SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (144991)12/26/2018 7:31:11 AM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217572
 
The author might be right, could be wrong, but no matter, for we should judge trump not by action but effect, and noting we do not yet know the full effect

zerohedge.com

Did Trump Put The Deep State On Notice With Syrian Withdrawal? Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The reason so many people continue to misread the actions of US President Donald Trump is because they tend to confuse him with the actions and behaviors of past US administrations, where indiscriminate death and destruction was America’s calling card around a shell-shocked planet. Although certainly erratic in his actions, Trump thus far has been predictable on one score: keeping the powers-that-be guessing.

[url=][/url]

Last week, Donald Trump, acting unilaterally and within full power as Commander-in-Chief, derailed the Deep State’s plans for yet another disastrous regime change operation, announcing the withdrawal of US troops from Syria.

In a video released via Twitter, the American leader announced that, “We have won against ISIS…and it’s time for our troops to come home.”

In the not-so-distant past, such an announcement would have been greeted with cheers since it is generally agreed that war is - at least for those doing the grunt work - a very unpleasant enterprise. But the times have changed, together with the national agenda, and instead of applause filling the airwaves, the American people can hear nothing but the screeching of incensed hawks on both sides of the political aisle. That screeching is the sound of the Deep State expressing its deep displeasure and even pain.

[url=][/url]

Trump withdrawing US troops from Syria strongly suggests that the real estate magnate from Manhattan just might be the real deal, a rabble-rousing populist delivered to the White House by an army of voters across an angry and divided country that are tired of traveling snake-oil salesmen deceiving them with empty promises.

Is Trump the real deal?

There are two schools of thought on Donald J. Trump.

The first says that he is just another typical politician beholden to the puppet masters of the Establishment, dutifully carrying out orders from above, albeit with a bit more bluff and bluster than past frauds. After all, the argument goes, there is no possible way any individual could reach the Oval Office without the full support of the establishment – media, military, intelligence, etc.

Although that position has some merit, it underestimates the full extent of the desperation that has been gnawing away at the American heartland for many years. Such sentiments peaked out after it became painfully apparent that Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, despite all the sweet talk of ‘hope and change,’ was no different from the others, and in many cases even worse.

At the same time, it overestimates the ability of the deep state to control every aspect of the political process. This explains why Russia was dragged into the picture – the Deep State needed to provide some sort of alibi as to how Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, as well as provide an 11 time-zone smokescreen to conceal her myriad wrongdoings.

The other school of thought says that Trump is the real deal, one of those rare, irresistible forces of political nature who, by sheer exertion of will, character and – dare I say it – genius, ascends the misty mountaintops despite, or because of, the powerful forces aligned against him. In other words, the Trump phenomenon is an open window of opportunity to salvage what is left of the American political system, and the elite, fully aware as to what is at stake, is doing everything to destroy it.

The reason for belonging to the second camp of thought is twofold.

First, if Trump truly were just another political cutout in the Republican-Democrat, two-party dichotomy, the mainstream media would not be so fiercely committed to destroying this man and everything he stands for. It’s no exaggeration to say that never before in US history has a political leader attracted so much vitriolic, spleen-bursting venom from the so-called Fourth Estate, itself just another compromised arm of the deep state. Not only is he vilified 24/7 in nearly every mainstream media outlet, with Fox News as perhaps the only major exception, the attacks continue when the sun goes down and the merchants of late-night ‘comedy’ take over, spinning their tired anti-Trump ‘jokes’ night after shameless night. When has comedy in America ever been so mean-spirited? The same could be said of Hollywood, where the award ceremonies have turned into marathon hate rallies. Meanwhile, even across the pond in Britain the anti-Trump crusade continues, which seems rather odd given that a foreign country would be expected to present a more balanced version of reality. This concerted attack on one individual suggests something more than hate and loathing; it has the smell of palpable fear.

Another reason to believe that Trump is the real deal is because if he were just another political stooge, doing the bidding of special interests, then certainly we’d have been at war by now. It is easy to forget since the media never mentions it, but America has not experienced such a dry spell in full-blown military action like this for many years, since Barack and Hillary destroyed the most developed country in Africa and called it a peace.

