Why You Should Hold Your Nose and VOTE Republican for the Senate

As an independent voter, I'm hardly a fan of the Republicans whom I view as big spending, warmongering socialists and corporatists.  The Senate exception is Rand Paul who is the only constitutionalist out of a body of 100 and while some Republicans are not too horrid, most are worthless sellouts.

However, there are indeed critically important situation wherein voting R for the Senate makes a whole lot of sense EVEN if the Republican has a nasty record on a lot of issues.  Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that a Democrat would be an improvement over the worst Republican.

Let's examine 3 big reasons why voting Republican for a senator makes sense for conservatives and constitutionalists.

1. FEDERAL COURTS AND SCOTUS  The Senate alone has the power to confirm judicial nominees including Supreme Court Justices. If the Democrats control the Senate during the presidency of Donald Trump, there will be zero confirmations of any Trump Supreme Court nominees (except for a flaming Democrat approved liberal) and SCOTUS will become a 4-4 court which absolutely translates to SCOTUS becoming a lame duck court that will be incapable of rolling back unconstitutional acts of Congress and federal agencies.  Bear in mind that Obama and the Dems had 8 years to load up the federal court system with liberal jurists.  Trump's presidency holds the potential to level the ideological balance of the federal judiciary.

According to the SCOTUS website "Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court.", and "Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review.", here.

Plenary review is a legal procedure defining how higher courts review the decisions of lower courts.
In any event, SCOTUS takes very few cases and just because somebody files an appeal to SCOTUS, the probability of SCOTUS accepting the case is quite low (close to zero).

2. TREATY RATIFICATION AND US SOVEREIGNTY  The Senate alone has the power to ratify treaties and it's a difficult process requiring a super majority 2/3 ratification.  Consequently, few treaties are ratified. This is critically important because UN and global governance advocates seek to weaken and ultimately destroy US national sovereignty by ratifying UN treaties.

The Republicans have successfully stopped many nasty treaties from being ratified including the Law of the Sea Treaty also know as LOST which would have put all the oceans and seas under UN control.  The Republicans have stopped the Democrats from ratifying the UN's Small Arms Treaty which was a direct assault on gun rights.

Republican Senators generally tend to uphold US sovereignty and reject sovereignty slashing UN treaties.  The Democrats welcome outsourcing US sovereignty to supranational institutions.

3. SECOND AMENDMENT The R's are far more likely to uphold the 2nd amendment than the Democrats who have a long history of not only opposing the 2nd amendment but slowly hacking away at it.

In summary, the courts, treaty ratification and the 2nd amendment are 3 big reasons to vote Republican in Senate races, especially tight Senate races in swing states.

The Democrats gaining control of the Senate would be an abomination and Chuck Schumer as Senate Majority Leader would derail the entire Trump Agenda.  Therefore, anybody who lives in a swing state where the Senate race will be tight, hold your nose and vote Republican because the alternative is far worse.

How did Hillary Clinton really lose the 2016 election? It wasn't because of the Russians.

The Dems, the Deep State, Trump haters and the media cling to the delusion that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election delivered victory to Trump and snatched an earned victory from Hillary. Let's autopsy the election based on numerical facts. Doing the math in conjunction with understanding American voters brings the entire 2016 election into focus.

For starters, Hillary lost 6 states that Obama won TWICE and those states and their electoral votes are FL (29), PA (20), OH (18),  MI (16), WI (10) and IA (6).  That's a total of 99 Electoral Votes in an election that Trump won 306-232 (74 Electoral Votes).

Roughly, about a third of voters (up to 36-39% according to some estimates) classify themselves as Independents even if they loosely affiliate with the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Libertarian or the Green Party. Independent voters are unpredictable, fickle and tend to shun establishment candidates and embrace change.  Precisely because Independent voters are a significant voting block, they are indeed the general election kingmakers in the critical swing states, even if swing states vary from election to election.  Everybody got the swing states wrong in 2016.

Independent voters also tend to be economic voters who care about jobs and  growth.  Obama did well with Independents in 2008 but lost support in 2012 because they soured on his economic policies.  Romney did well with Independent voters but not well enough to win.

Hillary was basically running on Obama economic policies.  However, other factors came into play.  The Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, appealed to antiwar voters and folks with strong environmental concerns.  In Wisconsin and Michigan, votes for Stein exceeded Trump's victory margins so it can be accurately stated that Stein cost Clinton Wisconsin and Michigan, here.

