Trump Revolution 2016

February 24, 2016

The probability that any American political candidate will propose any “revolutionary” domestic reforms in 2016 is slim to none. Even means testing for entitlements is anathema across the American political spectrum.

Nonetheless, Bernie Sanders promises a “revolution” in November. What he really means, if elected, is more of the same, only bigger – more taxes, more spending, and more redistribution of other people’s money.American politicians of both parties posture, pander, and prosper on the supply side of entitlements. If there is to be real difference among 2016 candidates, variations are likely to be found mostly in foreign/military policy, not social programs.

Foreign policy is, and always has been, the existential consideration. Indeed, we could argue that it, and apathy on the right, defeated Mitt Romney in 2012. Recall that during the last series of party debates, whenever candidate Obama mentioned terror, war, or foreign policy, candidate Romney’s stock response was, ”me too.”

Of all prospects in 2016, only Donald Trump represents a clear departure from decades of foreign policy malpractice.
Beyond the bluster and bombast, Trump is substantially different on several existential issues: Israel, Islam, jihad, Russia, and immigration to name the most obvious. No small coincidence that all these hot buttons are related in important ways.

Trump prospects in 2016 are still iffy, but more than any other candidate, right or left, he has reset the foreign/military policy table.


Trump’s loud support for Israel is not without hiccups. Most American Jews identify with the Democrat Party and the American left. Nonetheless, Trump has been outspoken in siding with Likud policies and Israeli politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump is also outspoken in his criticism of Israel’s Shia and Sunni enemies alike. The Iran nuclear agreement and any “two state” Palestinian deal are unlikely to make any Trump “to do” list.

Trump likely sees Israel as the canary in the geo-strategic coal mine, the lone civilized democracy in a very bad Muslim neighborhood. Wither Israel, so goes the Mideast – and probably Europe. Compared to team Obama’s neglect, if not hostility, Trump’s Israel policy is likely to be a sea change.

And in the global propaganda war, Donald Trump is unlikely to allow State, CIA, DOD, or National Security Council apparatchiks to define what is or is not “Islamic.”

Donald Trump doesn’t seem to have any illusions about the politics of Islam and the host of related problems associated with toxic politicized religion: problems like terror, small wars, war crimes, human rights atrocities, and the 5th Column potential of so-called “migrants.” Most significant is Trump’s willingness to call a spade a spade. He actually uses words like “Islam” and “Muslim” to describe national security threats.

Trump’s candor infers that he believes that jihadist Islam knows why it fights, while America and Europe do not. The call to “make America great again” implies Trump believes that America has lost faith, preeminence, and a sense of purpose. Oblique as it may be, Mr. Trump’s political logic has become the lodestone for Yankee angst in 2016.


Withal, Trump’s take on those Muslim small wars is a mixed bag. He seems to think the Afghanistan tar baby was a good investment, but Iraq was a “disaster.” If fact, both ongoing theaters of war are American quagmires where progress is elusive and Muslim native “allies” do not fight – at least not fight well.

Trump is closer to truth on the handling of 9/11 where the Bush regime failed and then repatriated a host of likely Saudi Sunni culprits before an investigation could even begin. The 9/11 disaster was the worst warning failure since WWII and yet the then NSA chief, Michael Hayden, was promoted by President Bush in the wake of failure.

Rewarding tactical, operational, and strategic failure now seems to be an American national security meme. Trump made “you’re fired” the buzzwords of a decade. If he brings that ethic to office, fear and loathing amongst national security elites in Brussels and Washington is understandable.

Saudi Arabia and the Emirates still provide sanctuary, succor, and finance to the growing theofascist mutation that underwrites jihad, small wars, and Muslim terror worldwide. For the moment, America is allied with the worst of Islam: Iran, Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan.

Given the American treasure and lives invested in liberating Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and now Syria; Trump’s suggestion to seize and hold ground wealth to pay for Muslim wars and counter terror operations is spot on. Oil and opium pay for mosques, madrassas, toxic ideology, and the swords of Islam. Fighting Islamic propaganda and petro-terror with Arab or Muslim oil money would be a brilliant, if not game changing, policy.

The Russian Air Force and the Kurdish army are now in the process of cutting the fiscal throats of a corrupt Turkish regime and the genocidal Islamic State. The Russian/Syrian/ Kurd coalition has done more damage to imperial Sunni Islam in a few months than the American mythic “60 state” coalition has done in 20 years.


