On Shitholes and Shitty Little Countries

To Trump supporters, who are defending Trump's comments about "shithole" countries and the immigrants who come from them:

Remember the time when the French Ambassador called Israel a "shitty little country"?

Such comments from a public official are as unacceptable now as they were then.

And if you don't get why, don't be surprised or apoplectic when the US is called all sorts of degrading names by our adversaries.

Satellite coverage of Iran protests

I'm glad that President Trump is ordering the army to use satellite to cover the protests in Iran. Everyone should be aware of the people's fight for freedom, even former Secretary of State John Kerry, who apparently lives under a rock, and has been affected by the regime's cutting off Internet services.

Iranian protests and Obama

The ayatollahs bringing Iran to ruin are the enemies of the Iranian people just as much as they are our enemies. And the Iranians demonstrating in the streets, with no protection of the 2nd Amendment, nor support from Europe, which is heavily financially invested in the murderous, expansionist regime, deserve the same freedom that we have learned to take for granted. Time to debunk the myths that the Iranian nuclear deal or the previous administration cared about security or freedom for anybody. If they did, they would have denounced the bellicose regime, instead of supporting it.

Trump and the Grid

Trump and the grid:

As excited as I was about the concept of the grid actually being protected and prioritized in our NSS, I'm not sure that it will actually happen. Because, based on reports from Bloomberg and other sources, the career officials at the Department of Energy, and elsewhere, are still doing everything possible to derail this administration's agenda, and Trump still has not appointed people who would kick the bureaus inside those agencies in gear. Rick Perry may give orders, but enforcement of implementation ends up falling to the career people, who, so far, have shown little gusto for doing the work, and on some things, downright put up obstacles or lied about doing it.

That is why I do not have high hopes for anything infrastructure-related. This would have been the case to some extent with any Republican president, but will be particularly bad with Trump.

Oh well. At least, just like with the embassy, he set an example of what should be a national security priority, and perhaps in the future, someone else will actually get it done.

Why anti-Jerusalem statement protests around the world are fake news

Interestingly, governments in the countries where there are massive protests going on, as well as physical attacks on Jewish sites (here's looking at you, Sweden), have not issued any statements calling for peace and dialogue. That's because such protests against an uncontrollable course of events related to people they have absolutely nothing to do with and living far away, is in the interests of those governments. Rather than refocusing on the needs of their people, they are far happier having the attention diverted elsewhere = as has been the case for decades. Same people who are now protesting over the alleged violation of rights for Palestinians by the mere statement of recognition of an already Jewish portion of Jerusalem with Israeli government in it would not grant Palestinians full citizenship in their own land. (AHEM, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc.) So let's see what's really going on:

1. Either this is not about Trump's statement (because Trump did not explicitly recognize any particular Jerusalem borders), and it's all about Israel not having a right to exist, even including specifically Jewish sites)

or

2. No one actually cares about it just as no one cares about the Palestinians, and people just want to let out their generalized rage at life, but they don't have the freedom to protest their own government, so to make themselves feel better, they pretend to be outraged about some distant cause to which they have little connection. Also, when was the last time Palestinians stood up for their rights to anything? Have Palestinians picked up the human rights issue in Egypt? Have they protested against al-Assad in Syria? Taken an issue with Hizbullah's corruption and control in Lebanon? No? And yet all these people are rioting on their behalf.

The Symbolism and The Peace Plan

My concern, unlike the many people paranoid about Palestinians or Saudis acting up, has been with the potential poison pill of the two-state language included in the text. Although President Trump has made it clear, that he will support a mutual decision by the parties involved, that language leaves room for future pressure on Israel by this administration or future others. As was pointed out elsewhere, George W. would make great speeches on Israel, then push for the creation of the Palestinian state. I do believe that the administration will try to make even this small, largely symbolic step with no timeline for a physical follow through (YUGE red flag in my book), which is a repetition of what Bill Clinton has already done by signing the original law, in order to exert pressure on Israel towards Jared Kushner's peace plan. In fact, Kushner's own comments as late as Sunday, signified as much.

So What of the Waiver?

Trump publicly signing the embassy waiver right after his speech is a political move, not a security move.

As I have stated repeatedly in the past, and have yet to be proven wrong, Trump intends to delay the process for the sake of keeping his base, and in particular, funders, and to ensure they will back him against any primary challengers in 2020.

If anything, prolonging this situation will probably result in more security threats. It would be easier to get everything over with at once, and just move the building, get all the riots out of the system and move on. Making this an endless process with an unclear due date will ensure some level of dissatisfaction from everyone concern, and possibly additional riots or other problems whenever the building IS moved.

