The Sick Sense of Betrayal on Immigration

Leave a comment

For those of us who believe in “American First,” the time beginning April 7, 2017 marked the time we realized that we had been hoodwinked. President Trump went back on his promise to stay out of foreign entanglements and attacked Syria, something he thought was a stupid idea in 2013. Now the situation has worsened, with John F. Kelly at Homeland Security saying that the wall between the United States and Mexico is “just a figure of speech.” Mr. Kelly is soft overall in immigration. As a Trump supporter who attended two rallies and gave $70.00 to his campaign as well as enthusiastically voting for him, I feel as I have been kicked in the gut. From some of the reaction I have seen online, others feel the same way.

Mr. Trump came across as the essence of sincerity on the campaign trail. He clearly communicated that the United States would build a literal wall between Mexico and the U. S. His supporters understood, of course, that if terrain made it the case that concrete or brick was not an option, alternative ways of controlling the border at those points would be found. Now it appears that the term “wall” was merely metaphorical. If that is so, the disastrous and uncontrolled illegal immigration will most likely continue with the Mexican pipeline gushing nearly unchecked.

Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is said to be the one encouraging Mr. Trump to “moderate” his views. Of course, Jared’s wife and Trump’s daughter Ivanka are going to have a strong influence on the President as well. This may not only involve a more internationalist approach to foreign policy and an easing off from planned immigration restrictions, but also a more liberal stance on social issues. The American public did not elect Jared Kushner as President, nor did they elect Ivanka Trump. They elected Donald Trump. Perhaps the Trump we are seeing now is the real Trump and not the person we saw on the campaign trail. I hope that is not the case, but it may be that voters have been intentionally deceived into voting from a man who does not share their values. If that is the case, not only has Mr. Trump effectively guaranteed he will lose in 2020, the Republicans could suffer a devastating electoral defeat in the 2018 mid term elections. Voters do not appreciate betrayal.

Now Mr. Trump did keep his word on one big issue: the Supreme Court. That would have been enough by itself to guarantee my vote for Mr. Trump. However, I feel now as if I de facto voted for Marco Rubio. Mr. Trump, as he is now behaving, is the new Rubio. On foreign policy, he is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton. When it comes to which party is in power in the form of the president, the situation has become “six of one, heal-dozen of the other.” Or, as the late George Wallace used to say, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.”

Mr. Trump Joins the Swamp

Leave a comment

There is no feeling worse than realizing that one has been betrayed—that the person in whom you trusted has lied to you and that “you have been had.” This is how I feel now that Donald Trump has betrayed the people who voted for him in part because he promised to keep the United States out of foreign conflicts. Mr. Trump’s missile attack on a Syrian air force base marks the day that Mr. Trump officially joined the swamp. Without waiting for an investigation to determine whether Syria is the culprit of the attack, Mr. Trump, apparently moved by the photo of dead children and babies and by his daughter, Ivanka’s, understandable emotional reaction to the photos, let his emotions overpower his reason. This, in addition to his Neoconservative and Internationalist advisors in foreign policy, moved him to a disastrous decision. He did not stop to consider why Mr. Assad, near victory in the Syrian civil war, would throw that away with a stupid and militarily useless attack on civilians. The rebels themselves are known to have chemical weapons, and they have used them before to provoke the West by blaming the Syrian government, which discarded its chemical weapons years ago. There are other interested parties, such as Israel, who also have access to chemical weapons and who could have assisted in a false flag attack. Without a full investigation, we do not really know.

Corporate interests in the United States, the military-industrial complex, lust for war profits. Mr. Trump is a man of the corporation, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is the representative of the “moderate,” corporate wing of both political parties, and he now has the president’s ear. Mr. Trump is pushing aside his conservative advisors such as Mr. Bannon and Mr. Priebus. He is no longer his own man, trying to drain the swamp; he is merely another stooge of the military-industrial complex, no different from Mrs. Clinton. He has become part of the swamp, part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Worst of all, he has betrayed his strongest supporters and revealed himself to lack the virtue of integrity. In addition, his impulsiveness is frightening since he controls the nuclear button. Voters who supported Mr. Trump instead of Mrs. Clinton to avoid World War III may end up in a devastated world due to a man who refused to let his reason control his passions. To those who say the attack was a one-time thing, consider that the Secretary of State said that the United States is now committed to regime change in Syria, the very kind of thing Mr. Trump condemned in his campaign for president. All that will result is an Islamic state filled with the dead bodies of Christians and Alawites. Mr. Trump will have their blood on his hands.

