Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

An end to chaos in the White House? General Kelly takes over

General Kelly forces out Anthony Scaramucci as the President’s new chief of staff looks to impose order on a chaotic White House.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

3,936 Views

Just six days ago I wrote an article for The Duran in which I said that if President Trump is to avoid seeing his administration unravel he has to stop destabilising it himself, with bad decisions negating good decisions and with President Trump himself prosecuting public feuds against top people in his administration like Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The decision to force out the newly appointed Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci – who was supposed to start his job on 15th August 2017, meaning that he been effectively sacked from his job before it technically even started – is a sign of the chaos at the heart of the administration.  However potentially it could also be a sign that things are finally being brought under control.

Turning first to Scaramucci, in my article of six days ago I referred to him on the strengths of things I had heard and read about him as an “accomplished communications director”.

Few things I have written about someone have turned out to be so wrong so quickly.  Far from being “accomplished” Scaramucci – “the Mooch” – in the brief time he was in post did more damage to the administration than any other single official President Trump has appointed.

Not only has Scaramucci behaved in a way totally inappropriate for a person in his position – for example through his uninhibited use of bad language – but he has acted in a way that went far beyond his remit, publicly intriguing against other members of the administration – such as the President’s chief strategist Steve Bannon – and generally acting as if he was the person who was ultimately in charge of the White House and by extension of the whole US government.

That this was a megalomaniac stance for someone who is simply a communications director to take ought to have been obvious, and made it only a matter of time before the President fired him.  Having said this, though Scaramucci’s sacking – talk of him having “voluntarily resigned” should not be taken seriously – was undoubtedly correct and appropriate, the President can be justly criticised for appointing such an obviously unfit person to a senior post.  The best that can be said about this sorry affair is that at least Scaramucci was sacked quickly before he did even more damage.

As for Scaramucci himself, the one good thing that does seem to have come from his appointment is that it seems to have precipitated the removal of two other senior White House officials who were frankly not up to their jobs: chief of staff Reince Priebus and White House spokesman Sean Spicer.

Neither of these officials – both of whom appeared to be closer to the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party than to the President himself – seemed to have the President’s trust, and in the case of Priebus he seems to have been little more than a rather ineffective administrator and not the tough manager and enforcer of the President’s decisions that the President’s chief of staff needs to be.

For the President the whole point of retaining Priebus – whom he inherited from the Republican National Committee when he became the Republican Party’s candidate for the Presidency – was Priebus’s established links to the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party (amongst whom the President is disastrously short of friends) which was expected to help pilot the President’s legislation through the Congress.

In the event Priebus failed even in that.  Not only have the President’s repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare – something which the Republican Party is in theory in full agreement about – so far failed because of the failure of the Republican Party in Congress to unite on key votes, but the President must be privately furious that the Republican Party in Congress chose instead to unite with the Democrats to force on him a sanctions law that is obviously designed to torpedo his policy of seeking better relations with Russia.

The President’s tweets – always a reliable indicator of his state of mind – have made clear in recent days his growing frustration at the logjam in Congress, which is also holding up the confirmation process for his remaining appointments.

Given that Priebus was failing to manage the White House effectively, and was unable to get the Republican Party to unite behind the President’s legislation, it is no surprise the President finally gave up on him.  According to the London Times – unusually well informed because its proprietor Rupert Murdoch is close to the President – as long ago as May the President was looking to replace him, and had approached General Kelly as far back as then to take over as chief of staff.

That appointment has finally been made, and it seems that two of the conditions Kelly set for accepting the job were firstly that all White House officials – including Jared Kushner and Steven Bannon – should be subordinated to him and report to the President solely through him, and secondly that Scaramucci should go.

Scaramucci’s sacking was therefore the result of General Kelly’s appointment as the President’s new chief of staff, just as Scaramucci’s appointment appears to have been the event which precipitated Priebus’s removal, and which caused Sean Spicer’s departure.

If General Kelly is able to take effective control of the White House and make of it a properly functioning political operation then the chaos of the last two weeks will have been worth it.  He does come to the job with some reasons for thinking that he might succeed in doing that.