Reform Jews Are No Shtetl Jews

To call today's left-wing, largely Reform and Conservative Jews, "shtetl Jews" would be a tragic misnomer. I come from shtetl Jews; they are no shtetl Jews. Most shtetl Jews and their offspring, who did not join the Communist party in the Soviet Union, retained a very strong sense of identity if by force, as well as a clear awareness of threats and danger. Those of them who were HOlocaust survivors, in many cases went to Palestine, and fought for the creation of the State of Israel. They did not wait for anyone's permission to do so. Weizmann and the rest, men who came from humble roots, rather than from elitist stock, (Weizmann, a biochemist, came from a village), lobbied President Truman to do the right thing and to recognize the nascent state, in spite of his own State Department, and threats from high level foreign policy officials, which he eventually did.

Violence preceded the creation of the State of Israel, not the least to the spread of propaganda by the Nazis in the Middle East, and ensued once again immediately upon the recognition of Israel as a sovereign state. It then followed the young state through its history, and at each turning point, including the reunification of Jerusalem, there were surely some American Jewish "leaders" who clamored for "sha, shtill!" mentality, claiming that innocent people will die if Israel asserts her rights, and that surely sooner or later the right time will come and Israel can reclaim what's rightfully hers peacefully. My friends, such time will never come.

If you want what's yours, you have to fight for it, sometimes through aggressive lobbying and diplomatic work, and sometimes, upon meeting with blind hatred, corruption, and instigation, with overwhelming force, if that's the only thing your enemy recognizes. Israel is now positioned better than at any time in her history. Many countries find blessing in conducting relations with Israel, and care far more about the advantages such an alliance brings to their people than about empty rhetoric from far-away corrupt politicos, who care nothing about them or their countries and cultures. Let us find courage and wisdom in the lessons of the past, and stand behind President Trump's decision to finally do the right thing that we have been waiting for 70 years, and stop treating ISrael like a pariah among sovereign states by recognizing its own chosen political capital as such. I think it's idiotic to pretend that Israel does not have its entire government in Jerusalem. Being blind to the facts on the ground will not somehow strengthen the claims of the Muslims to the Al Aqsa mosque.

On the contrary, readiness to engage in unprovoked violence against their neighbors, readiness to slaughter civilians to show their displeasure with political moves, weakens their claim of desire for peace, and their claim for spiritual connection with the Holy City. Israel is in a tough neighborhood, where strength, not weakness, is respected and recognized. Saudi Arabia is drawing closer with ISrael not out of desire to protect her, but because she sees ISrael as a strong country, a potentially useful ally against a mutual threat. Don't be under illusion that things would be different if somehow Israel grew softer on any point. The demands would be greater, the violence more intense. Israel should stand up for her basic rights, being treated as an equal among sovereign nations, and the United States should act out of position of strength and pursue an independent foreign policy, based on its own interests, not on empty threats from greedy corrupt illegitimate thugs, who also demand money from US taxpayers to avoid inciting their own abused and manipulated populations towards terrorism and misery.

Enough With the Threats About Jerusalem

If, as a result of any White House Jerusalem-related announcements, mass violence occurs, the full blame will be with the rioters and their corrupt instigators, not with the President of the United States for conducting reasonable and fair foreign policy in doing nothing more than recognizing the political capital of a sovereign state and declaring intent to move the US embassy there. Particularly unwelcome are riots from people who have been on the US taxpayer dole for many decades and have paid us back with the murders of our citizens.

How To Fight The Excesses of Trumpism

Two things about Trump's Muslim video tweets:

Regardless, of what you think about their value, or Britain First, it's obvious that the man is just not going to stop. Y'all wasting your time. Why? Because he knows his supporters like it, and also are sick of politically correct garbage, when you are not allowed to open your mouth without being called an Islamophobes and have your legitimate concerns dismissed.

And populists take easy advantage of such grievances, and of course, take their new found freedom from PC all the way the other end. Don't like it? Start giving platforms to serious thinkers who can discuss Islamism without hysterics, and stop empowering the likes of Linda Sarsour. The more you attack Trump and ask him to stop, the more he will continue in the same vein just to piss people off, and the more his hardcore supporters will applaud him.

Second, the non-profits who are choosing to engage in Twitter wars with the President are not saving the country from White Supremacists. They are begging for money from their donors.

Start supporting people who are willing to discuss reasonable solutions, and you won't have room for demagogues, who have nothing to offer but bloviations that cater to emotions and fears.

But you won't see that happening, because non-profits need money and they can only get money if they fighting some grievance.

How to Preempt Republican Primary Challengers in 2020

Prediction: Every time Sheldon Adelson shows displeasure with Steve Bannon, or someone linked to Trump, or Republicans, Mike Pence, or someone from the administration will renew the promise of moving the Embassy to Jerusalem. The words "actively considering" without any specific date will reappear at some appropriate event. Meanwhile, we'll be no closer to any action than at the beginning of the presidency. Works every time. Like clockwork.

Is Trump All That Different? Posted at TOI

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-the-trump-administration-all-that-different/

Is The Trump Administration All That Different? NOVEMBER 9, 2017, 12:07 AM   

Many, on both the left and the right, critics and supporters, have asserted that the Trump administration is like no other in history of the United States, or for that matter, the Republican party. But is the Trump administration all that different?

