History offers many unique advantages. Perhaps the most important is that it provides a look back during a more dispassionate period and that allows for more objectivity and less partisanship analysis.
I will not be around when the Obama Era is judged by history, or the Mueller/Trump Era. We are just beginning to peer into the period of FDR and his connection with denying European Jews the opportunity to immigrate to our country because of Hitler's threats. What historians are revealing is that there was a certain degree of prejudice among the social upper class which seeped into and dictated FDR's political actions and attitudes. As a result, thousands needlessly perished.
Liberal Jews' embrace of the Democrat Party and their idolization of FDR, seen under this new light, becomes even more bizarre. Emotions of the moment cloud one's vision.
Yes, Republicans were establishment as well but they were not in charge of the government. FDR was and his wife had strong leanings toward the siren message of Communism and, no doubt, it impacted FDR's thinking that he could trust "Uncle" Stalin.
Now let's hear it for Obama: http://thefederalist.com/2018/
All idols have clay feet.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
D.C is the place to go if you want to be smeared, have your reputation ruined and for some stupid reason serve your country against all odds. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The New York Times turns on the bait and switch routine for Israel and reports Gaza fencing is electrified. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Damned if he does and damned if he does not? You decide. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More ranting. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The Deep State Weaponizes Vetting of Trump Appointees
Unaccountable Pentagon officials block a security clearance for a would-be White House aide.
By Sean M. Bigley
Nothing ends a Washington career like being branded an unacceptable national-security risk. That’s why officials adjudicating personnel-security cases must act in a mature, objective and nonpartisan fashion. But when it comes to vetting Trump appointees, they often aren’t. Instead, security clearances are being weaponized against the White House by hostile career bureaucrats, thwarting the president’s agenda by holding up or blocking appointees.
Consider the case of Adam Lovinger. Mr. Lovinger is a highly regarded and politically conservative Defense Department official. In January 2017, the Trump administration made a “by name” request for him to serve as a senior director on the White House National Security Council.
Before departing the Pentagon that January, Mr. Lovinger raised documented concerns with his supervisor about the misuse of contractors. One outfit, run by a woman Chelsea Clinton describes as her “best friend,” was being used to perform foreign-relations activities on behalf of the U.S. Mr. Lovinger, an attorney, perceived the arrangement as violating a federal law delineating inherently governmental functions. He also took issue with millions of dollars in public funds being spent on contractor studies of questionable relevance. One taxpayer-funded study sought to determine whether Americans are a “war-like people.”
Months after Mr. Lovinger raised these issues, the Pentagon suspended his security clearance and his White House detail was canceled without warning. The reason? Specious, and constantly evolving, claims of misconduct. One of Mr. Lovinger’s alleged transgressions was that Pentagon officials had improperly marked an academic report he took aboard an airplane for reading.
The father of three, his family’s primary breadwinner, remains on administrative leave. The same official who suspended Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance is now moving to cut off his pay while the allegations are under review. Amplifying due-process concerns, the panel rendering the final decision reports to the official who suspended him. She refuses to recuse herself or her subordinates despite a conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, Pentagon officials ignored a longstanding executive order requiring they provide the accused with the government’s evidence within 30 days. This forced Mr. Lovinger to respond blindly to vague allegations, then contend with bureaucrats claiming he did not adequately rebut documents he has never seen. Pentagon officials underscored their contempt for anyone who challenges them by leaking false, defamatory information about Mr. Lovinger.
Mr. Lovinger’s lifeline is that his case, although symptomatic of a political agenda, is fundamentally one of whistle-blower reprisal. That affords him legal tools and remedies—including an inspector general investigation and potential monetary damages—that other Trump appointees, victims of similarly abusive practices, can’t access.
As an attorney who defends security-clearance holders, including Mr. Lovinger, I have had a front-row seat to behavior that only a year ago I would have dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Across the federal government, what was long an apolitical process with clearly defined standards has devolved to the point that wildly unfounded accusations are now being used to smear reputations and settle petty vendettas. And it all occurs in closed-door proceedings not appealable to the courts. Failure to stop these abuses risks undermining the integrity of the entire personnel-security system.
In Mr. Lovinger’s case, those weaponizing the security-clearance process include a senior official who remains on the job despite publicly disparaging President Trump as “unfit” to lead, a Pentagon attorney who instructed colleagues on the importance of concealing retaliatory motives behind their actions, and the Defense Department’s security adjudications chief, who persists in advancing false allegations.
