Pope Francis called “ideological colonization.” This agenda was let slip just days before Buhari arrived in Washington when the U.S. State Department indicated it would push the Nigerian government to redefine marriage.

According to the Nigerian Pilot, America’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told reporters that “as a policy, we will continue to press the government of Nigeria, as well as other governments which have provided legislation that discriminates against the LGBT community.”

Thomas-Greenfield defended the pressure, saying it was not international interference in Nigeria’s domestic affairs, but rather is “very much a work in progress…I think you will agree with me that the law in Nigeria went far in discriminating against this community but also people who associate with them. So, we will continue to press the government, to press the legislature to change these laws and provide human rights for all Nigerian people regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Across Africa, millions of people face starvation, war, oppression, poverty, and death due to a lack of essential aid. For decades, the United States has provided many forms of assistance designed to help nations resolve these problems.

Under the Obama administration, however, humanitarian aid often came with a price tag: Abandoning traditional values, especially those related to contraception, abortion, and marriage.

In 2011, Obama issued a memorandum that directed all U.S. embassies worldwide to promote LGBT rights, which he said were “central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights.”

“Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere,” he said.

That same year, the administration made aid to Nigeria dependent upon it’s not enacting the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act. And before she stepped down as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton compared same-sex relationships to race and sex in a speech that left African leaders furious.

In 2016, at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both suggested that Africa’s war-torn, impoverished nations could attract economic and development aid from the West by becoming more gay-friendly.

This is social engineering at its finest, but it is not limited to redefining marriage. Contraception and abortion policies — carefully disguised as “family planning” — are also pushed upon Nigeria, whose citizens have rejected these mandates, which they consider harmful anti-women policies. (”Family planning:” sound familiar?)

Again, this “ideological colonization” is not limited to Nigeria. During his visit to Kenya, Obama publicly lectured President Uhuru Kenyatta on his nation’s laws against same-sex sexual relationships. According to CNN, sexual relations between males over 14 is illegal and punishable by as many as 14 years in prison.

Think about this: the Obama Administration is the same administration that spent tens of billions of dollars PLUS substantial political capital on that infamous Iranian deal Obama put in place without Congress that included virtually no requirements of performance of any kind by Iran. And Iran outwardly supports terrorists! And then Obama opened relations with Cuba despite requiring NO political reforms from the Castro dictatorship.

African leaders have long opposed Obama’s 21st-century imperialism, especially religious leaders. Ignatius Kaigama, an Archbishop in Nigeria – whose diocese is in the heart of the area affected by the terrorist organization Boko Haram – and Bishop Joseph Osei-Bonsu of Ghana said they were tired of international pressure to legalize gay marriage.

The Nigerian law explains, “Marriage is between a man and a woman… even outside of scriptural support, our culture tells us that, nature tells us that.”

And despite threats of denial of much-needed aid, he says, Africans will not give in to the demands. “These are our cultures, and we’re not going to compromise over them.”

Former Population Research Institute Media and Research Coordinator Anne Morse went to Kenya during the Obama Administration. An observation she made on Facebook explained a lot:

“Dear President Obama,” wrote Morse, “please justify why–for every dollar USAID spends on water and sanitation in Kenya–it spends TWELVE dollars on family planning.” Morse noted that she “had seen four television advertisements for condoms today, but hasn’t had a hot shower since Sunday.”

The worst example of America’s new-age imperialism was found in the growing evidence that President Obama purposely withheld aid to fight the terrorist group Boko Haram. While Buhari’s predecessor was accused of refusing U.S. aid to fight terrorism, what has been less reported is that the refusal came in part because the United States demanded Nigeria change its laws on marriage.

These accusations aren’t just coming from Catholic bishops. A former U.S. Congressman, a Pentagon Army spokesperson, a Nigerian official, and the Nigerian Ambassador to the United States all confirmed this was the case. To quote Ambassador Adebowale Adefuye in his statement to the Council on Foreign Relations, “the U.S. government has refused to grant Nigeria’s request to purchase lethal equipment that would have brought down the terrorists (Boko Haram) within a short time.”

Nigerian-American Winnie Obike, a candidate in political communications at the University of Maryland, said she was “appalled by the Obama administration’s foreign policy objectives for the African continent.”

“It was ironic that a president who passionately apologized for America’s 19th and 20th century imperialism adopted a twenty-first century imperialism toward Africa by forcing nations to change their beliefs on marriage, abortion, and contraception in exchange for basic humanitarian aid,” said Obike, who was the Minority Outreach Coordinator for the Minnesota for Marriage Campaign.

“Nigeria and other African nations need humanitarian aid and help fighting terrorist groups like Boko Haram, not the West’s declining values,” said Obike. “I urge President Buhari not to compromise traditional values in exchange for foreign aid.”

In 2009, President Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize because many hoped he would lead the world to greater peace and security. The world looked in, hoping that he would take action to justify the award. He could have easily done so by setting aside his ideology and focusing on the real aid needed by Nigerians, Kenyans, and many other Africans. As we all know, that did not happen.

Summary

Try as I might, I cannot find any way to reconcile the consistent and non-stop hypocrisy of the actions of House Democrats regarding their faux-impeachment process to rid Washington of Donald Trump. It is unconscionable that they somehow justify their doing so to an alleged demand by President Trump of Ukraine to investigate Biden corruption in Ukraine in exchange for U.S. foreign aid. I’ll say this one more time: Even if the President did just that it would not have been unusual, illegal, but would have been part of his (and that of any other U.S. president) duty as American president to honor the 1999 Treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine to work together to rid each country of corruption of every kind that involved in any way the other’s country or members of its government.

If the truth were known, Rep. Schiff would probably have wanted to instigate impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump if he had NOT restarted corruption investigations by Ukraine IN Ukraine as part of the treaty.

All of the facts of this story have been in the public domain for some time. Yet no one in the Lame-Stream media has made any effort to report the facts. It’s far more palatable for them to continue their nonstop stream of vitriol at this President who refuses to play the Deep State D.C. games to perpetuate the flow of power, control, and money from D.C. to their minions to support their often illegal actions at the expense of the American people.

Isn’t it sad that President Obama was using same-sex marriage and abortion as a bargaining chit for the United States to send money to African nations to buy food, clean water, medical supplies, and to acquire military-grade equipment to destroy the Islamic Terrorist organization Boko Haram? Remember those several hundred young African girls kidnapped and held by Boko Haram for several years in which they were enslaved and turned into sex toys of those terrorists? All of those babies’ horrors and pain and brutality at the hands of those monsters fall on Barack Obama, who refused to fund measures to obliterate those terrorists. Those young girls would have never been kidnapped or turned into sex slaves. And the U.S. President refused because he demanded those African nations to mirror HIS values about sex, abortion, and same-sex marriage. And Obama did all that in the name of the American people.

