sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Friday, January 20, 2017

What All This Means

What if, as the progs assert, the US election should be decided by popular vote alone? California and New York would be the only states that matter, with Texas a close third, and the rest of the nation be damned. True, there would be a lot more concern about who goes into which restroom, and whether there should be 31 genders as New York asserts, or 16 that California recognizes... But what would it really mean to disenfranchise the rest of the nation from the political process? Revolution.

The President and First Lady of the United States
Being a Constitutionalist, I understand why things were set up the way that they were and there is deep wisdom behind it. Barack came into office with the slogan, 'change and rearrange' with his heartfelt wish to fundamentally transform America. He tried to break the nation. What happened? He lost hegemony in the legislature two years later so tried to rule with his pen and his telephone. Eight years later, America elects the precise opposite of Barack with President Trump. The system is restored, his legacy will be wiped from the nation and balance will be established. Whether President Trump will go down in history as a hero or a villain will depend on what he does, not what he says.

Elsewhere...China isn't happy because they planned on a Sino-Centric world and that may no longer be as easy to pull off as it would have if America continued to shrink from the world stage. Russia is looking with interest at how it will all turn out with a resurgent USA. The US-UK relationship will be rebuilt, stronger than ever. Mexico will pay for a wall on its northern border.

The Progressive Melt-Downs. This is a series of YouTube compilations that demonstrates that the  smug, corrupt, elite, mainstream media and their reading of We The People couldn't be more wrong. It's particularly entertaining today -- and it's my gift to you.





AND -- Barack didn't pardon Hillary.....

A New US Relationship with China

The people who pull the levers and push the buttons on politics and policy in the People's Republic of China have been satisfied with the relationship that they had with the Obama Administration. Essentially Barack walked away from the store, left the door unlocked and allowed the looters to do as they would.

January 20, 2017 marks a new starting point and a test of wills and strength between an emerging Sino-centric world order and a re-energized US-centric world order.

Things in Washington DC have changed. President Trump invited Taiwan to send a delegation to his inauguration. The delegation, led by a former premier, arrived in the US on January 17th.
On 19 January, the spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said, “We are opposed to the Taiwan authorities for sending personnel to the United States in whatever excuses to conduct activities that will undermine China-US relations. We again urge the relevant US side not to allow the Taiwan authorities to send the so-called delegation to attend the inauguration ceremony of the US President, and not to engage in any forms of official contacts with Taiwan.”
PRC Schooling President Trump

PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ms. Hua Chunying answered a question about China’s relations with the new US administration. Her reply is China official position regarding the US on the eve of inauguration. 
“A healthy and stable development of China-US relations is in line with the common interests of the people in the two countries. In fact, the development of China-US relations over the last few years has fully proved that China and the United States have far more common interests than differences, and cooperation between China and the United States can accomplish many things in a big way for the benefits of the two countries and the world.”
“We look forward to work hard with the new US administration, continue to uphold the principles of non-confrontation, non-conflict, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation, and continue to expand cooperation on bilateral, regional and global issues, and other fields to strive to push China-US relations toward greater development at a new starting point.”
Hua remarks essentially are a tutorial for the benefit of the US President-elect, laying out China’s expectations of American behavior. Hua was careful to avoid provocative statements, but Chinese behavior in the past eight years belies her reassurances about stability and “non-confrontation”. The Chinese have their own definitions of the principles for managing state relations “in a healthy and stable way.” The “correct direction” always favors China.

Reality

China is in confrontation with both Koreas; Japan; all the countries in southeast Asia except the Philippines; Burma, and India. Stability means that other states affected by Chinese initiatives should not react aggressively to protect their interests. 

Non-confrontation applies to the US Navy and Japan’s self-defense forces, but not to Chinese ships intruding in the Senkakus or to China’s claim to sovereignty over most of the South China Sea. In 2012, Chinese forces simply seized the Philippine territory of Scarborough Shoal by force. 

