It appears there is a lot about the spying on Trump that exceeds in exponential ways, anything Nixon could have deigned. Powerline notes here the issue:
We are now starting to get a picture of how sinister this whole Democratic Party misinformation campaign is. Through the last half of 2016, the Obama administration was desperately searching for evidence of some link between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia. They went to the length of seeking (twice, reportedly) and finally obtaining a FISA order that allowed them to spy on at least one insignificant Trump associate.
In addition, we now know that Susan Rice headed up an operation whereby raw NSA intelligence was sifted for names of Trump associates, no doubt in hopes of uncovering dirt of some sort.* And we also know that these efforts came up dry. The Obama administration found no compromising information about Trump or any of his associates.
Nevertheless, ever since the Inauguration the Democratic Party, especially its press wing in Washington and New York, has relentlessly pushed the Trump/Russia story. What story? There isn’t one. But that hasn’t stopped Democrats in the press from talking about little else for the last three months.
And yet, all along, the Democrats have known that their spying produced nothing. This whole story is almost unbelievably sordid. The relevant Congressional committees should investigate thoroughly, and criminal prosecutions should follow where laws have been broken.
Though Powerline does not really note it, we should point out that the press has always known these reports of collusion were false. They have seen the leaked document so they knew. yet, they continued to carry water for their party. They thus slandered and libeled Trump and his administration. The complicit media did not care and hence furthered the fake news story Trump had something to do with the defeat of Hillary–whose actual vile and violent nature had more to do with it as we learned yesterday.
It appears with every passing day Obama and his administration broke the law. Prosecutions should follow.
Much ink was spilled on Trump’s foreign policy speech last week. The criticisms were predictable. They came from the establishment, the left (wait, there’s a difference?), the Shake & Bake Coalition, the “kidlets,” and a cacophony of establishment, elites, and insiders who decry Trump for being so uncouth as to be representative of the many low Americans. How dare he deign to utter an argument with America’s interests placed first in line of consideration!
There is a bit of criticism we have heard that Trumpism and Trump are two different things. That’s true in a way. But, there is no Trumpism without Trump and so, until there are other figures on the scene, Trump is the only person who is able to carry Trumpism to fruition.
All we have to do is actually read Trump’s speech to understand what he means and what he plans in the broad outlines. The typical vapid calls for more policy specificity are predictable as they are unworkable–let’s make sure everyone knows what we will do exactly! And then let’s not follow through with it anyway!
Almost everyone in the media, including the political elites, believe his speech was riddled with contradictions. That’s disingenuous and/or suggests a pundit and political class not willing to listen. If anyone wanted evidence on how our “elites” have failed us arrogantly, they demonstrate it every day when they speak of Trump’s alleged contradictions in his foreign policy speech. George Will, Karl Rove, and countless others are lighting their hair on fire (well not Rove) trying to make heads or tails out of Trump’s foreign policy. Yet, the establishment Republicans have been wrong for decades. It’s rich that those like Sen. Graham would have the temerity to criticize Trump for his policy. The problem of course is that it is so like the establishment to complicate things that do not need to be complicated. It’s not like we are trying to figure out The Guide for the Perplexed, though maybe they should pick up a copy.
Let’s take a trip through the actual speech:
We could say more, much more, but suffice to say, Trump criticizes the foreign policy of the last 30 years left and right. Those who support the past and want to continue that policy don’t like it one bit. The fact that they are outraged by Trump’s policy positions means that Trump’s speech was cogent and effective, not incoherent.
So the Foreign policy is:
Trump might be less extensive in his comments on domestic politics. It is historically an unsexy topic to tackle and gains politicians nothing historically, unless you are for Law & Order. But that purposeful punting on our domestic problems have gotten us where we are today. There is no doubt that Trump thinks the foreign and the domestic are intertwined. A weak country internally will be weak externally. This has been forgotten by everyone except people like Rudy Giuliani.
