Politics and Issues – Page 2 – The Donelson Files

Iran, Trump and American first foreign policy

We have been at war with Iran since 1979 only most Americans have not realized it. From the time of Iranian mullahs taking our embassy staff hostage, to many different acts of terrorism against our soldiers beginning with the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon and during the war on terror, American soldiers died as result of Iranian efforts. Obama/Biden appeasement Iranian government giving them billions to spread their terrorism which included proxies in Lebanon and Gaza strip as well as Assad in Syria. The reality is that Obama/Biden negotiations would have allowed Iran the bomb but in the case of Obama, long after he left office

The entire basis of Obama/Biden was designed to create a balance of power between Iran, Saudi’s and Israel but the absurdity of the policy could be seen in that Iran’s goal was not a balance of power but control over the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. Brian Kennedy in America Mind observed about Iran, and American policy during the cold war, “The U.S. experience with Iran tells a different story. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for almost half a century. Its enmity for the U.S. was born of our cooperation in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah of Iran until his fall at the hands of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The overthrow in 1953 was part of a series of Cold War considerations that the United States made with our British allies to check the influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and ensure Western access to oil…The Cold War, clearly misunderstood by so many young Americans today, was an existential contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was not engaged in the democracy promotion that came to characterize the discredited and failed efforts of the Global War on Terrorism. During the Cold War, the United States and our NATO allies engaged in ruthless competition with the Soviet Union and its allies, such as Communist China, North Korea, and the terrorist movements represented by the PLO in the Middle East and Communist/terrorist groups in Europe such as Baader-Meinhof, Black September, and the Red Brigades. Communist China supported these groups every bit as much as the SovietUnion did. It was a global struggle for primacy.”

Our involvement with Iran was part of winning the cold war and the collapse of the Shah and its replacement with Mullah’s theocracy changed our calculations in the Middle East and the impact would go beyond the end of Cold war. During the 1980’s Iraq and Iranian were engaged in war for nearly 8 years in which millions died, and we actually supported Saddam against the Iranians Hussain invasion changed the calculations as United States would not allow the invasion to stand and United States led coalition removed Hussian from Kuwait

Muslim scholar Robert Spencer noted the difference between Iran and Iraq, “As a consistent opponent of our misguided misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan from the beginning, I’m here to tell you that Iran in 2025 is not Iraq in 2003. Back in March 2003, I argued in an article in the late, lamented Insight magazine that President Bush did not have a realistic plan for bringing democracy to the Middle East, and that insisting that the nations of the Middle East choose between Western-style democracy or the terror state would do more harm than good.…In that article, I wrote that “certainly he will find proponents of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere. But the primary opponents of these democrats will not be terrorists, but those who hold that no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys the Shariah. Even if they lose in the short run, they will not disappear as long as there are people who take the Koran and Islamic tradition seriously. And that spells trouble for any genuine democracy.” I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I don’t hate it all that much…And now, the idea that the Islamic regime in Iran could well be in its last days is giving a lot of people who style themselves “America First” the vapors. But Iran in 2025 is pretty much the polar opposite of Iraq in 2003. Saddam’s Iraq did not enforce Sharia; ; it was a secular state, which rankled many Muslim hardliners within the country. They were itching for a chance to impose Sharia and govern the country, or as much of it as they could wrench under their control, as a proper Islamic state, and when that chance came courtesy of the Americans, they grabbed it. The Islamic State, which in its heyday controlled a territory in Iraq and Syria larger than Britain, applied Islamic law with scrupulous exactitude and remorseless efficiency. The end result, as everyone knows, was far worse than what had been seen under Saddam.”

Melanie Phillips made a similar point with a British colonial, “In London, a British colonel told me that “Ariel Sharon has his hand up Bush’s back”—and was astonished when I replied that Israel had told the United States it was Iran, not Iraq, which posed the greatest danger.” Iraq war may have been the wrong war at wrong time with the wrong country.

Victor Davis Hanson observed about Trump policy toward Iran and in general, “Trump’s past shows that he never claimed that he was either an ideological isolationist or an interventionist. He was and is clearly a populist-nationalist: i.e., what in a cost-to-benefit analysis is in the best interests of the U.S. at home and its own particular agendas abroad? Trump did not like neo-conservatism because he never felt it was in our interests to spend blood and treasure on those who either did not deserve such largess, or who would never evolve in ways we thought they should, or whose fates were not central to our national interests.” Hanson point is that Trump is not an isolationist but believes that our interest needs to be considered.