Wisconsin:
Overall Trump margin of victory: 27,257 votes
Jill Stein vote total: 30,980
Gary Johnson vote total: 106,442

Michigan
Overall Trump margin of victory: 13,107 votes
Jill Stein vote total: 51,427
Gary Johnson vote total: 172,726

Gary Johnson voters were highly unlikely to vote for Clinton because the Libertarian Party runs on less government, less wars and less spending.  If anything, Gary Johnson voters took votes away from Trump.  Anyway, Stein voters causing Clinton to lose WI and MI had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia or Putin but were merely the ideological choices of voters who didn't like or trust Clinton on foreign policy and the environment.

OH and PA  are viewed as rust belt states and both have suffered greatly from the loss of manufacturing and factory jobs. Trump won them as a revolt against the Obama economy. In OH, Trump clobbered Clinton by 455,000 votes despite Stein getting 44,000 and Johnson getting 169,000 votes.  PA was tighter because blue cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg tend to outvote the rural population to carry the state to Democrat victories.

Pennsylvania
Overall Trump margin of victory: 71,794
Jill Stein vote total: 48,657
Gary Johnson vote total: 142,334

PA was damn close and could have gone either way.  I actually know somebody who travels extensively for his job through western and rural PA.  He said it was wallpapered with Trump signs and he saw no Clinton signs.  At the end of the day, the economic rural voters did manage to outvote Pennsylvania's big population centers with an awesome voter turnout.

Again, the PA and OH voters were economic, working class voters - the folks who suffered the most under 8 years of Obama and Democrat economic rule.  They were hungry for change.  These economic voters were never impacted by Russia or Putin.  In fact, they could care less what Russia thinks of them or their voting habits.

FL was also close despite having a decent economy unlike rustbelt OH and PA.  FL however is a classic purple state that can go either way - its a GOTV game.  Big blue liberal cities like Miami are balanced the deeply red panhandle. During the Bush-Gore fiasco, the dastardly media called the election for Gore based on FL results despite the fact that folks in the panhandle who are in a different time zone had not finished voting.  When the election was deliberately called for Gore to swing the election, many folks in the panhandle didn't bother to vote.  They NEVER made that mistake again.

Florida also has vibrant and substantial 3rd party movements that do impact general elections and help to make them 'squeakers'.

Florida
Overall Trump margin of victory: 119,489
Jill Stein vote total: 64,060
Gary Johnson vote total: 206,189

Morever, it's true that while 3rd parties do not win elections, they are indeed the general election kingmakers in tight races in tight states.

To believe that Putin or Russia somehow function as Russian Election Bots that permeate the brains of American voters is insane.

Clinton lost for 2 big reasons:  1. her overt warmongering interventionist foreign policy cost her the antiwar vote and those voters were furious with the mass genocide that resulted from Obama-Clinton interventions in Syria and Libya (a big reason why Stein did well enough in MI and WI to keep Clinton from winning) and 2. the economy.  The economy is always the biggie and it was Bill Clinton who coined the phrase 'it's the economy stupid', something his wife never understood.

Finally, American voters are NOT under the influence of Russia or Putin DESPITE the creepy media and the Democrats REFUSING to believe that the American people rejected Clinton for reasons that are incredibly obvious to anybody who isn't deranged or delusional or a total moron.

Clinton was a terrible candidate who failed connect with the concerns of the voters, many of whom were seriously listening to Trump who had an outstanding talent for tapping into voter concerns, especially working class voter concerns.  When Clinton called Trump supporters deplorables, racists, sexists, homophobes, zenophobes and Islamophobes, that insult helped to seal her fate among undecided voters.  Being distant from voter concerns, a Mitt Romney affliction, is one thing but flatout humiliating and degrading voters you are trying to romance was profoundly stupid and arrogant.  Clinton thought she was being funny and cute in an election she thought she had already bagged but fate has a funny way of upsetting the best laid plans.

Clinton sunk herself and all without the help of Russia or Putin.

Conservative Victories at the 5-4 Supreme Court - Thank Trump Voters

As a Libertarian leaning, Ron Paul supporting constitutionalist, I endorsed Donald Trump for president AFTER Rand Paul was out of the running and I documented my reasons here where I listed the top 10 reasons to vote for Trump. One of those reasons was the Supreme Court.  Trump replacing the deceased Justice Scalia instead of Hillary Clinton having that power was indeed critically important for liberty activists, constitutionalists and gun rights.

Many other big cases were pending and a string major conservative victories, most 5-4 decisions, has been awesome for conservatives even if it has left the left reeling in misery and disappointment.

Those decisions include:

Upholding Trump's travel ban: Let me be clear - this was never a Muslim ban and Trump himself said so.  However, it was a national security initiative to screen foreigners entering America.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a nation having the power to decide who gets to enter a country as nobody wants terrorists.  The left may be stroking out over this SCOTUS decision but it makes no sense for a country NOT to screen foreigners.