I don’t know which is worse: Obama doing so or the Media hiding what he did and the details for years from the American people. And today’s Lame-Stream media are trying to turn what Obama DID do into something that President Trump did NOT do. And House Democrats are using the misrepresentations, lies, and lawlessness to impeach the President, and in doing so, subvert the wills of 63 million American voters who voted for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize WAS a joke and is now a travesty thrust on the World that has destroyed a large number of the African people in the name of political elitism. And the World thinks you and I supported his doing so.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“We Are the World, We are the People….”

June 12, 2019

Here we are: two years+ into the Donald Trump Presidency and STILL the United States media do not give this guy any credit. They everyday still throw allegations of wrongdoing, insults regarding his hairstyle, the way he speaks, his skin color, his Queens accent — pretty much in every way a country’s media could demean someone. And when they do it, they laugh and snarl, kind of like they did shortly before Donald Trump announced he was actually running for president in 2016. They started laughing and making fun of him then. They haven’t stopped.

But things are a bit different now: Donald Trump has a political history. No, his political history is not one of his personal foreign policy accomplishments — at least no accomplishments from BEFORE he became President. His “pre-White House” political history probably exists only with his record of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has contributed through the years to local, state, and national candidates whom he supported. Several of those contribution recipients have donned the Democrat mantle of “presidential candidate” and are on the campaign trail for their party’s nomination to take their former “contributor” — Donald Trump — head-on in 2020. And none have very nice things to say about him — but they took his money!

There’s a bit of irony there, don’t you think?

Let’s face facts: this President gets very little support in the U.S., Of course, the ardent Trump supporters in the United States support him. And contrary to how the State Media portray this president, most understand facts and numbers and know what he has done for the country in 2 years. But also, those “Trumpsters” still cannot reconcile the fact that the American Media — NY Times, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post — give President Trump no credit for the economy, foreign trade, millions of new jobs, low unemployment across the board, more people employed than ever, etc. Almost daily there is a collective “SMH” you can almost hear across the nation. (For those of you in downtown Manhattan and San Francisco, “SMH” means “Shake My Head.)

Here’s what we’re going to do today: we’re going to take a look for yourselves at something as simple as Google, do a search, and see what’s important to the media in the U.S. and across the “Pond” regarding this President. It begins with his popularity overseas, takes a look at the domestic and European media portrayals of Mr. Trump’s just completed visit to the U.K., and then we’ll complete today’s offering with a story — a really GOOD story — about “Bubba” from Texas. And Bubba will help explain what the American State Media are missing about Donald Trump. Let’s start here:

Google

Take just a moment and Google this: “What is President Trump’s world favorability number?” I took that challenge, and here are some of the results I found:

“Trump is even more unpopular in Europe than he is in the U.S …”

“Trump’s Approval Rating Is Even Lower Globally, and He’s …”

“How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight”

“Trump Approval Worldwide Remains Low Especially Among Key …”

Notice the stories that Googles’ algorithm popped up with this specific search that had NOTHING to do with Europe. So President Trump’s favorability is low in some countries overseas. And according to media pundits in the U.S., that’s a really big deal. Meghan Markle spurned the President during his recent trip to Britain to celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Though an American by birth, she is now a married member of the Royal Family. Certainly, she was not a Donald Trump fan when he ran for president. And, certainly, members of the British press made very little about the comments made about the President and his response to hers.’ But not so across the Pond! America’s press went nuts with constant negativity about President Trump and details of his trip. Some even made fun of Melania and her attire!

Isn’t it a strange world in which the U.S. media would lambast the President while he makes a trip to the U.K. to join European government leaders and hundreds of World War II veterans celebrating the 75th anniversary of D-Day? Think about it: if the United States had not led the storming of Omaha Beach that day, most of Europe would probably be speaking German today. And the U.S. may have been also.

President Trump was actually applauded in the U.K. press. Not so in the U.S. Here’s a screenshot of a YouTube search with the search term “U.S. Media attacks of President Trump.” It may be too small for you to read, but basically, I’ll summarize the search findings: every story that comes up with THAT search sentence — rather than a video or story about the U.S. media’s attacks of this president — is about a video and/or story of PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTACKING THE MEDIA!

Are you surprised?

Wanna take a look at the headlines from the other side of the Pond — from European news outlets?

“Trump’s U.K. Visit Unites the British”

“Trump’s UK Visit: Trump, May discuss special alliance between the U.S. and the U.K.”

Nile Gardiner: Pres. Trump’s U.K. Visit Possibly His “Most Successful” State Visit

Here are the headlines about the Trump U.K. trip from U.S. Media outlets:

“Ignorant Donald Trump Remarks in Ireland Force Irish PM’s Clarification” (Rachel Maddow via MSNBC)

“Jeremy Hunt Calls Donald Trump a ‘Controversial President'”(Jeremy Hunt: RT )

“Day 1 Of Donald Trump Gaffs” (RT)

“Trolling Calling: Trump Gets ‘Baby Blimp’ Treatment In London” (MSNBC)

“President Donald Trump Causes Controversy In UK Visit” (NBC News)

“Trump an ‘enemy of democracy,’ London protestor says | Trump’s U.K. Visit 2019 (CNBC)

Who Cares?

Let’s cut right to the chase: does anyone in America really care what people in Switzerland, Belgium, Turkey, Russia, or Lichenstein think about President Trump or any U.S. president? I know Barack Obama made it clear he wanted all of us to join all of “them” and become “Citizens of the World” instead of U.S. citizens. I would like for everyone to send me a $100 bill tomorrow, too. But just as certain I am that I will receive no $100 bills from anyone if I asked, I am certain none of us are going to become “Citizens of the World.” Donald Trump does not care to be the “President” or “King” of the World, either. I’m pretty sure Barack Obama would have liked that, though.

So why does anyone here care at all how the British or French or German media feel about President Trump?

It’s kinda like this for me: I love my wife. We’ve been married 44 years. Yes, her paint’s faded, her windshield has a few cracks in it, and her tires are constantly going flat. But you know what? I really like her THE WAY SHE IS! And, quite honestly, I don’t give a rip about what anyone else thinks about her, I think I’m going to keep her. Why? BECAUSE I LIKE WHAT SHE’S DONE AS MY WIFE, MOTHER TO OUR CHILDREN, AND NONNIE TO OUR 6 GRANDCHILDREN.