In the past, I have discussed the Cap Weinberger thesis on the conditions in which American go to war. For advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement. The principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.

Casper Weinberger set these principles in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which America was divided and there was serious question on how the war was conducted, so he set in principle ideas that political leader needs to consider. In 1984, two events occurred, one in which 240 Marines were killed as result of a suicide bomber in Beirut and the second, the invasion of Grenada in which United States removed a Marxist government that overthrew another leftist government and supported by Cuban forces.

The Beirut attack was part of an ill-defined peace keeping mission in Lebanon and eventually Reagan, left Lebanon as oppose to getting sucked into an endless morose and in Grenada, United States went into with overpowering force, and easily removed the Cuban forces in an island in our backyard, the Caribbean.

The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war. And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait. After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced.

The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded upon the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries. From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan. The expanded mission after the second war in Iraq ended in failure. Robert Spencer predicted the failure of this mission and while the initial war in Afghanistan was designed to go after those responsible for 9/11 and the initial campaign succeeded in that but the movement toward pushing Afghanistan toward democracy proved problematic and Bush involved us in two wars at same time.

An Americas First policy begins identifying what is in our national interest and what is not. Americans no longer want to be involved in endless wars without any end game, but they will follow defined goals that are attainable and convinced in our national interest. Reagan exercised a modest foreign policy with the objective of winning the Cold War. After the cold war, we found ourselves in unique position as the World leading superpower after the Soviet Empire collapsed and China has yet to be the power they are now. George W Bush campaigned on a modest foreign policy and even questioned nation building in Haiti but after 9/11, things change and the strategy as Bush administration decided including nation building to reverse future Islamist terrorist states. Just as Bush criticized Clinton administration for his nation building efforts in Haiti, his national building efforts to build more stable nations in the Middle East failed, certainly in Afghanistan and Biden withdrawal proved to be disastrous in allowing the Taliban back in power and Putin took this as a sign of weakness and a license to begin the invasion

What is an American first foreign policy? If China is the main threat, then what strategy needs to be followed? How do decoupling ourselves from China and tariffs fit in the strategy? What alliances need to be set up and the condition of those alliances that will increase our own national interest? What would the role of Europe and NATO play and what about our relations with India fit into our national interest? What should our position be in Europe, and do we allow the Europeans manage the bulk of the defense of Europe against future Russian incursion? How do we deal with Central and South America? I could go on, but Weinberger principle gives Americas firsters a framework to build from.

Victor Davis Hanson concluded, “So-called, optional, bad-deal, and forever wars in the Middle East and their multitrillion-dollar costs would come ultimately at the expense of shorting Middle America back home. However, Trump’s first-term bombing of ISIS, standing down “little rocket man”, warning Putin not to invade Ukraine between 2017-21, and killing off Qasem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many of the attacking Russian Wagner Group in Syria were certainly not Charles Lindberg isolationism but a sort of Jacksonian—something summed up perhaps as the Gadsen “Don’t tread on me”/ or Lucius Sulla’s “No better friend, no worse enemy” . Trump’s much critiqued references to Putin—most recently during the G7, and his negotiations with him over Ukraine—were never, as alleged, appeasement (he was harder in his first term on Putin than was either Obama or Biden), but art-of-the-deal/transactional (e.g., you don’t gratuitously insult or ostracize your formidable rival in possible deal-making, but seek simultaneously to praise—and beat—him.) Similarly, Churchill initially saw the mass-murdering, treacherous Stalin in the way Trump perhaps sees Putin, someone dangerous and evil, but who if handled carefully, occasionally granted his due, and approached with eyes wide open, could be useful in advancing a country’s realist interests—which for Britain in 1941 was for Russia to kill three-quarters of Nazi Germany’s soldiers, and, mutatis mutandis, for the U.S. in 2025 to cease the mass killing near Europe, save most of an autonomous Ukraine, keep Russia back eastward as far as feasible, and in Kissingerian-style derail the developing Chinese and Russian anti-American axis. Trump was never anti-Ukraine, but rather against a seemingly endless Verdun-like war in which after three years neither side had found a pathway to strategic resolution—a war from the distance fought between two like peoples, one with nuclear weapons, and on the doorstep of Europe.”