Upholding the right of a baker NOT to bake a cake: Call it a 1st amendment issue or a property rights issue but nobody should be forced to do anything that violates his/her conscience and religious beliefs.

Upheld the right of pregnancy crisis centers NOT to be forced to disclose that taxpayer subsidized abortions are available.  These pregnancy crisis centers are pro-life organizations that offer counseling and advice to pregnant women. It certainly should be their right to do so and WITHOUT being FORCED to become an advocate for abortion.

Denying public sector unions the right to force workers to pay union dues.  This case is a huge defeat for public sector unions and the Dems because union dues subsidize the Democratic Party.  SCOTUS correctly ruled that public sector workers should NOT be FORCED to pay union dues to fund things that they fundamentally oppose.  It was a 1st amendment issue.

Gerrymandering is an interesting issue.  When Democrats controlled most governorships and state legislatures, they heavily gerrymandered to carve out permanent Democrat majority districts.  Nobody complained except Republicans.  Well, now that the Republicans currently control governorships and state legislatures in most states, the Democrats have gone ballistic filing lawsuits that obviously are demanding that the courts restore their gerrymandering powers.  It was OKAY for the Dems to gerrymander but it's not OKAY for the Republicans to do the same thing.

The Supreme Court punted on the gerrymandering issue while refusing to intervene on behalf of the Democrats.  SCOTUS kicking this can down the road leaves open the possibility of future judicial action.

Anway, these are very important issues that have been conservatively and correctly decided by SCOTUS and only because Trump's presidential victory resulted in the appointment to the Supreme Court of a constitutionalist, Neil Gorsuch.  The Democrats love using the courts as a hammer to enforce their anti-liberty dictates.

With Trump, judicial power has swung back to the conservative-constitutional side which of course is a victory for liberty.

Social Media, Facebook, Saudi Arabia, Sunni Salafist Wahhabism and CENSORSHIP

I'm possibly winding down a 3 day Facebook ban (usually my jail time bans are followed by more bans), after having 4-5 24 hour bans inflicted upon me for no justifiable reason within the last several weeks.  My crime?  I'm being accused of the generic 'violating community standards'.  Community standards has a nice ring because it invokes the hate and intolerance of the unknowable but vastly powerful collective.

Anyway, my latest ban is the direct result of a post on Yemen and how the Saudis with US help are committing a horrific genocide against the Houthi in Yemen.  In fact, the Saudis are attacking a port where 70-80% of aid for the starving Houthis comes in - that port is barely keeping the Houthi alive.  Anybody can engine search 'starving Houthi' and get a ton of gut wrenching photos of the face famine and starvation, Saudi style.  Yes, I do indeed confess to commenting that the Saudis are savages.  The Saudis also very recently bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Yemen.  Even the Saudi worshiping US State Department took notice.

DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS HOSPITAL BOMBING IN YEMEN EARNS RARE SAUDI REBUKE AT STATE DEPARTMENT

Calling the Saudis 'savages' is a no no on FB.

For the record, I frequently call violent thugs and goons savages regardless of religion or race.  I've called Antifa folks savages and they are mostly spoiled white liberal nutjobs.  I've called Muslims who chop off heads and slit throats savages.  I've called the neocons savages for their numerous war crimes against humanity and they are nearly 100% Caucasian white males (John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Schumer and many others in Congress).  I've also called America's warmongering Evangelicals the WARVANGELICALS because of their appetite for wars, especially wars on Muslim nations.  I've probably also called them savages.  Frankly, I'll call anybody a 'savage' if they have no respect for the rights of other human beings, if they bomb their countries, if they assault them, if they murder them, if they rape them and if they destroy property.

Thugs and goons are savages.  Period.  It doesn't matter if savagery committed in the name of a country, the state, a religion, an ideology or even an individual.

As a peace activist, I advocate AGAINST America's wars and the bombing, droning, invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.  US foreign policy only creates MORE dangerous jihadists, more instability, more tyranny and more suffering.  Over the years I have posted many article on the horrific death tolls of Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other Muslim nations that have been subjected to US military interventions.

