++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The elites in D.C have stabbed more people than in Baltimore and all of California combined. Their desire to rid Trump of Bolton continues to gather momentum. Though D.C has not declared itself a sanctuary city look for those who are drawing the long knives because it tells the story. Bolton is now their avowed target.
John Bolton, unlike those who kissed Obama's ring, is clear eyed, hawkish and just what Trump needs for balance because the Warren's of this world, as the article points out, would apparently sacrifice a chunk of America.
I do not believe our Constitution should be subservient to the U.N's Charter and I always felt Wendell Wilkie's "One World Theory" was a hopeless and unrealistic dream.
When it comes to foreign policy you always need a "Big Stick" person. The Kerry and Jimmie Carter's of this world's approach does not even rise to the status of a "splinter." (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even when Trump does everything required of the president the haters would rather play politics, raise money off a tragedy than do what is right for our nation.
For Democrats to tell a president he should not come to console, to have a conversation regarding future legislation and to learn is totally disgraceful.
Doofus, Warren and Beto need to look in the mirror then drop out of the campaign. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I have written , when the final Collusion Investigation has been revealed we will find that it was orchestrated by those who hate Trump, could not embrace his win and will go right to the top of the former administration. (See 3 below.)
https://www.americanthinker.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bibi has the same polling conclusions as Trump. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) All John Bolton’s Wars
What do the Iranian regime, the New York Times and Sen. Rand Paul have in common?
It's the mainstream media that projects a similar line to global dictators Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Not National Security Adviser John Bolton. Image: Getty
“I believe Mr. Trump does not seek war. But Mr. Bolton and Netanyahu have always sought war.” Thus spoke Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, at a Monday press conference in Tehran. It’s not the first time Mr. Zarif has tried to drive a wedge between President Trump and his national security adviser, John Bolton—or between the president and his most steadfast international ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But for Mr. Bolton, Mr. Zarif implies, we could have peace in the Middle East tomorrow.
Iran’s foreign minister has plenty of support for his argument. Scarcely a week goes by without some article warning the president that Mr. Bolton is leading him to war. The same folks who pound the president for being soft on the world’s worst thugs then oddly side with the thugs against the White House official who takes them on.
There can be no doubting Mr. Bolton’s unpopularity in Dictatorsville. The North Koreans blame Mr. Bolton (along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) for the “atmosphere of hostility and mistrust” that fouled the Hanoi summit in February. In Moscow last year, Vladimir Putin asked Mr. Bolton whether he’d removed the olive branches on the American seal.
Venezuela’s besieged dictator, Nicolás Maduro, charges Mr. Bolton with trying to have him assassinated. Cuba’s foreign minister calls Mr. Bolton a “pathological liar” for accusing the Communist island of fomenting revolution in South America. China denounces him for slander for saying Beijing’s behavior toward its Southeast Asian neighbors threatens peace. Along with the New York Times and the Rand Paul/Pat Buchanan axis of the Republican Party, the dictators would all love to see Mr. Bolton run out of the West Wing.
But if war isn’t what’s guiding Mr. Bolton, what is? At bottom it’s the conviction that diplomacy and multilateral organizations are fine—as long as they serve American interests. In the Bolton version, America First means the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over the U.N. Charter.
For all the talk about Mr. Bolton’s wish to go to war with Iran, the actual policy has been more limited: pulling out of a bad nuclear deal, applying economic sanctions, isolating Tehran diplomatically, designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and, more recently, building a coalition to protect oil tankers in the Persian Gulf from Iranian aggression. One way of interpreting Mr. Zarif’s increasing complaints is as an admission that Iran’s regime is feeling the pinch—and that it longs for the days when it was dealing with the malleable John Kerry.
Ditto for North Korea. Before joining the administration, Mr. Bolton wrote a piece on these pages called “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First,” so naturally his critics assume that’s the game plan. But again the actual policy has been maximum pressure short of war, along with summits. Notwithstanding Mr. Trump’s skepticism about using massive military force, moreover, surely he would side with Mr. Bolton over Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced a no-first-use nuclear policy during the last Democratic debate. In practice this would entail a willingness to sacrifice Los Angeles or Chicago to a nuclear strike before responding in kind.
It’s true that the Trump-Bolton relationship has its bumps. A recent Axios profile relayed an anecdote from the Irish prime minister’s St. Patrick’s Day visit to the Oval Office. “John,” Mr. Trump asked his national security adviser, “is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?”
But the article didn’t report Mr. Bolton’s rejoinder, which suggests a healthy give and take: “It’s still early in the day, Mr. President.”
Plainly Mr. Bolton is aware that he’s more hawkish than his president. But plainly, too, Mr. Trump finds his national security chief useful. One reason might be that—unlike so many others, even within the Trump administration—Mr. Bolton knows who makes the decisions and doesn’t regard the president as stupid.
In making his case to his boss, Mr. Bolton emphasizes both U.S. interests and Mr. Trump’s instincts. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
But the idea that a warmonger is leading an unsuspecting president around by the nose is ridiculous. Mr. Trump was elected on a platform that rejected both what he called the “endless wars” of the George W. Bush era and the pusillanimity of the Obama years. Could it be the president appreciates having around him a national security adviser who puts the fear of God into America’s enemies?