And I don’t care what anyone else thinks — especially not someone who lives in Zimbabwe!

Here’s what they’re all missing:

Does anyone think a stupid guy from Queens could turn a stake from his father into several billion dollars if he was stupid?
Does anyone think that same guy could build an enterprise from nothing into being the employer of several hundred thousand Americans and maintain it for 30 years?
Does anyone think that stupid guy could create and personally produce (while starring in) a multi-year #1 network television show?

Zig Ziglar is probably using that example in his career building seminars as an example of what someone — ANYONE — is capable of achieving if they only try and never give up.

The Leftist Media (and the Leftists in Congress) are just hacked off because — first of all — he beat their Star in her run for the White House in 2016. Secondly, they feel the way they feel because they do not understand how he operates, what his governing intentions are, and they certainly don’t understand this one thing about him: he makes promises and he KEEPS promises! They are not accustomed to seeing that in any national politician.

So they just stand back and throw rocks at him. Their fundamental premise is this: “He’s dumb, he’s stupid, he doesn’t know anything about politics, and we do. He simply needs to sit down, shut up, and let us tell him what to do and how to do it just like we have in the past.”

Donald Trump is NOT going to ever do that!

The Finish: Bubba

His name was Bubba. He was from Texas but he was in New York City and he needed a loan, So he walked into a bank in the Big Apple and asked for the loan officer.

He told the loan officer that he was going to Paris for an international redneck festival for two weeks and needed to borrow $5,000 and that he was not a depositor of the bank.

The bank officer told him that the bank would need some form of security for the loan, so the Redneck handed over the keys to a new Ferrari. The car was parked on the street in front of the bank.
The Redneck produced the title and everything checked out. The loan officer agreed to hold the car as collateral for the loan and apologized for having to charge 12% interest.

Later, the bank’s president and its officers all enjoyed a good laugh at the Redneck from Texas for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral for a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then drove the Ferrari into the bank’s private underground garage and parked it.

Two weeks later, Bubba returned, repaid the $5,000 and the interest of 23.07. The loan officer said, “Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely, but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out on Dunn & Bradstreet and found that you are a distinguished alumni from the University of Texas, a highly sophisticated investor and multi-millionaire with real estate and financial interests all over the world. Your investments include a large number of wind turbines around Sweetwater, Texas. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”
The good ‘ole boy replied, “Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $23.07 and expect it to be there when I return?”

Moral of the story: “just because he does things a little bit different than you do doesn’t mean he’s stupid! Just look at the results.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Are “Friendlies” Alone with U.S. Troops Out Of Syria?

December 27, 2018

During the 2016 presidential campaign, one of the promises Candidate Trump made to Americans was to get the U.S. out of Syria and to not get involved militarily in foreign countries going forward. He famously put it this way: “I’m not, and I don’t want to be, the president of the world.” So why all the uproar from those on the Left and some on the Right for his recent announcement he was going to pull the last 2000+ members of the American military still in Syria out?

Media Uproar

Who has been surprised to see the constant attacks from the Media with not only the President’s announcement to pull out of Syria but the forced resignation of Secretary of Defense Mattis? They don’t care about Trump’s campaign promises to do so. They don’t care that former President Obama fired Mattis, but didn’t even bother to call the General to fire him. At least Trump met with Mattis multiple times and the Secretary knew of the military strategy disagreement with President Trump. Obama didn’t even do that.

How ridiculous are Mainstream Media members about this? Max Boost of the Washington Post who has been a constant attacker of all-things-Trump illustrated just how ridiculous the MSM is. In April of 2018, he ridiculed the President for the U.S. even having a military presence in Syria. Then in December, he railed against the announcement the President made about pulling ground troops out of Syria.

Can President Trump do anything right?

The answer to that — at least according to the Media is a resounding, “No!”

That strike against Syria prompted the tweet from the Washington Post columnist the next day (shown in the graphic). What’s the point we are reaching to express? Keep reading!

Remember this from April of 2017?

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Mr. Trump said in remarks at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

“Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed, and failed very dramatically,” the president said, referring to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. “As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” The cruise missiles struck the airfield beginning around 8:40 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, and the strikes continued for three to four minutes.

Mattis Media “Matters”

Defense secretaries come and go. President Obama had four of them in eight years, who had some unkind things to say about his leadership or lack of it. There was no talk of chaos or of the only adult in the room leaving. Suddenly, the media are in a meltdown after “Mad Dog” Mattis announced his departure from the Cabinet after President Trump announced our departure from Syria:

Foreign Policy Pentagon reporter Lara Seligman wrote the press corp [sic] is contemplating suicide over Mattis’ resignation, “I think I speak for all national security reporters tonight when I say I’m about ready to jump off a cliff. But at least I already wrote the “who will replace Mattis” story two months (only two months?????) ago[.”]

President Trump is just now completing his first two years as President. Mattis has been Secretary of Defense from the beginning. It is NOT unusual for Presidents to have and make Cabinet changes quite often. The Mattis change is NOT unusual for ANY president to make. And Mattis made it clear in his letter of resignation that he was leaving for “fundamental” differences with President Trump on foreign military actions — specifically on the pending drawdown of troops from Syria.

As this report for you is being prepared, the American media and much of the World were surprised to hear that the President and Mrs. Trump paid a secret visit to U.S. troops in Iraq the day after Christmas. This trip and the media’s response to it are humorous to me. I watched last week as the President’s troop withdrawal plan was released as NBC blasted the President not only for the troop withdrawal from Syria but the fact that President Trump had not visited any troops on foreign soil. NBC reported that this way:

“On Christmas Day, President Donald Trump took part in a long-running practice of presidents who called troops stationed around the country and the world. But he broke from a recent tradition of actually visiting troops and wounded warriors. He did so in 2017 when he visited wounded troops at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Dec. 21 (and invited Coast Guard service members to play golf at his course in West Palm Beach, Florida). By staying home on Tuesday, Trump became the first president since 2002 who didn’t visit military personnel around Christmastime.”

I cannot wait to see who says what in a negative fashion about the President’s trip. You can bet he will get NO media credit for the trip!