Yet and despite my activism AGAINST killing Muslims, I'm accused of the PC label of being anti-Islam because I called the Saudis savages.  Well, the Saudis are no more and no less savage than anybody who commits violence against other human beings.  Yeah, they get to hide behind their religion of Sunni Salafist Wahhabism and this in my opinion is a huge mistake.  Furthermore it's my view that everybody should be calling out the Saudis for their actions and their dastardly and murderous deeds are numerous.  The Saudis with more than a little help from the US are the kingpins behind ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The Saudis have flooded Iraq, Syria and even Libya with Wahhabist ISIS terrorists.  Wahhabism itself is a cult of violence as well as being the most intolerant form of Islam ever to exist.  Wahhabism is a clear and present danger to the world.  It funds radical Wahhabist mosques everywhere.

Ironically, I follow a lot of Muslims and ex-Muslims on Twitter and they are TERRIFIED of Wahhabism and the Wahhabis.  There are even Muslim Imans who reject Wahhabism.  Wahhabism may not be Islam but it certainly is taking over Islam.  Then there is the Sunni-Shiite rift that has been waging for about 1400 years.  Most Sunni Muslims want to reject Wahhabism.  Syria is a 90% Sunni majority nation yet Assad who is an Alewite is popular and easily wins elections.  Why?  The Syrians are incredibly tolerant despite being a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation.  The Sunni majority Syrians live in fear and dread of being Wahhabized which is why they back non-Sunni Assad.

I even blogged about Sunni Islam back in 2013.

Why Sunni Islam is Crucial to World Peace and Crushing the NWO


While it's clear that I've been singled out for persecution by Facebook for the crime of speaking the truth, I can only draw several conclusions from this insanity.  One, Facebook is in fact a Saudi Stooge and apologist and it's functioning as a deep state operative.  Moreover, I've accused Trump's neocon War Cabinet of the same thing.  Secondly, I strongly suspect that the Facebook Gestapo has been heavily infiltrated with Sunni Salafist Wahhabists who obviously have the power to go after anybody that exposes the sickest and most vile religious ideology in human history.

Finally, all I can say is SHAME ON FACEBOOK.  Sometimes shame is effective in achieving change.  It should be incumbent on all civilized and peace loving human beings to constantly SHAME the Saudis because one thing they can't handle is bad press.  Hence the Saudi obsession with controlling the media, especially social media, is indeed very real.

Saudi power won't last forever and hopefully neither will Facebook.  Want to talk community standards Mark Zuckerberg?  I do and you have no standards.  Community standards says it's OKAY to call the daughter of President Trump a 'feckless cu*t' but it's not OKAY to oppose murdering Muslims. 

Fascistbook is going full blown Nazi. May it rot in hell were it belongs.

Trump, Iran and the JCPOA - What it is and what isn't it.

There is much confusion on the JCPOA, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran Deal.  It was negotiated by the what is called the P5 + 1.  the P5 are the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, France, Britain, Russia and China.  Germany is not a permanent member; hence it's called the +1.

The primary purpose of the Iran Deal was to get Iran to agree to give up its nuclear ambitions in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions that have had a devastating impact on Iran's economy.

The negotiating process had been going on for years, over 10 years according to some European officials.  When John Kerry became Secretary of State, negotiations intensified and spanned 20 months.

The nuts and bolts of the deal have been accurately summarized by an RT article titled The Iran nuclear deal explained.

Iran’s concessions

Under the JCPOA, Tehran gave up 98 percent of the enriched uranium it already had, and only keeps material enriched to the lowest threshold of five percent (weapons-grade uranium starts at 85 percent). Two-thirds of Iran’s enrichment centrifuges are halted, leaving only around 6,000 older models operational. Any remaining materials and facilities are to be used strictly for scientific, medical, and agricultural purposes.

Iran’s compliance is being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The JCPOA boosts the IAEA mission in Iran from 50 to 150 experts with round-the-clock access to any nuclear-related facilities, and additionally envisions remote and satellite surveillance.

Sanctions relief

In return, Iran gets relief from a portion of economic sanctions, some of which have been in place since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

United Nations and European Union sanctions were either suspended or lifted, and no new sanctions will be introduced as long as the JCPOA is in effect.

The US, however, never agreed to permanently lift or even suspend its own sanctions against Iran. Instead, the US president periodically reviews the deal and signs a waiver that ceases their application.

Treaties are typically submitted to the US Senate for ratification which requires a 2/3 supermajority vote.  This is nearly impossible to get. Obama knew this going into JCPOA negotiations - the JCPOA was never going to be ratified as a binding treaty.

The Iran Deal was crafted as a political commitment and nothing more.

The Lawfareblog.com which analyzes legally complex issues has written on the JCPOA.

State Department Affirms That Iran Deal Is Only a Political Commitment 11/28/2015

The State Department said, in part:

"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China) and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments."