Chinese and North Korean missiles that can target South Korea and Japan are not provocative, but the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile systems in South Korea and Japan is destabilizing. US bases are destabilizing, but the Chinese base in Djibouti is not.

Improvements to Vietnam’s islands are provocative, but China’s militarization of its man-made islets is not. President Xi’s Silk Road and Belt projects offer significant economic benefits to cooperating countries at the price of compromising their security and redirecting world trade. China’s reach is now farther than ever in Chinese history.

China’s focus on common interests ignores the much weightier issues on which national interests diverge, including North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs. Plus, there is a pattern. Chinese initiatives invariably are stabilizing and benign, so the Chinese assert. Resistance, disagreement or counter-initiatives, perforce, must be destabilizing and malign.

The statement of principles is beguiling. No one could object the principles, but the Chinese do not practice them. Nor do the Russians. They are for others – the victims and targets -- to practice. Additionally, they appear to support the existing international order, as suggested by President Xi in Davos. However, they also help the China Dream in which China is building a new Sino-centric world order.

President Trump

The old relationship with China ends today. A new relationship begins, and there will be new rules that come out of it. The negotiation has begun and all of the chips are on the table. Commander Seventh Fleet will have his hands full with China and East Asia.

The cozy relationship building between China and Russia may also be coming to an end with a US policy that tends to favor rapprochement with Russia. This will be vexing to China as it finds itself isolated once again. The US has more to gain by working with Russia than it does with China and that relationship will tend to starve China of energy. 

Watch the Russian response to this very carefully. They want to know how far to push things. If they cooperate with the US against ISIS and pull back in areas where they are currently expanding, the US will reward Russia with trade and favored status. The question for Russia is whether guns or butter are in its interests. Expect to be surprised - possibly in a good way. China has an 800 million man army (including People's militia) on the Russian southern border. America forgets that and the Russians never do. China would not invade Russia, but they ultimately pose a larger threat to Russia in the next twenty years than the US does -- if the US does not push NATO forward even more aggressively to the Russian border areas. Status quo may be good enough for Russia.



Thursday, January 19, 2017

A Brief Look Back in Time










American Rennissaince


I'm optimistic about America's future both at home and abroad. The inauguration of President Trump will change the malaise that hung over the nation for a long time. 

Despite what Barack would have you believe, the American economy has been stagnant and depressing during his watch. It worked out well for those living in the beltway or who were the recipients of $10 trillion in deficit spending during his term in office, but most of America has felt deflated. That was reflected in the election of President Trump. Things have gone wrong and they need to be changed in so many ways. 

America's relationships with other countries will be redefined. There is a pending trade deal with the UK that will pick up any remaining hardship from BREXIT. I see that carved out in the first 60 days of the Trump presidency. Britain and the US have a traditional special relationship that Barack shat on. That's about to be repaired. It's emblematic of the massive repair job that America needs.

You don't hear much from the Islamic states bashing the USA these days. Iran doesn't want us to participate in the Syrian peace talks, but the rhetoric is dialed way back. I expect that the chatter will resume, but possibly in a far more circumspect way. Barack, the apologist has been replaced by a man who is less likely to use military force than his predecessor -- but if pushed to it, will let slip Mad Dog Mattis and his team of professionals. This is not lost on the Middle Eastern kingdoms.

The Obama Years, or the ObamaNation, exemplified mediocrity. I've heard Afro-American commentators on Fox News who are concerned by "mediocre negroes". I think that they were concerned about the wrong one - except that the one they should have been worried about is half white. Be that as it may,

Times are changing, the progs are in full melt down and we will see America become great again.

I don't think that you will see President Trump go on an "American apology tour" and I think that it will be a cold day in hell before he bows to petty potentates and dictators around the world.  Progs bemoan that, but I think that it's a very good thing.


Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Emerging Situation with China

China, and by that, I mean the mandarins in the politburo who pull the levers in the government, almost always reacts with an underpinning emotion that is difficult to see unless you have met some of these folks in person. They are not Americans. Not even close. They have a difficult time understanding Americans. To his credit, President Trump nominated Iowa Governor Terry Branstad as the next U.S. ambassador to China, choosing a longstanding friend of Beijing. His choice of Rex Tillarson as Secretary of State is a choice of a reasonable, intelligent, tough but fair man who has a keen understanding of international affairs. Those are not the choices of a mad man, but of a negotiator who wants the best team in play. It's a stark departure from the Obama Years when political functionaries and buffoons represented Barack. China gets all of this, but still, they are confused and worried in an emotional way.

Two days ago, the government-run newspaper China Daily published a terse and threatening restatement of China’s official reaction to President-elect Trump’s comments about “one China.” The article begins with a summary of the action-reaction cycle.

This is important for those of you who are China watchers.

The map includes Taiwan as being part of China...
China’s first reaction was to blame Taiwan for maneuvering an inexperienced president-elect into taking a phone call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen. The Chinese called this a "trick".

After the President-elect’s second comment that “one China’ is negotiable, Chinese officials played down the remark as a misunderstanding or bluster. China reacted to this with a carefully phrased clarification of China’s position that acceptance of “one China’ is the bedrock of China’s relationships with the US.

On 13 January, the President-elect restated that “one China’ is negotiable. Since that remark, the Chinese leadership has concluded that the President-elect means what he said. The 13 January article carries the message that China also means what it said. The final five paragraphs follow.
“,,,It seems wishful thinking to assume Trump and his team's remarks on Taiwan have been based on bluster or miscalculation. On the contrary, it appears the next administration is intending to use the one-China policy as its trump card.”

“Taiwan has been off limits in China-US diplomacy thanks to the understanding that it is a Pandora's box of lethal potential, and that opening it may upend the hard-earned, firmly held fundamentals governing the relationship.”

“If Trump is determined to use this gambit on taking office, a period of fierce, damaging interactions will be unavoidable, as Beijing will have no choice but to take off the gloves.”

“It would be good if, after his inauguration, Trump can demonstrate more statesmanship. But Beijing should not count on his raising the stakes being a pre-inauguration bluff, and instead be prepared for him to continue backing this bet.”

“It may be costly. But it will prove a worthy price to pay to make the next US president aware of the special sensitivity, and serious consequences of his Taiwan game.”
The threat statement was spun by the corrupt, elite mainstream media and intermixed facts with opinions. They all but obliterated the meaning, so it is for you to make sense of it as best you are able without their "take" on the message.

The message conveys that the Chinese already have prepared their retaliation campaign. Early preparation for the worst outcome is a distinctive feature of Chinese crisis management style. They prepare the most damaging actions for the worst possible outcomes and then wait and see whether events dictate that they must apply them all or only some of them. 

The Chinese work backward from the worst outcome to the most benign outcome. They also always warn their target multiple times to afford opportunities for the target to mend its ways or manners.

The China Daily article indicates that only contingency decisions have been made. The implementation of the campaign depends on “use of this gambit,” in other words, on what the new administration does, not what it says.

The article contains the most direct language of threat by the Chinese leadership that I have read. Even before the Chinese invasion of northern Vietnam in 1979, the Chinese did not warn the Vietnamese in language as blunt as that above. 

The Chinese are not certain what the President-elect means by the assertion that “one China” is negotiable. That sentence is ambiguous. For example, it could mean that the US accepts the principle of “one China,” but the new administration wants more cooperation on the terms of trade and investment in China. 

However, the Chinese are concerned that the language means that the principle itself is up for negotiation and might be abandoned. They are prepared for either eventuality. On the principle of “one China”, China is prepared to use military force and sustain whatever costs it takes to preserve “one China.” 

They are prepared to hold Taiwan and its population hostage to the principle of “one China” and pay severe costs to prevent a declaration of independence by Taiwan.  That is a propaganda indicator of military action.