American policy towards Israel, now Russia, is a kind of contemporary political penis envy. The West now resents decisive and successful leaders like Netanyahu and Putin simply because they are strong men with a clear vision of their national interests.

Europe and America, in contrast, have been captured by a generation of effete, dithering social democrats where emotional issues undermine security, achievement, and military success. Open borders is an example. Indeed, American and European weakness has made the modern, passive and aggressive, Muslim crusades possible. The West can’t say no to imperial Islam. And the jihadist wolf in Islamabad, Tehran, and Riyadh can’t say no to easy pickings either.

Muslim apologetics, compassionate intervention, regime change, and open borders are all symptoms of a West hijacked by clueless bleeding hearts in Brussels and Washington. Humanitarian intervention is a 21st Century oxymoron.

Donald Trump says he can do business with Vladimir Putin. We should hope so. The Obama Cold War over Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, or Syria is a policy driven by personal demonization not ground truth. Good relations with Russia are essential to any prospect of success in Eastern Europe, the Muslim world, or outer space for that matter.

Trump, unlike the Pentagon, does not consider Russia to be a major national security threat to NATO or America. Nonetheless, the chimera of an aggressive Kremlin today serves two purposes for both American political parties: military spending and a continuing excuse to change the subject, avoid confronting Shia and Sunni Islam as the global existential threats.


Muslim migration is one of two things; a humanitarian crisis or the second wave of imperial Islam, a cultural blitzkrieg. Neither Europe nor America can decide which. Impaled on a moral dilemma of its own making, Brussels and Washington have accepted open borders by default. Concurrently, there are few open borders in the Ummah. Trump says that unvetted Muslim immigration is an evolving disaster. If national sovereignty and national security are still virtues, he is correct.

A hiatus on Muslim immigration pending rigorous vetting and improved border control facilities is simple common sense. Acknowledged or not, the Islamic world is the nexus of modern global instability. Chaos, terror, sedition, and religious fascism are now Islam’s primary cultural exports.

The Ummah problem is both jihad and religious ideology. Islam is at war with the world, but only ayatollahs, imams, and gadflies like Netanyahu and Trump seem to acknowledge that reality.

Donald Trump often obscures intimations of policy with bombast, bad manners, and broad strokes. Fortunately, Trump is running for commander-in-chief, not Secretary of State. He defends the absence of specifics so as not to telegraph his punches. Indeed, the telegraphed punch has become a battle standard of hapless team Obama in the Levant and South Asia. If Trump does nothing else in 2016, his broad policy strokes may herald a pragmatic and much needed revolution in 21st Century American foreign/military affairs.

Often, the ship of state must come about before it can fire for effect. Policy wonks can wait for the details.


This essay appears in American Thinker.

Long Island Bromance

February 2, 2016

“Get your facts straight and then you can distort them as you please.” – Mark Twain

They couldn’t be more different, most folks would say. Trump is a loud decadent capitalist and Sanders is a shrill socialist, or worse. One is running as a Republican, the other a Democrat. And we all understand how “different” political parties are these days.

Donald is coifed, fabulously rich, and much married to beautiful women. Bernie looks like an unmade bed, lives off a government salary, a guy who might have trouble getting a date. One flies around the country in a private jet or helicopter and the other uses a bus or calls Uber. Donald Trump speaks to issues in broad generalities and Bernie Sanders sounds like a Brooklyn grocer counting pennies to make the rent. One is a creature of Wall Street, the other vows to meltdown Di Modica’s bull in front of the NY Stock Exchange.

At first glance, you might say the differences couldn’t be more profound, at last a real choice between radically different socio political philosophies. Alas, things are never quite what they seem in politics. Turns out, in America, labels tell you as little as possible. Right is often left and the left is often hysterically nostalgic. Loud political distinctions are not necessarily differences.

Take Senator Claire McCaskill (D), a Clintonista who represents the “show me” state.  The other day Claire launched a triple chinned broadside at Democrat colleague Sanders by claiming that the Republicans would be running up “hammer and sickle” attack ads if Bernie becomes the Democrat nominee. Apparently, Ms. McCaskill slept through the demise of the Soviet Union more than a quarter century ago. Moscow now flies the white, blue, and red.  There are probably some “tools” left in the Kremlin, but they’re not on the Russian flag anymore.

See if you can follow McCaskill’s logic. She of the far feminist Left, is using the ghost of Soviet communism past to bash a self-confessed Brooklyn socialist? A mind and political science degree from Missou seems to be a terrible thing to waste, even in the Senator.

