Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Let All Opposed to War Praise Trump’s ‘Treasonous’ Tweet, by John V. Walsh

By now we all know that anyone who wants to improve relations with the world’s second largest nuclear power, starting from the top with the president-elect, is treasonous. Throw SLL in the brig. From John V. Walsh at lewrockwell.com:

When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation of “hacking the election” on December 29, Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead, Putin’s response was to issue an invitation to American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday celebrations in the Kremlin.

Then came the shock from President-Elect Trump, in the form of a tweet (what else) heard round the world that read:

“Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!”

And to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump “pinned” the tweet which means it is the first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of “pinning” for Trump. And to be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, December 30.

Trump Takes on the Entire Apparatus of the War Party

The implications of this move are breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite as his adversaries. This makes perfect sense if Trump’s desire is to rein in the War Party and to strive for a New Détente.

If the main enemy is those who are stoking a New Cold War, and worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against them. Consider who those folks are, in addition to Obama, Hillary and company and whole army of neocons and neoliberalcons: all the mainstream media, press, TV, NPR and PBS, NED, the various Soros-funded “N”GOs, all the think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, the CIA and the other “intelligence” agencies like the NSA. They have all been working at demonizing Putin 24/7, stoking a New Cold War and likely worse. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!

To continue reading: Let All Opposed to War Praise Trump’s ‘Treasonous’ Tweet

Trump Tweets, Ford and GM Counter, their Shares Jump, the Peso Plunges, but the Jobs Won’t “Come Back” to the USA, by Wolf Richter

Trump’s crony socialism by tweet is still crony socialism. From Wolf Richter at wolfstreet.com:

Whacked by slow demand, Ford cancels plant in Mexico, shifts car production to existing plant in Mexico.

President-Elect Trump has been hounding individual businesses with his drive-by tweets, to knock them around some, get their shares to sink, and cut some “deals.” Last year, he singled out Ford, Carrier, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, and others. Now companies have set up damage-control teams to prepare for and counter a hit of this type.

Today he singled out GM. It was automaker day. It started with a Trump drive-by tweet about threatening GM with a “big border tax” for importing its Chevy Cruze from Mexico:

General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border. Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax!

But he got the facts wrong, and GM’s damage-control team instantly retorted:

General Motors manufactures the Chevrolet Cruze sedan in Lordstown, Ohio. All Chevrolet Cruze sedans sold in the U.S. are built in GM’s assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. GM builds the Chevrolet Cruze hatchback for global markets in Mexico, with a small number sold in the U.S.

Reality is this: Demand for GM cars has been swooning, and inventories on dealer lots have been ballooning. For example, at the end of November, dealers sat on 127 days’ supply of Cruze models, more than double a healthy level, after sales had plunged 18%. In November, GM had announced the first wave of layoffs. In December, it followed up by announcing 10,000 layoffs and five plant closings [read… “Car Recession” Bites GM: Inventory Glut, Layoffs, Plant Shutdowns].

To continue reading: Trump Tweets, Ford & GM Counter, their Shares Jump, the Peso Plunges, but the Jobs Won’t “Come Back” to the USA

Can Trump and Putin Avert Cold War II?, by Patrick J. Buchanan

The first cold war was a constant state of  tension, brought the world to the precipice of nuclear war, and wasted vast quantities of material, manpower, manufacturing capacity, and money. Why would anyone want to repeat that experience? Ask the neocons. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland’s Eastern shore.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that 35 U.S. diplomats would be expelled. But Vladimir Putin stepped in, declined to retaliate at all, and invited the U.S. diplomats in Moscow and their children to the Christmas and New Year’s party at the Kremlin.

“A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger,” reads Proverbs 15:1. “Great move,” tweeted President-elect Trump, “I always knew he was very smart!”

Among our Russophobes, one can almost hear the gnashing of teeth.

Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being “Putin’s puppet,” lost.

Is then a Cold War II between Russia and the U.S. avoidable?

That question raises several others.

Who is more responsible for both great powers having reached this level of animosity and acrimony, 25 years after Ronald Reagan walked arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev through Red Square? And what are the causes of the emerging Cold War II?

To continue reading: Can Trump and Putin Avert Cold War II?