Summary

The bottom line is this: no matter what this President does or does NOT do regarding the American military, the Mainstream Media will demean him. Oh, how horrible it is to withdraw from Syria. They make it sound like we’ve had tens of thousands of troops there for years and that our ground forces leaving Syria will leave millions of Syrians in harm’s way. “ISIS is there and will slaughter them all!” Or “President Assad will gas his own citizens now that America is gone!” The MSM makes it seem in all their reporting that the U.S. has had thousands of troops on the ground and even have military bases there. What they do NOT talk about is U.S. military capabilities when those tens of thousands of ground troops and the HUGE military infrastructure put in place in Syria are pulled out!

Wait….how many troops do we have on the ground in Syria? Let’s turn to the Washington Post that gave us the dire consequences of the pending massive U.S. troop pullout of Syria:

U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria is ‘a dream come true for the Iranians’

BEIRUT — One of the biggest winners of President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria will be Iran, which can now expand its reach across the Middle East with Washington’s already waning influence taking another hit.

The abrupt reversal of U.S. policy regarding its small military presence in a remote but strategically significant corner of northeastern Syria has stunned U.S. allies, many of whom were counting on the Trump administration’s seemingly tough posture on Iran to reverse extensive gains made by Tehran in recent years.

Instead, the withdrawal of troops opens the door to further Iranian expansion, including the establishment of a land corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean that will enhance Iran’s ability to directly challenge Israel. It also throws in doubt Washington’s ability to sustain its commitment to other allies in the region and could drive many of them closer to Russia, an Iranian ally, analysts say.

“This is a dream come true for the Iranians,” said Riad Kahwaji, who heads the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, a defense consultancy in Dubai. “No longer will Iran take the Trump administration seriously. It’s an isolationist administration, it will no longer pose a threat, and Iran will become bolder in its actions because they know this administration is more bark than bite.”

A top Iranian official gloated Friday that the United States has admitted failure in its attempts to “overrun” the Middle East, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.

“The Americans have come to the conclusion that they can exercise power neither in Iraq and Syria nor in the entire region,” said Brig. Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, the commander of ground forces of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, at a news conference in Tehran. The most immediate impact will be in Syria, where U.S. troops have been serving as a buffer against Iranian expansion throughout the country as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — backed by Iranian-trained and funded militias — consolidates control over areas that rebelled against him in 2011. The area in northeastern Syria where most of an estimated 2,000 U.S. troops are based is now up for grabs, with both Turkey and the Syrian government vying for control.

Here’s the Truth about the U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria:

We have just a little over 2000 troops in Syria;
It is doubtful that Iran would attempt to overrun Syria with their own troops while U.S. forces are there. But knowing the U.S. commitment to Syria, it is doubtful that the withdrawal will open the door to the Iranians;
How long if needed will it take for the U.S. to deploy and activate troops BACK to Syria if needed? According to experts, it would take no more than 24-48 hours to do so;
What could the U.S. do in Syria during that 1-2 day period to get ground troops back? The U.S. could duplicate what it did to Syrian and Russian troops in 2017 to stop the gassing by Assad. NBC News reported this about U.S. action against Assad in April of 2017:
The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 100 people. At least six people were killed, Syria claimed, but the Pentagon said civilians were not targeted and the strike was aimed at a military airfield in Homs. All but one of the missiles hit their intended target, one U.S. military official told NBC News. The other missile failed. The missiles were fired from the destroyers Porter and Ross in the eastern Mediterranean.” The U.S. decimated Syria without a single person on the ground when that very effective missile strike took place. That or a similar attack could be initiated in a matter of hours.

The bottom line is this: no matter what the President does or does not do, he will NEVER satisfy his detractors. And the mouthpieces of the Democrat Party — the Mainstream Media — will never give the President credit for ANY accomplishment. So why wouldn’t the President simply do what he promised Americans during his 2016 campaign that he would do?

Wait a minute: U.S. Presidents are not supposed to do what they promise during campaigns. So why would President Trump feel any obligation to keep any of his promises?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

What “Really” Happened to Khashoggi

December 17, 2018

We are all familiar with the horrific murder of the Saudi journalist Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Istanbul, Turkey. While the fact that an international journalist with significant U.S. ties was brutally murdered, the fact that it happened in a country with which the U.S. has close ties — Turkey — opens Pandora’s box of international anger, hatred, and fear.

Here in the U.S., almost all Americans are outraged that Khashoggi was killed by Saudi rebels that have apparent close ties to the Saudi government. The incident has put the U.S. government in a quandary: do we as a nation have an obligation to take actions against the Saudi government? Should we take political or other actions against our ally? If so, how serious should they be?

We have stood still, waiting for results of the CIA investigation into the matter is completed and evidence is complete. But American sentiment — especially from those on the left — is to do something significant against the Saudis, and do something significant NOW. But what should that be?

It’s VERY obvious the anti-Trump clan wants the President to take action of some sort immediately. However, it is unclear if their reasoning is to simply inflict pain on the Saudi government for the act of murder conducted in another American ally’s territory — Turkey. Some think those same people clamoring for retribution would be the first to pounce on the President regardless of what action he would choose. In fact, the Saudis when these U.S. sanctions were first mentioned immediately made it clear that if the U.S. took any punitive action against Saudi Arabia, they would raise the price of oil to $100 a barrel immediately. That would cripple the U.S. So what should we do and when?

Before we get to our recommendation, it is worthy to note that there is another reason for the Khashoggi murder other than the common explanation which is that the Saudi government was committed to ridding the World of the international journalist who spent significant time bashing the Saudis. Let’s look at the “other” explanation.

Conspiracy Theory

The “other” story assumes there really is a “Cabal” or “International Deep State” in quiet political power behind the scenes. It is comprised of individuals, families, and groups who possess great power throughout the world. Those people (for this other possibility to be real) are assumed to be angry as they watch their power being eroded by a U.S. President who, while firm in dealing with foreign affairs, is being fair with all his foreign counterparts. The relationships between President Trump and other foreign leaders are based on HIS conclusions of their positions, intentions, and actions that occur during HIS tenure in the White House. He has no intention of letting others develop his opinions of other leaders, their countries, or their intentions in foreign affairs.

And for this to play out, this “Cabal” or “Deep State” needed to somehow get Saudi Arabia in the disfavor of the new U.S. President. They hold power over most of the World’s monetary system and resources. However, the Saudis hold the principle power over oil.

Here’s how this Conspiracy Theory looks:

1) Trump had a sit down with the King of Saudi Arabia last year. The King held a Sword Dance to honor President Trump.

2) Then last November, the House of Saud got cleaned up. The Ritz Hotel became a jail. A certain Prince was stripped naked and hung upside down from the ceiling, to let the others know they ain’t messing around.