Trump has been a politically polarizing politician, but policy-wise, his administration is not too different from George W. Bush’s in many respects. And on some things, he basically continued with Obama’s policies. The major difference between him and Obama are 1. conservative judges and 2. deregulation. However, many of these regulations only came into place under Obama, so there isn’t actually a striking difference between the way life was under Bush and what it’s like under Trump. So then, leaving aside, Trump’s personal qualities, why is the reaction to his administration so hysterical, when there isn’t actually all that much that has changed, much less negatively affected anyone in the US? (I have yet to see one person who lost medical coverage because of Trump). Three things:

1. The hysteria started under Bush with completely over the top reactions to Iraq war. Many of the people who expressed their differences over the war were so hateful in tone that I wonder to this day whether they knew who the real enemy was. The people who now fondly recall the Bush eras, tend to forget the utterly hateful rhetoric surrounding the war in Iraq and all the names Bush was called, and so forth. Bush himself was significantly more civil in tone. Trump supporters now call it weakness. I think there is a middle ground between allowing your adversaries to walk all over you and reacting impulsively to every single negative comment about you. Those who think that Trump comes out as strong and in control by lashing out are doing so because they are projecting their own wish to see someone respond to the annoying media and leftist loons. And gratifying as it may be emotionally, it does absolutely nothing for Trump’s image otherwise. No one except his most hardcore supporters actually believes he is a strong president due to that. That’s not to say that people won’t vote for him given no other Republican alternatives. Incumbents tend to win, and most people are doing ok for now, so there is no reason to believe that unless his policy ends up putting us on a crash course, history won’t follow the examples of previous presidents who got reelected despite not being particularly outstanding on any one thing. But let’s not kid ourselves about how Trump actually comes across. Or that someone less polarizing wouldn’t have gotten the same share of attacks. Same people who “wanted” Jeb or Rubio would have turned to calling them fascist Islamophobes the moment they took office and shown opposition to the Iran deal or cracked down on terrorists (and they would have done exactly that).

2. Media – for all the talks about the failing media, there are now many more media outlets than under Bush. These echo chambers started mushrooming under Obama as a reaction to each other. On the part of the left, it was a deliberate strategy of amplifying the message, on the part of the right it was a reaction to a perceived bias in the MSM, and MSM’s unwillingness to cover issues of concern to conservatives or give voice to conservative perspective. All of which is perfectly ok, of course, so long as people are still willing to examine the other side. But neither the journalists nor the readers were willing to do that, although there is a number of very fair minded conservative journalists who do excellent investigative work. But many of them are outright dismissed as political hacks by all of the left, regardless of what they say. Yes, there is bias and tunnel vision on both sides. But I would say that more conservatives are at least willing to hear what the other side says, if only to debunk it, than progressives who don’t even read what conservatives have to say.

3. The rise of activist movements – BLM, Occupy Wall Street, and BDS movements have all contributed to the radicalization of the discourse on the left. And they are not really comparable to Tea Party, which had very specific economic goals, and moreover organized around electing more conservative politicians, rather than just having actions for the sake of actions, or changing culture, or infiltrating the academe. To some extent, I think it’s the failing of the conservatives to utilize the Tea Party momentum to that end. But regardless of that, I think it’s clear that the rise of radical activists galvanized the left, though not necessarily towards any helpful ends such as getting elected. It definitely influenced rhetoric and perceptions, so that even very mainstream, old-school Democrats found themselves having to move to the left in order to keep up with the party messaging and not be left out in the cold. You might say that Trumpism did the the same for conservatives, but ideologically that’s not really the case, because Trumpism didn’t make anyone (not one peson) more “conservative” in any traditional understanding.

It shifted the focus of conversation to particular concerns popular with the conservatives in recent years, but whereas the conservative platform had a broad spectrum of issues and perspectives, Trumpism was a nativist/populist focus on a few very narrow issues to the exclusion of discussion and understanding of anything else. To some extent, it’s more a demagoguic exploitation of deeply personal fears and problems than any political movement that that affects the reasoning of the party about its platform. it’s not cohesive, it’s not based in any principles, it’s reactionary, and unfortunately, it plays on emotions and poor understanding of economics and foreign policy for overwhelming majority of people, instead of addressing their concerns in a thoughtful way (which is the failing of conservatives – and that’s how Trumpism took advantage of the vacuum). It’s not that conservatism holds no answers, it’s that a combination of corrupt or weak politicians, lack of access to broader discourse with the public, and failure to organize conservatives on a grassroots level made the public ripe for a quick takeover by loud over the top brash voices, which are perceived as strong, more confident, more decisive, and having solutions because they tell people what they want to hear.