[url=][/url]

And who could forget how giddy the establishment became last year when Trump gave them their first taste of bloodshed with a limited missile strike on Syria? Hopeful of a military conflict, neo-Liberal wolves in sheep clothing, like CNN analyst Fareed Zakaria who declared that “Trump became president last night” following the unauthorized strike on the sovereign state. MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, not to be outdone, referred to the “beauty” of the nighttime airstrike three times in 30 seconds.

Today, the ‘peace-loving’ Liberals have once again betrayed their true colors, not to mention masters, by rebuking Trump for having the audacity to bring our troops home from a warzone.

Does all of this mean that Trump – who may have been compelled to withdraw from Syria as an act of vengeance against the Deep State for not only pursuing him with ‘Russiagate’ for the last two years, but for refusing to fund his Mexican Wall - will continue to endorse non-military solutions to global problems? Not at all. In fact, we may actually live to see more militaristic mayhem under this president than from his predecessors.

Already, the situation between Ukraine and Russia, for example, where Kiev is deliberately provoking Moscow, looks ripe for some sort of escalation of events that could trigger a chain reaction of unfathomable consequences.

Whatever the case may be, one thing looks certain right now, and that is Trump’s newfound desire to unilaterally call the shots in his presidency. The Deep State must now be rightly wondering what Trump could do next: order the US military to build his wall on the Mexico border? Initiate indictments against the Clinton Foundation over “pay to play” allegations, among other things? Shut down the Federal Reserve and bring back the US Treasury to print America’s money supply, as called for in the US Constitution? Everything is now on the table as far as Trump’s options go, and that must certainly be of no small concern to the powers-that-be in Washington DC.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (144991)12/27/2018 11:06:10 AM
From: James Seagrove  Respond to of 217572
 
Huawei phones are available anywhere in Canada.

consumer.huawei.com



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (144991)12/30/2018 4:31:25 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 217572
 
(1) 5:30am of the day before start of 2019. Shall work from home this day. Intend to focus on only 2-3 items of work, then

- dialogue w/ the Jack and take him swimming 10:00am-ish. Shall also steam and jacuzzi.

- make sure to take a nap.

- ponder 2019 financial scape.

- dialogue w/ family and friends over hotpot dinner at home

- leave the party and enjoy a read say at 8:30pm, per usual, and sleep to 2019

(2) Looking at this article, from source that some denigrate, I figure, interesting, if true. Deep-state exposed more fully.

If deep-state does not exist, then the Syrian withdraw should happen, otherwise perhaps not. Let us try to discern the deep-state goings-on by its contrails irrespective of political labels

zerohedge.com

Trump Breaks Generals’ 50-Year War RecordBy Gareth Porter

The mainstream media has attacked President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as impulsive, blindsiding his own national security team. But detailed, published accounts of the policy process over the course of the year tell a very different story. They show that senior national security officials and self-interested institutions have been playing a complicated political game for months aimed at keeping Trump from wavering on our indefinite presence on the ground in Syria.

The entire episode thus represents a new variant of a familiar pattern dating back to Vietnam in which national security advisors put pressure on reluctant presidents to go along with existing or proposed military deployments in a war zone. The difference here is that Trump, by publicly choosing a different policy, has blown up their transparent schemes and offered the country a new course, one that does not involve a permanent war state.

The relationship between Trump and his national security team has been tense since the beginning of his administration. By mid-summer 2017, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford had become so alarmed at Trump’s negative responses to their briefings justifying global U.S. military deployments that they decided to do a formal briefing in “the tank,” used by the Joint Chiefs for meetings at the Pentagon.

But when Mattis and Dunford sang the praises of the “rules-based, international democratic order” that has “kept the peace for 70 years,” Trump simply shook his head in disbelief.

By the end of that year, however, Mattis, Dunford, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believed they’d succeeded in getting Trump to use U.S. troops not only to defeat Islamic State but to “stabilize” the entire northeast sector of Syria and balance Russian and Iranian-sponsored forces. Yet they ignored warning signs of Trump’s continuing displeasure with their vision of a more or less permanent American military presence in Syria.

In a March rally in Ohio ostensibly about health care reform, Trump suddenly blurted out, “We’re coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon—very soon we’re coming out.”

Then in early April 2018, Trump’s impatience with his advisors on Syria boiled over into a major confrontation at a National Security Council meeting, where he ordered them unequivocally to accept a fundamentally different Syria deployment policy.