 

 

If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama, by James Risen

Donald Trump is apparently not overly concerned about civil liberties, but neither was Barack Obama. In fact, Obama set many of the precedents to which Trump can avail himself, if he’s so inclined. From James Risen at nytimes.com:

WASHINGTON — If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.

Mr. Trump made his animus toward the news media clear during the presidential campaign, often expressing his disgust with coverage through Twitter or in diatribes at rallies. So if his campaign is any guide, Mr. Trump seems likely to enthusiastically embrace the aggressive crackdown on journalists and whistle-blowers that is an important yet little understood component of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy.

Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

To continue reading: If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

Why Donald Trump Is Spot-On About The Russians And The Election, by John Reed Stark

Skepticism about all the Russian hacking allegations and the election is warranted. The claims are unsubstantiated and will remain difficult to impossible to substantiate. From John Reed Stark at linkedin.com:

President-elect Donald Trump has recently questioned: 1) President Obama’s finger pointing at the Russians for election-related cyberattacks; and 2) the current media and pundit frenzy alleging a Russian cyber-strike targeting Secretary Hillary Clinton in order to assure a Trump presidency. President-elect Trump plans to press U.S. intelligence agencies to defend their conclusions, stating,

“I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”

Having worked since 1995 as a first-responder to cyber-attacks, including serving 11 years as Chief of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, I whole-heartedly agree with President-elect Trump. His skepticism is not only appropriate and warranted — it’s spot-on.

Official U.S. Statements About Russian Hacking of U.S. Election

Despite countless inflammatory headlines about Russian election hacking, there exist only two official U.S. statements specifically addressing the facts of recent election-related hacking incidents. The first is the October 7, 2016 Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security (the “Joint Statement”). The second is the December 29, 2016 Joint Analysis Report of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, entitled, “GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity” (the “JAR”).

Both government statements are curt, vague, opaque and miles away from being concrete — and both also beg far more questions than answers.

To continue reading: Why Donald Trump Is Spot-On About The Russians And The Election

For Democrats, 2017 Will Be The Year of Living Stupidly, by Kurt Schlicter

Democrats will spend 2017 proving, as if there was any doubt, that they have no other cause than government. Out of power they are bereft of any constructive ideas or activities, and they will continue to make fools of themselves. From Kurt Schlicter on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

If you thought 2016 was packed full of liberal foolishness, just wait until you get a load of 2017. As 2016 ends, progressives enter the new year terrified that Donald Trump will continue to run circles around them, and their epic meltdown is only going to get more epically meltdownier. They’ve been shrill, stupid, and annoying for the last two months, but brace yourself for the next 12. Fear is going to make them go nuts – not the fear that Trump will be a failure, but the gut-wrenching, mind-numbing fear that Donald Trump will be a success.

And it looks like Trump may very well be one – something I previously and publicly doubted.

Let’s step back and think about who Trump has shown himself to be. Sure, he’s vulgar, and his knowledge of traditional conservatism is … limited. But he’s a competitor, and if he’s stupid like the liberals say then what does that make the liberals who Trump keeps beating as enthusiastically as Josh Marshall tweeting past midnight? Look, the guy is a property developer. If he does not deliver what he promises, the buyer won’t take occupancy and he loses money. Trump knows from his own experience – and the painful experience of the follow-through-free GOP – that the way to win is to deliver on his promises. It may ruffle our conservafeathers, but Trump promised to keep Carrier in the USA and he did it. As promised, the market is in the stratosphere and consumer confidence exists again. Trump promised to nominate conservatives and he did – do you think that whiny puffball Jeb Bush would have put up a cabinet full of Mad Dogs and activists aching to burn their own useless agencies to the ground?

To continue reading: For Democrats, 2017 Will Be The Year of Living Stupidly

Trump Is Exactly Where The Elites Want Him, by Brandon Smith

Brandon Smith further elaborates his hypothesis that Trump’s election was exactly what the so-called elites wanted, and will use his presidency to discredit conservative and liberty movements. From Smith at alt-market.com:

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful drug. It makes otherwise-very-intelligent people goofy and incoherent in their thinking and blinds them to certain realities that they should normally see right in front of their noses. I witness it all the time in the field of economics — a key piece of logic, a key fact that certain people absolutely refuse to take into account simply because they have a singular idea of how the world works and they cannot allow that idea to ever come into question. They would rather leap into a mental gymnastics routine worthy of an Olympic gold medal than examine the truth. And if you confront them on it, they’ll accuse YOU of being the one in denial.

