According to his online biography, “Jonathan Lemire is a White House reporter for The Associated Press (AP) and a political analyst for MSNBC and NBC News.” He cannot – and is not – both a reporter and an analyst for NBC/MSNBC. His frequent appearances on the latter prove it.
As a reporter, you would expect Lemire to be objective and unbiased in his published accounts. He would get and present both sides of an issue. Get the facts and let his readers draw the conclusions.
Instead, Lemire writes from his conclusions. He feeds pre-digested press pablum to the world. Like most denizens of the east coast media cabal, Lemire writes from his left-wing perspective. He editorializes as he “reports.”
That is not an uncommon problem within the Fourth Estate. Media bias to the left in the studios and newsrooms is well known and well documented. The lopsided liberal bias results in one-sided partisanship in favor of Democrats. Studies have shown that between 70 and 80 percent of reporters, editors, columnists, producers, analysts, and commentators are Democrats of the liberal persuasion. In the east coast cabal that appears to be higher. Lemire personifies that truth.
It is Lemire’s paid services to MSNBC in which his extreme bias is best seen. He may carry the title of an analyst, but it is not the function he performs. In fact, he would not have that high-profile gig on MSNBC if he was an honest analyst.
One does not get a seat at the table on “Morning Joe” – or any other MSNBC program — unless you are willing to parrot the opinions and prejudicial narratives concocted or endorsed by the network’s management, scripted by the producers and voiced by the online personalities. Apostasy is not permitted.
Folks like Lemire are trading off their honor and integrity for fame and fortune in a Faustian agreement with the media barons. They are no longer journalists who subscribe to the standards and ethics of the profession, but propagandists devoted to convincing rather than informing their viewers and readers. As “Morning Joe’s” Mika Brzezinski once claimed. “It is our role to tell people what to think.”
The essence of propaganda is to develop narratives – true or not – and advance them repeatedly. It is the tactic of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, who famously – or infamously – said that if you repeat a lie often enough, the public will come to believe it — no matter how big the lie.
If you watch Lemire over time – as I have – you will realize that he does not have an original thought – and most certainly never a counterpoint. He adds nothing new to the conversation. He is just another voice in the bass section. When asked to offer his opinion – his so-called analysis – Lemire retreats to echoing the sentiment he heard around the table. He knows the script and he follows it without a hint of improvisation.
Perhaps his narrow view is the result of the fact that he has never escaped the narrow east coast media bubble. He has never spent much time away from the hardcore liberal establishment that dominates the culture in that region. Lemire grew up in Massachusetts and graduated from Columbia University. He cut his reporting teeth in New York City, where he worked for the New York Daily News for ten years – before joining Associated Press.
According to most polls – which never seem to be the subject of media coverage – the news industry is held in very low regard by a majority of the American people. They do not believe what they see and read. The people of the press have lost their trust.
Some like to blame President Trump because of his attacks on what he calls “fake news,” but the public’s disrespect for the Fourth Estate was seen long before Trump. The gradual decline of trust in the news media parallels the industry’s abandoning old standards for what became known as “advocacy journalism” – and that has now devolved into propaganda-as-news.
Lemire is not the cause – and maybe he could not make much of an improvement on his own – but he is most certainly the creature of the corrupted culture. His value on MSNBC is his voice, not his brain.
So, there ‘tis.
Military experts have compared the relative military might of Great Britain and Iran, and in a potential conflict between the two, unfortunately, the UK does not match up very well!
The once impressive military of the UK, is a shadow of its former self, so says the British newspaper The Daily Express. An editorial in the paper said, “A comparison of the UK and Iran’s military strength shows Britain falling behind when it comes to manpower, land and naval strength and petroleum resources.” The paper made this surprising proclamation, after Iran seized a British tanker in the Persian Gulf, in retaliation for Britain seizing an Iranian tanker at Gibraltar.
According to the article, Britain ranks eighth on the “Global Firepower Index,” while Iran comes in not far behind in 14th place (the U.S. comes in first place, Israel 17th). Indeed, GlobalFirepower.com lists Iran as being stronger than Britain in several categories: 873,000 military personnel to Britain’s 233,000, 1,634 Iranian tanks to 331 British vehicles and 386 Iranian naval vessels to 76 British (Britain is credited with more airpower, with 811 military aircraft to 509 Iranian). Iran has more oil, but weaker finances.
What About Nukes?
But, you may say that none of this matters, because Britain is a true nuclear power. Despite the statistics that put the numbers close on the firepower index, Britain and Iran are really not in the same league at all, when it comes to nukes. First and foremost, while Iran may or may not be developing nuclear weapons, Britain most certainly has them. And not some jury-rigged “physics package” assembled in an underground bunker, but four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines, each armed with 16 Trident thermonuclear-armed ballistic missiles. That’s enough atomic firepower to send Russia and China back to the Middle Ages, let alone Iran.
But, as you know, having nukes, and using nukes, are two entirely different animals. Britain wouldn’t use nukes against Iran for political reasons, and Iran would be committing suicide to use them against Britain or anyone else. Which leaves the more immediate prospect of a limited conflict in the Persian Gulf, most likely a reprise of the 1980s “Tanker War,” in which Iran will attack or seize oil tankers in retaliation for economic sanctions, while Britain (and the U.S., and possibly Europe) will attempt to stop them.
In that kind of conflict, with Britain’s naval resources “a shadow of what they once were,” and cut off from supply lines, Iran’s greater numbers of smaller attack vessels and missile torpedo boats would likely win the day. Currently, Britain has only a single destroyer, and a frigate, as convoy escorts in the Persian Gulf.
But here is where numerical comparisons of military strength really fail. If Iran were to invade Britain, there would be no question of which party is stronger. However, in the Persian Gulf, British forces are operating 3,000 miles from the UK. Even with access to bases belonging to Iran’s hostile Arab neighbors, the British would still be operating in Iran’s home waters, where all the tools of coastal guerrilla warfare – mines, small boat attacks – would be available to Tehran.
So hypothetically, who would win in an open conflict between Britain and Iran? Ruling out the US getting involved, which it most certainly would, the answer all depends on the circumstances.
While billionaire superheroes like Tony Stark’s Iron Man, are unabashed capitalists, it seems that the Hulk wants to smash capitalism. Or at least that’s the feeling of Mark Ruffalo who portrayed the “Jade Giant” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
The “Avengers: Endgame” and “Dark Waters” actor, who has been an outspoken critic of America’s economic and capitalist structure in the past, took to Twitter recently to share an article and ask for the country to consider getting rid of capitalism.
“It’s time for an economic revolution,” Ruffalo wrote. “Capitalism today is failing us, killing us, and robbing from our children’s future.”
The tweet was accompanied by a Nov. 21 op-ed from Time entitled, “How America’s Elites Lost Their Grip,” in which writer Anand Giridharadas lays out the case that Americans are increasingly in support of gutting the country’s capitalist economy in favor of a new system. The writer credits the rise of people like 2020 presidential hopefuls, democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for not only calling capitalism into question but making its removal seem more and more viable since 2016.
Although that “system” which he maligns, seems to be doing very well by Ruffalo. Ruffalo made $6 million for his role in “Avengers: Infinity War” and is worth an estimated $30 million.
The actor previously lent his support in the 2016 presidential election to Sanders before he lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton. Speaking on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” in November, Ruffalo admitted that the years since, have only strengthened his support for Bernie.
“For me, I started with Bernie on this trip and… when I think about it, what I see is, he led then and now he’s leading now,” the actor explained. “He was never another party, he never had different views about these things. The rest of the United States has finally caught up to what this cat has been doing already for his entire career. And you know that when he gets into office, he is going to be fighting for us!”
In October, the “Hulk” actor took to Twitter to call for democratic socialism once again, writing, “Democratic Socialism says it’s a moral wrong that 57% of income is going to the top 1%. Universal health care. Medical & family paid leave.”
Donald Trump’s personal attorney and former NYC mayor, Rudy Giuliani appeared to threaten to sue Fox News host Steve Hilton, for branding him as part of “the swamp.”
During the most recent broadcast of his “Next Revolution” Fox News show, Hilton, a frequent Trump supporter, confessed, “There’s a swamp going on with the commercial interest of Rudy Giuliani… He’s going around trying to make business deals out of the Ukraine situation, at the same time as acting for his client, President Trump. He’s trying to make money off his relationship with President Trump.”
Hilton then went on to call the former New York City mayor “toxic” and an “unethical disaster.”
In response, Giuliani tweeted that he was “outraged” by Hilton’s remarks, adding in another post, “Lawyers tell me @SteveHiltonx is a wild card and I should sue him for libel. He recklessly disregarded the truth!”
The former mayor who has been at the center of the Ukraine controversy, also tweeted, “I have not taken a penny for representing my friend, President Trump. I am outraged that @SteveHiltonx reported that I was trying to pursue private business deals in Ukraine to ‘enrich’ myself when in reality I have made ZERO in Ukraine! Very lazy reporting!”
Giuliani has also said in recent interviews, that since representing Trump, he has “considered and turned down all deals in Ukraine, even those not presenting a conflict.”
But, none of that spared the former mayor from Hilton’s unbridled rant.
“This week, we learn more disturbing details about Rudy’s role. It turns out that the former mayor’s own personal business interests are wrapped up in all of this,” he said. “To put it simply, he’s been trying to enrich himself on the back of his relationship with President Trump. And you know what, I’m just fed up with the lot of them.”
Hilton said Giuliani “was a great mayor and a great leader, but he’s turned into an unmitigated, and now it seems, unethical disaster.”
He also accused Giuliani’s associates of “taking advantage of the president to do dodgy deals in the world’s shadiest places.”
To which Giuliani tweeted in response, “If it wasn’t for me, @SteveHiltonx wouldn’t even be covering Burisma. He sure didn’t cover it for the THREE YEARS it was in front of his face. He should apologize for his maliciousness and thank me for the story!”
California Sen. Kamala Harris has announced that she is withdrawing from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Harris has had to call it quits after failing to capitalize on early enthusiasm for her campaign and watching her poll numbers collapse.
“In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do,” Harris wrote in an email to supporters. “So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret — but also with deep gratitude — that I am suspending my campaign today.”
An aide said Harris informed staff Tuesday she is ending her White House bid.
Harris entered the race in January as a top contender and had a breakout moment in the first debate thanks to a memorable clash with then-frontrunner Joe Biden over his record on desegregation busing.
But she’s struggled to break out in subsequent debates and has seen her poll numbers plunge in recent months. In November, Harris dramatically cut her staff in New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary in the race for the White House, to focus on Iowa.
The Harris campaign was also hemorrhaging money, spending more than what was coming in, amid tough media coverage about the campaign’s struggles.
She is the first “big name” candidates to drop out of the crowded 2020 primary field, two months before the lead-off Iowa caucuses. Her exit follows the withdrawal of former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, another Democrat who entered the race to great fanfare, but later struggled.
Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, Former VP Joe Biden said of Harris, “I have mixed emotions about it because she is really a solid, solid person. And loaded with talent.”
Many believe that Harris’ decision was made not only because she was no longer a viable candidate for POTUS, but any future political career for her would be in jeopardy, if she remained in the race, and lost big – which seemed likely — in the California primary, her home state.
Congressional Democrats have now released their scathing nine-point impeachment report, which accuses President Trump of abusing his office for partisan advantage in the Ukraine scandal, and of then seeking to obstruct the probe of his misdeeds.
The landmark report says the Intelligence Committee’s investigation determined that President Trump used $391 million in aid to Ukraine and a White House visit for its president, as leverage to force the embattled nation to announce “unfounded” investigations into Joe Biden and his son, as well as a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.
The 300-page report comes less than 24 hours before the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin taking up the case with its first formal impeachment hearing Wednesday morning. The report is expected to be transmitted to that committee following an evening vote and would form the basis for any articles of impeachment to be drafted.
“President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign,” the report said.
It said the inquiry “uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.”
White House Dismisses Report
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham swiftly hit back in a statement slamming the nature of the Intelligence Committee’s inquiry and claiming it failed to prove any wrongdoing on Trump’s part.
“At the end of a one-sided sham process, Chairman Schiff and the Democrats utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump,” Grisham said. “This report reflects nothing more than their frustrations. Chairman Schiff’s report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing.”
The Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., conducted extensive interviews with witnesses connected to the Trump administration’s relationship with Ukraine after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint alleging that during a July 25 phone call, Trump tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to help Rudy Giuliani investigate Democratic activities in 2016, as well as former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
That phone call was at the center of the report, which said that “The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage,” the report said. “In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.”
Trump has denied wrongdoing and said his call with Zelensky was “perfect,” while maintaining there was no such quid pro quo tying aid to investigations. One key witness, E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, alleged a clear quid pro quo involving a White House meeting and a “potential quid pro quo” involving the aid — but also acknowledged he never heard those conditions from Trump directly.
Zelensky has also denied there was any pressure put on him or any talk of a quid pro quo between the two leaders, but he did recently criticize the decision to delay the aid.
Meanwhile, Republicans drafted a report of their own, which rejected most, if not all of the claims, made by the Democratic majority.
“The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” the GOP report said.
With the Intelligence Committee’s report in their hands, the Judiciary Committee is next going to call constitutional law experts to testify regarding the relevant legal principles involved in impeachment, before determining whether or not to approve articles of impeachment, which would then go to the full House for a vote.
If the House should vote to impeach, the Senate would hold a trial, where a two-thirds majority would be needed to convict.
Governments are always doing something in the dark shadows far away from discerning and prying eyes. Sometimes it is necessary and for the bigger cause. The government is supposed to be in place to serve the people. Often times secrets are necessary to keep one’s hand unexposed. This too, however, can get out of hand.
The CIA and the military started a covert program used to assassinate VC sympathizers during the time of the Vietnam war called The Phoenix Project. This counter-insurgency doctrine has been put into full play by CIA and US Military Intelligence after the negative public reaction American citizens vehemently expressed against the US involvement in the Vietnam war. They looked at the public reaction to the war as an open betrayal and wanted it not to happen again.
Under this new program called the Phoenix Project, a new form of weapon was being developed called microwave weapons. These weapons were being developed as a new form of crowd control but far more effective and nefarious than the typical tear gas. These state of the art neutralizing microwave weapons kill slowly and silently and also can be used to cause emotional changes and emotional distress to a large group of people or can be directed at one individual. These microwaves are transmitted over low-frequency signals and can be done sight unseen. The terms slow kill, silent kill, and soft kill were used to identify microwave frequency attacks on groups or individuals.
The Phoenix Program is similar to the CIA’s MK Ultra program which is a secret crash program used to control the human mind. The MK in MK Ultra is the abbreviation for the german words for mind control. The techniques used in this program came from direct knowledge of how POWs were treated during capture and also from first-hand knowledge of events that took place in Nazi concentration camps. By the end of the Korean War, 70% of the POWs signed confessions, 15% cooperated fully, and 5% refused to do either. One can only assume what happened to the remaining 10%.
Brainwashing and propaganda were chief tools used to condition the minds of prisoners. These techniques were used to cause emotional exhaustion. The captives were made to feel isolated and alone in order to be broken. The Joint Chief of Staff ordered and speared headed the operation to bring 34 Nazi scientists that were utilized in such brainwashing experiments in Germany. These scientists were brought into the country under the top-secret program called Project Paperclip. Nine-thousand Nazi scientist evaded prosecution in Germany for their committed atrocities and was smuggled into the US to help defeat the USSR or Soviet Russian. These men were skilled in the art of breaking the human mind.
Joseph Mengele was a chief Nazi scientist who did experiments on adults and children in Germany. Some of his favorite devices used in his testing was a drug called mescaline, electroshock therapy, starvation, rape, hypnosis, torcher, sensory deprivation, and trauma bonding.
In 1973, General Michael Aquino became the executive officer for the 306th Psychological Operations Battalion. He wrote about how enemy populations can be subdued with the use of low-frequency psychological weapons. The new low-frequency weapons can be used to evoke emotions of fear or to slowly cook someone at the molecular level. These weapons can be used to control a crowd without a shot being fired. The microwaves can be transmitted over radio, television, and communications frequencies (like a cell phone, ipad or any smart device).
In the 1980’s, Michael Aquino was accused to be part of a satanic military child molestation ring. He had close ties with Antoine LaVey who was the head of the Church of Satan. Michael was himself the founder of the Church of Set. This too was a satanic church in itself. The military and government choose to infiltrate such closed groups like the Mormons and The Church of Satan because since they are not open to the public the people are more easily indoctrinated. They then use these groups to push forward an agenda.
We all want freedom. But who defines what real freedom is and to what extent should governments go to maintain sovereignty and independence. But, at what cost?
The sins of the father. How far is too far? Do the ends justify the means.
In my many decades of advising political candidates – and other public figures – how to manage their public images, I have always placed some importance on “looks.” How you message and what you believe are very important, the appearance of a candidate can either reinforce or distract from a good public image.
Senator John McCain did himself no good by campaigning in tan pants and polo shirts. He looked more like an Arizona retiree than the senior senator from that state. On the other hand, President Obama, with his dark suits and sincere ties looked more like a President than McCain. That was quite an accomplishment since every previous President was an old white guy –like McCain. He just did not look presidential.
While I like Congressman Jim Jordan’s politics, I wish he would buy a suit – and wear it. Yes, there are times that shedding the jacket can connect with voters – that is when it is an exception, like passing out cupcakes in a food line or flipping those pork chops at the Iowa State Fair. But not all the time. Not press conferences. Not at hearings.
I am sure it is not accident with Jordan. He thinks he is relating to the common man. To me, he looks like a pocket-protector wearing manager of a used car dealership. And even the average car salesman would have enough sense to put on a suit to appear on the hallowed floor of the United States House of Representatives.
Those with longer memories may recall how President Jimmy Carter would carry his suit bag as he disembarked from Air Force One. There was even a joke going around that someone made Carter strain by actually putting clothes in the bag.
So, what about our current presidential candidates – starting out with our current President?
President Trump wears presidential clothes – and he looks good in them considering that he is a big fellow. But of course, the most obvious attention-grabber is the hair. It has detracted from his presidential persona. Over the years, it has toned down a bit. As President, Trump does not need an odd hair do to attract attention.
Of course, Trump cannot give it up now because it has been part of his signature look for sooooo long—and if he did, Congressman Adam Schiff would see it as an impeachable offense.
There are several candidates who are well suited for the Presidency – and I only mean that in the fashionista sense. Certainly, Joe Biden. He has carried that look for a lifetime. His only appearance problem is his age – and fixing that would require a few more hair transplants and some television makeup.
Newbie candidate Michael Bloomberg is a clone of Biden fashion wise. It is hard to imagine that he would ever take off his suitcoat in public – even to flip chops in Iowa. Maybe that is why he is not going there. He is about as old as Biden and shows it.
Millionaire Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also an old man, but he is going for a much different look than Biden or Bloomberg. He dresses down and makes sure his hair is properly messed. Most times he looks like he had the window open as he was driving down the highway. Rather than a President of the United States, Sanders comes off looking more like a poli-sci professor at New York University. There are times, however, his hair appears more coiffed — combed forward in little flat curls along the edge that make him look more like a senator in ancient Rome.
There is another guy who wants to portray an image apart from what he is. Billionaire Tom Steyer is mostly seen in jeans and plaid shirts in folksy commercials – kind of a western rancher type. He ends all his banal attacks on Trump with a self-satisfied smug smile – a lot like that kid in school who always had the teacher-pleasing answer.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg has the problem that he looks even younger than he is. We still associate experience and wisdom with age – up to a point, of course. Buttigieg looks like he should be running for College homecoming king. (don’t go there.) While he does go coatless a bit too often, there is not much he could wear that would make him look older. He might have overcome the problem if he had become prematurely grey.
I know there are more male candidates, but they are so far down the polling list that it really does not matter what they wear. No one is noticing.
So, what about the women?
With one exception, I give them all a perfect grade in the school of political fashion. While their politics are liberal, the attire of Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard is presidential conservative. While Harris and Klobuchar are matronly stylish – and I mean that as a compliment – Gabbard’s get-ups are a tad sexier. She wears it well.
Now I know that will be viewed as a sexist comment by the political correctness crowd, but I do not find anything sexy about the men’s choice in attire. Maybe some yoga pants would do the trick. (God, I hope I can get that image out of my mind.)
While these women switch from dresses, business suits and pants suit, they avoid the image-killing pants suits worn by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But then, the former First Lady was never a clothes horse.
Of course, the exception in the current field of lady candidates is Elizabeth Warren. Though she is among the multi-millionaire candidates, it is obvious she selects attire to project her “I’m just a humble schoolteacher from Oklahoma” image. It is a wonder where she has found so many of those long frumpy sweaters. Even Goodwill could not meet Warren’s demand. Every time I see Warren, I cannot help but think of the bag lady character played by comedian Ruth Buzzi.
I did not forget Marianne Williamson, the love candidate, it is just that she is so forgettable. Whatever she wears, she looks like one of those women peddling aromas on the shopping channels. Maybe she does.
I did not look at these styles as a fashion expert — obviously. I cannot tell an Armani suit from an Army flak jacket. I just look at the candidates in terms of the public image they project – or try to project – with a bit of humor that is so lacking in our current political discourse. And you can bet that there will be folks out there who will not appreciate the humor. You can identify them because they are wearing t-shirts emblazoned with political obscenities.
So, there ‘tis.
During his presidential campaign – and ever since his inauguration – President Trump has constantly called on the other members of NATO to increase their financial contribution. At the time Trump took office, only three of the 29 NATO nations were meeting their agreed-to funding of two percent of Gross Domestic Product. As with the UN, the United States was the only nation carrying a disproportionate percentage of the alliance budget.
In typical fashion, Trump was pretty rough on our NATO allies. He treated them like the deadbeats they were.
That got our pin-stripped pants folks in the international relations community all a twitter – so to speak. They accused Trump of violating diplomatic norms – bullying our friends. They accused Trump of trying to destroy NATO as a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The complainers broke down into two camps – those who simply hate Trump and those know-it-alls in the diplomatic community who had been calling on the other members of NATO to increase their contribution – but did nothing about it. Consequently, it never happened. Doing nothing, after all, is the diplomatic norm in their world.
So, what is the situation today?
Weeeeell, the number of nations meeting their commitment has increased from three to eight – and most of the other nations have increased their contributions. In a recent press conference, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reported an increase in NATO income of $130 billion since 2016 (the year Trump became President) – and said that there still needs to be more improvement in member nations meeting their quotas.
Stoltenberg said that increases in member contributions were necessary because of more dangerous international conditions, terrorism, and new military technologies. But … he said that such increases should NOT be because Trump called for them. They had nothing to do with the guy who had been bullying and threatening them, according to the Secretary General.
Now let’s get this picture straight. For decades, the American diplomatic establishment has been trying to get our NATO allies in meeting their financial obligations without any success – even as international conditions became more dangerous, terrorism resulted in a Caliphate off the shore of Europe and military technologies improved immensely. NATO could keep pace with those past events thanks to the misguided generosity of one nation – America.
Democrats and their media allies have been quick to take up the narrative set forth by Stoltenberg. If you start with the argument that nothing Trump does will have good results, it is easy to assume his pressures on NATO had nothing to do with the improvements in funding. But that is preposterous.
In an odd analysis, former General Mark Hertling – a consistent Trump critic – derisively said that the NATO leaders only playing up to Trump so that he would not grouse so much about the funding shortfalls – another example of who Trump Derangement Syndrome addles the left-wing brain. Of course, there were placating Trump. That is called a victory – something Hertling should understand.
The only thing that changed in terms of NATO funding between now and then has been the election of Trump and the public shaming (bullying, if you prefer) he bestowed on our allies. And as far as that nonsense about helping Putin, Trump actually strengthened NATO, added to the membership rolls and sent military aide to Ukraine – a nation eager to join NATO and avoid being Putin’s next conquest.
Though lost in the fog of impeachment – intentionally, to be sure – the increased funding of NATO is a “yuge” victory for Trump, the United States, and the free world. Mark up one more for The Lipper.
So, there ‘tis.