Trump policy is not isolationist but based on restricting the use of military only in need to defend our national interest nor is he interested in spreading “democracy” but accept countries choice of government as long they do not impact our national interest. He stated to the Saudis, ”And it’s crucial for the wider world to note this great transformation has not come from Western interventionalists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities… Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives — developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way. It’s really incredible what you’ve done.”

Trump view is that countries need to find their own path and as long as those paths don’t involved threatening the United States Trump view that each region or countries need to find their own way and we can’t impose our views or system upon others. As Brian Kennedy noted about our alliance in World War II included the Soviet Union and , we allied ourselves with unsavory countries to defeat the Soviet Empire, but also many countries like South Korea found their own path to both economic and political freedom as we aided the process but not start the process for it was their people who started the process and move toward democracy on their own.

Postscript,

As I was completing this piece, Trump bombed the nuclear facilities and now we will see where we go The Weinberger doctrine would limit Trump responses beginning with understanding the limits of what the United States can do. Trump is not interested in boots on the ground, but Trump administration needs to be prepared for Iranians counterattack including shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or terrorist activities in the Unted States with undetected cells.

Trump had a good beginning a limited objective, destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and as for regime change, it would be good if the mullahs were replaced but the United States can not be involved instituting regime change nor have boots on the ground. Iranian people themselves must change their government. Trump has made his feeling known on this.

Iran Israel and Obama/Biden

The Israel attack on Iran and the subsequent Iranian counterattack, can be traced to Barack Obama policies toward Iran. A policy based on the idea that Iran could be a constructive force in the Middle East and a counter force to our alliance with Israel. Stupidity.

Obama and Biden allowed Iran access to billions which went to expanding their terrorist network throughout Middle East and when Iranian people rebelled in 2009, Obama took the regime side. And when Trump had Iran on the economic rope in 2020, Biden open the spigot.

The October 7th attack was a direct result of Obama/Biden policies.

The little secret is that Trump had to clean up the Obama mistakes of his administration and now Trump is cleaning up Biden mess. A major European war in Central Europe, the Middle East mess and China on the march in the Western Pacific that is what Trump inherited.

Israeli took Iran situation in their own hands but there is enough evidence that United States knew what was up and didn’t object. Trump did his peace talk but makes you wonder if this was designed a fake since Trump knew that Iran would not give up their nuclear weapons.

We are the verge of expanded war in Europe and Middle East, but the key issue is Trump foreign policies are able to pull us back from the brink but don’t forget one thing, this was Obama and Biden doing!

Violence is a Leftist tactic

January 6^th, 2021, which was the only major riot started by the left over the previous 12 months. The Left, including members of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, committed almost all political violence in the U.S. in 2020. Billions of dollars of property were destroyed and as many as 30 people died, including former St. Louis police chief David Dorn, murdered by thugs who filmed his death. Violence has become part of the Left strategy in promoting their cause and destabilizing America.

Damages between May 26 and June 8,2020 resulted in as much as two billion dollars paid in insurance claims. In Minneapolis alone, 1500 buildings were destroyed. Minneapolis continues to be the costliest civil disorder in 2020-21 and much of the damage took place in minority communities on whose behalf they rioted for. Violent riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin left 50 million dollars in damages and nearly 60 buildings destroyed. The biggest damage occurred in the city’s most diverse areas that included where most minorities lived. Like Chicago and Minneapolis, minority areas were ere the hardest hits in the Kenosha riots.

Many Black Lives Matter and Antifa activists did not really care about the damage they cause since buildings and goods aw just property—and not their property. Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting, told NPR that it was morally justified for Black people to rob stores because “The very basis of property is derived through violence and through Black oppression…Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness, and the police.” What these Democrat-sanctioned riots did was to destroy businesses that drive the economies of these urban centers, blocking chances for the poor to climb the economic ladder.