Firstly, as might be expected of a Marine General who has commanded troops in the field and who has run large departments like Homeland Security, Kelly appears to be a capable administrator.  His insistence on a proper chain of command in the White House is a sign of that.

Secondly, Trump – like many civilians – is in awe of the military, and has surrounded himself with them.

It is striking that the top officials with whom Trump appears to get on with best are either successful businessmen or generals.  The senior official he is said to be most at ease with, and who has his fullest confidence, is General Mattis who is his Defense Secretary, with whom Trump regularly has private dinners.  Trump is also said to have got on well with General Kelly whilst Kelly was head of Homeland Security.  Undoubtedly he will have appreciated Kelly’s loyal and effective support to him during the battle over his ‘travel ban’ Executive Orders.

However against these factors which point to General Kelly’s possible future success, there are other factors which point towards possible failure.

Firstly, for General Kelly to succeed the President has to give him his loyal and unstinting support.

That means first and foremost the President reining in his own impulses.  He must stop conducting public feuds against members of his own administration like Attorney General Jeff Sessions and railing publicly at his officials when things go wrong, which in politics they often do.  Should he ever turn on Kelly in the same public way that he has recently turned on Sessions the damage will be disastrous.  Unfortunately the President’s impulsive personality means that there is no guarantee he will not do so.

Secondly, the President must learn to communicate with his staff and with the members of his administration – including with people like Jared Kushner and Steven Bannon, and with others like Attorney General Sessions and the new head of the FBI – through Kelly, observing the chain of command which his new chief of staff is setting up, and whose existence is essential for the successful management of any large organisation like the White House.  The damage done to the President by his decision to have personal contacts with former FBI Director James Comey – who it is now clear was throughout his contacts with the President in fact intriguing against him – ought to teach the President of the danger of acting in any other way.

Unfortunately personal contact with officials is very much the President’s style.  It is the style he has become accustomed to in his business dealings, and which he has tried disastrously to bring with him into the White House.  Will the President now put it aside and listen to General Kelly, respecting the chain of command his chief of staff is creating?

Thirdly, it will require other senior officials in the White House – which means people like Kushner and Bannon – who have become accustomed to having direct access to the President being prepared to work with Kelly and to accept their subordination to him.  That will be a new experience for them, and given that some of them – Steve Bannon for example – are strong personalities, it is an open question to what extent they will accept it.

Fourthly and lastly, managing this proud, inexperienced and impulsive President and his fractious team will also require a difficult mix of both forthrightness and tact on General Kelly’s part.  The forthrightness is known to be there in abundance.  Is the tact?

Whether Kelly will succeed in bringing order to the White House and to the administration remains to be seen.

His appointment does however further signal the unprecedented influence of the military in this administration.  Kelly now joins two other generals – Generals Mattis and McMaster – at the heart of the US government.  Not only is the President’s most trusted senior minister – Defense Secretary Mattis – a general, but both his chief of staff and his National Security Adviser are now generals as well.

Compare that with Vladimir Putin’s government in Russia, where none of the top officials who are permanent members of Russia’s Security Council, are military officers.  That by the way includes General Shoigu, Russia’s Defence Minister, who despite holding a military rank is by training a civil engineer not a soldier.

Whether this rise of the generals to the top of the US government is a good thing remains to be seen.  Peter Lavelle once said on a Crosstalk programme I attended that generals historically have been better at executing policy than at making it.  Not only is that true but generals’ history of political effectiveness tends to be poor.

Others might point out – sourly but also correctly – that given the generals indifferent performance in recent wars – in none of which have they managed to win a “victory” – their current rise to prominence looks hardly deserved.

The fact however remains that things cannot continue to go on inside the Trump White House in the way that they have been doing for much longer without irreparable damage being done.  To be clear, the erratic and chaotic state of things in the White House is far more politically dangerous to the President than the synthetic and overblown Russiagate scandal, which is now clearly falling apart.

The coming of General Kelly is probably this administration’s best – and last – chance to put things right.  Certainly the President seems to think so

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Pelosi tries to prevent State of the Union address because of shutdown

Nancy Pelosi advised Mr. Trump not to deliver a live State of the Union speech, but the reason may be because she is unwilling to be exposed.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tried what is perhaps a new stunt in the ongoing government shutdown saga (we hesitate to call it a “crisis”). She requested that President Trump either reschedule his yearly State of the Union address or – and she said this literally – deliver it in writing to Congress on January 29th, the date the speech is scheduled to occur.