They and other unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives through a litany of seemingly small but slowly compounding abuses of bureaucratic power. Their efforts evidence a philosophy that laws and rules are not static boundaries of societal norms, but flexible tools of the administrative state.
It is imperative that federal-agency heads and inspectors general step in to stop the power grab, lest those targeting Mr. Lovinger and others like him believe themselves immune to accountability. Failure to act decisively will mean not only the continued destruction of lives and careers, but also a precipitous dwindling of the pool of patriots willing to subject themselves to such abuses.
Mr. Bigley is a national-security attorney and a partner at Bigley Ranish LLP.
1a) How about a few questions for Robert Mueller?
BY MARK PENN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
Robert Mueller has plenty of questions for President Trump, and maybe he will get to ask them. Most of them seemed like perjury traps rather than real questions for the president and, surprisingly, they contain very little that wasn't in the public domain though prior leaks. In other words, the president is not a target because they have nothing implicating him, and so they want to use the interview to create such material.
But the conduct of the investigation by the special counsel and his team has raised a lot of questions as to its foundation, conflicts of interest, fairness and methods. Most of the public, based on the last Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, supports Robert Mueller going forward with his investigation, but I wonder whether that would still be the case if he were required to answer a few questions himself.
When you interviewed for FBI director with President Trump, had you had any conversations with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director James Comeyor any other current or former officials of the U.S. government about serving as a special counsel? Didn't you consider going forward with the interview or being rejected as FBI director to create the appearance of conflict?
When you picked your team, what was going through your mind when you picked zero donors to the Trump campaign and hired many Democratic donors, supporters of the defiant actions of Sally Yates, who at the time was deputy attorney general, and prosecutors who had been overturned for misconduct? What were you thinking in building a team with documented biases?
When you were shown the text messages of FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, why did you reassign them and not fire them for compromising the investigation with obvious animus and multiple violations of procedure and policy? Why did you conceal from Congress the reasons for their firing for five months and did you discard any of their work as required by the "fruits of a poisonous tree" doctrine?
What were your personal contacts with Rod Rosenstein and James Comey during the investigation as special counsel and before that as a private attorney? Would you be considered a friend of James Comey? Would that personal relationship not disqualify you as a prosecutor on the case under Justice Department guidelines?
Doesn't the fact that Rod Rosenstein wrote a memo urging the firing of James Comey and, therefore, is a witness to key events you are reviewing, disqualify him as your supervisor under Justice Department guidelines?
Did you see in advance any of the text of the book by James Comey or have any conversations related to its contents? Are you reviewing the contradictory statements made by James Comey on key issues for possible perjury or referral for perjury?
Did you or members of your team participate directly or indirectly in any leaks to the press about elements of the investigation, and what steps have you taken, if any, to investigate such leaks? Have members of your team been questioned under oath about leaks?
When you raided former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's home at gunpoint, was the scope of your investigation expanded in writing before or only days after you carried out the raid?
Would you be willing to undergo a lie detector test about your potential involvement, as alleged by constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz, in protecting Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger and the jailing of four people whose convictions were later overturned amid prosecutorial abuse? What were you thinking as the local U.S. attorney while this unfolded and you took no action to stop it?
During the course of the current investigation, many questions have been raised about the Steele dossier and its Russian sources, the leaking of its contents, the covering up through illegal cutouts of the source of funding from the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. Did you follow up and investigate any of those questions?
When you secretly obtained all of the emails of the transition including possible privileged material, did you have it first reviewed by a "taint team" and did you believe you could evade legal process, while the government official in charge was on vacation, to obtain everything instead of selections of those emails relevant to the investigation?
After a year of investigation, what concrete evidence have you found about collusion with the Russians and Donald Trump to leak the emails of the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta? Did you in fact obtain the Democratic National Committee servers and investigate whether they had been hacked or merely had internal leaks, or did you just rely on the organization's own security firm?
What role, if any, did you or members of your team play in the public raiding of the offices of Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen? In light of recusal of the New York U.S. attorney, did you consider that such action would in effect reveal a defendant in what should be a confidential investigation?
What discussions have you had about bias in the team, leveraging relatives, flipping close confidants, conducting very public raids, the impact of conducting and leaking investigations on the president's family, and any other potential abuses of the office of special counsel?