Much of the rioters engaged in looting claimed Black Lives Matter as their rationale for destroying the inner-city communities they claim they are supporting. In the aftermath of the nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd as Kamala Harris told Stephen Colbert, about protesters, “They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone beware because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that… They’re not going to let up and they should not.”

In 2022, there were at least 38 acts of vandalism in art museums dealing with climate change according to one study and another noted dataset saw 89 blockade, vandalism, and harassment events happening 13 countries.

After Roe v Wade overturn, within short period of time witnessed over 100 acts of vandalism and arson on Catholic churches and pregnancy crisis centers and these attacks continued into 2024 and as one article in the Tampa Times noted, “However, despite the rash of attacks against churches and pregnancy centers two years after the fall of Roe, the Biden Justice department has done little to also prosecute the individuals responsible.”

The recent murder of two Israeli jews highlighted the violence, and protest by pro-Palestinian groups and after a serious of college “protest”, acts of intimidation directed at Jewish students, blockade of traffic and now murder are showing a rise of antisemitism throughout the world and in United States, most of this coming from the left and the Democratic Party John Hinderaker of Powerline observed, “Tom Wolfe’s much-quoted adage is that “the dark night of fascism is always descending on America but always lands in Europe.” In a similar vein, one can say that the authorities and the press are always looking for “domestic terrorism” on the right, but in fact, it consistently comes from the left…The latest left-wing terrorist is Elias Rodriguez. Rodriguez was obsessed with Israel and chanted “Free, free Palestine” after murdering Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, just as if he were participating in a demonstration at Columbia. He left behind a self-justification on Twitter in which he called Israel a “genocidal apartheid state,” a sentiment that could have come from a number of members of Congress. Israel is so evil, according to Rodriguez, that “to many Americans,” murdering Israelis is “in some funny way, the only sane thing to do.” These protests have happened in 45 states and on nearly 140 college campus, and many of these “protests” included vandalism plus blocking traffic throughout the country

From beginning of the first Trump administration, we have seen thousands of riots, vandalism, blockade of traffic, and deaths resulting by the left. You would be hard pressed to find on your hands the number of the riots caused by the right, the first being in Charlotteville in 2017 and January 6^th in 2021. Many leftist activist and Democratic politicians have tolerated these acts of violence and it should be noted that the organizer of the Charlotteville riot voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. Violence is now a recognized and tolerated tactics of the Left.

Tapper Real Game

Jake Tapper book has the following goals, first being to put him and others who help cover this up to be absolve of any journalistic wrong doing. Considering how the media help cover this up, Tapper goal is to rewrite history by saying reporters were duped. The second is to delegitimize Trump’s victory by saying by waiting as long as Biden did to leave, it gave very little time to Kamala to campaign. The reality is simple, Tapper and others knew Biden’s condition but refuse to report it. One journalist admitted he was told by a cabinet member two years earlier in 2022, that Biden needed not to run in 2024.I can’t believe that Tapper didn’t have similar sources telling him the same thing.

From the Russian collusion hoax, the Hunter Biden lap top and this, the media have consistently got big stories wrong or lied about the big stories Tapper is admitting either he is a liar or simply not a very good reporter For me, Biden stayed the candidate after that debate performance, he would have been slaughtered and lost by a bigger margin than even Kamala Harris. The media would have reported that Biden lost because he was not physically capable. Kamala on the other hand received more than double what Trump brought in and was the sitting Vice President and had the media on her side. This was a referendum on Biden/Harris years and voters decided they were ready for change. Tapper goal is to make the case that Biden allowed Trump to win by waiting and not because of Harris connection to the Biden’s year.

Tapper is merely shifting the blame of Trump victory on Biden’s and his inside team. He has not even bothered to blame Harris or key members of the administration since they obviously knew what was going on. Bottom line is that Tapper rewriting of history should not be allowed to stand. Tapper and the media were not fooled by Biden’s handler and knew what was going on. Members of the administration and those on capitol hill knew what was going on but they refuse to blow the whistle until it was too late

Canada Thoughts

David Solway of PJ Media observed about the new Canadian Prime Minister, “As a result of the Liberal victory and the installation of Mark Carney as prime minister of Canada in the April 28, 2025, election, the country is now speeding down the Trans-Canada highway to certain destruction. Carney, of course, is a global financier, a promoter of centralized government control, a lover of censorship, and a climate change apostle who doubles as a trustee of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change and Finance. He carries three passports, Canadian, Irish, and British, and has spent the last decade out of Canada, which obviously makes him the ideal candidate for the prime ministership, Canadian to the bone.”