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to Trump.

The letter, which can be seen directly by clicking the hyperlink above, tries to essentially make this request the President’s fault because he refuses to take “no wall” for an answer.

The motive behind this attempt is interesting. Politico covered this story originally, and this publication is pretty far to the left and definitely not a Trump fan oasis. Yet in a rare random feat of journalism, the Politico article does appear to give some of the real reason why the Speaker of the House did this.

Publicly, Democrats plan to argue that the parties need to focus on addressing the shutdown, now the longest in U.S. history. They’re also concerned about security staff working through a major national event without being paid.

“This shutdown is ridiculous and the people tasked with protecting him and protecting us are not getting a paycheck,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the House Rules Committee chair. “So it’s inappropriate to carry on with business as usual.”

But privately, Democrats also don’t want to give Trump a major platform to blame them for the shutdown when Trump’s demand for billions in wall funding has been the main driver, according to a Democratic lawmaker close to leadership. Trump has tried to pin the blame on the shutdown on Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, but public polls shows the public largely blames the president.

The announcement comes as a group of bipartisan House lawmakers in the Problem Solvers Caucus is set to meet with Trump on Wednesday to discuss border security. Trump, frustrated by his inability to secure any additional money for his border wall, has tried to peel off moderate Democrat support as Pelosi and Schumer dig in.

But Democrats are rallying fellow members to stay together. Schumer attended a closed-door caucus meeting with House Democrats just as Pelosi made the announcement on the State of the Union address on Wednesday. Her message was to stay unified in their opposition.

Politico was able to bury this bold-typed point in the rhetoric that “public polls largely blame the president.” However this may not exactly be the case.

There are indications that the 26-day long standoff is going to go the President’s way. While this is admittedly speculative, there seem to be solid factors on the President’s side of the argument that the Democrats do not have. Some are factual, and many are emotional and rhetorical:

  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is standing firm, and has not wavered from the commitment to pass nothing that the President will not sign.
  • Some Democrat leaders are beginning to speak about border security – including the wall – as vital needs. This includes this representative from Southern California (!) Representative Katie Hill, who gave this interview on Fox News:

  • Where the argument is pragmatic and information-based, as Representative Hill notes, then the argument becomes quite compelling for a wall.
  • CNN turned down the opportunity to interview Dan Plante, a San Diego area TV reporter, about the border wall there because Mr. Plante said that the new wall that has been installed in that sector is hugely successful.
  • The level of information given by the Democrat opposition leaders, Pelosi and Chuck Schumer is essentially at the level of “no you can’t have it. Because!!” – in other words, septuagenarians acting like four-year olds. Really.
  • Talk show anchor Rush Limbaugh and his huge body of listeners are wildly in favor of the shutdown and everything the President is doing. It is very clear that the shutdown’s length is doing nothing to deter President Trump’s base. And as long as that holds true, he will not move a muscle.
  • President Trump is a businessman, not a politician. He is far more results-driven than the mainstream media can afford to admit. While they characterize him as insane, or a child, or throwing a tantrum, the President doesn’t really care. He knows what he wants, and he is prepared to be patient and wait the Democrats out.
  • The final sign we will offer on this list (though there are more) is that the Russia collusion narrative is back. When things go bad for the media on Trump, they try to pull out Russia. Maybe it is just a bad habit because it seems less and less effective each time it is tried.

The battle lines are tropes versus reality, and politics versus policy. It is too soon to be sure that this will go the President’s way and that the wall will go up, but patience and perseverance are beginning to expose cracks and weaknesses in the Democrat argument. Some of the US certainly does NOT care about a border wall. But those that do have not been shaken by all this – rather, they have been strengthened, plus they have facts on their side.