There are more disturbing trends as well. The nepotism that has characterized the Trump Administration is worsening with the growing influence of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Ivanka recently had a secret meeting with Planned Parenthood, and her liberal views on abortion and other social issues are well-known. Will this mean a shift in Mr. Trump’s policies on social issues, betraying his strongest supporters once again? This couple have been a continual leftward influence on Mr. Trump, and right now it appears they will win the ideological battle at the White House. Once again, conservatives are betrayed by a Republican president. Once again, the swamp only grows deeper.

Today I will finish removing the Trump/Pence sticker from the back of my truck—a sad task, but now a necessary one.

Neoconservative Poison and Syria

Leave a comment

While most conservatives have awakened to the poison the Neoconservatives have injected into the Republican Party, the “leadership” of the Stupid Party blindly parades the Trotskyite rhetoric of the Neoconservatives in its eagerness for war with Syria. The Neocons and their allies, the war Democrats such as Mrs. Clinton, are parading lies similar to those that resulted in the United States becoming entangled in Iraq. Now we have accusations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people. Sound familiar? As Pat Buchanan points out, there is no possible benefit the Syrian government would gain by using chemical weapons. Militarily it is not advantageous, and politically it is disastrous. It makes better sense to suppose either the rebels did the deed to draw the United States into an attack, or a third party who wants a war with Syria did the deed. The American people have finally realized the mendacity of the war rhetoric spewing from the Neocons and war Democrats, and are not going to buy into a new set of lies over “weapons of mass destruction.”

Conservative websites are divided, with traditional conservatives and even some who formerly fell under the spell of the Neoconservatives snapping out of their hypnosis. Yet the Neocons still whine for war with Syria–insane, since they would be aiding the rebels allied with Al Qaeda. There may be more parties represented among the rebels, but the majority are hostile to the United States and are allied with the same group who committed the 9-11 atrocities.

The Republican Party needs a housecleaning, and it needs it now. Voters should vote the Neocons, whose original leaders were originally Trotskyites who retain their utopian faith–this time supporting “spreading democracy throughout the world” rather than “spreading communism throughout the world.” Woodrow Wilson supported the same kind of naive idealism that led to U.S. involvement in a war that was none of its business and which paved the way for an even more destructive war only twenty-one years later. Republicans who are unsympathetic to Neoconservative warmongering should find sound candidates to run against Neoconservative Republicans and their supporters in the primaries. Conservatives should disavow the Neoconservative “think tanks” who have poisoned the Republican Party and damaged its chances in U.S. elections–but even worse, have pushed intellectual conservative in the direction of supporting the stupidity and immorality of modern warfare to attain abstract ends that have nothing to do either with reality or with U.S. national interest. Conservatives are finally awakening to the truth about the Neoconservatives–now it is time for them to do something about it.

U. S. Interventionist Policy a Failure in Egypt

1 Comment

Topographic map of Egypt. Created with GMT fro...