Do you consider firing the FBI director, thinking about pardons, considering firing you, and any conversations questioning your methods, bias or the foundation of your investigation to be matters you believe you can investigate, even though they are within the clear constitutional and First Amendment rights of the president? If you think you can question the president on these matters, then why should you not be subject to the same questions about your thought process, conflicts, possible bias and conduct in office?
There is nothing here that is outside the oversight review power of Congress, but don't expect Robert Mueller, who even secretly investigated the attorney general, to answer any of them or expect Rod Rosenstein to be asking them, either. At this point, they know that they have no hard evidence of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians. What they are seeking is to do is what they did to other witnesses and create process crimes around events and contacts that were in no way illegal.
There is now ample evidence that the footing of this investigation was, at best, questionable and, at worst, corrupt and based on unverified information leaked in an effort to destabilize the presidency. The questions of the special counsel suggest that even considering standing up to such an investigation through constitutional means will be met with possible possible charges by a team that has thought nothing of leading intentionally public raids, bringing charges on unrelated crimes, threatening family members of defendants to secure pleas, and ignoring congressional subpoenas about its own process.
It's enough to drive anyone crazy and, based on my experience in 1998 with a special counsel's investigation of President Bill Clinton, to create distractions for any president. But, after all, that appears to have been the point of all this in the first place.
Mark Penn (@Mark_Penn) served as pollster and adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during his impeachment. He is chairman of the Harris Poll and author of "Microtrends Squared."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From HONEST REPORTING
The New York Times decided to report from inside the heart of the Palestinian violence currently taking place on Israel’s border with Gaza under the headline: “Plan to Storm Fence Gets Bloody Preview in Gaza.”
So what of this fence?
For the first time in five weeks of protests, some reached the second barrier — an electrified, sensor-laden fence that marks the edge of Israeli territory — and tried to climb it or pull it down. A few hundred yards beyond it lies the Israeli farming community of Nahal Oz. …Ibrahim Shahin, 26, said he was among a group of about 12 men who cut through the barbed wire and then began climbing the electrified fence.
An “electrified” fence?
Were the 12 men climbing this fence wearing rubber gloves and boots?
Of course not.
Because nobody will be shocked or electrocuted if they touch either the Gaza fence or the security barrier that prevents Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating into Israel from the disputed territories.
Describing both of these structures as “electrified” conjures such images and this language is regularly employed by anti-Israel propagandists to challenge the reality of these fences as defensive and non-lethal measures.
But don’t just take it from us. The New York Times itself looked at the border zone, including the fence, in great detail in an earlier feature that is even linked to from within the story that erroneously describes the fence as “electrified.”
The fence that separates Gaza’s 2 million people from Israel is not the sturdiest of barriers. To penetrate Israel, a Gazan would have to get past a crude barbed-wire barrier and cross a short distance, then get over or through a 10-foot-high “smart fence” packed with sensors to detect infiltrators. If a crowd of thousands surged toward the fence, it would take about 30 seconds to cross, the contractor who built it told Bloomberg News.
Indeed, the fence is electronic and will alert the IDF to any tampering or breach but it will certainly not provide any real obstacle for any determined infiltrator wielding wire cutters.
Language matters. Facts matter. The New York Times has clearly erred as its own prior description of the fence demonstrates.
Despite a request for a correction, the NY Times has yet to follow through
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)Trump: Millstone or Savior?
Republicans fear he’ll sink them in 2018, but his active involvement and a focus on stopping impeachment may be the only way to mobilize their base.
It may be that Republicans can’t win with President Donald Trump, but they also can’t win without him.
That’s the essence of the dilemma facing the GOP leadership as it plots strategy at a time when their congressional majorities appear to be in grave danger. Some observers are already writing off their chances of holding the House of Representatives in November. Others are beginning to think the unthinkable and contemplate the possibility that a once seemingly glorious opportunity to enlarge their Senate majority has become a desperate battle to hold onto it.
Their problem is that the GOP is saddled with the usual problems that afflict a party that controls both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Added to that is the widespread belief that any chances of an upset victory in the midterm is being swamped by President Trump’s unpopularity and the constant distractions he provides from what ought to be a convincing narrative of economic success and lower taxes.