No one really wants to discuss the downsides of these “solutions”. That’s old school. That failed. That’s out the door. So at the end of the day, left wing activist movements took the Democratic party through the triumph of cultural rhetoric and socialist economic appeal, while the right has been largely abducted by populist nativism, which actually has very little to do with “nationalism” as most people view it. It’s more like the combination of 1920s nativism/Know NOthing party and early post-revolutionary Soviet Union, with the focus on taking down the corrupt economic elites and installing the Peope who surely knew how to address their own needs. That was actually the underlying political premise of the first years of Bolshevism. Though Trumpism doesn’t embrace communism, it actually has a lot more of socialism in it than anyone would care to admit, and anyone who compares it to Italian fascism or German Nazism is sorely deluded. The underlying premise is actually very particular to early Soviet populism, minus the violence. That Trumpism and left wing cultural activism both rely on Alinsky tactics to carry out their agendas, makes them both more alike than they are different. That’s not to say that Trumpism is practically useless, and that someone who embraces it, cannot execute a policy successfully. But let’s see who’s actually executing some of the more successful Trump policies. Are they actual true believer populists? Or are they hardcore pragmatists, who’d be doing the same thing in any Republican administration? I actually think there are significantly fewer populists in the administration than people on either side of the aisle believe.

I think if Trump were to retire from politics, the movement will quick die down for lack of leadership, so long as more traditional conservatives get their act together and put forth a cohesive vision, which they had failed to do during the election. And I think, results will sooner or later speak for themselves. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but Trumpian isolationism is not consistent with the security demands of modern reality, nor with the economic demands of a colossal economy that we have in place today. All of that will fall by wayside, and Republicans will either feel betrayed once again, or others will emerge to take advantage of the things the administration did right and build on it in a more traditional and thought out manner. It remains to be seen what actually happens. But from the left, no matter who takes the mantle after Trump, expect nothing but more hatemongering, dismissal and Alinskyite tactics. To contrast with conservatism, they are forced to rely on the polar extreme, simply because of who their constituency is. I am not sure how the left can ever roll back the excesses of intersectionality given the generations of mindless drones it has produced. If they do try to do so, it may end badly.

Meanwhile, the GOP has some demons of its own to exorcise.

We no longer have the specter of Hillary haunting our upcoming electoral future. How are Republicans going to motivate the voters into turning out en masse to the Congressional elections next year when a) the momentum is with the Democrats, who are staunchly opposing Donald Trump (and any Republican initiative) b) Republicans are disunited and ready to eat each other alive c) many Republican Congressmen are retiring, so many of the spots will be up for grabs and d) Republicans have thus far failed spectacularly to deliver on their promises?

You cannot keep scaring people with imaginary boogeymen forever, and you cannot keep feeding them incoherent and half-baked promises that your own state’s constituents don’t actually want or you are not ready to full-heartedly sell to them and to fight for in Congress. You also cannot keep backing Obama-lite foreign policy that leaves us and our allies less secure and dominated by aggressive and tyrannical powers. At the rate we are going, we are facing a massive and well-deserved blowout… which will not teach anybody, anything as Republicans, after each loss, will continue to use DOnald Trump’s unpopularity or failure of any particular candidate to align with him, for this loss rather than engage in self-reflection on how party can do better.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you can bully people into supporting a particular candidate at the Convention. You cannot bully them or the entire country into sharing the spirit of the message that candidate brings. That just doesn’t work; GOP’s messaging continues to be behind the times and poorly delivered, and the same “old hands” from their positions of looking down, continue to believe that charging after your own and force feeding cheap propaganda somehow translates into unity building are completely delusional. I do not hope that the Republican politicians will take any lessons from last night’s electoral developments or the very obvious pattern easily observable on the ground, but I do hope that grassroots, sooner or later, and with however many election losses and intersectionality victories it requires, eventually figure it out.

Giving Credit Where It's Due - Pres. Trump's Speech to South Korean Assembly Was Excellent

The speech to the South Korean Assembly was not only the best speech Pres. Trump has delivered in his entire life, but an objectively excellent speech.

It gets everything right. Every single point. It has vision, and balance, and direct messaging to the peoples of both countries, and to the leadership and the regime in North Korea.

I have nothing to criticize, and furthermore, I wish with all my heart that the vision outlined in this speech comes through exactly as written. (Do I think it will actually happen? Unfortunately not. But was this exactly the right thing to say? Absolutely).

Is the Trump Administration All That Different?

Trump has been a politically polarizing politician, but policy-wise, his administration is not too different from George W. Bush's in many respects. And on some things, he basically continued with Obama's policies. The major difference between him and Obama are 1. conservative judges and 2. deregulation. However, many of these regulations only came into place under Obama, so there isn't actually a striking difference between the way life was under Bush and what it's like under Trump. So then, leaving aside, Trump's personal qualities, why is the reaction to his administration so hysterical, when there isn't actually all that much that has changed, much less negatively affected anyone in the US? (I have yet to see one person who lost medical coverage because of Trump). Three things:

1. The hysteria started under Bush with completely over the top reactions to Iraq war. Many of the people who expressed their differences over the war were so hateful in tone that I wonder to this day whether they knew who the real enemy was. The people who now fondly recall the Bush eras, tend to forget the utterly hateful rhetoric surrounding the war in Iraq and all the names Bush was called, and so forth. Bush himself was significantly more civil in tone. Trump supporters now call it weakness. I think there is a middle ground between allowing your adversaries to walk all over you and reacting impulsively to every single negative comment about you. Those who think that Trump comes out as strong and in control by lashing out are doing so because they are projecting their own wish to see someone respond to the annoying media and leftist loons.