The emerging crisis has not reached that point yet.

Thoughts from the Road


Blogging from the road, things come to mind and I'll try to put a few out there for your comments. Meanwhile, life is slower outside of the Los Angeles basin and there is a sense of sanity that pervades the nation in fly-over country.

Opportunity?

There may be hope for conservative bloggers to apply for White House press credentials to cover press conferences as the corrupt, elite media unwillingly gives up their treasured 49 seats. 
(Reuters)  President Donald Trump's team could move the White House press briefing room from the West Wing to another location that accommodates more media from around the country and the world, senior officials in the incoming administration said on Sunday. 
Esquire magazine reported on Saturday that the Trump administration planned to relocate White House reporters from the press room to the White House Conference Center or the Old Executive Office Building next door.
"...The interest of the team is to make sure that we accommodate the broadest number of people who are interested and media from around the country and around the world," Pence said.

Some months ago, I suggested to fellow blogger, LSP that the time would come when even bloggers might be given the opportunity to shout for the President's attention in a White House briefing. That time may be fast approaching as the Trump White House expands the number of people who can attend press briefings. Possibly as many as two hundred fifty press officials, bloggers and other journalists will be invited to the White House Conference Center.

The only question that I have is, "If LSP has White House press credentials, will he attend the press conferences?" I think that the opportunity is out there if you know people.

Anglican Trauma Triggers

Some Anglican priests refuse to pray for President Donald Trump because they say that the mention of his name causes trauma in the people who attend services. LSP has assured me that Texans are made of sterner stuff and are not sent scurrying to a safe space when he invokes God's blessing on President Trump. 

What would the greater Anglican communion and "Forward in Christ" magazine think of one of their own standing shoulder to shoulder with the satanic influenced corrupt, elite mainstream media asking pertinent questions of interest to people in the US and around the world? Would Anglicans (outside of Texas) be outraged?

(left - LSP - the force is strong with this one)




You know that you have a really interesting question 
when nobody wants to answer it.

Monday, January 16, 2017

The Clinton Global Initiative is Defunct

It's interesting to see what is "news" and what isn't. Bill Clinton in a hotel room with a dead Russian hooker is not news. Readers might say, "oh, another one?" That's all the traction that you'd get. Progs are contemptible and nothing that they do surprises anyone.

Speaking of news.

If any of you wanted to give money to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), you'd better hurry. I've heard that Bill and Hillary will be dead broke unless you do.
(The Blaze) The Clinton Global Initiative will shutter operations at their main office in New York City for good on Tax Day, April 15, 2017. 
A WARN filing with the Department of Labor indicates that the 22 remaining employees employed there will be terminated on that date and that the official reason given for the layoffs is a “discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initative.”
A report from the New York Observer notes, that criticisms began to reemerge in the wake of Clinton’s electoral loss to now President-elect Donald Trump due to the nearly immediate decision by those same wealthy and foreign donors to distance themselves from the foundation — or fundraising — arm of the initiative:
[A]s soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.
It was a pay-to-play scheme predicated upon the inevitability of Hillary Clinton becoming the 45th President of the United States. Foreign government donors and wealthy benefactors threw money at the Clintons with the expectation of influence during a Clinton presidency. While Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State, she criss-crossed the globe preaching the value of contributing to her "charity".

Clinton was dogged during the waning days of the 2016 election by allegations stemming from an email exchange detailing a memo made public by WikiLeaks in October that the Clinton Foundation was running a scheme to amass a fortune using the Clintons’ political influence:

From the Post:
The memo from [top Clinton aide and Clinton Foundation employee] Douglas Band, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”
For those of you who have harsh thoughts about Wikileaks, consider that without that organization, the public's understanding of the unbridled corruption of the Clintons would never have had a light shined on it.

What will happen to those billions of dollars raised for 'charity' after CGI is shut down? I don't hear the news media asking those questions. Where's CNN's incisive reporting?