This is not a new development, though it is interesting to see the administration assert it so explicitly. Both Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger (among others) made this clear when the deal was announced this summer. Jack noted that the deal was not a pure executive agreement but merely a political agreement, which “do[es] not create legally binding obligations, even if [it has] normative force in the political (or moral) context.” And, as John argued, while the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) that implemented some of the terms of the JCPOA is binding under international law, the JCPOA itself is not. Nor does the UNSCR require the U.S. to lift domestic sanctions.

While this issue is not new, it has received some heightened scrutiny in the wake of multiple Republican presidential candidates vowing to repudiate the deal if elected. Marco Rubio, for example, said this very thing in September.

There are two related issues here. First, as noted above, as a political agreement the JCPOA is not binding under international law. The second issue is whether the commitments made in the JCPOA are binding under domestic law. An article in the Atlantic flatly asserted Rubio was wrong, equating the Iran deal to congressionally authorized executive agreements such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, NAFTA, and World Trade Organization.

But the JCPOA is not such an agreement, as the State Department’s letter makes clear. It is only a political commitment. (Mike Ramsey has a fuller explanation here.) Because the President already had authority under the domestic law to waive sanctions against Iran, there was no need for him to get Congress to change the law. Thus, in implementing the JCPOA by lifting sanctions, the President is essentially telling Iran he will exercise his statutorily authorized discretion to waive the sanctions. A future President could use that same authority to tell Iran he or she is re-implementing the sanctions in the interest of national security. It would be odd to say that President Obama’s use of his statutory discretion to waive sanctions somehow legally prevented a future president from using that same discretion to re-impose sanctions. The law never changed. It still gives the president discretion to apply those sanctions against Iran.

Nor did the Iran Review Act constitute congressional authorization of the Iran deal. It merely delayed the President from waiving sanctions until Congress had a chance to review it; it did not change the underlying law.

As Jack noted, the President and his legal team carefully crafted the deal to get around congressional opposition. The President knew he did not have sufficient congressional support to amend domestic law such that the JCPOA would become legally binding on future presidents. But he also calculated that even under the Iran Review Act, Congress could not muster a supermajority to stop him from using his statutory authority to waive the sanctions. So he settled for what he could get, even though, as his State Department now admits, this is only a political commitment (and therefore does not bind future presidents).

There, you have it.  The JCPOA is NOT legally binding, it's not the law and it's only a political agreement or commitment.  The Iran Review Act can hardly be construed as an enforceable law that reinforces the JCPOA.

The JCPOA was merely a START to get Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.  Even if the agreement isn't enforceable, it constituted a damn good start to a solving a nasty problem and the world is a better place because of it.

Iran is 100% in compliance. US Intel Agencies have confirmed that Iran is in compliance. The IAEA has confirmed that Iran is in compliance.  Secretary of Defense James Mattis has said that Iran is in compliance and at the end of April, 2018, he testified before Congress that verification of compliance is 'pretty robust'.  Mattis has also said in the past that he believe the US should stick with the deal.

Why stick with the deal?  Because the alternative, shredding the deal, would indeed free up Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.  So why would any sane person pursue a policy that would encourage Iran to become nuclear armed?  It makes no freaking sense.

Ahh...BUT the neocons, Saudi Arabia and Israel want war with Iran and Syria, and of course they cannot wage such a war on their own.  They need the US.  Bear in mind that Iran is a nation of 75-80 million folks and Syria has a population of about 25 million.  Iran has done NOTHING to the US and there is no valid reason, national security or otherwise, to put the lives of 100 million folks at risk just to appease Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In a weird twist of events, Britain, France and Germany issued a statement that they intend to honor the JCPOA.  It's likely that Russia and China will join them. Nobody on the freaking planet except US neocons, Saudi Arabia and Israel want to nuke the Iran Deal.  Europe is already trading with Iran and to the tune of $25 billion a year and growing.  Because of Trump shredding the Iran Deal, Boeing will lose huge contracts to sell Iran passenger aircraft and according to Boeing, those contracts would have provided 100,000 jobs.

Nuking trade is wrong and boneheaded because trade is the mothers milk of peace and peaceful co-existence.  The rest of the world has wisely made the decision to pursue trade instead of war.  This has obviously infuriated DC and Trump is now looking like a damn isolationist fool as his schemes backfire globally and domestically.

What is Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US really demanding of Iran?  It's pretty straightforward.

They demand that Iran be DEFENSELESS against #Israel, #SaudiArabia, the US and other Sunni nations which of course is the equivalent of national suicide.

The real target of Trump, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the neocons is Iran's non-nuclear missiles program. They hate the fact that Iran has defense capabilities. Unlike the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran has never used its missiles offensively against any nation except in the Iran-Iraq War which was started when Iraq invaded Iran.