Trump opened the meeting with his public stance that the United States must end its intervention in Syria and the Middle East more broadly. He argued repeatedly that the U.S. had gotten “nothing” for its efforts, according to an account published by the Associated Press based on interviews with administration officials who had been briefed on the meeting. When Dunford asked him to state exactly what he wanted, Trump answered that he favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces and an end to the “stabilization” program in Syria.

Mattis responded that an immediate withdrawal from Syria was impossible to carry out responsibly, would risk the return of Islamic State, and would play into the hands of Russia, Iran, and Turkey, whose interests ran counter to those of the United States.

Trump reportedly then relented and said they have could five or six months to destroy the Islamic State. But he also made it clear that he did not want them to come back to him in October and say that they had been unable to defeat ISIS and had to remain in Syria. When his advisors reiterated that they didn’t think America could withdraw responsibly, Trump told them to “just get it done.”

Trump’s national security team had prepared carefully for the meeting in order to steer him away from an explicit timetable for withdrawal. They had brought papers that omitted any specific options for withdrawal timetables. Instead, as the detailed AP account shows, they framed the options as a binary choice—either an immediate pullout or an indefinite presence in order to ensure the complete and permanent defeat of Islamic State. The leave option was described as risking a return of ISIS and leaving a power vacuum for Russia and Iran to fill.

Such a binary strategy had worked in the past, according to administration sources. That would account for Trump’s long public silence on Syria during the early months of 2018 while then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson and Mattis were articulating detailed arguments for a long-term military commitment.

Another reason the approach had been so successful, however, was that Trump had made such a big issue out of Barack Obama giving the Pentagon a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. As a result, he was hesitant to go public with a similar request for a Syria timetable. As CNN reported, a DoD official who had been briefed on the meeting “rejected that any sort of timeline was discussed.” Furthermore the official asserted that Mattis “was not asked to draw up withdrawal options….” Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Chiefs, also told reporters, “the president has actually been very good in not giving us a specific timeline.”

Nevertheless, without referring to a timeline, the White House issued a short statement saying that the U.S. role in Syria was coming to a “rapid end.”

Mattis and Dunford were consciously exploiting Trump’s defensiveness about a timeline to press ahead with their own strategy unless and until Trump publicly called them on it. That is what finally happened some weeks after Trump’s six month deadline had passed. The claim by Trump advisors that they were taken by surprise was indeed disingenuous. What happened last week was that Trump followed up on the clear policy he had laid down in April.

The Syria withdrawal affair is a dramatic illustration of the fundamental quandary of the Trump presidency in regard to ending the state of permanent war that previous administrations created. Although a solid majority of Americans want to rein in U.S. military deployments in the Middle East and Africa, Trump’s national security team is committed to doing the opposite.

Trump is now well aware that it is virtually impossible to carry out the foreign policy that he wants without advisors who are committed to the same objective. That means that he must find people who have remained outside the system during the permanent war years while being highly critical of its whole ideology and culture. If he can fill key positions with truly dissident figures, the last two years of this term in office could decisively clip the wings of the bureaucrats and generals who have created the permanent war state we find ourselves in today.

Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative. He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (144991)12/30/2018 4:33:58 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217572
 
(3) Either a coincidence or a deep-stater talks to essentially confirm what others say about the deep-state, and confirms that folks are having difficulty 'managing' trump

zerohedge.com

Trump "Not Up To Role Of President" : John Kelly Gives Dramatic Exit Interview


Update: Shortly after the LA Times published its article, the New York Times published a similar piece - recapping the LA Times story while adding:

Mr. Kelly is leaving after a 17-month tenure that he described to the paper as a “bone-crushing hard job.” Mr. Kelly was known to tell aides that he had the “worst job in the world,” and frequently told people that Mr. Trump was not up to role of president, according to two former administration officials. - NYT

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly will be leaving the Trump administration on Wednesday after 18 months on the job wrangling President Trump and keeping the West Wing in order.

[url=][/url]

In an exclusive two-hour interview with the LA Times, Kelly offers a peek behind the curtain as he presided over some of the Trump administration's most controversial immigration and geopolitical policies.

"When I first took over, he was inclined to want to withdraw from Afghanistan," Kelly recalled. "He was frustrated. It was a huge decision to make ... and frankly there was no system at all for a lot of reasons — palace intrigue and the rest of it — when I got there."

Trump, who campaigned on non-interventionism and reducing troop counts wherever possible, announced the pullout of all US troops from Syria, and half of the 14,000 troops in Afghanistan - after Kelly's departure was confirmed December 8 - moves that Kelly opposed as Chief of Staff.

Kelly's supporters, meanwhile, have suggested that he was the only thing stopping Trump from making several ill-advised choices, such as not pulling US forces out of South Korea, and not withdrawing from NATO as Trump has threatened.

That said, the outgoing Chief of Staff maintains that President Trump had access to multiple streams of detailed information before major decisions were made - despite Trump's reputation for relying on his gut instinct.

"It’s never been: The president just wants to make a decision based on no knowledge and ignorance," said Kelly. "You may not like his decision, but at least he was fully informed on the impact."

Bone crushing

Kelly tells the Times that it was a "bone-crushing hard job" to have spent nearly every waking minute of 15-hour days with the President, "but you do it," he added.

On most days, he said, he woke up at 4 a.m. and typically came home at 9 p.m. Then he often went straight into a secure area for classified reports and communications so he could keep working.

I’m guarded by the Secret Service. I can’t even go get a beer,” he quipped. - LA Times

Kelly also noted that while Trump pushed back on his advisors to test the limits of his authority under the law - often asking Kelly "Why can't we do it this way?" - that Trump never ordered him to do anything illegal "because we wouldn’t have."

"If he had said to me, ‘Do it, or you’re fired," Kelly said, he would have resigned.

According to Kelly, Trump brought him in to bring structure and order to a chaotic White House racked with inter-agency rivalry, remarkably high staff turnover and nearly constant controversy - adding that he tried to remove politics from his decision-making.

"I told the president the last thing in my view that you need in the chief of staff is someone that looks at every issue through a political lens," Kelly said.

Kelly served 46 years in the Marines, from the Vietnam War to the rise of Islamic State, making him the U.S. military’s longest-serving general when he retired in January 2016.

When Trump picked him to head Homeland Security, and then serve as White House chief of staff, officials from the Pentagon to Capitol Hill expressed hope that Kelly would be one of the “adults in the room” to manage a mercurial president.

To critics, Kelly failed at that task, unable to rein in Trump’s angry tweets or bring order to executive decision-making.

Worse, they argue, he aggressively advocated and implemented harsh immigration measures, including separating migrant children from their parents on the border last summer, that quickly ran aground or were reversed in the courts. - LA Times

Trending Articles

Animation: 200 Years Of U.S. ImmigrationSubmitted by

Kelly brushed off reports that Trump was put off by Kelly's iron grip on White House operations or the endless briefings, however his "anticlimactic exit," as the Times puts it, "reflects a tenure dogged from the outset by the indignities of constant speculation, fueled by the president's own public remarks, that he would be fired."

Kelly said that the decision to leave was solidified after the November 6 midterm election, in which Republicans lost control of the House. Two days later, Trump announced Kelly's departure.

"John Kelly will be leaving, I don’t know if I can say retiring," Trump said from the South Lawn of the White House before departing for the annual Army-Navy football game. "But he’s a great guy."

Unlike Kelly’s friend James N. Mattis, the retired Marine general who resigned as secretary of Defense with a public letter rebuking the president for abandoning allies and undermining alliances, Kelly kept his counsel.

But his impending departure from the eye of the storm created an embarrassing void at the White House as one candidate after another publicly pulled out or declined the chief of staff job. - LA Times

The departure of Kelly has many in Washington worried that nobody will be watching Trump - mostly among Democrats.

"Now, it just seems to be a free-for-all," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). "There’s no real consistent figure that’s going to stand there and just make sure literally the trains run on time. I think that was one of Kelly’s major contributions."

"It’s a loss, there’s no question," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Kelly leaves amid a stalemate over $5 billion in funding for Trump's US-Mexico border wall, which has resulted in a government shutdown now entering week two. Trump has blamed Democrats, who have refused to provide more than $1.3 billion for border security.