 And gratifying as it may be emotionally, it does absolutely nothing for Trump's image otherwise. No one except his most hardcore supporters actually believes he is a strong president due to that. That's not to say that people won't vote for him given no other Republican alternatives. Incumbents tend to win, and most people are doing ok for now, so there is no reason to believe that unless his policy ends up putting us on a crash course, history won't follow the examples of previous presidents who got reelected despite not being particularly outstanding on any one thing. But let's not kid ourselves about how Trump actually comes across. Or that someone less polarizing wouldn't have gotten the same share of attacks. Same people who "wanted" Jeb or Rubio would have turned to calling them fascist Islamophobes the moment they took office and shown opposition to the Iran deal or cracked down on terrorists (and they would have done exactly that).

2. Media - for all the talks about the failing media, there are now many more media outlets than under Bush. These echo chambers started mushrooming under Obama as a reaction to each other. On the part of the left, it was a deliberate strategy of amplifying the message, on the part of the right it was a reaction to a perceived bias in the MSM, and MSM's unwillingness to cover issues of concern to conservatives or give voice to conservative perspective. All of which is perfectly ok, of course, so long as people are still willing to examine the other side. But neither the journalists nor the readers were willing to do that, although there is a number of very fair minded conservative journalists who do excellent investigative work. But many of them are outright dismissed as political hacks by all of the left, regardless of what they say. Yes, there is bias and tunnel vision on both sides. But I would say that more conservatives are at least willing to hear what the other side says, if only to debunk it, than progressives who don't even read what conservatives have to say.

3. The rise of activist movements - BLM, Occupy Wall Street, and BDS movements have all contributed to the radicalization of the discourse on the left. And they are not really comparable to Tea Party, which had very specific economic goals, and moreover organized around electing more conservative politicians, rather than just having actions for the sake of actions, or changing culture, or infiltrating the academe. To some extent, I think it's the failing of the conservatives to utilize the Tea Party momentum to that end. But regardless of that, I think it's clear that the rise of radical activists galvanized the left, though not necessarily towards any helpful ends such as getting elected. It definitely influenced rhetoric and perceptions, so that even very mainstream, old-school Democrats found themselves having to move to the left in order to keep up with the party messaging and not be left out in the cold. You might say that Trumpism did the the same for conservatives, but ideologically that's not really the case, because Trumpism didn't make anyone (not one peson) more "conservative" in any traditional understanding.

It shifted the focus of conversation to particular concerns popular with the conservatives in recent years, but whereas the conservative platform had a broad spectrum of issues and perspectives, Trumpism was a nativist/populist focus on a few very narrow issues to the exclusion of discussion and understanding of anything else. To some extent, it's more a demagoguic exploitation of deeply personal fears and problems than any political movement that that affects the reasoning of the party about its platform. it's not cohesive, it's not based in any principles, it's reactionary, and unfortunately, it plays on emotions and poor understanding of economics and foreign policy for overwhelming majority of people, instead of addressing their concerns in a thoughtful way (which is the failing of conservatives - and that's how Trumpism took advantage of the vacuum). It's not that conservatism holds no answers, it's that a combination of corrupt or weak politicians, lack of access to broader discourse with the public, and failure to organize conservatives on a grassroots level made the public ripe for a quick takeover by loud over the top brash voices, which are perceived as strong, more confident, more decisive, and having solutions because they tell people what they want to hear.
No one really wants to discuss the downsides of these "solutions". That's old school. That failed. That's out the door.

 So at the end of the day, left wing activist movements took the Democratic party through the triumph of cultural rhetoric and socialist economic appeal, while the right has been largely abducted by populist nativism, which actually has very little to do with "nationalism" as most people view it. It's more like the combination of 1920s nativism/Know NOthing party and early post-revolutionary Soviet Union, with the focus on taking down the corrupt economic elites and installing the Peope who surely knew how to address their own needs. That was actually the underlying political premise of the first years of Bolshevism. Though Trumpism doesn't embrace communism, it actually has a lot more of socialism in it than anyone would care to admit, and anyone who compares it to Italian fascism or German Nazism is sorely deluded. The underlying premise is actually very particular to early Soviet populism, minus the violence. That Trumpism and left wing cultural activism both rely on Alinsky tactics to carry out their agendas, makes them both more alike than they are different. That's not to say that Trumpism is practically useless, and that someone who embraces it, cannot execute a policy successfully. But let's see who's actually executing some of the more successful Trump policies. Are they actual true believer populists? Or are they hardcore pragmatists, who'd be doing the same thing in any Republican administration? I actually think there are significantly fewer populists in the administration than people on either side of the aisle believe.

I think if Trump were to retire from politics, the movement will quick die down for lack of leadership, so long as more traditional conservatives get their act together and put forth a cohesive vision, which they had failed to do during the election. And I think, results will sooner or later speak for themselves. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but Trumpian isolationism is not consistent with the security demands of modern reality, nor with the economic demands of a colossal economy that we have in place today. All of that will fall by wayside, and Republicans will either feel betrayed once again, or others will emerge to take advantage of the things the administration did right and build on it in a more traditional and thought out manner. It remains to be seen what actually happens. But from the left, no matter who takes the mantle after Trump, expect nothing but more hatemongering, dismissal and Alinskyite tactics. To contrast with conservatism, they are forced to rely on the polar extreme, simply because of who their constituency is. I am not sure how the left can ever roll back the excesses of intersectionality given the generations of mindless drones it has produced. If they do try to do so, it may end badly.

Starbucks Gets Christmasy In Its Kitschy New Seasonal Cups

Starbucks just produced a series of cups even the most devoted fans of the holiday can be happy with. And of course, a number of Trump supporters immediately attributed this "victory" in the "War on Christmas" to Starbucks' perceived fear of retribution from Trump's Twitter account.

I see no reason to believe there is any connection here.

If anyone really thinks, Starbucks is making cups with a particular design in fear of Trump, you've drank WAAAAY too much Trump Kool-Aid, and might consider switching to coffee.
First off, the whole controversy over the cups was idiotic.

Second, secular people who don't celebrate Christmas, and who largely live in secular enclaves with other people who don't celebrate Christmas, are perfectly entitled to wish whatever holiday they want or none at all. That doesn't make any Christians actually persecuted. Yes, these same people often aren't respectful of anyone's religious traditions, but then again, if you want respect for religious tradition, you are not entitled to get it from Starbucks. Open up your own successful coffee chain and drive Starbucks out of business. THat's how you win culture wars.

And finally:

Starbucks can't careless about Trump or anything else. They care about financial value, same as NFL. NFL did not change its rules in response to Trump. The kneeling phenomenon may or may not pass, depending on whether NFL perceives it as a signfiicant enough financial hit - and no amount of tweeting will change that. And I guarantee you, those people who are regular consumers of Starbucks, don't care what it has on the cups. And won't change their behavior. Starbucks may be doing so to expand its basis, but not because it's expecting to actually lose customers if Trump says something mean on twitter.

Extreme Vetting? Not If You Don't Have Specialists

After today's terrorist attack in New York (which President Trump called an act of a sick and deranged person), perpetrated by an Uzbeki here on a diversity visa, the president stated that he instructed the Department of Homeland Security to step up extreme vetting.

Uzbekistan has portions of the country that are hotbeds of terrorist activity.

No offense, Mr. President, but our DHS knows zilch, zip, nada about Uzbekistan or other Central Asian countries.

We couldn't find enough Russian language specialists in the State Department to translate one button correctly.

Who are we kidding here?

When the Cover-Up Is a Crime, and the Actual Act Being Covered Isn't

I'm of mixed feelings on the George Papadopolous case. On the one hand, it's commendable that the White House is not covering up for obstruction of justice in the form of George P's lies to the FBI, and fully cooperated with the probe, and gave everything that was needed to build the case.

On the other hand, I can't really rid myself of a nagging feeling that George P. may have been lying per the request FROM the White House, and if so, he is being made into a scapegoat for not only the thrust of misguided initial policy towards Putin, but engaging in crime for the sake of the President who is perfectly ok with having someone else commit a crime just to avoid scrutiny of non-criminal but bad policy.

I mean, I wasn't sure what Papadapolous thought would happen as a result of his lies, and it was remarkably stupid and unethical for him to do that, regardless of whether he did that of his own initiative or was asked to do so. But there is something altogether Nixonian about having low-level grunts engage in obstruction of justice to cover up for someone with an enormous ego who is likely not man enough to face the political consequences of strategic mistakes made during his presidential campaign. Again, the irony of this is that none of the initial comments about Putin or even meetings with Russian diplomats are in and of themselves criminal.

It's the cover-up that raises legal questions, and it's unclear why it's even necessary, since it makes the whole thing look significantly worse than it was originally was.

Beware of the Donors

You know who's really driving the GOP? It's not Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. It's the donors. They can't do anything about or to Trump, but they can do a great deal of damage to the House, Senate, and state candidates if they decide to. The issue is that not all of these billionaires are of alike mind about, well, anything, so it's hard to predict whether their money will actually do any good or will go down a black hole.