Not to be outdone on the fratricide front, the National Review devoted an entire issue to “conservative” authors who think Trump needs to be dumped. George Will, Barbara Bush, and David Brooks are very unhappy with recent polls too. By the bye, calling Brooks a political “conservative” is a little like calling Sean Penn an investigative journalist. Like BBC, the only thing that was ever conservative about the American Corporation for Public Broadcasting is taxpayer funding.

So what’s going on here? Both sides of the political spectrum and most of the media are attacking the frontrunners. Everyone but the voters have their knickers in a knot. Whoda thunk it?

Elites, right and left, are not pleased with the wisdom of crowds. And if we are totally honest, Donald and Bernie are not the real worry for the establishment. The real threat to traditional elites comes from the people – the voter, folks with real jobs who pay taxes. Cooking the media books along with primary poll picks, the jackass class and media brass see their sinecures and monopolies at risk in 2016.

Forsooth, choice, for the most part, is a bit of a chimera in social democracies in any case. Still, Trump versus Sanders comes close to real choice compared to the usual sleep walkers from the status quo stables. Nonetheless, if polls are omens, the true opponents in 2016 primary race feature the usual suspects against the usual chumps. Only this time out, the American lumpen proletariat seems to have had it with media spinners and party puppet masters.

In this, Trump and Sanders are brothers by other mothers, two outsiders bucking the same system, a bull and a bear squaring off in a cage match of their own making.  Wow! Who would have thought that American politics might be transformative, interesting – and entertaining?

Let’s just assume that the early auguries have it right.  A Trump versus Sanders match might not have as much drama as you might think. Indeed, a bull and bear contest in the big show might just turn out to be a “bromance.”

Both are outsider animals. Both are calling for revolution. Both are running against the Beltway bandits. Both are New Yorkers, Queens and Brooklyn boys. Turns out those New York values, whatever they are, are an asset not a liability. Unlike the Clintons and the Obamas, neither Trump nor Sanders are breeding lawyers. Indeed, both front runners are normal family men of a sort.

Both attract large enthusiastic crowds. Neither have much of a following among the media, party hacks, feminists, special pleaders, Islamists, cold warriors, moneyed interests, the legal profession, or race hustlers. Both seem to be inclined to fix things on the home front before they try to mend the dysfunctional world. Both also agree that Hillary shouldn’t get a third term in the White House. And neither Trump nor Sanders, quite frankly, seems to give a damn about what George Will, Rich Lowry, Nina Totenberg, or Chris Matthews thinks America should be.

Nonetheless, we are led to believe that both Trump and Sanders would be disasters. Really? Compared to whom? Surely not a Bush, an Obama, or another Clinton.  America has had three doses of Bush, two draughts of Clinton, and now two too much of Obama. At home, the country is still burdened with debt, deficit, and flirts annually with default. Abroad, those Muslim wars are now about to have Platinum Jubilee with no end to terror, or toxic religious refugees, on the horizon.

After seven seasons of inertia, fiscal incontinence, and yes, serial foreign policy disasters; a lottery might have picked better presidential timber than either of the two American political parties. So why not have the people pick a commander-in-chief 2016. Almost anyone should do better than the usual suspects.

Hillary Clinton might be the perfect example of all that’s wrong with American politics in both major parties. Primarily, Ms. Clinton wouldn’t know the truth if it bit her on that junk in her pant suit trunk. Whatever the subject; Arkansas shenanigans, bimbo eruptions, human rights for women, wall street donors, speaking fees, Benghazi, Islamists, immigrants, and now “private” email servers, Hillary provides no candor or adult explanations save happy talk.

The Clintons are royalty in an American shyster cult where truth and justice are a function what you can get away with. America needs another pair of lawyers in the Oval Office like Brazil needs more mosquitoes before the Olympics.

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton believes that America is stupid enough to put another empty symbol in the White House. Indeed, she is a passenger on Bill’s and now Barack’s coattails. Hillary is coasting too, for the most part, on her vagina, just as Barack Obama ran primarily on melanin – and Jeb Bush now runs for dynasty.

Hillary’s core constituents are social dependents and women who get their information from the View and the Talk, their values from daytime soap operas, and their baby sitters from the Simpsons, South Park, and the Family Guy. The only voting demographic that might be more callow is one that takes cues from the National Review frat house.

Believe what you will about Bernie Sanders. He’s not Bill Clinton’s wife. Say what you will about Donald Trump too. He’s nobody’s bitch either.



Key words: US Presidential Primaries, American politics, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Claire McCaskill.