Bear in mind that the US and the Saudis goaded Saddam Hussein into fighting the Iran-Iraq War which raged for 8 long horrifying years from 1980 thru 1988 at great human, financial and economic costs. The estimated death toll is generally believed to be at least a million although some estimates put it at 500,000 to 1,200,000.

The CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected SECULAR government led by Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. The dreaded Shah, a US puppet, was installed and he operated a police state complete with torture prisons for political opponents and murder. This in turn paved the way for the Islamic Revolution in 1978 and the installation of the theocratic ayatollahs who turned out to be just as murderous, cruel and ruthless as the Shah.

Because of the chaos of the 1978 Revolution, the US and Saudi Arabia believed that Iraq under Hussein could easily defeat Iran and collapse the regime. That never happened and the war was fought to a standstill.

Iran will NEVER consent to being defenseless. They understand what happens when a nation lacks defensive and offensive capabilities. They've been there.

The 1400 year old Sunni-Shiite rift is an ongoing religious civil war and the US has no business intervening on either side. Smart folks remain neutral in such situations.

The geopolitics of religion, empire, national sovereignty and natural resources are indeed potentially very explosive. The US has a long history of supporting the wrong folks that include world class tyrants, human rights abuser and psycho islamist theocrats in Saudi Arabia.  Israel is NOT our friend and has its own motivations that include destroying Syria and Iran.

Finally, and back to the JCPOA, I highly recommend reading another excellent legal piece from the Lawfareblog.com.  Fast forward to May 8, 2018.  It's worth reading for more details on the deal.

Trump Withdraws from the Iran Nuclear Agreement: What Comes Next

What the JCPOA is and isn't should be clear by now.  However, the issue of what is in the best interest of US national security is far from resolved given Trump's repudiation of the JCPOA.  Its not an issue of whether Trump's decision was legal; Trump was legally empowered to do what he did because the JCPOA was not a treaty or even a law or even legally binding. But why do such a thing and for what purpose?  The JCPOA, flawed as it may have been, was working  quite effectively
to neutralize the determination of a nation to pursue nuclear weapons.  It's America that will ultimately be the loser and Trump who will look like a damn fool.

America never learns that bullying doesn't work and neither do bombs and military interventions. Diplomacy and trade are always preferable to wars because folks can walk away from the negotiating table with a win-win so the world can have a chance at peace.  Trump and his freaking neocon war cabinet demands this:  You lose, I win and I will bomb the hell out of you if you refuse to capitulate to my demands.

Such arrogance will not MAGA!  Big fail President Trump!!

Open Letter to President Trump: Make the Presidency Great Again

Dear President Trump:

First, I'd like to get a few things out of the way.  You didn't win the election because of the Republican vote as there aren't enough Republicans to win a presidential election.  You won because you successfully peeled off a bigger than expected percentage of the Libertarian vote, the Hispanic vote, the Black vote, the Independent vote, the Democrat vote, the Constitutionalist vote, the anti-war vote, the Rand Paul vote, the Ron Paul vote, the female vote etc. to defeat Clinton.  In summary you were perceived as a candidate who would work to improve the economy and forge a new non-interventionist foreign policy.  You did tweet: "After having foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is time to start rebuilding our country."

Your quickie report card:

Domestic Issues: You get an A for the tax cuts, working to improve the economy, getting the US out of the TPP and the Paris Climate Accord, telling the UN to go to hell on refugees and getting a constitutionalist on SCOTUS.  You get a big fat F for signing the Omnibus Spending bill.

Civil Liberties: you get a big fat F for endorsing warantless spying; that's really weird considering that you yourself were a victim of police state spying.  Also, your Attorney General's War on Marijuana will cost you dearly. Clinton cleaned your clock with the the millennial vote and locking up kids for smoking a joint is not only stupid but costly at the ballot box.

Foreign Policy, at best you get a D and that's only because thus far your bark has been bigger than your bite. Many fear that you crossed over to the Neocon dark side, especially with making uber psycho John Bolton your National Security Advisor. However, redemption is indeed possible if you succeed in making peace with Iran and North Korea.

I'm going to layout the blueprint for you to get re-elected, restore the US as a model to be globally respected and Make the Presidency Great Again.  Well, there have been no great presidents in my lifetime (69 years).  However, I have been following politics, geopolitics and history my entire life.

If you want to Make the Presidency Great Again, it really is quite simple.  All you need to do is fanatically focus on 3 issues over and over and over.  The American people and the world at large would be exceedingly pleased as well as relieved.