If they can get their act together and figure out which candidates they can all back in good conscience, we may see some changes = and perhaps a signal to the administration. How the billionaires and their influence lines up with what Trump's base actually wants is a different issue. There is definitely some interloping, but I think the donors will be more likely than the base to criticize Trump himself, as well as members of his administration. Whether Democrats and any future primary candidates will be smart enough to figure out where these difference lie and how to exploit them remains to be seen.

Why America First Policy Requires US to Push Back Against Russia

My article published on Daily Mail 24:

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/10/29/why-america-1st-policy/

The US may very well be perfectly fine with living and letting live. It may very well be entirely happy to let someone take play world policeman for a change and focus on providing for its own citizens and protecting its borders. It might be for the best if other countries sorted out their issues among themselves. But it's all a pipe dream.

Russia is not going to let the United States to live and let live. It's not about Putin's stay in power or pursuit of dominance in the Middle East, or the restoration of the Russian Empire.

It's about the simple fact that we are under our attack within our own borders, and Russia will not stop until it brings the US to ruin.

How would that scenario look? Alarmingly, the picture emerging is not too far from where we are now: a nation, lost in confusion, unable to tell propaganda and fake news from reality, its political leadership torn apart by endless scandals and investigations, with its citizens trusting foreign leaders more than they trust their own.

Russia has proven to be a danger, playing both parties against each other, sowing chaos, confusion, and aggressively attacking US interests internally and externally. Its Kaspersky software has been used as an espionage tool across various government agencies, endangering our information. Hacking into voting machines and attacks on various political entities was a crude attempt to compromise the integrity of our democratic election problems, and to cause months of finger-pointing and social divisioins.

Over the years preceding this election, Russia continued aggressive active measures, which ranged from bribery of nuclear trucking companies, to espionage through highly placed officials in an attempt to get to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to aggressive hacking and propaganda measures which intensified through election. Under the Obama administration, Russia sent its "diplomats" on fishing expeditions around our sensitive infrastructure, even in such unusual vacation destinations as Kansas.

Additionally, Russia has presented a direct threat to our interests and security abroad. Russian intelligence aggressively targeted US diplomats in Moscow and Eastern Europe, which included such unprofessional and belligerent actions, as physical attacks, including one that left a diplomat badly beaten outside the Embassy, and having to be evacuated, poisonings, severe destruction of property, and harassment that went far beyond the expected annoyances from the old Soviet KGB playbook expected in that part of the world.

Strategically, Russia continues to present a threat wherever it goes, directly interfering with US interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Syria, Russia constructed a base, while supporting Iranian militias, adversarial to US interests, attacking US-backed groups, and presenting a threat to the Straight of Hormuz, a strategically important trade rout for US and her allies. At numerous points throughout its presence in Syria, US and Russia neared a point of direct conflict, while Russia continued provocative actions, involving airplanes and submarines. In Afghanistan, Russia supplies Taliban with fuel and even weapons, despite the fact that NATO, including the US, is actively fighting against Taliban. Thanks to Russia's assistance, the Taliban has made significant territorial gains, even as the US surged its own forces inside the country.

Additionally, Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons, now also selling S-400s to Turkey, a country that also presents a significant challenge to US interests in Syria. And Russian government oil company is moving in on the oil fields taken over by the Iraqi forces, IRGC, and Iran-backed militias from the Kurds in Kirkuk, which endangers vested US business interests. Russia's attacks on Ukraine, including cybersecurity attacks, are widely viewed as potential dry runs for similar attacks on US infrastructure, including the electric grid.

And that's not including the aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, the cruel adoption ban that forbids dangerously ill Russian children from being taken in by American families, the non-stop brainwashing of the Russian citizenry against Americans, the troll farms, which makes old school Soviet propaganda seem like child's play, and the authoritarian actions against foreign NGOs, as well as government-linked hostile takeovers of US hedge funds and other financial institutions in Russia, well documented by Bill Browder and others.

All of that paints a rather dreary picture of the US-Russia relationship, with only one side systematically pursuing hostility and instilling hatred against not only the government of the other, but against all of it institutions, the fabric of society, and way of life. Russia is not acting like a potential partner, even on a strictly limited and professional level. It's looking to undermine every goal and pursuit of the United States, and to cause an internal collapse. The appeal of hardcore Communism is no longer quite as potent, though to be sure, the Soviet Union's fellow travelers took strong root in the academia, governments, the media, and think tank world.  But non-ideological confusion of values and internal social and political divisions are just as destructive, and have met with a deplorable level of success. Intersectionality, radical movements, and fake pseudoright=wing and pseudo-left wing organized groups and violent events all have the classic Soviety-style footprint on them, and a number of articles have come out to show how Russia had duped unwitting Black Lives Matter activists into organizing events that ended up benefiting Russia.