As mentioned on the weekly report, the globalist trans national candidate played the nationalist card, saying he will protect Canada from Trump and not allowed Trump from annexing Canada. Of course he is now looking to the EU for his salvation. The key element is that Carne is supporter of zero sum and the province with the fossil fuels has been granted approval by the premier to have a vote on whether they want to stay part of Canada. So Carney now has to deal with a wealthy province sitting on top of oil and natural gas with a net zero sum.

Searching for Mr.Left

Ann Althouse talked about the search for the left version of Joe Rogan but the problem with this is that Rogan was the left version of Rogan only he moved to the center. (Note I said to the center, Rogan is not a man of the right but man who views himself a man of common sense.) Even Bill Maher is getting a little red pilled, but he is not going full Maga but rebelling against the nonsense of the left. Unlimited immigration, boys in girl’s locker room, and complaining about deporting illegal criminals. I could go on but the problem with the left is that they have managed to ignore those of their own side who left them due to their craziness like Alex Berenson, Jennifer Sey, RFK JR., Rogan and Elon Musk.

You cannot create a Joe Rogan or a Rush Limbaugh, they are unique personality that evolved.

Review as of April 23rd

I remember when Reagan dealt with a serious economic crisis as he came into office along with a foreign policy that saw the Soviet Empire on the march and by the end of the first year, many Republicans called for a retreat of his supply side revolution. The nuclear freeze movement was in full spring in the United States and Europe, and Reagan was in the process of installing the Pershing missile to counter the Soviets SS-20.

Trump is facing similar pressure as the Courts are putting every obstacle into his deportation plans, his economic plan, in particular his tariff plan, is under siege and he attempting to end war in Europe while trying to see if he can stop Iran from getting the bomb. He is browbeating the Feds and that is the one thing that Reagan didn’t do when he supported Feds effort to stop inflation. What I will do is to work on three things, Trump war on the administrative and how out of control courts is undermining his agenda against the bureaucracy and deportation, his tariff policy and where is leading, and finally his foreign policy.

Let’s begin with his tariffs policy. Both side on the tariffs debate need to understand the nuance of the debate. It is not a simple tariff bill but there are nuances that Trump is attempting to do, using tariffs to open up markets and get help in key areas like dealing with immigrations.

For supporters of Tariffs who view McKinley tariffs as a model, two things that need to understand, tariffs were the principal way the federal government raised money and government spending was only 10 percent of the total economy. The depression of 1893 may have been caused by tight monetary policy and or possibly tariffs were higher as result of tariffs bill passed in the previous Republican administration. McKinley following the Spanish-American war was moving toward a reciprocal trade policy similar to what we may end up with Trump final negotiations.

In the 1920’s we had high tariffs but lower tax rates and reduced both the national debt and spending. Harding and Coolidge inherited high tax rates from the Wilson administration left over from World War I. Harding economic plan saved America from the 1920’s great depression. Hoover on the other hand after dealing with 1929 crash raised tariffs even higher, and increase spending, brow beat corporations into keeping salaries higher and then raised taxes on top of that. It didn’t help that the federal reserve saw circulation of money drop by a third. Hoover did everything wrong and while many view Hoover as a conservative but at the time he was consider part of the moderate/progressive wing of the Republican parties and as President Coolidge observed, “Hoover gave me a lot of advice and most of it wrong.” 1950’s and 60’s saw United States move forward on economic and free trade and Reagan revolution of lower tax rates aided in a boom that lasted a quarter of century. While freer trade is good for the economy, it is not a panacea if followed by poor domestic policies and in the 1920’s, we saw good domestic policies even with high tariffs and Reagan did use tariffs as a mean to bargain with other countries including allies just as Japan to open their markets. His supply side revolution led to a quarter of century of growth.