3) While “Deep State” is an American term, let’s call it “The New World Order” or “Global Cabal” for the International level. Anyway, they lose their inside-men within the Saudi Kingdom, as Mohammed Bin Salman cleans up.

4) The Global Cabal, led by such families as the Rothschild and Payseur families, need to get back at Saudi Arabia. Specifically, they need to take MBS out. They set a trap, and this Khashoggi character becomes a pawn to be sacrificed.

5) Khashoggi dies. MBS (Mohammed Bin Salaam) is blamed. Ideally, this will set a rift between Trump and Saudi Arabia, as Trump will have to give in to pressure and place sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

6) This doesn’t happen. Saudi Arabia flips the Rothschild’s and Paysuers a big Middle-Finger and immediately tanks the price of oil. The price of oil falls immediately after the Khashoggi incident. Currently, it has dropped $20 a barrel and is still falling.

7) This is the last thing the Rothschild’s and Payseur’s expect. They never thought the Saudi king would play economic warfare, and start messing with the Petro-Dollar.

8) The Rothschild’s and Payseur’s are caught short, with the unexpected loss in energy costs. Their losses in other industries are huge, as they were heavily invested in energy, and expecting those stocks and profits to climb.

9) With the Saudi’s crashing oil, a big squeeze is placed on Iran. Trump reinstated sanctions and closed loopholes that were open for years, that allowed Iran to sell oil on the Black Market. What little oil Iran is selling now, is worth a lot less.

10) While Iran is “oil-rich,” they are terribly inefficient at getting it out of the ground. Their cost per barrel is the worst in OPEC. This slashes their profit margin and makes them more susceptible to downturns in the market.

11) The Global Cabal, and/or CIA, isn’t funding Iran terrorism anymore. Obama isn’t sending plane-loads of cash to Iran in the dead of night.

12) All of Iran’s funding for terrorism is being dried up, with sanctions and now cheap oil– accompanied by high costs of drilling and refining.

13) Trump and Saudi Arabia are about to corner Iran.

14) There is Option A: Give up on terrorism, and cut the Rothschild – Payseur strings, or be overthrown by your own people. If there is an uprising in Iran, Trump and America will support it (unlike Obama).

15) Option B: Walk away from the Evil Puppet-Masters, and become a peaceful member of the World Community. First Saudi Arabia, then North Korea, and now Iran.

16) Iran has a choice, either the hard way or the easy way–but business as usual is over.

17) The Cabal (Rothschild-Payseur), never thought Saudi Arabia would be crazy enough to tank the price of oil. They thought the Saudi’s loved money as much as they do.

18) They never thought Trump and the Saudi’s would go on the offense after Khashoggi’s “death.” They thought Trump would play defense, and betray the Saudi King. They were wrong.

19) Trump and the Saudi King are letting the world know they control the Petro-Dollar now and will tank the price of oil as much as it is necessary. The strings have been cut, and we have entered Petro-Dollar warfare with the death of Khashoggi.

Summary

First let’s be clear: we should NOT act at all against the Saudis until all the facts are in. Yes, Turkey completed their investigation and concluded Saudi assassins coordinated and perpetrated the Khashoggi murder in a brutal fashion, even scattering Khashoggi body parts in various parts of the Saudi embassy in Istanbul. Their conclusion contains a certainty that Mohammed Bin Salaam (or “MBS”) at least knew of the killing in advance if not having ordered it.

Secondly: when (if at all) is it our business when a foreign country takes actions it may deem necessary against one of their own citizens. Yes, we do not agree with such a process so egregious, but on what legal basis does the U.S. take any such actions against MBS or Saudi Arabia? The answer is simple: legal action by the U.S. would be required to occur before The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ). The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. It comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Even if that was the course chosen for action against Saudi Arabia, facts and evidence of the Khashoggi killing would be necessary. All the World has as evidence so far are the findings of Turkey. Quite honestly, this court is a part of the United Nations. And we know how the U.N. looks at the U.S. I don’t think we would have such standing in such a case. And I’m certain so too would be the ICJ.

Third: Can you imagine how the Left would respond if President Trump went ahead and leveled extreme sanctions against the Saudi government? Their response would be quick — and deadly. Assuming the Saudis would follow-through with their threats of extreme oil price hikes, the U.S. would certainly experience massive cost hikes that would be devastating and even disastrous. Almost everything in the U.S. requires transportation — which means reliance of petroleum products. The costs for these increases would certainly be passed along by companies to consumers: $3 – $5 per gallon gasoline prices.

What should we do? Absolutely nothing beyond what we have already done until ALL the facts are in. If one assumes that the above theory is true, jumping the gun without facts to legitimize any such actions would be foolish and needless. I doubt any international court without hard facts that prove members of the Saudi ruling family had been involved in a murder, taking action prematurely (other than just notifying the Saudis of our investigation and our intentions if they are exposed as being complicit in the killing) would initiate a atrocious and deadly financial crisis the U.S. does not need to bring on itself — at anytime.

Let facts play out. The Saudis certainly have their faults and dirty laundry. Remember: Osama bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi native. Most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi. How stupid would it be for us to — strictly for political purposes — take any action without having all the facts.

But then again, doing so has become almost commonplace in Washington D.C. “Fly by the seat of your pants” seems to be the accepted operating procedure for D.C. politically correct elites. Their motto: “Never let facts get in the way of a juicy story.”

Sadly it seems that D.C. has learned to rely on salaciousness as an effective and allowable tool for fighting with political opponents. That comes in Leftists’ world with this caveat: “No price is too high to levy on people who have gone against Leftist causes.”

It looks like Donald Trump and the Saudi royals have stepped in a PC ant hill. No matter where they choose to stand, they’re still going to sustain a much of ant bites.

Stay tuned: much, much more still to come on the “Khashoggi Story.” It’s going to be fun to see if the “Conspiracy Theory” detailed above will actually play out in the next few months.

If I was pressed to vote I’d have to vote “no” on doing anything Saudi related at this moment.

Think about this: can we with any credibility expect the World to respect us and just simply overlook all the unilateral and unsubstantiated actions the U.S. would take if we act now? Actually, if we DO act before we know factually what happened in Turkey, it would be doing so based totally on emotion and a “gut feeling.” We don’t need to go down that road. We have a house to take back, and we cannot expect that would go down nicely.

Meeting with Kim Jong Un: Good or Bad?

June 13, 2018

The answer to that question is certainly subjective. What is odd to me is that even Conservative members of the media are at best cautious about any positive results of this meeting. Even FOX News — with the exception of Sean Hannity — is being very cautious. Why do you think that is? We’ll analyze that today. Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

North Korea Summit: Will it Ever Happen?