This is how we ended up with the credit crisis and market crash of 2008/2009. This is how very few people saw the writing on the wall with Syria and ISIS and the fact that the funding and training of Islamic extremists by Western governments for the purpose of proxy insurgency might not be such a great concept. It is the reason why it took years for the mainstream to acknowledge the advent of the East/West paradigm, the same paradigm that alternative analysts warned about years in advance. This is why most mainstream AND alternative analysts completely discounted a successful Brexit referendum. And, it is why the vast majority of pundits could not even conceive of a Trump victory in 2016. I could write a list 20 pages long on all the geopolitical and fiscal developments most people missed because they were clinging to assumptions rather than evidence.

Unfortunately, the liberty movement is also sometimes vulnerable to such assumptions. The most dangerous of which revolve around the rise of President-elect Donald Trump.

To continue reading: Trump Is Exactly Where The Elites Want Him

 

World Trade Falls to 2014 Level, just in Time for a “Trade War” by Wolf Richter

World trade was in none too great a shape, then trade protectionist Donald Trump got elected. From Wolf Richter at wolfstreet.com:

Threatened Trade War meets the Great Stagnation.

“If you get into a trade war with China, sooner or later we’ll have to come to grips with that,” Carl Icahn, now special advisor to President-Elect Trump, told CNBC on Thursday. “I remember the day something like that would really knock the hell out of the market.”

A trade war with China surely would be another wall of worry for stocks to climb. Trump’s rhetoric against China, each morsel packaged into 140 characters or less, has already recreated much-needed turbulence [read… Trump Tweets about China, US Businesses Freak out].

“But maybe if you’re going to do it,” Icahn said about the looming trade war with China, “you should get it over with, right?”

This comes after rumors emerged that Trump’s transition team is chewing over the idea to impose import tariffs of up to 10%, “according to multiple sources,” including a “senior Trump transition official,” CNN reported. The idea is to boost US manufacturing. The new tariffs could be imposed by executive order or by Congress as part of broader tax reform legislation.

The 10% would be an uptick from the 5% tariff that incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus had put on the table last week, in “meetings with key Washington players,” two sources “who represent business interests in Washington” told CNN. These tariffs would be in line with Trump’s campaign motto of “America First.”

Other countries would, as they always do, retaliate. Hence the term “trade war.” Countries will be careful not to escalate, but these things can escalate nevertheless, because no one wants to seem weak and back off. Either way, it would pull the rug out from under world trade.

To continue reading: World Trade Falls to 2014 Level, just in Time for a “Trade War”

 

Too Many Generals Spoil the Democracy, by William J. Astore

America has always loved its generals, but in the past the generals it loved were the ones who won. From William J. Astore at tomdispatch.com:

America has always had a love affair with its generals. It started at the founding of the republic with George Washington and continued with (among others) Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. These military men shared something in common: they were winning generals. Washington in the Revolution; Jackson in the War of 1812; Taylor in the Mexican-American War; Grant in the Civil War; and Ike, of course, in World War II. Americans have always loved a hero in uniform — when he wins.

Yet twenty-first-century America is witnessing a new and revolutionary moment: the elevation of losing generals to the highest offices in the land. Retired Marine Corps General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, known as a tough-talking “warrior-monk,” will soon be the nation’s secretary of defense. He’ll be joined by a real mad dog, retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as President-elect Donald Trump’s national security adviser. Leading the Department of Homeland Security will be recently retired General John Kelly, another no-nonsense Marine. And even though he wasn’t selected, retired Army General David Petraeus was seriously considered for secretary of state, further proof of Trump’s starry-eyed fascination with the brass of our losing wars. Generals who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to anything but victory — pyrrhic ones don’t count — are again being empowered. This time, it’s as “civilian” advisers to Trump, a business tycoon whose military knowledge begins and ends with his invocation of two World War II generals, George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur, as his all-time favorite military leaders.

To continue reading: Too Many Generals Spoil the Democracy

Desperation, by Robert Gore

The pathetic attempts to undo Donald Trump’s victory are signs of desperation, not strength, in the Deep State.