For that reason, placing America First, and American interests first, requires a strong, unequivocal, coordinated, and systematic response to Russia by President Trump, who needs to start enforcing Congressional sanctions he signed into law this summer immediately, members of both parties in Congress, who need to put aside political differences and focus on the common goal of defending US national security and political integrity, our media, who needs to focus on exposing Russian connections wherever they are, and not just to the benefit of one party over another, our institutions, including think tanks, who need to be more alert to the foreign money, lobbyists, and other pro-Russia influences, and finally, US citizens, who need to start learning to spot propaganda that benefits the foreign state, and stop giving in to the divisiveness being sown by bots, trolls, and Russian agents of influence at every opportunity.

We need to keep America great, not make Russia great again.

Trump, Don't Be Obama

My article was published in Israel HaYom, and republished on Instapundit.org

http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/trump-dont-be-obama/

Irina Tsukerman

Trump, don't be Obama
Eight months into the Trump administration, it is time to stop making excuses. The Obama administration holdovers are not exclusively responsible for everything going wrong with U.S. foreign policy. Multiple agencies doubling down on foreign policy are a clear indication that the policy in question comes from the top, not from some rogue employee in one agency.

These actions by the U.S. are doing nothing but damaging its credibility and relationships.

First, the United States contributes free weapons to the Lebanese Air Force, which are then shared with Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a fearsome Iranian proxy that has now grown to the size of a standing army and plays a distinctive and influential role in Lebanese politics. It has also attacked Americans, Israelis, and other targets over the course of the last several decades in a number of locations, and has played a destructive role in Syria. That has not worked out so well with the branch of the Afghani mujahedeen that has grown into the Taliban, and arming Hezbollah is likewise not likely to contribute to peace and stability in the world.

Second, U.S. policy in Syria, which has focused only on ISIS, has essentially allowed Iran to step in uninhibited.

Admittedly, this policy started under former U.S. President Barack Obama; however, no clear explanation has ever been provided as to why the Trump administration should go along with the terrible policies of its predecessor. The White House let Iran build a land corridor to Lebanon, which will facilitate arms and drug trafficking and offer passage for terrorists. All the while, Iran is looking to build bases in Syria and gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz, which has essentially sidelined the U.S.

Third, Trump's capitulation to Iraqi and Turkish demands on opposing Kurdistan independence emboldened Iran in its interventionism policy in Kurdistan. And it's no excuse to say that the U.S. clarified well in advance that it won't support Kurdish aspirations. The Republican-led Congress has failed to repeal the law against directly arming Kurds. As a direct result of the heavy-handed U.S. pressure on the Kurds to postpone their referendum, Iraq's government openly invited the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to plan the takeover of Kirkuk, which, by use of some force, displaced over 170,000 people, murdered over 400 civilians and injured hundreds more. And it did not stop at Kirkuk. Faced with the administration's "neutrality" policy, Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Ghasem Soleimani entered Kirkuk freely on numerous occasions, and opened headquarters and military bases, solidifying Iran's presence in the area.

Iranians and Iraqis continue their punitive march past Kirkuk, placing minorities, such as the Yazidis, in harm's way. The Iraqi army refuses to take control or responsibility for these militias, which are wreaking havoc, and, coupled with Baghdad's harsh, isolationist policies, are ruining the region's economy. Further, Iraq, armed with U.S. weapons, ignored U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's gentle admonition that Iranian militias should go home. Iraq has now found a new, stronger ally, and the U.S. is being pushed out.

Fourth, Tillerson and Trump both said that there was no plan to try to stop America's European partners from doing business in Iran. And despite the positive indication that Trump will not allow a major Boeing deal with Iran to go through, such statements send, at best, a mixed signal. It was the complete isolation of Iran that forced it to seek relief from sanctions by way of the nuclear deal in the first place. Now, not only is Iran flush with money and investments, but continued business with other countries will make U.S. sanctions a mere drop in the bucket. U.S. sanctions alone will not affect Iran's economy, it won't diminish the strength of the Revolutionary Guards, nor will it hamper Iran's geopolitical ambition. Instead, the U.S. will be at a distinct business and economic disadvantage vis-à-vis European states. Disunity among allies is sure to be exploited by the Iranian regime, which thrives on the divide-and-conquer approach to dealing with its adversaries.

Fifth, the U.S. is allowing Hamas to do business with Iran, even as it is facilitating Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas and trying to work out a peace deal with Israel. Iran is encouraging the worst possible behavior in Hamas and praises the return to the destructive rhetoric that makes any sort of coexistence with Israel, much less normalization, impossible. Funding from Iran will also serve to nullify any effect from the Taylor Force Act, which would curb U.S. taxpayer funding of the Palestinian Authority in response to its continuous incitement to terrorism.

Separately, each of these policies, continuing under Trump, not Obama, is destructive enough. Together, they create a pattern of paying lip service to decertification and opposing Iran's military expansion across the Middle East and beyond, while tacitly allowing Iran and its proxies to profit from the U.S. defense industry and sacrificing American allies – a familiar pattern from the preceding administration. It is time for the Trump administration to stop finger-wagging while de facto perpetuating Obama's outdated and failed policies and refocus its energy on finding solutions.

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.