That’s why many in the Republican leadership have been trying hard to convince Trump to give up Twitter and stick to the scripts provided for him by his staff — advice that the president clearly has no interest in heeding. This explains why some GOP candidates are determined to avoid Trump like the plague in order to avoid the taint associated with his vulgar bullying and the baggage of the Mueller investigation.
The notion that Republicans can successfully navigate 2018 by distancing themselves from Trump seems logical, but it is a mistake. The president may be toxic to most of the electorate, but if the GOP is to have a prayer of holding its own in what is likely to be a blue year, it is going to need Trump. This may be a bitter pill for some mainstream Republicans to swallow, and especially bitter for what remains of the Never Trumpers, but there is no way the conservative base will turn out to vote in anything like the numbers needed to maintain the party’s congressional majorities unless Trump is an active presence on the campaign trail.
Even more to the point, though they would like to avoid discussing Mueller and the various scandals that have attached themselves to the president, the only way to generate a massive Republican turnout may be to directly address the threat of impeachment by congressional Democrats should they win in November.
Whether GOP candidates go all in with Trump or not, the odds in favor of a Democratic wave this year seem to be growing with each passing month.
Most election-rating services, such as that of Real Clear Politics, now say that the battle for the House has decisively tilted in the Democrats’ favor. They contend that any lingering Republican hope is centered on the GOP’s dwindling chances of holding on to the more than two dozen Republican seats rated as tossups.
The 2018 Senate math seems to guarantee Republican gains, with far more Democrats up for reelection (including several in states Trump won by wipeout margins) and only few Republicans. But instead of a cakewalk, the 2018 Senate battle is turning into a nail-biter, with Republican-held seats in Nevada, Tennessee, and Arizona in real jeopardy and golden opportunities for flipping seats in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia now rated as no better than even.
The problem for Republicans goes deeper than the usual off-year downturn for the party in power. Trump’s low favorability ratings and the nonstop focus of the mainstream media on scandals large and small associated with the president may be about to disprove James Carville’s rule that all elections are decided by “the economy, stupid.”
Trump’s protectionist tariffs have undermined the notion that the economy has been booming since he took office. But the Republicans still have a strong case to make that the administration’s deregulation policies and the tax-cut bill passed by Congress in December have finally turned Barack Obama’s anemic post-recession uptick into a full-scale recovery.
But so long as the conversation is dominated by whatever it is Trump’s critics are alleging, or by what he’s tweeted, it’s hard for Republicans to keep the public focused on economic success. Trump’s mastery of social media no doubt helped propel him to victory, but the same factor inflates the Trump scandals du jour promoted by his opponents into stories that obscure the positive economic narrative. As a result, Republicans are running scared about the possibility of Trump taking to the road to work for GOP candidates.
Nor is it clear that any political magic that Trump might possess can be transferred to House or Senate candidates he favors. As we’ve seen in recent months, in special elections in Pennsylvania and Alabama, Trump campaign appearances, even in places where he is still popular, didn’t wind up helping Republicans win.
These factors combine to make many Republicans believe that the best course of action is for Trump to be heard and seen as seldom as possible in the coming months. But Trump’s unwillingness to lay low isn’t the only obstacle to such a strategy. It may also be counterproductive.
Democratic turnout will probably exceed the low levels they achieved in past midterms but fall well short of the massive mobilization of minority and young liberal-leaning voters that propelled Barack Obama to victory in 2008 and 2012. That leaves Republicans hoping against hope that they can come close to the massive turnout of the GOP base that created their 2010 and 2014 midterm landslides. Given the dismal approval ratings for Congress and widespread dissatisfaction with the GOP’s performance, that seems a long shot at best.
The only possible way to generate Republican enthusiasm lies with Trump. As unpopular as he remains with most voters, Trump still retains the approval of the overwhelming majority of Republicans. Many of those who backed him in 2016 don’t care much about the Republican party; that see the GOP and the Democrats as equally culpable for the nation’s problems. But their loyalty to Trump is still intense.
While that popularity can’t be transferred, the GOP can still tap into it by reminding voters that the one issue at stake in this election isn’t so much about economic or foreign policy but impeachment.
If the Democrats win the House, 2019 will be a year dominated by a debate about impeaching the president, regardless of whether Robert Mueller finds any wrongdoing on his part. The Democratic base wants impeachment whether there are reasonable grounds for it or not. They have no chance of evicting Trump from office, but the resulting furor would derail any hopes of the administration achieving anything in 2019 and 2020. That is no small thing when you consider that for all of the unhappiness with Trump’s unorthodox manner, his deeds over the past 14 months have proved that he is committed to conservative governance.