Topographic map of Egypt. Created with GMT from SRTM data. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The naivete of U. S. politicians in foreign policy has always amazed me. From FDR and Truman’s beliefs that “Uncle Joe” Stalin could be reasonable to the Iraq War to the current disastrous interventions in the Middle East, the U. S. has taken bad situations and made them worse. Egypt is a case in point. Mr. Obama (as was Mr. Bush) were naive to believe that the Middle East could support a Western style democracy. Whenever something like a democratic system is instituted, Islamist governments have been elected. U. S. support of the (just ousted) Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt was especially egregious.  Thankfully Egypt has enough moderate Muslims who are also backed by the Christian minority to make a difference–and they have. True, the Egyptian Army instigated a coup to force Mr. Morsi out of power, but there seemed to be little choice when Mr. Morsi (true to his principles) did not give an inch on power sharing. Now Mr. Obama, also consistent with his disastrous policy to intervene in a sovereign state’s affairs, including giving military aid to the rebels opposing Former President Mubarak, is condemning the Egyptian military’s action and calling for a full restoration of civilian rule, The United States should stay out of Egypt’s internal affairs. Even before Mr. Nasser’s rule, Egypt was struggling against the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and this allowed a large class of moderate Muslims to flourish. To back the Muslim brotherhood militarily (as the U. S. has done in the recent past) and financially (which the U. S. has done until the current coup) is a foolish and short-sighted policy. It has led to vicious persecution of the Coptic Church and of other Christians in Egypt. It has led to more hatred of the United States in Egypt. Mr. Obama’s glow in Egypt has dimmed with the crowds opposing Mr. Morsi holding up anti-Obama signs and signs criticizing U. S. Ambassador to Egypt Patterson. It is as if the United States is hell-bent on acting against its own interests.

The United States should abandon its interventionist foreign policy in Egypt (and elsewhere, especially Syria). It should let the Egyptians deal with their own problems and stop providing financial support to Islamist groups. It should humble itself and stop its arrogant stance of “The U. S. knows best, and darn it, you’re going to go along with it or else.” Only then might the United States gain back the respect it has lost in Egypt and elsewhere.

The United States Should Stay Out of Syria

1 Comment

Syria

No one can legitimately deny the brutality of the Assad regime in Syria. This is not atypical of many of the Middle Eastern states where ancient customs of absolute rule are slow to die. Some people, left and right, are calling for the United States to become involved in the Syrian conflict. This would be a mistake, even if it involves indirect help to the rebels.

The danger in any revolution, as George Orwell recognized in his book, Animal Farm, is that the end result of a revolution may be a government as repressive or even more repressive than the previous government. Are the Islamists who seem to be the majority of the rebels willing to set up a state that respects human rights? One would have to be naive to believe that. If the rebels win, Syria might get lucky and have a moderate Islamist government like the one in Turkey, if such governments can truly be called “moderate.” If the rebels are hard-line Islamists, then the state of the people in Syria may be worse than it would have been under Assad. One should be careful for what one wishes.

It is not in the national interest of the United States to become involved in the Syrian conflict. It may be in the national interests of Israel or Turkey to be involved, but the United States should allow the Syrians to fight their war and let the results be what they will be. Any military aid, or worse, sending special forces units (who may be there already–who knows?) or regular combat troops would be a disaster. The United States would gain little if anything and lose a great deal given the stress that the U.S. military is already under in Iraq and Afghanistan. Make no mistake about it, the “drawdowns” do not end U. S. military operations in those nations.

Corporations that make money off the welfare-warfare state will support intervening in Syria, but the unholy alliance between the United States government and large defense contractors helps the companies more than it helps the United States. Evangelical Christians, for all their good points, too often approach Middle Eastern politics thorugh the lens of a naive dispensationist premillenialist interpretation of the Book of Revelation. They strongly support American military intervention in the Middle East, believing that such is a part of prophecy being fulfilled.

Suppose the U.S. did get involved in Syria and a radical Islamist regime hostile to the United States was the result. The intervention would surely be said to cause more harm than good. War is a destructive force and often has unintended and bitter consequences that politicians do not invision from the safety of their air conditioned and heated offices. The United States should only go to war when the national interest is at stake. The claim of advocates of force that we would be fighting for human rights is a ruse since there are many countries with brutal dictators in which the United States does not intervene. The long tentacles of the Neoconservatives and war Democrats have slithered into the highest levels of U. S. foreign policy making. Congress needs to stand up to them and not fund unnecessary interventions into the internal battles of other countries. Both presidential candidates agree with the war party’s philosophy. That is unfortunate, for whatever the outcome of the November election, the United States will have a president who desires to continue the warfare/welfare state and its unnecessary interventions into disputes that are none of the United States’ business. If Israel or Turkey want to intervene in Syria–or Iran–that is their business. It is not our place to fight others’ battles for them.