May 25, 2018

Congressional Leftists are crying “The Sky is Falling” because Donald Trump canceled the summit with North Korea. They do NOT really care to understand the reasoning — and the ART OF A DEAL that is obviously at play here. Listen today to the conversation with multiple members of Congress about wildly varying thoughts about the cancellation of the summit and what’s ahead. Thank’s for listening!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“Pajama Boy” has the Left on Fire!

March 12, 2018

Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice on North Korea: Obama era and Trump

(In December, 2017) Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said that the U.S. has consistently failed to curtail North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, even during the Obama era. “You can call it a failure,” Rice told CNN. “I accept that characterization of the efforts of the United States over the last two decades.”

Rice advocated in an opinion piece in the New York Times that President Trump should tamp down his rhetoric and learn to live with a nuclear North Korea. “History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” she wrote. “It will require being pragmatic.”

(March, 2018) Susan Rice on Friday questioned President Donald Trump’s ability to successfully execute a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and she warned an unsuccessful meeting could increase the risk of conflict. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Rice this after the meeting invitation came to Washington from Kim Jong Un: “What is the downside, if there is this big-flags-waving, red carpet summit and then no results?” Mitchell asked the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and national security adviser. “I think it’s very risky,” Rice said. “It risks the president’s credibility, the credibility of the United States, and worse still, I think it increases the risk of conflict if they go into something with very high expectations, poor preparation, and the president acting in his typically mercurial way. “We could end up in a much worse place then we are today,” Rice warned.

Democrat Congressional Members on North Korea

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the president should temper his trademark bellicose style. “The President must abandon his penchant for unscripted remarks and bombastic rhetoric to avoid derailing this significant opportunity for progress,” he said.
Rep. Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, was purely cynical, reacting to former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau’s assertion that Trump hasn’t made any deals as president. Of President Trump’s planned meeting with Kim Jong Un: “It will not end well.”
“Sitting at the table is the easy part,” Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said. “Solving this problem is hard.”
The consensus among the loyal opposition was that Kim emerged the victor in this initial skirmish simply by earning equal standing with the leader of the free world. “The worst-case outcome for U.S. is also the most likely — a great, legitimizing photo op for Kim, and no material commitment on disarmament,” tweeted Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
“Alarmingly, the United States enters into this arrangement with a serious dearth of regional experts and experienced negotiators: a hollowed out State Department, no U.S. envoy for North Korea negotiations, and no ambassador to South Korea,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.

Media On the Trump/Kim Jong Un Meeting

Jimmy Kimmel: Kimmel described the Trump-Kim get-together as “The two worst haircuts in the world, together.” He continued, “The North Korean leader promises to meet by May. By May? Trump’s not still going to be president by May. This need to happen by Wednesday.”
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “What appears to have happened is the following: Trump was told that in the talks between North and South, Kim Jong Un expressed a wish to meet with him, and Trump jumped at the opportunity. Henry Kissinger has often said that presidential summits should be the climax of a long negotiating process, not the beginning. Trump’s gambit turns that dictum on its head. Victor Cha, once slated to be Trump’s ambassador to South Korea, warns that a presidential summit is dangerous because if it fails, it leaves little room for further diplomacy. The outcome, he says, could actually end up being war.”
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: The hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” slammed President Trump over his potential meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “It’s all bluster, there’s no deal, because he doesn’t know how to make a deal,” co-host Joe Scarborough said Friday. “He’s horrible at making deals. That’s why the man ended up $9 billion in debt.”
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “You might think another president in this circumstance, you can imagine a president asking himself or herself, “why has no other American president ever agreed to do this? Why has no sitting American president ever met with a leader from North Korea? Why has that never happened in all the decades North Korea existed as a nation? Should I take that to mean that this might be particularly risky or even an unwise move?” Maddow continued, ““I think a lot of people probably suspect tonight that those are not the kinds of questions that this president asked himself before agreeing to this meeting,” she said. “But this is the president we have and he said yes to North Korea.”

North Korea’s Neighboring Countries on the Trump/Kim Jong Un Meeting

China: “We … support the alleviation of the peninsula situation, and the positive inter-Korean and U.S.-North Korea interactions,” said China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Geng Shuang. He added that China will continue to play a positive and constructive role in a political resolution to the nuclear issue, after being asked if China is willing to host the meeting.
Japan: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters Friday that he had spoken with Trump by phone, and they had agreed to continue putting maximum pressure on North Korea. Thursday’s announcement was the result of strong U.S.-Japanese coordination, he said. There were times like this when North Korea stabbed us in the back. Abe also issued a clear note of caution: “Until North Korea takes actual steps towards a complete inspection of their nuclear weapons and missiles, and their irreversible abandonment, this will not sway the absolute position of Japan and the United States that we will continue to apply the greatest amount of pressure.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — whose government is also one of Pyongyang’s few allies — told the TASS news agency that he was glad to see “a dialogue based on mutual respect” as opposed to “threats, ultimatums and unilateral sanctions.”
Australia Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: “This meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un could be an historical event depending on its results.” The Aussie stated further that coupled with Australia’s stiff sanctions, these meeting could be successful for the Korean people, North Korea’s neighbors, and all other countries in the Region.

Summary

Does it really matter what policies or legislation Donald Trump proposes? Does it really matter to the anti-Trumpsters what huge successes the Nation has experienced after his first year in office from those policies and that historical tax cut law? No, it makes no difference at all.

Can you believe that China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea along with Australia to the south are not only supportive of this meeting, they ALL praise it’s happening! But woe is America — according to the U.S. Left.

Here’s what Americans are beginning in droves to realize: Mainstream media, Democrats, and many establishment GOP members have huge personal investment in a Trump failure while in the White House. That investment has nothing to do with governing the country by the will of the People. By Donald Trump’s achievements, their plans are thwarted already! And they are all gritting their teeth at every victory.

It’s not just meeting with Kim Jong Un. It’s not just the largest tax deduction for the middle class and corporations in modern history. It’s not just the earthquake that happens almost daily with the zooming stock market. It’s not just the almost immediate resumption of manufacturing and new energy production in the U.S. resulting in several million new jobs — 300,000 of those last month. It’s not just the amazing reception by foreign leaders when they meet Trump because of his no-nonsense messaging that is straight to the point. It’s ALL of the above.

Donald Trump refuses to fit into their D.C. cookie-cutter mold of “How to function in D.C. politics.” He brought his own cookie-cutter with him, he’s using it, and it’s working.