It’s by no means certain that there is any issue that can generate the kind of Republican turnout in 2018 that will save their congressional majorities. If there is one, it’s likely to be an effort to prevent what most on the right see as an attempted coup aimed at overturning the results of the 2016 election.
For some anti-Trump Republicans, a successful campaign fought primarily to save a president whose behavior they deplore would be as bad as losing and perhaps worse. But if they are going to generate the same kind of voter enthusiasm that helped them win an unlikely victory in 2016, it’s going to have to come from a desire to sustain the president, not a vote of confidence in the GOP as a party. Like it or not, it is now Trump’s party and will be until he leaves office and perhaps even beyond. As much as he is in some ways a millstone hanging around their necks, Trump also provides the only possible path to victory for them.
++++++
4)Sorry this got so long but there is so much going on these days
Here is the reality for the hotel industry. 41% had no increase in operating revenue last year and 48% had a decline in profit. Revenue was only up 2% on average, and labor and other costs are rising. There is only so much cost you can cut before the guest notices the cuts. Labor is 80% or so of costs, and that is rising faster than revenue. Interest rates continue to rise which means cap rates will follow upward. In short, there is no reason to buy a hotel today if you believe these numbers, and if you believe interest rates will go higher- a certainty, and if you believe labor costs will rise at over 2% over the next year, which they will. Hotels are a street corner business, and there are undoubtedly some poorly run hotels which present an opportunity, but overall, I do not see why anyone buys a hotel now unless it is a good operational or repositioning improvement opportunity . The equity returns will not be there. Cap rates will rise, interest rates will rise and sell prices will fall, or stay the same over a 3-5 year hold. There are better opportunities in stocks and other things. Hotel results as to lack of growth is the worst since 2009.
Notice that oil has declined a little, and interest rates are back slightly below 3% on the ten year. Wages have begun to rise, which is good for the economy. Commodity prices are rising as world economic activity increases. All of that suggest inflation, but for the reasons I have stated in an earlier Rant, I do not think inflation is going to get out of hand. The Fed is now run by a businessman, and not an economist, and so I believe rates will not spike up and kill the golden goose. Treasuries have returned 1.4% annualized since 2014, vs an inflation rate of 1.6%. It means you lost money on a real dollars basis if you invested in Treasuries and probably high grade bonds. 2012 is the last year in which the rate vs inflation was a positive spread.
March economic stats are up nicely. ADP suggests the jobs numbers are going to be very good again. Consumers spent a lot over Christmas and needed a break, so spend in Jan and Feb was slower.. March was recovery. Now the tax cuts, bonuses and wage increases are starting to show up in paychecks, and it is meaningful to many average workers. $100 a months matters to many. A $1000 bonus is huge to many. Job security is now clear, and so workers are more confident, which shows up in consumer confidence numbers. They will increase spending now that they see the paycheck increase and the ability to get a job is almost a sure thing. There is nothing like more paycheck and job security to change people’s emotions and thinking. Economic comfort matters in the voting booth. It takes time for workers to feel the impact of the tax reduction, and low unemployment, but as the year moves on it will get imbedded. Companies will hire more, spend more on growth, and there will be lower than 4% unemployment , just as house prices and 401K values hit new highs. Recent comments that the tax bill did not impact the economy are pure nonsense. It takes time for fiscal changes to filter thru to spending by corporations or consumers. I don’t know what Rubio is thinking saying there has been no effect.
Negotiations on tariffs and trade are now in very active mode with China, NAFTA, and the EU. This is exactly as it is supposed to play out. Make threats and stick to them, then negotiate a workable deal. That is exactly what is happening. Neither the EU nor China can afford a real trade war with the US, so in the end it will get resolved.
In the end there will be new trade deals with everyone. Trade is like N Korea. Until now, nobody believed Trump meant what he says, and now they know better. They only had to understand how Trump operates, and that he is really willing to walk away and let the other side crawl back, which is totally opposite what Obama did. Now after the Macron and Merkel visits, and N Korea, they maybe are getting the message. I believe all these things will get worked out because that is what developers do best- they find ways to get the project built. It just took 15 months for the world to understand Trump is not Obama. Being prepared to walk from the table and take the heat is key to any negotiation, and Trump plays that card well. Not understanding what he is really willing to do is an asset, not a liability. His oft stated line- we will see what happens is just a way to leave everyone guessing.