Trump will keep tariffs on China as part of slowing Chinese economy down and use tariffs negotiations with leading economic powers to isolate China and encourage companies to relocate here with Trump lower tax rates, reduce regulations and increase energy productions. Some similarity with Coolidge except Trump may be working toward a reciprocal policy toward Europe, and Asia and this may result lower tariffs. Tariffs and Trump war with the Feds have caused turmoil in the market but there may be confusion about Trump plan and how it fits. Many of his critics are not looking at the whole plan and Trump has certainly added to the confusion with not explaining fully his plan. Mention tariffs and we are thinking great depression but as I noted, the Great Depression centered on the following, first adding higher tariffs to what was already passed in an economy in recession, second increase government spending and raising taxes later in his administration and we can’t not forget that we lost nearly a third of money circulating in the economy from1929 to 1932, so the Feds did their share in turning a recession into a great depression.

Tom Sowell noted that before the tariffs passed, unemployment dropped from 9 percent to 6 percent from the crash into the summer of 1930’s, so if Hoover did nothing, the recession may have ended before 1932, and he would have had an economy in recovery. Maybe the critics should wait to see how it all goes.

On foreign policy the one question “is Trump thinking a pulling a Nixon?” Nixon trip to China was his move to separate the China from Russia. My own view is that in the back of Trump’s mind, he is thinking along those lines. I won’t say if this is possible certainly not now but hear me out. Russia is now a junior partner in her relations with China and China does have many of Russian Eastern portion under their radar screen. Russia relation now is based on needs plus Putin hatred of the West, but his Ukraine war can’t be seen as a success and eventually Russia may find the price of China’s support too high. Russia and China are the real agents of chaos and for China, Russia war on Ukraine forces much of the West attention toward Russia and not on China. Russia is playing their own games, aiding North Korea to improve their arm forces and nuclear capacity and may even helping Iran. The Axis of evil at work. Is it possible or is the time, right? That is a good question or if it is possible, but Trump does understand a Russian-China collaboration over the long haul gives the Chinese the military advantages with resources including rare minerals and energy within its grasp.

With the Ukraine, there are three options. One simply gives Russia all of the Ukraine and that would be classified as a defeat. This is a point I made before, but the following two options will be a victory for the West since Russia will be denied a complete conquest of Ukraine. The first which is the most likely scenario, Russia keeps what they have, the Ukraine will still have most of its country and let not forget, they didn’t have all of their country including the Crimea to begin with. Ukraine won’t be part of Nato, but Europeans can figure out a way to continuing to arm the Ukraine. There will be no peacekeeping force for three reasons, one the United States won’t participate and second the Europeans in the end will have neither the will or the troops to do it and finally Russia won’t allow it. However, I have mention there are ways for the European to arm Ukraine and Russia have lost quite of bit of men and materials. The final option won’t happen because the United States will not provide material or engage in direct combat with the Russians and Europeans will not intervene to make this option a reality, that is remove Russia from all of the Ukraine including Crimea. Option two, the partial peace with Russia will be the option that becomes a reality.

One important piece is the trade deal with India that is being negotiated and if succeed, this opens the door to other deals and help build India economically, ties the two biggest English-speaking countries and finally India is one of the BRICS nations that just last year was threatening to ditch the dollar and If India is working with the United States, this weakens the BRICS.

In foreign affairs, America first is not isolationism but more realistic foreign policy that measures American interest and calls on our allies to do more. Europe has a GNP ten times than Russia and should be easily defend themselves against Russia. The battle over tariffs may be a tactic to negotiate lower tariffs among major economic power and isolate China who will be stuck with higher tariffs. For Trump the real enemy is China. Trump is fighting on many fronts from taming the administrative state, foreign policy that is influx, closing our southern borders and reviving our economic strength.

On the legal side, Jon Turley made some good points about Alito scathing dissent on the recent Supreme Court decision stopping deportation. Alito point was centered about the following points: that court had no right to act and had no input from the government plus court declares a crisis and then decided to act. Jon Turley noted, “Yeah, what Justice Alito is objecting to is that this is becoming increasingly improvisational. I mean, you know, you’ve covered the supreme court for years as I have, and we rarely see this level of – or number of emergency cases going in front of the Supreme Court. And a lot of them are half-baked, in the sense they don’t have the normal details, the record that you have. And the justices are expressing their frustration.”

Turley added, “But in the same way, a lot of these challengers are bringing these cases fast and furious to the court. And what Justice Alito is saying is, “What are we basing our decision on? These things are coming to us with virtually no record…That is where the Supreme Court has a problem. Every single member of the nine-person body seems clearly frustrated with the bombardment of legal challenges all over the country. And even Elena Kagan can see the writing on the wall here: If liberal District Court judges act well outside of their bounds and it is tolerated, then conservative District Court judges will do the same, and the situation will only spiral.”

There is a crisis with the judicial and the Supreme Court must act. The Biden administration allowed millions of illegal in unprecedented numbers and now Trump administration has to clean up the mess quickly and Alito concern is that the courts made a serious mistake and leaves us with the question, if in the end the Courts make the wrong unconstitutional decision, what is the recourse?

Trump and chaos often are one and the same. Trump is a man on a mission and at the age of 78, he is a man in a hurry. Trump inherited an economy that was slowly imploding, a world on fire with wars in Middle East and Europe with its most brutal war since World War two. Trump first objective is to secure the border and begin the deportation of many of the illegal beginning with the criminal element and used the 1798 alien act working on the theory that this was invasion and there may be evidence at least with the Venezuelan gangs are working with the Venezuela communist government.

There is a war on the administrative state that needs to be completed. The administrative state has become an unelected body independent of the constitution approved by the branch: legislative, judicial and the executive branch. We see out of control part of our government that passes 10 regulations with the power of law for every law passed by Congress, and you will be ten times more likely to be pursued by the administrative than a jury of your peer.

Another area that Trump team is telling the truth about the Covid.

This White House website on Covid details the origin of Covid, and this is important since what we saw was the abandonment of science and hiding the reality that this was most likely a virus released from the Wuhan lab. What was and still at stake was the credibility of science and failure to place responsibility on the Chinese government. This was one of the great attempts by Tony Fauci to hide the truth and hide the fact that Tony Fauci helped finance gain of function research conducted by the Chinese.

A friend of mine who worked with Bush administration on getting vaccines to the market met Fauci and told me that Fauci support of the lockdown and the subsequent policies was designed to hide his financing of the virus research. Let be blunt, Fauci knew the lethality of the virus as he originally wrote that virus lethality between .1 to 1 percent in February 2020, but within a month, Fauci declared the death rate of Covid would be ten times of a flu season which turned out to be false as the Covid death rate was .2 to .5 depending on which study. This was similar to a bad flu season.

His original goal was correct and there was no science to back his change of mind! Fauci had to know the origin of the virus and it should be pointed out that CDC director Robert Redfield believed the virus was human made. (Redfield co-authored Fauci piece that original study on lethality but he was shut out by Fauci about the origin study by Fauci.) Fauci not only covered up the origin of the virus but advice the President that this a natural event even though he was being told by scientists privately this was human made. Fauci allowed the Chinese to get away with this and prefer to side with a foreign government as opposed to the rest of the world and the American people. He had to know the source of virus and much of his advice on the origin along with Mask mandates, school closing and lockdowns was wrong, and I suspect he knew that much of the advice was wrong. His advice was not just wrong, but it was disastrous for our economy and for many students whose fall behind in education. And his cover up on the origin was not just bad but it covered up the failure of gain of function research. Which he helped finance with American taxpayer’s help.

Fauci is a cautionary tale of the need to deal with the administrative state and understand its danger to our liberties. Fauci and Birks essentially lockdown an entire economy and many people lost their basic rights including to use a questionable vaccine without lost of jobs. Churches were closed along with schools and business shut down plus millions of people out of work. We are still dealing with the residual impact from this. The importance of controlling our administrative state.

Turley on the Courts

Jon Turley made some good points about Alito scathing dissent on recent Supreme Court decision. Alito point was centered about the following points: that court had no right to act and had no input from the government plus court declares a crisis and then decided to act. Jon Turley noted, “Yeah, what Justice Alito is objecting to is that this is becoming increasingly improvisational. I mean, you know, you’ve covered the supreme court for years as I have, and we rarely see this level of – or number of emergency cases going in front of the Supreme Court. And a lot of them are half-baked, in the sense they don’t have the normal details, the record that you have. And the justices are expressing their frustration.” Turley added, “But in the same way, a lot of these challengers are bringing these cases fast and furious to the court. And what Justice Alito is saying is, “What are we basing our decision on? These things are coming to us with virtually no record…That is where the Supreme Court has a problem. Every single member of the nine-person body seems clearly frustrated with the bombardment of legal challenges all over the country. And even Elena Kagan can see the writing on the wall here: If liberal District Court judges act well outside of their bounds and it is tolerated, then conservative District Court judges will do the same, and the situation will only spiral.”

Trump and Nixon

Is Trump thinking a pulling a Nixon? Nixon trip to China was his move to separate the China from Russia. My own view is that in the back of Trump’s mind, he is thinking along those lines. I won’t say if this is possible certainly not now but hear me out. Russia is now a junior partner in her relations with China and China does have many of Russian Eastern portion under their radar screen. Russia relation now is based on needs plus Putin hatred of the West, but his Ukraine war can’t be seen as a success and eventually Russia may find the price of China’s support too high. Russia and China are the real agents of chaos and for China, Russia war on Ukraine forces much of the West attention toward Russia and not on China. Russia is playing their own games, aiding North Korea to improve their arm forces and nuclear capacity and may even helping Iran. The Axis of evil at work. Is it possible or is the time, right? That is a good question or if it is possible, but Trump does understand a Russian-China collaboration over the long haul gives the Chinese the military advantages with resources including rare minerals and energy within its grasp.

Ukraine, there are three options. One simply give Russia all of the Ukraine and that would be classified as a defeat. This is a point I made before but the following two options will be a victory for the West since Russia will be denied a complete conquest of Ukraine. The first which is the most likely scenario, Russia keeps what they have, the Ukraine will still have most of its country and let not forget, they didn’t have all of their country including the Crimea to begin with. Ukraine won’t be part of Nato but Europeans can figure out a way to continuing to arm the Ukraine. There will be no peacekeeping force for three reasons, one the United States won’t participate and second the Europeans in the end will have neither the will or the troops to do it and finally Russia won’t allow it. However, I have mention there are ways for the European to arm Ukraine and Russia have lost quite of bit of men and materials. The final option won’t happen because the United States will not provide material or engage in direct combat with the Russians and Europeans will not intervene to make this option a reality, that is remove Russia from all of the Ukraine including Crimea. Option two, the partial peace with Russia will be the option that becomes a reality.

Fauci lied and Millions of People Died

Vindication: White House Makes Major Website Update re: COVID Origins, Calls Out Fauci – RedState

This article details the recent government report on Covid origin, and this is important since what we saw was the abandonment of science and hiding the reality that this was most likely a virus released from Wuhan lab. What was and still at stake was the credibility of science and failure to place responsibility on the Chinese government. This was one of the great attempts by Tony Fauci to hide the truth and hide the fact that Tony Fauci helped finance gain of function research conducted by the Chinese.

A friend of mine who worked with Bush administration on getting vaccines to the market met Fauci and told me that Fauci support of the lockdown and the subsequent policies was designed to HIDE HIS FIANNCING of the virus research. Let be blunt, Fauci knew the lethality of the virus as he originally wrote that virus lethality between .1 to 1 percent in February 2020, but within a month, Fauci declared the death rate of Covid would be TEN TIMES of a flu season which turned out to be false as the Covid death rate was .2 to .5 depending on which study. This was similar to a bad flu season.

His original goal was correct and THERE WAS NO SCIENCE TO BACK HIS CHANGE OF MIND!! Fauci had to know the origin of the virus and it should be pointed out that CDC director Robert Redfield believed the virus was human made. (Redfield co-authored Fauci piece that original study on lethality but he was shut out by Fauci about the origin study by Fauci.) Fauci not only covered up the origin of the virus but advice the President that this a natural event even though he was being told by scientists privately this was human made. Fauci allowed the Chinese to get away with this and prefer to side with a foreign government as opposed to the rest of the world and the American people. He had to know the source of virus and much of his advice on the origin along with Mask mandates, school closing and lockdowns was wrong, and I suspect he knew that much of the advice was wrong. His advice was not just wrong, but it was disastrous for our economy and for many students whose fall behind in education. And his cover up on the origin was not just bad but it covered up the failure of gain of function research. Which he helped finance with American taxpayer’s help.