PEACE, LIBERTY and PROSPERITY and we'll take them one at a time.

PEACE - End the Damn Wars

The American people are desperate for peace and are sick of the damn neocon wars. America has been at war with somebody my entire life.  The $21 trillion in debt can be traced to decades of stupid wars.  America doesn't have a foreign policy to DEFEND AMERICA.  Heck, last I checked America hadn't been invaded by a foreign power since the War of 1812 and the only reason the Brits invaded us is because America attempted to invade and steal Canada.

To be clear, America is a wholly owned subsidiary of the military industrial complex (MIC); we invade, bomb, occupy and drone nations who have done nothing to us and we do it for defense contractor profits. As long as the MIC rules America, we stand no chance to ever become Great Again. Nobody except the idiot US media is buying the crap that our wars are necessary for national security.  That's a load of equine manure!   We manufacture enemies to feed the MIC, the defense industry and its vast unaccountable powers.

Earth to the idiots in DC: The world is no longer a unipolar world where the bully US can just muscle folks into bowing before its demands. A quick reality check discloses that the world is becoming amazingly multipolar as nations are indeed strong enough to challenge us militarily, monetarily and economically.  It's the US that must learn to adapt to changing paradigms.

You have an opportunity be the President for Peace and peaceful solutions.  HINT: the road to peace and peaceful coexistence runs through trade.  Nations that voluntarily trade for their own prosperity and in their own self interest have no motivations to go to war because war destroys peace as well as economies.  It's absolutely true that if goods don't cross borders then armies surely will (I forget who coined that brilliant phrase).

LIBERTY - Civil Liberties 

Civil liberties are very important and Fedzilla has effectively nullified the 4th amendment.  Since when did America become a Nazified Police State complete with its own Gestapo?  This a a very dangerous turn that got ratcheted up during the George W. Bush era.  Obama did nothing to rollback spying powers and in fact made them even more draconian.

With or without warrants, Police State America is an abomination that eviscerates our long history of privacy and civil liberties.  The FISA Court has proven to be a freaking joke and a sham, especially after the highest ranking officials at the  FBI and DOJ were nothing more than extensions of the Hillary Clinton campaign.  If this isn't isn't illegal I don't know what is. 

If you don't advocate to reign in the vast and unconstitutional spying powers of federal government then you will lose the civil liberties voters.

Do you want to score a big hit with the young?  Then instruct your DEA to declassify marijuana as a Schedule I drug.  Better still, tell Congress to pass a bill to permanently remove the marijuana issue from federal control and defer the issue to the states which is the constitutional thing to do anyway.  LOL, what Dem would be stupid enough to vote NO?  This will keep pot obsessed Jeff Session's hands of the marijuana issue because he'd be forced to uphold the law as Attorney General.

Finally, our criminal justice system is atrocious and a big fail because it's delivering tyranny and police abuse instead of justice.  The Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) is another nightmare because America is locking up folks just to feed the profits of the PIC.

This is morally wrong as well as inhumane on so many levels.  The solution? Advocate for and implement a criminal justice system based on NO VICTIM, NO CRIME.

Mr. President, you have a opportunity to score BIG on civil liberties and I recommend working with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie on these issues. Right now you are viewed as an authoritarian thug and that will hurt in 2020. 

PROSPERITY - Trade is the Road to Peace 

Any economy that makes the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer is a big fail; it's also one of the primary reasons why you squashed Clinton on economic issues.

Trade is a very tricky issue because we don't have true free trade; we have corporatist trade or fascism.  Furthermore, everybody cheats at trade.

In the absence of sound money and with the rise of corporatism, it's easy for big players to game the system. Since free trade really doesn't exist anywhere, the fascists, corporatists, oligarchs and the politicians that they buy are all masters at gaming a very rigged system. The end result of such an insane economic model will always be trade wars and greater economic inequality.

China subsidizes its steel industry and many other industries. The EU subsidizes Airbus, its agricultural industry and other industries. The US subsidizes Boeing through defense contracts. Many other industries in the US are subsidized. And on and on.

There are other ways to game the system besides subsidies. Currency manipulation is popular for China; by pegging the Yuan low and refusing to allow it to float, Chinese exports become a whole lot cheaper in foreign markets. That of course is a huge competitive advantage.

American companies who heavily export absolutely hate a strong dollar because it hurts their export trade by making US produced goods more expensive. Also, the VAT or Valued Added Tax is notorious for protectionism; it crushes US imports. What the VAT nations do is rebate the VAT to their own companies that export. Conversely, they add a VAT (the equivalent of a tariff) on imports. VAT nations have competitive advantages whether they import and export.