"To be honest, it’s not a wall," said Kelly - who embarked in early 2017 on seeking advice from those who "actually secure the border," on what to do. Speaking with Customs and Border Protection agents - referred to by Kelly as "salt-of-the-earth, Joe-Six-Pack folks," the outgoing Chief of Staff recounts "They said, ‘Well we need a physical barrier in certain places, we need technology across the board, and we need more people'."

"The president still says ‘wall’ — oftentimes frankly he’ll say ‘barrier’ or ‘fencing,’ now he’s tended toward steel slats. But we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration, when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it."

When pressed by the Times over whether there is a security crisis at the Southern border, or if Trump has simply stirred up fears of a migrant "invasion," Kelly said "We do have an immigrant problem."

From the 1980s to the mid-2000s, apprehensions at the border — the most common measure of illegal immigration — routinely reached more than 1 million migrants a year.

Today, they are near historical lows. In the fiscal year that ended in September, border authorities apprehended 521,090 people.

But immigration officials are seeing a dramatic rise in families and unaccompanied minors at the border, mostly from Central America.

Kelly saw the corruption and violence that spurred migrations from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, first as head of the Pentagon’s Southern Command, which stretches from South America to Mexico’s southern border, then at Homeland Security.

He says that experience has given him a nuanced view on immigration and border security — one that at times appears at odds with Trump’s harsh anti-immigration messaging and policy.

“Illegal immigrants, overwhelmingly, are not bad people,” Kelly said, describing many migrants as victims misled by traffickers. “I have nothing but compassion for them, the young kids.” - LA Times

Kelly laid blame on immigrants and lawmakers, and not the Trump administration, for the tense situation at the border in which thousands of Central Americans remain stranded at the southern US border waiting for asylum claims to be processed at a snail's pace of less than 100 per day.

"One of the reasons why it’s so difficult to keep people from coming — obviously it’d be preferable for them to stay in their own homeland but it’s difficult to do sometimes, where they live — is a crazy, oftentimes conflicting series of loopholes in the law in the United States that makes it extremely hard to turn people around and send them home," said Kelly. "If we don’t fix the laws, then they will keep coming," he continued. "They have known, and they do know, that if they can get here, they can, generally speaking, stay."

Kelly's advice to stop illegal immigration"? "stop U.S. demand for drugs, and expand economic opportunity" in Central America, he said.

Kelly dinged the Trump administration for failing to appropriately predict the public outrage stemming from Steve Bannon's "travel ban" in January 2017, as well as the "zero tolerance" immigration policy and resultant spike in family separations this year.

Shortly after taking office, Trump issued an executive order immediately suspending the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days, indefinitely freezing the entry of refugees from Syria and barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Refugees already approved for resettlement, green card holders and others were turned away from flights, detained, and in some cases deported. Federal judges issued emergency stays, and several iterations of the travel ban have been challenged in court.

At the time, despite reports he’d been caught off-guard by the president’s order, Kelly gave a full-throated defense.

I had very little opportunity to look at them,” before the orders were announced, Kelly acknowledged in the Times interview. “Obviously, it brought down a greater deal of thunder on the president.

Blain Rethmeier, who helped shepherd Kelly and his replacement at Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, through their Senate confirmations, put it more colorfully: “He got handed a [crap] sandwich the first week on the job.” - LA Times

"There’s only so many things a chief of staff can do, particularly with a personality like Donald Trump," said former Kelly colleague David Lapan of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

In May, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a zero-tolerance immigration policy which resulted in the high-profile separation of migrant children from their parents - a practice conducted under the Obama Administration (which the ACLU even sued them over). Kelly said Sessions' announcement surprised the White House.

"What happened was Jeff Sessions, he was the one that instituted the zero-tolerance process on the border that resulted in both people being detained and the family separation," said Kelly. "He surprised us."

The task of implementing the policy fell on the shoulders of Kelly's replacement at the Department of Homeland Security, Kristjen Nielsen, who came under fire for claiming that there was no official policy of separating families.

[url=][/url]

"She is a good soldier; she took the face shot," said an anonymous Senior White House official to the Times. "No one asked her to do it, but by the time we could put together a better strategy, she’d already owned it."

When asked why he stuck it out for 18 months in the chaotic Trump White House, "despite policy differences, personality clashes, the punishing schedule and a likely lasting association with some of Trump's controversies," Kelly said it was a matter of duty.

"Military people," said Kelly "don't walk away."