All the Pelosis and Schumers of the world can do is fret and complain and look like fools, and they seem to be doing exactly that.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Peak Stupidity: Deep State and mainstream media push ‘Trump is a spy’ nonsense (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 167.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the sheer stupidity of the entire ‘Trump is a Russian spy’ narrative being plastered all over the mainstream media, as neo-liberal shills and neocon war hawks continue to damage the Office of the United States President by insisting on pushing a made up story that a five year old child who waits for Santa Claus to bring Christmas gifts would have a hard time believing.

Meanwhile the real crime and real treason derived from a Comey-Clapper-Brennan Deep State plot to remove a democratically elected Trump from power, is being blacked out from the mainstream, neo-liberal news cycle.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

The Gateway Pundit lists the 35 times the FBI “deviated from standard practice” or committed crimes in an effort to exonerate Hillary Clinton and indict US President Donald Trump..


The FBI leadership under the Obama Administration took many actions that deviated from standard practice [i.e. were corrupt and criminal] in their efforts to exonerate Hillary from her crimes and then spy and frame candidate and then President Trump.  Today current members of the FBI are embarrassed to even turn on their TV’s as a result.

Time magazine of all places reported recently about the many efforts the FBI took related to Hillary exoneration and then the Trump framing.  These corrupt and criminal actions have taken a desperate toll on the current members of the FBI –

In normal times, the televisions are humming at the FBI’s 56 field offices nationwide, piping in the latest news as agents work their investigations. But these days, some agents say, the TVs are often off to avoid the crush of bad stories about the FBI itself. The bureau, which is used to making headlines for nabbing crooks, has been grabbing the spotlight for unwanted reasons: fired leaders, texts between lovers and, most of all, attacks by President Trump. “I don’t care what channel it’s on,” says Tom O’Connor, a veteran investigator in Washington who leads the FBI Agents Association. “All you hear is negative stuff about the FBI … It gets depressing.”

Of course the employees of the FBI are in a funk, their fearless and corrupt leaders, as well as leaders in Obama’s corrupt DOJ, went to extravagant links to exonerate the obvious criminal actions of Hillary Clinton, and then to do all they could to prevent candidate Trump from winning an election.  Then once the election was won by President Trump, they went to unheard of depths of deceit and corruption to attempt to remove him from office.

Here’s a list of the actions the Deep State FBI took in their recent criminal actions surrounding the 2016 Presidential election and since [the first 11 items are from the Time post noted above with comments in brackets] –

1 – Comey breached Justice Department protocols in a July 5, 2016, press conference when he criticized Hillary Clinton for using a private email server as Secretary of State even as he cleared her of any crimes
2 – Comey reopened the Clinton email probe less than two weeks before the election
3 – Andrew McCabe lied to the bureau’s internal investigations branch to cover up a leak he orchestrated about Clinton’s family foundation less than two weeks before the election and had lied for months about it
4 – FBI wasn’t adequately investigating “high-risk” employees who failed polygraph tests (but, in fact, putting them in charge of high-profile investigations, like Peter Strzok who failed his poly). In one instance, an FBI IT specialist with top-secret security clearance failed four polygraph tests and admitted to having created a fictitious Facebook account to communicate with a foreign national, but received no disciplinary action for that.
5 – The FBI’s miss of the Russian influence operation against the 2016 election, which went largely undetected for more than two years (The FBI had the chance to kill this Russian intrusion years before it reached crisis point in the election). Mueller’s Russia probe found that Moscow’s operation against the 2016 election first got under way in 2014, but the FBI failed to address it.
6 – The FBI was getting information it shouldn’t have had access to when it used controversial parts of the Patriot Act to obtain business records in terrorism and counterintelligence cases.
7 – The bureau missed the significance of the damaging 2015 hack of the DNC database [although others argue that the DNC was never hacked – due to the FBI’s lack of investigative process, we may never know what happened.] 8 – The bureau also sat on the disputed “dossier” prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. [Which was then used for the entire case against Trump and anyone near him].
9 – The bureau’s decision to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was influenced by politics.
10 – Text messages between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which were critical of Trump.
11 – Comey broke with Justice Department rules and norms by assuming authority usually held by prosecutors and speaking in public about a case that did not produce criminal charges.
12 – Comey took copious notes and diligently informed others of all interactions with Trump while lying about having had any interactions with Obama, never taking notes or notifying anyone so even after having been warned of Mr. Steele’s motivations, even after having fired him for violating the rules, the FBI continued to seek his information—using Mr. Ohr as a back channel. This surely violates the FBI manual governing interaction with confidential human sources.
13 – FBI guidelines state that unverified information should not be submitted to the FISA court.
14 – They were passive, not proactive. The Obama administration “stood down” and watched these “activities” unravel. At worst, they possibly played a hand in creating circumstances to push the investigation forward into more serious stages that allowed for more intrusive techniques, such as spying. (The FBI is supposed to prevent crime, not watch it happen).
15 – John Brennan, James Clapper, Samantha Power, Loretta Lynch were all briefed by James Comey on the alleged Russian interference into the Trump campaign, yet the Trump campaign was left in the dark.
16 –FBI agents found Abedin deleting classified Clinton emails from her Yahoo account but failed to subpoena her devices. If they had, maybe they wouldn’t have had to reopen the case in 11th hour when NY agents found work emails on the laptop she shared with her perv husband.
17 – The FBI failed to notify Congress of the investigation into the Trump campaign for months rather than quarterly as was practice. [See Comey presentation to House Republicans in March 2017] 18 – The FBI did not pursue criminal charges when Clinton’s email archives were permanently deleted from her private server days after a subpoena for them was issued by a congressional committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
19 – The IG found that the FBI and DOJ during the MidYearExam probe of Hillary Clinton email server “did not require any witnesses to testify before the grand jury,” despite at least 3 witnesses lying to FBI agents.
20 – “[T]he 
Midyear team did not obtain search warrants to examine the content of emails in Mills’s or Abedin’s private email accounts and did not seek to obtain any of the senior aides’ personal devices.”
21 – IG Report: Nobody was listed as a subject of this [Clinton email] investigation at any point in time (So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by FBI at any time in 2015-2016, but the agents handling the issue thought it was a criminal action).
22 – The IG report indicates a strong pro-Clinton/anti-Trump bias in FBI investigators of Midyear and Operation Russian Collusion but it still went on without personnel changes or actions against the corrupt investigative team.
23 – The IG report found: “The MYE Team did not seek to obtain every device, including those of Clinton’s senior aides, or the contents of every email account through which a classified email may have traversed.”
24 – Manafort interviewed twice before joining the Trump team. If he was guilty of anything why did they allow him to join the Trump team?
25 – In 2008, a questionable person on McCain’s POTUS campaign caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence, and the FBI privately approached McCain. That questionable person was quietly removed from Team McCain but this same sensitivity was not provided to the Trump team.
26 – The corrupt Obama FBI and DOJ used the “salacious and unverified” opposition research called the Steele dossier to open a counterintelligence investigation and obtain warrants but it wasn’t even verified and it was created by the opposition party [DNC]. [Multiple sources] 27 – Unprecedented leaking to the press: 13 different individuals at the FBI were feeding a journalist information.
28 – Dan Bongino asks the question: How did Halper go from being a CIA informant to an FBI informant? And he’s right. It is a DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD PRACTICE for law enforcement agencies to give up/share their asset.
29 – The “probable cause” arrest of George Papadopoulos is a deviation from the standard practice.
30 – Halper was a CHS (Confidential Human Source). FBI rules prohibit using a CHS to spy on Americans before an official investigation has been created.
31 -Stone and Caputo say they believe they were the targets of a setup by U.S. law enforcement officials hostile to Trump which was before an official investigation which again is a deviation from standard practice.
32 – The FBI interviewed Carter Page in March of 2016 about his Russian ties. Two months later, Comey is briefing the NSC about his concerns about Carter Page. Nothing of any note happened in those intervening months to cause a rise of concerns, so whatever concerns Comey had Comey had them before Page was hired on as an adviser. It was a DEVIATION FROM STANDARD PRACTICE for Comey to not have warned Trump about Page. Comey warns Obama instead who also takes no steps to warn Trump.
33 – Another deviation from the standard practice is to start an investigation without a crime.
34 – Planting the Isikoff article to be used in court to obtain a FISA warrant.
35 – Related to the FBI, it’s important to note that former DNI chief James Clapper limited the IC report for review to only 3 agencies rather than send the report out to all 17 agencies for review. This way he was able to control what was put into the report – another deviation from the standard practice.