OKAY, trade is a complicated issue.  Still, we must minimize trade wars by pursuing fair trade and that includes ending ALL subsidies and recognizing that some nations, especially VAT nations and nations that heavily subsidize their own pet industries, do cheat. 

Peaceful and voluntary trade is the lifeblood of civilization and it eradicates or at least minimizes the need for wars.

There, I've laid it all out for you Mr. President.  This is the best advice you will ever get and it's free.  I am one of those Americans who is NOT a Republican but who took a chance an voted for you.  Because of folks like me, you are sitting in the White House as president. Yeah, I'm disappointed with you but only you can turn it around.  You owe it to the American people to deliver what you promised us.

In summary:

1. Ditch the freaking neocons and pursue peace and peaceful solutions to problems.
2. Pursue the restoration of civil liberties and advocate for criminal justice reform.
3. Work to create free and fair trade where everybody benefits.

One final piece of advice on immigration:  Forget about the wall but do end chain migration, the visa lottery, all entitlements and welfare for immigrants and birthright citizenship.  As for the DACA folks, legalize them if they are decent hardworking folks but deport the criminals and welfare dependent.  Most Americans are NOT anti-immigrant but they definitely object to invasions that grow the Democratic Party by importing entitlement dependent socialists, welfare moochers and criminals. 

Sound immigration policies will definitely MAGA.  If we import the 3rd world, we will become the 3rd world.  It really is that simple.

President Trump, you can only MAGA by making the Presidency Great Again and that includes listening to the American people.





  

On China, Trade and Trump's Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

On March 1, 2018 the Trump Administration announced steep tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, here.  The DOW dropped over 400 points.  Trump was immediately accused of protectionism and abandoning free markets.

Really?  Is there even such a thing as a truly free market in a global economy controlled by globalists, corporatism, fascism, oligarchy and statism? 

If you really want to talk protectionism, you first need to understand the pampered businesses that are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.   The US has many corporate welfare queens as do other nations.  The US sugar barons are so protected that they have been granted a monopoly.  The end result is that the US candy industry has outsourced itself to foreign nations where the free market price of sugar keeps them globally competitive; the US has lost thousands of candy making jobs.

For years, the US aircraft giant Boeing and European Airbus have been at each others throats with each alleging political favoritism.  Boeing claims that Airbus is heavily subsidized by the EU which it is.  However, Airbus claims that Boeing is heavily subsidized via the US defense industry which it is.

The Chinese government heavily subsidizes many industries, including steel and aluminum.

Report finds Chinese steel heavily subsidized

China makes half the world’s steel with the help of heavy government subsidies and other unfair advantages, a new report found.

Lessons From The Aluminum Industry: The Hidden Cost Of China's Cheap Solar

In 2000, China produced only about 11% of the world’s primary aluminum. Now, it produces more than half. This historically unprecedented expansion of production capacity resulted from government policies rather than process improvements or lower input costs. In fact, of the 50 highest-cost aluminum smelters in the world, 37 are located in China.

China’s government has been subsidizing aluminum smelters through direct grants, interest free loans and other “incentive” mechanisms. Absent this massive support scheme, a significant number of the smelters in China would have been forced to declare bankruptcy. Ironically, Chinese smelters often have above average operating costs compared to smelters located outside of China, primarily because of high energy costs. 

President Trump campaigned on FREE TRADE so long as it was fair trade.  It's certainly NOT free trade when a nation subsidizes its own domestic manufacturing to gain a competitive advantage.  China has been gaming the system of trade for decades.  Not only does China heavily subsidize a lot of its industries, it also manipulates its currency, the yuan.  Keeping your currency low and undervalued makes a nation's exports a whole lot cheaper in foreign import markets.  Conversely, a strong currency raises the price of goods. 

Therefore, China has largely grown its economy through currency manipulation and subsidies.  LOL, this is what passes for free trade these days.  It's a freaking joke.

Obviously, true free markets devoid of currency manipulation and corporate subsidies would not only solve trade problems, it would also function as a critical path to free markets.

So why is everybody screaming that Trump is a protectionist when it's perfectly OKAY and acceptable for other nations, OUR ECONOMIC COMPETITORS, to do it?   The US economy, American workers and American businesses have been severely hurt by protectionism and subsidies.

I applaud what Trump did and not because I approve of tariffs but because just maybe it's a step in the right direction to achieve truly free markets.  Yeah, it's a nasty tit for tat game but the goal of businesses competing in NON SUBSIDIZED and NON MANIPULATED markets is a worthy endgame.