Mexico needs to step up to resolve the caravan issue. It turns out all of the Caravan people were offered asylum in Mexico, but they turned it down saying they want to go to the US. If they were really fleeing, then Mexico would be where to get new places to live where they would be among their own. Also, did you note that for people planning a new life, none carry even a suitcase, or much of anything. Not even a change of clothes or a toothbrush. These are not people crawling through the woods in Eastern Europe as in the cold war. They were picked up in buses and otherwise helped along the way. They drag along little kids so the American press can show little kids just sitting on the border to gain sympathy. The whole thing is a staged press event by immigration lawyers who likely will file a case shortly in a CA federal court. In Long Island there were 13 MS 13 members arrested for brutal murders. 11 are from the unaccompanied minors program. They now know these kids were sent by MS 13 to be recruiters in schools to build the gang membership. If you are naive enough to think the unaccompanied minors program was helping stranded kids, you are a fool.
The ability for Mossad to steal thousands of files from Iran is stunning. I just read a book on the successes and failures of Israeli spies and kill teams over the past 50 years. They have had some stunning successes, and some awful failures, but stealing these files one of their best. It seems that a lot of people knew Iran was lying, but they thought the deal is keeping Iran from a nuke. To me, the nuke was just a bargaining chip for Iran. It was not what was really going on in my view. What they really needed was freedom from sanctions which were really crippling, and which really would have meant the collapse of their economy, and regime. Instead Obama bailed them out and funded their terror activities. Now they have $150 billion and a thriving oil business again pouring out tens of millions a month. It is what they needed to stay in power and to prosecute their war in the Mideast in concert with Hezbollah and Assad. It was the ultimate bailout and Obama and Kerry never understood it. Iran knew they could never fire a nuke, or Israel and the US would obliterate them in minutes. With all the cash Obama gave them, they can fund their terror proxies and take over part of the Mideast, and if Hilary had been president, they knew they could proceed uninterrupted. Now they have a problem, and they are counting on Macron, Merkel and the Dems to let them continue. May 12 will be interesting. Trump may not cancel the deal, or he may, but there will have to be real changes for him to go along and not institute major new sanctions.. Meantime, Israel now has Trump covering their back, so they can bomb Iranian bases in Syria, and maybe will go to war if needed. The difference is, under Obama Israel could not chance a war, but now they can, and it will not be a surprise if that happens. Or the Iranian people will rise up finally with the help of CIA and Mossad, and that will be really ugly. One way or another Trump has to stop Iran, or we all lose. This is 1938 in the Mideast. Syria is Spain. And in the midst of this, the left wants to try to impeach Trump. Utter insanity.
Many say walking away from the Iran deal is a bad thing for the N Korea deal. Wrong-it is a very good thing. Kim will see that deals made improperly by Obama with no Senate approval, and which are stupid deals, will not be what happens now. There will be no desperation to do a deal. There will be no payment up front. There will be no sunset-it has to be permanent. There will be no allowing some military sites to not be inspected. Kim will understand, Trump is not Obama and Kerry and he will not get a stupid deal he can cheat and lie about. There will be crushing sanctions put back if the deal fails. That is the lesson walking away from the Iran deal teaches if Trump does walk away. China needs peace in Korea now, so they will push to make this happen.
After the Correspondents dinner outrage, and the false character assassination of Dr Jackson, it is a possible turning point in the narrative, and confirmation the press is so biased, nobody believes them anymore. Kanye just adds to the trend. Now some rapper asked the Crips to attack him. Nice reactions by the media and entertainment industries-get gangs to attack someone speaking his mind. One more example of what is happening on campuses where anyone not saying the accepted thoughts is attacked or refused permission to speak. Once the IG report comes out in mid-May, things will really start to change. It is hard for the media to refute S Korea Moon saying Trump should get the Nobel peace prize. Moon was not a supporter of Trump. If there really is a deal on N Korea, and it really works for the first time, then that will be really incredible and will refute the whole narrative about Trump and his approach. As I have said several times, it takes a crazy and rough guy to deal with crazy rough guys like Kim. Putin and the Iranians. It may look ugly and rude, but it seems to work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