The post World War II consensus held that the USSR’s long-term goal was world domination. That assessment solidified after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. A nuclear arms race, a space race, maintenance of a globe-spanning military, political, and economic confederation, and a huge expansion of the size and power of the military and intelligence complex were justified by the Soviet, and later, the Red Chinese threats. Countering those threats led the US to use many of the same amoral tactics that it deplored when used by its enemies: espionage, subversion, bribery, repression, assassination, regime change, and direct and proxy warfare.

Scorning principles of limited government, non-intervention in other nations’ affairs, and individual rights, the Deep State embraced the anti-freedom mindset of its purported enemies, not just towards those enemies, but toward allies and the American people. The Deep State gradually assumed control of the government and elected officials were expected to adhere to its policies and promote its propaganda. Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor.

Since its ascension in the 1950s, the biggest threat to the Deep State has not been its many and manifest failures, but rather what the naive would regard as its biggest success: the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Much of the military-industrial complex was suddenly deprived of its reason for existence—the threat was gone. However, a more subtle point was lost.

The Soviet Union has been the largest of statism’s many failures to date. Because of the Deep State’s philosophical blinders, that outcome was generally unforeseen. The command and control philosophy at the heart of Soviet communism was merely a variant on the same philosophy espoused and practiced by the Deep State. Like the commissars, its members believe that “ordinary” people are unable to handle freedom, and that their generalized superiority entitles them to wield the coercive power of government.

With “irresponsible” elements talking of peace dividends and scaling back the military and the intelligence agencies, the complex was sorely in need of a new enemy. Islam suffers the same critical flaw as communism—command and control—and has numerous other deficiencies, including intolerance, repression, and the legal subjugation of half its adherents. The Deep State had to focus on the world conquest ideology of some Muslims to even conjure Islam as a plausible foe. However, unlike the USSR, they couldn’t claim that sect and faction-ridden Islam posed a monolithic threat, that the Islamic nations were an empire or a federation united towards a common goal, or that their armaments (there are under thirty nuclear weapons in the one Islamic nation, Pakistan, that has them) could destroy the US or the entire planet.

There was too much money and power at stake for the complex to shrink. While on paper Islam appeared far weaker than communism, the complex had one factor in their favor: terrorism is terrifying. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche to fight a war on terrorism that would span the globe, target all those whom the government identified as terrorists, and never be conclusively won or lost. Funding for the complex ballooned, the military was deployed on multiple fronts, and the surveillance state blossomed. Most of those who might have objected were bought off with expanded welfare state funding and programs (e.g. George W. Bush’s prescription drug benefit, Obamacare).

What would prove to be a serious challenge to the centralization and the power of the Deep State came, unheralded, with the invention of the microchip in the late 1950s. The Deep State could not have exercised the power it has without a powerful grip on information flow and popular perception. The microchip led to widespread distribution of cheap computing power and dissemination of information over the decentralized Internet. This dynamic, organically adaptive decentralization has been the antithesis of the command-and-control Deep State, which now realizes the gravity of the threat. Fortunately, countering these technologies has been like trying to eradicate hordes of locusts.

A graver threat, however, to the Deep State is self-imposed: it’s own incompetence. Even the technologically illiterate can ask questions for which it has no answers. Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots? Isn’t such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US? Have “free trade” agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? (SLL claims no special insight into the nexus between the banking-financial sector and the Deep State, other than to note that there is one.) Why does every debt crisis result in more debt? How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy? The Deep State can’t answer or even acknowledge these questions because they all touch on its failures.

Brexit, Donald Trump, other populist, nationalist movements catching fire, and the rise of the alternative media are wrecking balls aimed at an already structurally unsound and teetering building that would eventually collapse on its own. The shenanigans in the US after Trump’s election—violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, “fake news,” and the attempt to sway electoral college electors—are the desperate screams of those trapped inside.

Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious.

The euphoria over his victory cannot obscure a potential consequence: it may hasten and amplify the destruction and resultant chaos when the Deep State finally topples. Anyone who thinks Trump’s victory sounds an all clear is allowing hope to triumph over experience and what should have been hard-won wisdom.

strike your own blow

against the deep state!

cropped-prime-deceit-final-cover.jpg

THE AMAZON PAPERBACK

OR

THE KINDLE EBOOK

once upon a time there

was no deep state

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON PAPERBACK

KINDLE EBOOK