It went largely unnoticed, but Trump employs the word prosperous or prosperity numerous times in his speech. When he speaks of prosperity, he means the entire country and everyone in it, not just the rich or those addicted to corporate welfare. The key to a prosperous country is to have a marketplace where jobs may be found and had. This is a not so subtle criticism of the libertarians who have contended for decades that free trade would be great for “consumers.” The problem is that jobs leave the country for more friendly climes and in those climes, other countries get rich while more people in our country are out of work. There are no consumers if consumers do not have money to spend. Trump does not mean to end all trade (see Declaration) but allow for the atmosphere where pursuit may be had in freedom and liberty (see Declaration).
Trump should have said something about the strangling regulations and the growth of the administrative state here. He certainly implies that free trade has been bad for us, yet he is scant on how he will deregulate the impediments to business. He also says that free trade we have been sold is not really free trade. It has been “here let’s sell out our country” trade. He is also silent on the fact that unions will have to be broken for us to be competitive again. Nevertheless, Trump means that a prosperous country will help provide for, a “strong military” and a strong country. The more we work, the faster we handle and pay down our debt. We need growth. Robust growth has been absent for a decade, and which effects all economic segments of society. This means that in order to right our economic ship, we have to address the problems associated with government spending, regulation, and administration. Part of the reason we are not respected in the world, is because we are incompetent top to bottom. This is partly why he wants to make impotent, if not dismantle, the EPA, the DoE, and the IRS. Trump asserts: “No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must do the same.”
Just how many candidates actually make a case for Western civilization? The pimping of the Cruz campaign for the religious vote is so narrow as to be strangulating his own reason for being in the race–as an outsider, not an 80s throwback. Yet, Cruz ignorantly thought that is where most of America is–and people call Trump stupid. Cruz then doubled down and courted Glenn Beck, the overly religious oddity who once got schooled by Ronald Pestritto. The problem was, he obviously did not understand Pestritto’s more learned and rational position. The Cruz campaign smacks of a sort of Dominionist theocratic foundation to America, which ought to be loudly rejected. We should be scared of such Priests. Most Americans are, and that is why his campaign is bleeding now.
Trump goes foundational in all of this. He actually believes that there is something worthwhile about western civilization worth saving. His understanding of western values and institutions (which includes the Church folks) is juxtaposed against his understanding of “universal values” which is code for nihilism. Western “values” are enduring values and need defense. Universal “values” are those that come out of the United Nations, which is full of meaningless pap dressed up as a recognition of human rights, yet in a deeply secular materialistic way. Another example is that Nature is omitted by the UN as a source for all “rights.” Trump seems to understand all of this, perhaps instinctively.
While we wish Trump used a different word for the west than “values” we certainly do not object to the meaning of the sentence and what it implies: Trump will be a defender of the West and in that, he will defend enduring truths that have long existed even before America noted those truths at the Founding. This is impressive stuff and demonstrates some real thought.
So the Domestic Policy is:
The vet issue brings us back to the political: Trump is the most political politician in recent memory. He actually has ideas. Romney had none. Dennis Prager was accounting on May 2 how the Romney campaign had “no idea what it stood for.” Neither does Obama or Clinton. And we have seen Cruz throw away what he stood for the last two weeks for political expediency.
The one person who has remained political is Trump and he has not backed off any of his most important opinions. He has been the most consistent candidate this cycle. His attempt to discuss the regime, and who we are–the border–coupled with his intense patriotism–defend the country with overwhelming force if we have to–is nothing short of sweeping and recalls to our mind the idea of a republic. Being political means he is not afraid to talk about matters of justice. Trump talks about justice all the time in broad terms. Clinton talks about identity of small groups (LGBT anyone? Let’s play the Woman card shall we?); Trump talks about America and the idea of it in terms of equality–he wants us to be patriots again and judge each other on merit. Clinton and Obama are ashamed of their own country. Trump is an unabashed lover of what makes America Great.
Reagan would have been 100 today. One of his memorable speeches:
If true, is this a way to treat allies?
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website