I must be honest: sometimes his blustery tweets and campaign-rally rhetoric make me feel a bit uncomfortable. But he’s not the only person in my life for whom I have great respect who sometimes embarrass me a bit. I accept their momentary embarrassment of me. Why? Because they are genuine and have credibility with me. You know what? Donald Trump does too.

No doubt he brags. But to steal a quote from Howard Cosell regarding Deion Sander’s bragging about his NFL football prowess: “It ain’t bragging if he can do it.”

Trump’s doing it.

“To Tariff or not To Tariff?”

March 8, 2018

A short while ago I spent several weeks in Switzerland, which included several weekend trips to Milan, Munich, Innsbruck, and even little Lichtenstein. I’m a Harley guy, have a couple, and went to Harley dealers in these places to look. Needless to say, pricing in these European locations was significantly different than for Harley’s sold in the U.S., even factoring in the cost of international shipping. Why are they different?

One of the most memorable lines in President Trump’s address to Congress this week was when he cited Harley-Davidson as an example of a great American product facing as much as 100% tariffs in one country abroad — in this case, in India. Trump didn’t mention it, but India is not the only country that discourages Harley’s international sales. Thailand imposes 60% tariffs and China 30%, levels not seen in the U.S. since the 1930s following the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that raised tariffs to marked highs. Members of the European Union do not level large tariffs on many U.S. products, but there are tariffs imposed. And it’s not just on Harley’s. In the interest of fairness, however, we must note that the U.S. imposes tariffs on European automobile imports that come into the U.S. Virtually every government on Earth that imports goods into their country imposes tariffs. It is a central government revenue stream upon which many countries rely for financial survival.

So why all of a sudden did President Trump raise the conversation about U.S. tariffs to be imposed on the U.S. import of steel and aluminum?

The Commerce Department is urging President Trump to consider hefty tariffs and quotas to limit the import of steel and aluminum, after concluding that the rising flow of those foreign-made products constitutes a threat to America’s national security. The recommendations were contained in a report released by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose agency tapped a rarely used provision of U.S. trade law in investigating whether steel and aluminum imports could pose harm to the country’s defense or security interests.

Trump has promised to take more aggressive trade actions to protect American manufacturers, and the findings by Commerce give the president wide discretion to curb imports, although he could decide not to take any action at all. Trump has until mid-April to issue his decision. Domestic steel and aluminum manufacturers, along with lawmakers from big steel-producing states, have been pressing Trump to apply stiff measures against foreign producers, particularly targeting China.

The Commerce Department’s recommendations to Trump listed three options for steel: a 24% tariff on all imports from all countries; a targeted tariff of at least 53% on imports from a dozen trading partners, plus quotas on steel shipments from other nations; or a global quota that equals 63% of each country’s steel exports to the U.S. in 2017. Ross also recommended three options on aluminum tariffs and quotas, although they were less restrictive. It is expected the President will announce those tariffs in the next few days.

Furor

The President’s announcement of possible tariffs has set the World on fire. Foreign leaders, members of Congress, American business leaders, and of course the Media, have all weighed-in. Most of their comments have been negative, promising financial doom for the United States that imposing import tariffs would initiate. There IS precedent. President Bush implemented significant tariffs in 2002 similar to those proposed by President Trump:

“President Bush took some of the broadest federal action in two decades to protect a major American industry today, imposing tariffs of up to 30 percent on most types of steel imported into the United States from Europe, Asia and South America. The tariffs will last three years, he said, to give American steel producers time to consolidate operations and stem layoffs.

Mr. Bush’s action is likely to send the price of steel up sharply, perhaps as much as 10 percent, a cost American consumers will ultimately bear in higher prices for autos, appliances and housing. The United States imports about a quarter of the steel it consumes, though Mr. Bush exempted steel made in Mexico, Canada and developing nations from the tariffs announced today. The nations hardest hit are Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Germany and Brazil.

Within minutes of the White House announcement, America’s European allies and Japan said they would almost certainly challenge the action before the World Trade Organization, setting the stage for a major trade fight with many of the same countries Mr. Bush is trying to hold together in the fractious coalition against terrorism.”

The results of the Bush tariffs were mixed, as are most all international economic policy results. In this case it depends on who is speaking.

The levy of tariffs result is NOT certain as many who are against tariffs claim. No one can predict their success or failure if/when the President assesses them just ahead. But I am not certain President Trump really intends for tariffs IF assessed will be severe and permanent. And he in direct contravention of his messaging may NOT implement levies at all. Let me explain:

First, the current import-export process is not working for the U.S. American businesses and ultimately citizens pay massive tariffs for goods we import while foreign governments get by virtually scot-free.
How is it not working? Last month the U.S. trade deficit was $56 Billion! That means (including foreign tariffs) more was paid by the U.S. for its goods than foreign entities paid for our goods.
The American government has historically touted tariffs as a way to level the playing field. Is there anyone who can support a narrative that says the current import-export system is fair for the U.S.?

Summary

Donald Trump is a salesman. He has demonstrated a fundamental sales tool again and again since taking office: negotiation. When one negotiates, an offer to sell is always higher than the seller is willing to accept; an offer to purchase is always lower than the buyer is willing to pay in both first offers. Negotiations almost always occur to reach a satisfactory mutually acceptable price to sell and to buy. Regarding tariffs: DONALD TRUMP IS NEGOTIATING!

“If” tariffs are actually put in place, it is to send a message to our international trading partners: the U.S. is willing to be a “good” trading partner for any and all countries, BUT, trades need to be restructured so as to be fair for BOTH trading parties. Trade Fairness is what defines “good” partners. Almost all of the U.S. international trade deals are one-sided — and not one-sided for the U.S.
“If” tariffs are actually put in place, they can easily be adjusted or even cancelled in a moments notice by the President. If they happen to work for the benefit of the United States, why not give them a try? Specific financial results will be verifiable in 30-45 days.
Here’s a novel idea: what if doing so can slash that 1-month $56 Billion trade deficit pretty quickly — maybe not eliminate that deficit but cut it sharply. In this present scenario, wouldn’t it be nice to cut it to “just” $10-$20 Billion?
Some countries will simply stop importing and exporting to and from the U.S. because of unsatisfactory tariffs charged by the U.S. government. But many rely on American goods to be brought into their countries, and obviously rely heavily to sell THEIR goods in the U.S. market. That means, of course, American manufacturers, automobile dealerships, produce operations, and many other business types will see the market demand for their products skyrocket. Why? Supply and Demand: the lifeblood of the Free Market System will kick in immediately. That means quickly a need for more jobs, people to fill them, new orders by manufacturing firms which will demand increased production, much increased sales and management personnel hiring for distribution operations increased demand.
The threat of tariffs could simply be President Trump’s “line in the sand.” He has already shown a different concept than his predecessor used in Syria — that famous Obama “don’t make me come back there” threat regarding Syria’s use of gas on its citizens. They crossed Obama’s red line and Syrian people died from Syrian government gas. Obama did nothing about Syria’s stomping all over his red line. Trump is not Obama.

I have laughed over and over again watching and listening to anti-tariff Americans forecast gloom and doom for the American economy with tariff implementation. And it’s not just Leftist Media members and Democrats. A bunch of Republicans are beating the same drum.

Give it a rest, guys! Regardless of your fired rescue flares hoping the President will see and respond to, there is NO reason for panic. (unless, of course, their doing so is purely for political and election purposes — which is likely) Pretty much every policy Donald Trump has proposed that ends up in place has been amazingly successful — especially his economic policies. To that end, why not give him a shot? As I said above, they can always be removed as quickly as they are put in place.

Tariffs are NOT the end of the World.

Reap and Sow

January 27, 2017

Several took me to task when I wrote of my concern for the Obama Administration’s U.N. action in abstaining from a Security Council Resolution vote to sanction Israel for occupying certain lands. I tied that to God’s blessings of the U.S. for its long-standing Israeli support in the U.N. and elsewhere in the past. But the U.S. support has not always been there on certain matters. And in those cases when former U.S. presidents have initiated actions that may have not been in Israel’s best interests, not only did the God-support go away, some bad things apparently happened. Here are some examples:

When Bush 41 proudly promoted and signed the Oslo Accord at the Madrid Peace Conference October 30, 1991, (which was an attempt to divide the land of Israel in exchange for “peace” with the Palestinians) the next day the famous “Perfect Storm” struck the northeast U.S. The storm defied all previous weather logic as it savaged both land and sea;
Madrid Conference #1 was not successful, so Bush tried it again one year later. The 1992 Conference was August 23^rd – the same day Hurricane Andrew crashed into Florida causing over $30 billion of damage destroying 180,000 homes. Andrew was termed “the worst natural disaster to strike America;”
September 13, 1993, President Bush (41 again) signed that famous “land for peace” Oslo Peace Accord. That same day Hurricane Emily slammed into the Outer Banks with 115 mph winds;
President Clinton met with terrorist and Israel hater Syria’s President Hafez el-Assad in Geneva January 16, 1994. They discussed a peace agreement with Israel that included Israel giving up the Golan Heights. The next day a 6.9 earthquake rocked California. It was termed “the second most destructive natural disaster in U.S. history, second to Hurricane Andrew;”
January 21, 1998, President Clinton met with Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Clinton and Secretary of State Madeline Albright refused to have lunch with Netanyahu. Later that same day the Monica Lewinsky scandal was released to the World. Impeachment proceedings against Clinton were not far behind;
Secretary of State Albright finished details of an agreement which required Israel to surrender 13% OF Judah and Samaria. Clinton met with Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu to finalize another “land for peace” deal. September 28, 1998, Arafat addressed the U.N. and declared an independent Palestinian state by May 1999. The same day Hurricane George hit the Gulf Coast with winds up to 175 mph. It caused $1 billion in damage. At the exact time Arafat left the U.S., the storm subsided;
October 15, 1998, Arafat and Netanyahu met at the Wye River Plantation in Maryland. The talks were to last 5 days with Israel giving up 13% of Yesha. Talks extended and concluded October 23. Two days later tornadoes hit south Texas. Floods ravaged 25% of Texas with over $1 billion in damages. Clinton declared the region a disaster area;
November 30, 1998, Arafat was back in Washington to meet with Clinton to raise money for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. 42 other nations were represented. They agreed to give Arafat $3 billion in aid. Clinton promised $400 million. The same day the Dow Jones average dropped 216 points, and the next day the European Market had its 3^rd worst day in history. Hundreds of billions of market capitalization were wiped out in the U.S. and Europe;
On December 12, 1998, Clinton arrived at the Palestinian controlled section of Israel to discuss another “land for peace” deal. The same day the U.S. House of Representatives voted 4 articles of impeachment against President Clinton;
May 3, 1999, Yasser Arafat announced a press conference to present a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital. The most powerful tornado storm system ever to hit the U.S. whipped through Oklahoma and Kansas that day. Winds were clocked at 316 mph, the fastest ever recorded. Arafat postponed his announcement;
June 8, 2001, Bush 43 sent Secretary Tenet to Jerusalem to promote his “Roadmap to Peace,” the continuation of the failed Oslo Accord signed by his father. Tropical storm Allison hit Texas – Bush’s home – causing over $7 billion of damages the next 5 days;
The U.S. pressured Israel to give up the Gaza Strip. Israel gave in and gave it up, evacuating all Israelis. The exact day the last settlers were evacuated from the Gaza Strip, a tropical storm formed near the Bahamas, and just days later on August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast nearly completely destroying New Orleans. More than 1000 people died, and is now the greatest Natural Disaster in U.S. history.

I believe God cares about Israel. I believe all of His promises to bless those who bless Israel. I believe His promises to curse those who curse Israel. Are each of the above occurrences tied to those curses?

God in Genesis 8 gave the greatest laws of Nature to Man. After the Great Flood, God promised Noah He would never flood Earth again and that He would initiate 4 Laws that would never change: there will always be Night and Day; there will always be Summer and Winter; there will always be hot and cold; there will always be sowing and reaping. The first 3 are self-explanatory. The 4^th needs explaining and is VERY different from the first 3:

“Sow and reap” is the Natural process of planting seed and harvesting crops – the way Man has fed the World for centuries. What is planted is exactly what grows. But this applies not only to farming, but also to the entire Human process. We are constantly planting seeds. We plant with our actions and our words. And though we do not think of those having literal outcomes, they always do. i.e. when we scream at our children, our screams result in anger, fear, and sometimes hate from our kids. When we lie to our spouses, those lies become seed and always return to us – sometimes with lies coming back from them. Bottom line: when you plant apple seeds, don’t expect peaches to grow – apples are what we reap.

Like it or not, the above tragedies did NOT just happen: they are part of the “Sow and reap” process God mapped out for Noah. Some today call this “what goes around comes around.” Whatever you call it, it happens this way EVERY time.

What will happen to the U.S. this time?