Meanwhile the critics carp, from the right as well as left. “I fear that he’s a malignancy, a malignant influence on the administration,” said Sen. Rand Paul, speaking for the right-wing claque of those who regard Mr. Bolton as a warmonger. While over on the left the New York Times publishes pieces such as “Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous.”
Which is pretty much the same complaint from the autocrats in Caracas, Moscow and Tehran.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Trump is primed to rise above the stale gun debate
Leading Democrats responded to the weekend’s shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, by absurdly laying the blame on President Trump.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Trump is primed to rise above the stale gun debate
Leading Democrats responded to the weekend’s shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, by absurdly laying the blame on President Trump.
But as furious as he might be about the exploitation of these horrible crimes for liberal partisan advantage, Trump should rise above his enemies’ squalor, resist the impulse to counterattack and advance common-sense gun reforms that are popular with a national majority.
If only momentarily, Trump did offer a glimpse of what he was prepared to do about the plague of mass shootings afflicting the nation. Yes, his tweeted offer of a grand bargain, trading background checks for immigration reform, was likely a non-starter. Horse-trading over an issue like immigration while Americans still reeled from the two horrific massacres wasn’t a good look.
Trump dropped the bargain offer when he gave a 10-minute speech about the shootings later Monday that condemned the “evil contagion” of hate. But while he didn’t endorse any specific gun legislation in his speech, the earlier tweet did remind us of something that the president’s fans and detractors forget: Trump is no hard-line opponent of gun legislation.
In the past, he has shown himself amenable to deviating from the National Rifle Association’s intractable stance — opposition to just about any restriction imaginable on gun sales. Most GOP lawmakers march in lockstep to the NRA drumbeat, but not so Trump, whose political mentality was shaped in New York City — not, say, the Mountain West.
In February 2018, in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., high-school shooting, Trump convened a White House summit during which he shocked some on the right by saying that he favored more extensive background checks and increasing the power of the police to prevent mentally disturbed people from possessing weapons.
What’s more, he accused his fellow Republicans of being so “petrified” of the NRA that they were afraid to do anything that might offend the gun-rights lobby.
Unfortunately, Democrats were then, as they are now, too entrenched in their hate for him to try to take advantage of this opening.
Whatever his other failings, Trump showed then, as he has on other occasions, that he understands when the situation calls for some flexibility.
And more ideological flexibility is exactly what he ought again to be showing.
House Democrats passed two bills this year that dealt with guns. One extended background checks to include gun purchases made at gun shows and on the Internet. The other extended the waiting time for those flagged by the national check system to 10 days, from the current three, giving the FBI more time to research gun buyers.
Though neither undermined the Second Amendment, both were dead on arrival in the GOP-majority Senate after a Trump veto threat.
Trump should publicly tell Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that he wants the bills enacted, while also stating his support for some form of red-flag legislation, aimed at keeping guns away from the mentally ill.
He might even consider some modest restrictions on ammunition clips that make it all too easy for monstrous killers to mow down innocents.
Neither of the House bills, like all proposed gun reforms, could ensure that mass shootings would cease altogether. But neither would they do the nation or gun rights any real harm. Any inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners would be offset by the benefit to the country of the demonstration of unity of purpose by both parties in the face of national tragedy.
Right now, Democrats seem determined to frame Trump as an accessory to murder and, by extension, applying the same charge to those who support him — thus repeating Hillary Clinton’s error in labeling half the country as “deplorables.” If they are interested in compromise, their rhetoric doesn’t show it. That kind of language only adds to the deep polarization and coarsening of public discourse they claim incites the racist murders.
But Trump should resist the temptation to return the bile that is flung at him. He should show the country that he understands how this is a moment to reach across the aisle. It will make for good policy — and smart 2020 politics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Durham Investigators Have Obtained a Taped Interview with Joseph Misfud
Journalist John Solomon: "Durham investigators have now obtained an audiotape deposition of Joseph Mifsud, where he describes his work, why he targeted George Papadopoulos ... and why he set that entire process of introducing Papadopoulos to Russia in motion in March of 2016, which is really the flashpoint the starting point of this whole Russia collusion narrative,”
| |||
4) A new survey showed Israelis were largely satisfied with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s performance in the security and foreign policy spheres, but not his policies on domestic issues such as economics and corruption.
According to Israeli news site Mako, the poll — conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute — showed that 60 percent of Israelis approved of Netanyahu’s efforts to strength Israel’s standing internationally, and 56 percent approved of his work to enhance Israel’s military power.
The results were almost the opposite in regard to domestic issues. Half of Israelis disapproved of Netanyahu’s performance on reducing the gaps between rich and poor in Israeli society, with 34 percent rating it as “bad.” Forty-nine percent felt he has done a “not good” or “bad” job on dealing with corruption, which may be a result of the prime minister’s current legal imbroglio.
Interestingly, the results were also mixed in regard to relations with the Palestinians. Forty-three percent said Netanyahu has not done a good job in managing the Palestinian issue, and only 27 percent gave him a “good” rating.
Israelis did expect Netanyahu to remain in power, however, with 55.5 percent saying the chances of him being replaced were “low” or “very low.” Only 33 percent believed the chances were “high.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment