Posted tagged ‘Establishment’

Washington’s despicable hypocrisy towards the Kurds

September 27, 2017

Washington’s despicable hypocrisy towards the Kurds, PJ Media,  David P. Goldman, September 25, 2017

There are 40 million Kurds living in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, and the question of Kurdish statehood can’t be untangled from the regional mess by a referendum. There is good reason to counsel the Kurds to exercise patience and careful statecraft in clearing this minefield. But it is utterly disgusting to ignore their national aspirations. Washington has reasons of state to manage the regional crisis artfully, and to ask the Kurds to be patient. But why are we so beholden to the doomed and destructive regimes of Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq that we cannot extend a hand of friendship to the Kurds? Their path to statehood may be tortuous and prolonged, but America should offer our counsel and support. If we do not, the rest of the Muslim world will smile grimly and exploit our moral cowardice.

***********************************

At Asia Times today, I explain why the entire world (excepting Israel) have lined up against the Kurds:

Except for the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan, there isn’t one state in Western Asia that is viable inside its present borders at a 20-year horizon. All the powers with interests in the region want to kick the problem down the road, and that is why the whole world (excepting Israel) wants to abort an independence referendum to be held by Iraq’s eight million Kurds on Sept. 25.

I just want to add that our foreign policy elite is a pack of hypocritical, yellow-bellied, two-faced, fork-tongued, lying polecats who wouldn’t acknowledge the truth if it were tattooed on their ophidian foreheads.

Since September 11, 2001, we’ve been told that America has to ally with moderate Muslims against “extremism.” There are in fact moderate Muslims in the world. The Kurds are “moderate Muslims.” The Kurds do not persecute nonbelievers. They don’t hate Jews and Christians. They don’t forbid women to leave the house without a male relative; in fact, their militias are the only effective fighting force in the world that includes women in front-line combat units. They protect Iraqi Christians against ISIS, and Iraq’s Christians in turn support Kurdish independence. They have excellent and long-standing relations with the State of Israel. Jewish life is flourishing in the Kurdish Autonomous Region in the north of Iraq.

Most of all, Kurdish fighters are the spearhead of American-backed ground forces fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. They do not only act the way we say we want Muslims to act, protecting Christians and Jews and promoting the equality of women. They shed blood for what they believe in.

The Kurds are everything that George W. Bush and Barack Obama told us we should find in the Islamic world, and more. They want nothing but friendship with the United States of America. And we have thrown them under the bus. There isn’t an Appalachian outhouse that stinks worse than our foreign policy Establishment.

Why have we thrown them under the bus? Because we’re afraid of unsettling “extremists,” that is, the radical jihadists who have been killing Americans for decades. Kurdish independence would below up the artificial state of Iraq, which turned into an Iranian satrapy under majority Shi’ite rule as arranged by George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and the nation-builders of the Republican Establishment. It would destabilize Turkey, where Kurds of military age will outnumber Turks a generation from now. Turkish President Erdogan wants to restore Ottoman glory and the prospect of losing the Kurdish-majority Southeast drives him crazy. Turkey, notionally the Southeast flank of NATO, has already turned its back on the West, and lined up with Russia and China.

Thanks in small part to our bungling and in large part to Iran’s predation, the whole of Western Asia is unstable. Syria and Iraq look like the kind of scene from a Quentin Tarantino film where everyone has a gun trained on everyone else. The one island of stability in the whole miserable landscape, Iraqi Kurdistan, becomes a threat to the momentary stability of the region.

There are 40 million Kurds living in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, and the question of Kurdish statehood can’t be untangled from the regional mess by a referendum. There is good reason to counsel the Kurds to exercise patience and careful statecraft in clearing this minefield. But it is utterly disgusting to ignore their national aspirations. Washington has reasons of state to manage the regional crisis artfully, and to ask the Kurds to be patient. But why are we so beholden to the doomed and destructive regimes of Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq that we cannot extend a hand of friendship to the Kurds? Their path to statehood may be tortuous and prolonged, but America should offer our counsel and support. If we do not, the rest of the Muslim world will smile grimly and exploit our moral cowardice.

 

The Establishment And Antifa Go Hand In Hand

August 28, 2017

The Establishment And Antifa Go Hand In Hand, Daily Caller, Scott Greer, August 27, 2017

Antifa violence broke out once again in Berkeley, California, this weekend.

On Sunday, a small number of supporters of President Trump decided to gather in the left-wing college town following the cancellation of two similar demonstrations in the area the day before. The reason for the cancellations was due to the large number of violent threats the pro-Trump organizers received.

The day Trump supporters actually showed up in the Bay Area gave leftists the chance to make good on their threats.

The scenes on the ground in Berkeley showed black-masked, red flag-waving thugs taking over the city and assaulting anyone they deemed to be a Nazi. It was a stark contrast to the heroic image Antifa has earned from journalists and politicians in the weeks since the violence in Charlottesville.

There were no clear Nazis in Berkeley, just your average Trump supporters. Yet that didn’t save them from a beating at the hands of Antifa.

Strangely enough, Antifa had drawn praise from the most unlikely of sources within the Trump administration just a few days before they rioted against free assembly in Berkeley.

In a interview with the Financial Times, Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive and current White House economic adviser, publicly rebuked his boss Donald Trump’s response to the Charlottesville violence that both sides were at fault. He also praised Antifa as a force for good.

“Citizens standing up for equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK,” the top Trump adviser asserted.

There are many odd things about a Trump-aligned Goldman Sachs figurehead praising anti-capitalist rioters. It’s pretty strange to praise leftists who dedicate their lives to suppressing free speech and free assembly as standing up for freedom.

Antifa are pretty open about not liking these freedoms, as evidenced by their actions in Berkeley. So it’s hard to say they’re fighting for liberty — especially when they continually attack average Americans who support the president you work for.

What’s even more bizarre is for a Wall Street power player to stand with guys who fantasize about murdering bankers. Cohn is effectively defending people who see him as an evil monster who deserves violence as much as Nazis do.

The leftsts wish to tear down the whole financial system that Cohn has worked his whole life upholding, so why is he praising them?

The answer is that he doesn’t see Antifa as a threat at all. Wall Street folks don’t have to worry about the black-masked bloc assaulting them or burning down their offices. If they did, the federal government would ruthlessly pursue them as domestic terrorists.

But Cohn only sees them as attacking and harming marginal groups that have hardly any cultural capital. It doesn’t matter if those folks get hurt just expressing their constitutional rights, especially if those attacked might disrupt business.

Besides, how can you be a member of polite society and think even detestable Nazis deserve protection from violence?

But Antifa doesn’t just attack right-wing extremists. They also go after your average Trump supporters and conservatives.

However, that still might not be a problem for Cohn and other elites.

The White House economic adviser has drawn a lot of heat during his time in the administration for representing the opposite of Trumpism. Cohn likes unrestricted free trade. He supports globalism. He’s a fan of mass immigration. He has no time for culture war.

And, as seen by his position leading Goldman Sachs, he’s obviously very pro-elite. Cohn’s influence is often seen by Trump’s supporters on the Right as a major hindrance to the agenda they supported in the campaign.

Which brings us back to Antifa. For an anti-establishment group, they rarely, if ever, go after the establishment. Instead, they consign themselves to attacking random Trump supporters and white nationalists — hardly people close to the halls of power.

If these anti-capitalist leftists just focus on people who are opponents of policies Cohn supports, then why should he have a problem with them?

The chattering class has designated the alt-right, Breitbart, Trump voters, ICE and talk radio as far greater threats to American society than violent left-wingers. Cohn, in all likelihood, agrees with this sentiment.

The only threat that he may disagree with is that of President Trump, who is seen as the biggest threat to our country by America’s elites. Since Antifa also stands against Trump, it makes the group a natural ally to the establishment, in spite of their violence and anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Those qualms can be ignored if the anarchists’ energy is directed solely at enemies they share with the elites.

The violence in Berkeley is unlikely to convince Antifa’s supporters in media and politics to rethink their praise. As long as they don’t disrupt any Democratic Party events or Goldman Sachs meetings, they’ll still be heroes fighting for equality and freedom in the eyes of the elite.

This enabling will lead to more violence and embolden the black-clad thugs to continue their crusade against anyone they deem a Nazi. It’s doubtful that they will rethink their actions in light of receiving praise from Wall Street giants and Mitt Romney.

They just want to role play the Spanish Civil War, not attack the actual establishment.

Legend has Vladimir Lenin stating, “We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us.”

Today’s Bolshevik wannabes likely see their new, powerful allies in the same light.

The capitalists of our age certainly don’t think they are a threat to the establishment, but that might change if the leftists are further emboldened.

When given the blank check to attack all Nazis, things might dramatically change when banks are singled out as havens of fascism.

Trump Fires Up Europe’s Anti-Establishment Movement

January 22, 2017

Trump Fires Up Europe’s Anti-Establishment Movement, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, January 22, 2017

The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not.” — Geert Wilders, MP and head of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands.

A growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.

Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.

“In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis.” — Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

“There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values…. This is a genuine political revolution.” — Nigel Farage, former head of Britain’s UKIP party, who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU.

“This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.” — Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, Switzerland.

Inspired by the inauguration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, the leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties have held a pan-European rally aimed at coordinating a political strategy to mobilize potentially millions of disillusioned voters in upcoming elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France.

Appearing together in public for the first time, Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, Frauke Petry, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s Northern League and Harald Vilimsky of Austria’s Freedom Party gathered on January 21 at a rally in Koblenz, Germany, where they called on European voters to participate in a “patriotic spring” to topple the European Union, reassert national sovereignty and secure national borders.

2226The leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties appearing together in public for the first time, on January 21 in Koblenz, Germany. (Image source: Marine Le Pen/Twitter)

The two-hour rally was held under the banner of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), a group established in June 2015 by Members of the European Parliament from nine counties to oppose European federalism and the transfer of political power from voters to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union.

Referring to the June 2016 decision by British voters to leave the European Union, and the rise of President Donald Trump in the United States, Le Pen said:

“We are living through the end of one world, and the birth of another. We are experiencing the return of nation-states. 2016 was the year the Anglo-Saxon world woke up. 2017, I am sure, will be the year in which the peoples of the European continent rise up.”

Wilders added:

“The world is changing. America is changing. Europe is changing. It started last year with Brexit, yesterday there was Trump and today the freedom-loving parties gathered in Koblenz are making a stand. The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not. The people of the West are awakening. They are throwing off the yoke of political correctness.”

Polls indicate that the political sea change engulfing the United States is fueling support for anti-establishment parties in Europe. In addition to anger over eroding sovereignty, a growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.

In France, a new Ipsos poll for Le Monde shows that Marine Le Pen is now poised to win the first round of the French presidential election set for April 23, 2017. Le Pen has between 25% and 26% support among likely voters, compared to 23% and 25% for François Fillon of the center-right Republicans party. In December 2016, Fillon held a three-point lead over Le Pen.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is now leading polls ahead of the general election scheduled for March 15, 2017. The PVV has the support of between 29% and 33% of the electorate. By contrast, support for the ruling People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has fallen to between 23% and 27%.

In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has become the third-largest party the country, with support at around 15% percent. The AfD had gained representation in ten of Germany’s 16 state parliaments, and the party hopes to win seats in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) for the first time in national elections set for September 24, 2017.

Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.

In Germany, for example, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, in an underhanded effort to silence criticism of the government’s open door migration policy, called for German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD.

The German Interior Ministry is now proposing to establish a “Defense Center against Disinformation” (Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation) to combat “fake news.” Critics have described the proposed center as a “censorship monster” aimed at silencing dissenting opinions.

Enter Trump. If sufficient numbers of European voters are inspired by the political transformation taking place in the United States, the balance of European political power may begin to shift in favor of the anti-establishment parties. European political and media elites will therefore surely view Trump as a threat to the Europe’s established political order.

In a January 16 interview with the Times of London and Germany’s Bild, Trump said he believed that Brexit is “going to end up being a great thing.” He added that German Chancellor Angela Merkel made an “utterly catastrophic mistake by letting all these illegals into the country.”

In the same interview, Trump said that the NATO alliance “is very important to me” but he called it “obsolete” for failing to contain the threat posed to the West by Islamic terrorism. He also complained that some countries “don’t pay what they should pay.” Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five — Britain, Estonia, Greece, Poland and the United States — meet the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

European commentators roundly criticized Trump for his comments and some accused the United States of being an “unreliable partner.” European leaders repeated calls for a pan-European Army, a long-held goal of European federalists, which would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to the European Union.

Gatestone Institute Chairman Ambassador John R. Bolton, has provided much-needed context to the debate over NATO. In a recent article for the Boston Globe, he wrote:

“NATO has taken intense criticism this year from Donald Trump, evoking howls of outrage from foreign-policy establishment worthies. The worthies know, however, that Trump is simply using his bullhorn to say what they themselves say more quietly: NATO’s decision-making is often sclerotic; its mission has not been adequately redefined after the Cold War; and too many members haven’t carried their weight financially or militarily for long years…. Trump has emphasized that his complaints are intended to encourage debate about improving and strengthening NATO, not sundering it. The debate is well worth having.”

Bolton added:

“In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis: every failure of closer integration by the ‘European project’ leads only to calls for more integration. Whether it is establishing a currency without a government; pledging military capabilities that collectively the EU never achieves; or pretending to an EU role in world affairs that no one outside of Brussels takes seriously, ‘more Europe’ is always the answer.”

European Reactions to President Trump’s Inauguration

Trump’s presidential inauguration speech was greeted with formal politeness by European leaders — most of whom will have to work with the new leader of the free world — and with unbridled derision by European commentators and media elites — many of whom appear to be in denial about the anti-establishment fervor sweeping the United States and Europe.

Much of the European commentary about Trump has consisted of name-calling and anti-Americanism. A handful of European analysts, however, have called for introspection and self-criticism.

What follows is a brief selection of European commentary on Trump’s inauguration:

In Britain, reactions to Trump were evenly divided between those who do and do not support British membership in the European Union. Prime Minister Theresa May said:

“From our conversations to date, I know we are both committed to advancing the special relationship between our two countries and working together for the prosperity and security of people on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson wrote:

“I think that the new president has made it very clear that he wants to put Britain at the front of the line for a new trade deal and obviously that’s extremely exciting and important.”

Nigel Farage, the politician who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, was one of the few Europeans to understand the magnitude of Trump’s rise. He wrote:

“There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values. For this inauguration is not just a change from the 44th President to the 45th President of the United States. This is a genuine political revolution.”

In France, President François Hollande advised Trump to stay out of European affairs — this a few days after the French government tried to impose a “two-state solution” on Israel. He said: “Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will be based on its interests and values. It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do.”

Marine Le Pen said: “Clearly, the victory of Donald Trump is another step toward the emergence of a new world, whose vocation is to replace an old order.”

Jean-Marie Colombani, the former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, articulated Europe’s geopolitical predicament, which is the direct consequence of a failure to prioritize French defense spending:

“From an American point of view, Vladimir Putin is a secondary problem: Russia is a medium power, which can certainly create problems for the United States, but only marginally, as in Syria, for example. China is the only power to rival the United States. It will be, already is, the only obsession of Trump’s America.

“Vladimir Putin represents a problem, if not a threat, for Europe. In fact, the Russian President has set the goal of weakening the European Union, in order to restore the role of guardian that the USSR exercised in the East of Europe, in countries that are now members of the EU and NATO. Everything suggests that Trump shares the same objective: to weaken Europe.

“Indeed, Trump’s European policy is inspired by Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the campaign for Brexit, and whose political aim is now to achieve the dismantling of the European Union. This explains the prediction formulated by Trump on the soon-coming demise of Europe, and his anti-German undertones. In the new American president we find the language and elements of all the populist and extremist parties whose common doctrine is hostility towards the European project. Here, then, in the East and the West, Europe is squeezed as in a vise!”

In Germany, which is wholly dependent upon the United States for defense, and which has steadfastly refused to meet its commitment to pay 2% of GDP on defense, reaction to Trump’s speech was overwhelmingly negative.

Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to work with Trump to preserve the transatlantic relationship. “The trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years,” she said. “And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect.”

Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was far less diplomatic. He said: “We have to take this man seriously. What we heard today were highly nationalistic tones. I think we have to prepare for a rough ride.” He called on Europeans to unite to “defend our interests.”

Writing for Deutsche Welle, commentator Max Hofmann admonished Europeans to stop complaining about Trump and instead put their own house in order:

“What do you do when your closest partner just disappears on you? You do what the EU should have done long ago: you fix up your home, regardless of what ‘The Donald’ is doing in the USA. There is enough work that needs to be done in Europe with regard to ‘putting your own house in order’ — Brexit, migration and refugee policies, the euro. If Europeans were honest to themselves and viewed what is happening on the old continent from the American perspective — and not just that one — then the situation would not be comprehensible to them. If US parliamentarians were to call European dissent ‘madness’ or ‘nonsense,’ no one could blame them.”

Commentator Hubert Wetzel said that Trump posed a threat to European security and called for European unity to weather the next four years. In an essay laced with hyperbole, he wrote:

“Europeans will have to adapt to a new tone in dealing with America. Trump has made it clear in his speech that he will pursue a nationalist foreign policy, and his speech contained no reference to America’s allies. [Trump actually said: ‘We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,’ and ‘We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world’]. His willingness to spend money on the defense of other countries is limited. He does not see the USA as a protective power of democratic values in the world; and he is the first U.S. president since the end of the Second World War who has openly expressed doubts about the value of European unity and the existence of NATO. At a time when Russia is trying to weaken the West by means of diplomatic, intelligence, and military means, it is an attitude that is a serious threat to united Europe.”

In Spain, geopolitical analyst Rafael Bardají wrote:

“President Trump promised that a new era is beginning today. In his inaugural speech he made it very clear that he despises Washington and hates the way the establishment has ruled the country up until now, defending its privileges at the expense of citizens. Yes, a speech that can be called populist, but one that nevertheless is true. Democracy, after all, emerged as the government of the people for the people, something that, at present, is far from being a reality in America as well as in Europe. The great social contract of liberal democracy, namely, growing prosperity and peace and security for the citizens, is no longer being fulfilled. This is due to the inability of our elites to deal with the [economic] crisis, due to their obsession with pacifism and due to the subordination of the interests of nationals in favor of immigrants.”

In Switzerland, Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, warned against efforts by European elites to belittle Trump. He wrote:

“Trump’s election was a healthy shock. The shock was necessary. Not only power cartels, but also worldviews are breaking down. This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.”

Geraldo: Trump’s ‘outrageous’ Taiwan call may be brilliant

December 3, 2016

Geraldo: Trump’s ‘outrageous’ Taiwan call may be brilliant, Fox News via YouTube, December 3, 2016

Donald Trump’s Team of Outsiders

December 2, 2016

Donald Trump’s Team of Outsiders, Washington Free Beacon, December 2, 2016

outsidersAll images via AP

Only a liberal could believe that Trump’s pledge to drain the swamp was an attack on the wealthy or on market economics. While he and Bernie Sanders struck similar notes on trade, Trump happily attacked the Vermont senator as a socialist nut. The swamp to which Trump and his audiences refer isn’t Wall Street per se but an interlocking system of major financial institutions and multinational corporations, lobbyists, academics, media, and, most importantly, the consultants and rent-seekers in Washington, D.C., that get rich despite failure after failure in economic, foreign, and domestic policy.

*********************

Democrats and the media are confused about the meaning of Donald Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. The president-elect’s critics say his appointment of wealthy Republicans to cabinet positions is hypocritical and reveals him to be a phony populist. “Hypocrisy at its worst,” cry  Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. “Trump’s Economic Cabinet Picks Signal Embrace of Wall St. Elite,” reads the headline on the New York Times. “Stick a sterling silver fork in Trump’s ‘populism,’” reads the title of a Washington Post column.

This is the same sloppy thinking that led practically everyone in politics and media to believe Trump would lose the election. If populist voters despise wealth, then why did they back Trump, the wealthiest man ever to become president, who paid for much of his own campaign and bragged on the trail about using bankruptcy and tax laws to his advantage?

The mark of a populist isn’t his net worth but his relationship to the establishment, his rejection of the ideologies, fashions, clichés, and manners of the political and social and cultural elite, his attitude toward the capacities of ordinary people to manage their daily affairs. Rich as he might be, Donald Trump’s candidacy was an exercise in populist confrontation and polarization. He ran against the eastern establishment of both parties with his opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, criticism of global trade, and repudiation of the foreign policies of the last two presidents. His blunt, uncouth, dramatic, untutored, brash, politically incorrect manner was about as far as one can get from elite habits of deference and groupthink. For decades, the nation’s cultural and political elites treated him with disdain, disgust, or ironic fascination. Trump was the original deplorable. That’s how he forged a gut connection with his base of white voters without college degrees.

Only a liberal could believe that Trump’s pledge to drain the swamp was an attack on the wealthy or on market economics. While he and Bernie Sanders struck similar notes on trade, Trump happily attacked the Vermont senator as a socialist nut. The swamp to which Trump and his audiences refer isn’t Wall Street per se but an interlocking system of major financial institutions and multinational corporations, lobbyists, academics, media, and, most importantly, the consultants and rent-seekers in Washington, D.C., that get rich despite failure after failure in economic, foreign, and domestic policy.

The “Contract with the American Voter” that Trump outlined in his October 22 speech at Gettysburg did not include provisions saying no one with Goldman Sachs on their resume would serve in his administration. What he pledged instead were term limits, a hiring freeze on federal workers, “a requirement that for every new federal regulation two existing regulations must be eliminated,” five-year bans on executive and legislative branch personnel from lobbying after leaving government, lifetime bans on White House personnel from lobbying for a foreign government, and a “complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections,” as well as “seven actions to protect American workers,” “five actions to restore security and constitutional rule of law,” and legislation to reduce and simplify corporate and individual taxes, impose tariffs to protect U.S. industry, add $1 trillion in infrastructure spending over the next decade, create a federal school choice program, end Common Core, replace Obamacare, make child care expense tax deductible, build the wall and crack down on illegal immigration, give more resources to police, increase defense spending, and reform the VA. All in his first 100 days in office.

This expansive and substantive agenda was the hidden story of the 2016 campaign. So obsessed were we with the accouterments of the Trump phenomenon—the crowds, the controversies, the tweets, the harangues, the drama—that the only people who heard the details of his program were the ones that attended his major speeches or listened to them on talk radio. Now, as president-elect, Trump faces the challenge of enacting even a part of this grandiose vision. His cabinet selections give us an early clue into the character of his incoming administration. And they tell us his fight with the political class is just beginning.

It’s been reported that Trump has cited Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals as he mulls appointing Mitt Romney as secretary of State. But the Trump cabinet looks less to be a team of rivals than a team of outsiders. The men and women Trump has nominated are largely in sync with the program on which Trump campaigned, and while Trump enjoys delegating and hearing different opinions, it is unlikely any member of the cabinet will last long if they displease or undermine or embarrass him. The big worry for Trump isn’t infighting. It’s the massive bureaucratic resistance that will soon greet his nominees.

Only one of the men and women nominated by Trump has experience managing the gigantic and recalcitrant organizations that comprise the administrative state: Elaine Chao, who served as George W. Bush’s secretary of labor and is now slated to head the department of transportation under Trump. White House counsel Don McGahn knows Washington as an attorney and former chair of the FEC. And, as I write, there are two members of the administration who have experience as elected executives: Mike Pence and Nikki Haley.

But Haley has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs, and she’s going to be ambassador to the United Nations. Senator Jeff Sessions is liked by his peers and has been a U.S. attorney and state attorney general, but he never has had as much authority as he will have next year. Neither Reince Priebus nor Steve Bannon has served in government, much less the White House. General Flynn made his reputation as a hard-charging “disrupter,” K.T. McFarland’s last government job was in the Reagan administration, Betsy DeVos is a philanthropist and activist who will be new to government, General Mattis is an American hero beloved by Marines but also a stranger to domestic politics, Mike Pompeo was elected to Congress six years ago, and Ben Carson is, well, Ben Carson.

The press has covered the economic team of Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and Wilbur Ross at Commerce as a win for insiders. However, as successful as Mnuchin and Ross might be, neither is the sort of insider who routinely traverses the Acela corridor, alternating between government office and lucrative business interests. And both are at odds with establishment thinking on economics. The Wall Street Journal editorial page on Thursday slighted Mnuchin’s praise and concerns for small banks. Ross’ views on trade are as heretical as Trump’s.

This roster of new personnel is a reflection of the man who put it together, the ultimate outsider who relishes combat with entrenched institutions such as the media, the political parties, and Clinton Inc. But he and his top officials will have to draw on all their talents amid the bureaucratic inertia and conventional wisdom of Washington life. They ought to remember that the CIA chewed up and spat out President George W. Bush’s director Porter Goss, just as the World Bank revolted over Paul Wolfowitz.

Trump supporter Newt Gingrich, who won’t be joining the administration, advises incoming cabinet officials to read Peter Drucker’s The Effective Executive. “President-elect Trump and his senior team have to acquire the habit of asking of every situation, ‘Is this a symptom, or a problem?’” writes Gingrich. “If it is a symptom, they must take some time to look for the real underlying problem. When they solve that problem, they will have solved orders of magnitude more symptoms.” The problems are large and daunting as Donald Trump and his team of outsiders prepare to take up residence in the swamp.

FARAGE: I Am Prepared to Help Britain Work with President Trump

November 22, 2016

FARAGE: I Am Prepared to Help Britain Work with President Trump, BreitbartNigel Farage, MEP, November 22, 2016

farageandtrump

When historians look back at 2016, it will stand out as the year that changed everything.

The joyous Brexit result was the first brick knocked out of the establishment wall. What followed with the victory of Donald J. Trump has still not sunk in with the very establishment that he beat.

But the world has changed. And people need to face up to this.

For my own part I can scarcely believe what has happened. Twenty-five years of grind and constant disappointment has, after all, been worth it.

In some ways backing the Trump campaign was even harder than battling for Brexit. I received almost total condemnation including from many senior figures in my own party.

My belief that it was the right thing to do went as far as putting on a pretty big bet, at least by my standards.

As the results came through I experienced that Brexit feeling all over again.

It was a great surprise and pleasure when the President-elect made time to meet me. I was with Arron Banks and some close friends including Breitbart’s own Raheem Kassam.

We found a thoughtful, reflective Trump who was already working on ideas to make the lives of ordinary Americans better.

His energy and indomitable spirit are beyond doubt and I do believe he has all of the qualities needed to be a great President.

Nothing could have prepared me though for what came next. Like a bolt from the blue Trump tweeted out that I would do a great job as the UK’s Ambassador to Washington.

I can still scarcely believe that he did that though speaking to a couple of his long time friends perhaps I am a little less surprised.

They all say the same thing: that Trump is a very loyal man and supports those that stand by him.

It is called trust and it is how the whole world of business operates. Sadly, the cesspit that is career politics understands nothing of this. In their world the concept of trust is transitory.

The political revolution of 2016 now sees a new order in charge of Washington. In the United Kingdom the people have spoken but the players at the top have, I am afraid, stayed the same.

Those who supported Remain now hold senior positions. Worst still, those who were openly abusive about Trump now pretend to be his friend.

It is career politics at its worst and it is now getting in the way of the national interest.

I have said since the now famous photograph with Donald Trump ten days ago that I would do anything to help our national interest and to help cement ties with the incoming Anglophile administration.

At every stage I am greeted by negative comments coming out of Downing Street. The dislike of me, UKIP, and the referendum result is more important to them than what could be good for our country.

I have known several of the Trump team for years and I am in a good position with the President-elect’s support to help. The world has changed and its time that Downing Street did too.

The People — and No One Else — Have Spoken

November 9, 2016

The People — and No One Else — Have Spoken, PJ MediaRobert Spencer, November 9, 2016

constitution

The establishment media and the political elites are reeling, and we have every reason to believe they will never recover.

Considering the massive coalition Donald Trump and his movement had to fight against, it may truly be said that the people — the people alone — have spoken more clearly than they have at any time in recent memory.

Against the always shrill, often hysterical opposition of the establishment media and the leaders of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, the American people have made it clear: they’re tired of politics as usual. It is time indeed to drain the swamp.

Trump’s victory shows that the hegemony of the globalists, the internationalists who have held sway in Europe and North America for decades, is decisively weakening. The Brexit vote in the UK and both the Trump candidacy and his victory show that huge numbers of people on both sides of the Atlantic are fed up with lies, hypocrisy, and self-serving corruption. The free world is fed up with the suicidal policies of the political elites, and their bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces among what are supposed to be objective news outlets.

Not that those elites are going quietly into the night. The upset win, they say, is proof of America’s deep-seated “racism” and “xenophobia.” It’s a sign that Americans are misogynistic, unwilling to countenance a female president and all too forgiving of Trump’s tasteless locker room bluster.

This is the line they took throughout the campaign. Few who opposed Trump — either among the Democrats or among the neo-mugwump NeverTrump faction — ever grasped what made him popular in the first place. They still (still!) have no idea what enabled this man, who had never been a politician and had all sorts of negatives regarding his personal behavior, to defeat sixteen Republican challengers, including several movement conservatives, and then to defeat the Clinton machine.

Trump’s success isn’t a sign that America is “racist.” It’s a sign that significant numbers of Americans want the United States to survive as a free nation. Among all those who excoriated Trump for his proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration never addressed why he actually made the suggestion: not because of their lazy charge of “xenophobia,” but because of the real, rational concern that jihad terrorists will enter the United States among peaceful refugees.

The Islamic State has vowed to embed jihadis among the refugees; refugees were among the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015.

No one who opposed Trump’s proposal ever offered an alternative way to keep jihadis out of the country. (Of course, the problem of those who learn jihad inside the U.S. is also acute, and must be addressed). Some glibly opined that Trump should ban “Islamists,” not Muslims as a whole, yet never suggested a reliable way to distinguish “Islamists” from ordinary Muslims. Indeed, the Islamic State has instructed its operatives to appear secular — to avoid ostentatious displays of Islamic piety that might arouse suspicions of “radicalization.”

Hillary Clinton promised that the refugees would be “vetted,” but in light of her refusal to acknowledge the Islamic doctrinal roots of Islamic jihad terrorism, it was unclear how she proposed to do this. How could U.S. officials vet for an ideology that they don’t admit exists? Tashfeen Malik, the Islamic jihadist who, along with her husband Syed Rizwan Farook, murdered fifteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino last December, showed how effective this “vetting” is: she had passed five separate background checks from five different U.S. agencies.

A majority of the American people saw through the same-old, same-old hollowness of Clinton’s proposals, and opted for a real choice, not an echo.

As Donald Trump begins his presidency, we may only hope that he continues his stinging critique of the political and media elites, and that he never surrenders to their inevitable attempts to regain power. They are the ones who have gotten us into this fix. It’s time for new faces with the courage and the will to do what it takes to get us out of it.