This may only be a partial list of FBI abuses and actions taken with deviations from standard practice, if not clear cut crimes.  The gangsters who ran Obama’s FBI, from Mueller to Comey, are so corrupt, current and former agents are now embarrassed to be part of the once storied federal agency.  Quite frankly, it’s doubtful if the FBI can ever be trusted again!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump’s wish to take the US out of NATO leaves NeoCons seething

The US President has seen the truth of the irrelevance of NATO, but there is enormous resistance to change.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Tucker Carlson, Fox News and Russian and American news outlets alike have picked up the story that US President Donald Trump has on numerous occasions, opined that the United States would do well to depart from the North Atlantic Military Organization, or NATO.

This wish caused enormous fury and backlash from those opposed, which, oddly enough include both Democrats and Republicans. Their anger and alarm over this idea is such that the media networks through much of the US are alive with the idea of impeaching the President or bringing 25th Amendment proceedings against him for insanity!

Take a look:

Tucker Carlson, as usual, nailed it.

NATO was formed to make Western Europe secure in the face of a perceived Soviet threat. In 1991, the USSR collapsed and the threat of Ivan the Communist bad guy collapsed with it.

But 28 years later, NATO is still here. And, why?

Well, many “experts” continue to point at Russia as a threat, though after that statement no one seems honestly able to elucidate precisely how Russia would, in fact, threaten any nation, take over it, or conquer the world. Indeed, if anyone seems to understand the perversity of being in charge of the whole world, it seems to be Russia, as expressed by politician and LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see how this is so here).

Zhironovsky observed that China is the other nation that is running at full force, but viewing the problems the US is having with being the leader of the world, China stops short of trying to attain this position itself. The question becomes “What does a nation that rules the world actually do then?”

President Trump appears to be seeing the same question, or some similar variant based on the same theme. NATO serves no constructive purpose anymore. Despite the conflicts in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Israel and Syria, there simply are no great threats in the world as it stands today. While there are certainly still wars, none of these wars represents an existential threat to the United States.

Why wouldn’t a US leader want out? In fact, there is further no existential threat to Europe from any present war, nor is there a threat from Russia itself. In fact, Russia has been entering into business relations with many European countries who wish to buy cheap and easily available Russian natural gas. Turkey purchased an S-400 antimissile system in addition to its US made Patriot battery.

There would seem to be very little in the way of concrete and reliable reasoning for the alliance to continue.

But the American Deep State and liberal establishment have come together to resist the US President in a truly furious manner, and it is revelatory of the hypocrisy of anti-Trump politics that American liberals, typically the “sing Kum-ba-yah peacenik” crowd, displays paroxysms of outrage and horror that NATO might be disbanded.

As the result of that, the American media is determined to choke off any possibility of one thinking, “well, what if we were to disband NATO?”

Why is this?

Simple. A lot of people make their living by preparing for the Russian “threat”, and it would mean the end of their work, the end of their money, and a great disruption in life. It does not matter that while this is true, these same people could conceivably apply their considerable skill sets to deal with real problems that face a world that no longer has a dipolar alignment, or to help prevent a real problem from arising from real situations, such as the recent and current Islamization of many European cities.

One of the great afflictions of American politics and policy has been that so much of it appears to be focused on “short term” or “no term” matters. We see this with the problems related to border security, the coming advent of AI-based automated processes that may furlough low-skilled workers in tremendous amounts in a short period of time. Rather than solve real problems, the elected representatives and media seem more content to oppose Donald Trump when he, as a businessman ought to do, makes a federal case out of what he sees on the horizon.

The Border Wall, for example, is a highly logical part of a properly handled set of immigration policies. But the very direct behavior of President Trump helped amplify the resentment the Democrats still hold against him for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and so, the Democrats have effectively said “nuts!” to the needs of the nation and they take out their resentment on the nation by refusing to negotiate with the President about how to close the border.

NATO is another example. The alliance served its purpose. It is time for the alliance to end, or to be radically restructured in terms of new goals based in real, and not just flimsy rhetorical, needs.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending