The TRASH TRUMP show

COME ONE, COME ALL, SEE THE GREATEST SPECTACLE SO FAR OF 2019

STARING THE MASTER OF THEATER AND INTRIGUE

 MR. MICHAEL COHEN 

DIRECTED BY

LANNY DAVIS

 CREDITS INCLUDE DEFENSE OF CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, AND OTHER CLINTON SCANDALS

PRODUCED AND PAID FOR BY 

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

HILLARY CLINTON COHORTS

TOM STEYER

AND A CAST OF THOUSANDS OF HATE FILLED AND UNHAPPY SOCIALISTS

SEQUELS ARE ALREADY IN THE PLANNING AND BEING CAST

Trump,Kim and the back benchers

TRUMP HEADS TO VIETNAM FOR SECOND NORTH KOREA MEETING

NO SUPPORT FROM DEMOCRATS, ESTABLISHMENT BUREAUCRATS

President Trump and Kim Jong Un will hold their second meeting this week in Vietnam. Instead of support from fellow Americans we see a list of nay-sayers who fear that any success with North Korea will weaken their hopes of deposing Trump.

First we have the intelligence community who like to emphasize that Kim will never give up his Nuclear weapons, that there have not been any real changes in North Korea and that Trump is too stupid to negotiate with communists. They still believe it is better to not have any discussions with North Korea, who they consider illegitimate. The truth is North Korea has existed for near 70 years and their policies have not moved the needle in a positive direction in all that time. They still believe such negotiations should be left to the career professionals who in the past were suckered into giving North Korea humanitarian aid and technology, including Nuclear technology. They should give the president their view of things, then shut up.

Then we have the Democrats, who cant take it that they are not in on the conversations with Trump and Kim. Where they in on the conversations with Roosevelt and Stalin?. Where they in on the conversations with Reagan and Gorbachev?. I don't think so.  If there is ever a tentative deal reached that will require Senate approval, then they will get their chance. It is likely they would rather see the situation fail rather than Trump and the country have success.

I believe Trump has the support of the majority of the American people who believe trying to improve relations is better than what we have done.

We must consider that Kim, still a young man, was born into his position, inherited from his grandfather and father who were real communist revolutionaries. Much like the leaders of the Soviet Union they were true believers. It was not until those ideologues died that any hope of reform was possible. They were the kind of leaders who would die professing the virtues of communism. 

In the Soviet Union it was not until the next generation began to question the ability of the communist system to provide for the well-being of their citizens that change was possible, that may be the case that we now see in North Korea. The old leadership is dying off and the younger people are looking at the success of their brothers in South Korea. It is a night and day comparison.

I believe Trump when he claims that he genuinely likes Kim and believes he wants to reform his country. Trump has not given the North Koreans any concessions. He has offered them a chance to become members of the world community and improve the condition of their people. They have indicated that is what they would like to do.

No one, including Trump, believes it is possible to transition to a market economy, reject communism and move toward reform overnight. It will likely take many years for this to be accomplished, if it is to really happen. Kim is not really the lone leader of his country, he has to convince the rest of the leadership, many who may be still true believers. Then the North Korean people will need to be slowly led to new way of life.

It appears that Trump has looked at the situation with North Korea and Kim himself in an objective , pragmatic and non judgmental way. He has offered his hand in friendship hoping to bring this country and its people into the modern world. North Korea has great potential and could have a bright future. At least Trump and Kim should get the support of American people in hoping they can have success.

Progressive New Green Deal = Total government control

MORE HOPES OF FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION

SHIFT FROM PROGRESSIVELY MOVING TO TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT TO REVOLUTION

While anyone who has studied political philosophies has realized that the use of the word Progressive was a plan to incrementally move to a Totalitarian Socialist government. 

Having watched the bloodshed of the Russian and Chinese Socialist revolutions, many hoped they could slowly, incrementally move western democracies and particularly the United States to adopt  a total socialist government through persuasion, education and slowly infiltrating the bases of power in the country. 

This is all spelled out very clearly in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which stated its summary of goals. While this was written 1847 and some of the goals are not as relevant, the idea is the same.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of rents of land to public purpose. Private property rights have been diminished by the imposition of property taxes and all forms of local, state and federal regulation.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. This has been accomplished, the only fair tax is a flat tax rate for all.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. This has been a constant battle to confiscate wealth earned and saved by peoples life work and frugality.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. There are controls on moving wealth out of the country and an increase in confiscation of assets.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal government controls credit and interest and has interfered in the free market of money with social engineering. The Community reinvestment act is a good example and true cause of sub-prime credit collapse.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. This is not complete, but regulation and censorship is a constant threat from government.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state: the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Government does not own the means of production, but does control it more and more through regulation.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. It seems that for now government has removed incentives to work. When the economies of socialist countries collapse, they then resort to forced labor. Venezuela is a current example.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries: gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.  Not sure how this would be relevant today, except there is a movement to eliminate borders and national countries.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form and the combination of education with industrial production.  Education is now completely controlled by government . Elimination of child factory labor is a good thing, but there are way too many restrictions on youth working, to the point that many who are now in their mid-20's have no work experience and are unsuitable for employment.

The progressives movement strategy has been to move forward and hold. All setbacks are temporary and the giving up of gains is not acceptable. This strategy has been working for decades. It is always more, always the opposition must compromise and incrementally give up their freedom, rights and use of their money. They are never satisfied with the addressing of their grievances, They will not be satisfied until the country is a under the total control of the Federal Government.

Often passing laws and regulations which lead to a crisis and then the solution is always more government control. The "Affordable care act" and the "Community reinvestment act" are just two examples.

So back to the "Green New Deal", I would expect that some progressives would rather this agenda is kept in the background. Incremental change is easier if the population is not aroused to the end result of the agenda until after it is accomplished.

It seems that many progressives now feel that the country has sufficiently been prepared, by education, the amplifying of grievances of race, gender, financial inequality etc. that they no longer need to work behind the scenes and can now finish the fundamental transformation of the country

This was the philosophy of Barack Obama which led to election of Donald Trump as a reaction to the progressives being too out front with their agenda.

Two large areas of the economy that have not been brought under government control are the energy sector and food production and distribution. While attempts have been made through the Cap and Trade carbon program and restrictions by the Obama administration, the United States still enjoys a fairly free market in energy. We still have the best food production and distribution system in world history.

The "New Green Deal" will attempt to bring both these sectors under total government control.  Here are the highlights of the plan. This is a 10 year national  plan.

1. 100% of power delivered by clean, renewable zero emissions energy. Total elimination of  Fossil fuel use. Total elimination of Nuclear energy.

2. Upgrade all existing buildings for energy efficiency.

3. Elimination of pollution and greenhouse gases from farming. Support family farms. Promote universal access to healthy food.

4. Overhaul transportation systems, expand electric car manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, expand high speed rail to the extent of eliminating air travel.

5. A guaranteed job with family sustainable wages, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security for every American.

6. High quality healthcare for all Americans.

This is just the major points, there is also much to do with income inequality and racial inequality and how the government needs to eliminate this through higher taxes and asset taxes, of course they target the rich but it will eventually apply to all who actually have assets.

Quite simply it is the fulfillment of the progressive dreams of a total socialist takeover of our political, and economic system.

Do Americans have to learn from actual experience? It seems many have fallen for the siren song of free everything and paradise on earth. It would be much better to learn from history and observe the results of these types of policies in the Soviet Union and more recently Venezuela.

Trump versus Intelligence community.

INTELLIGENCE IS TO PROVIDE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION

PRESIDENT SETS DIRECTION OF FOREIGN POLICY

We see much anxiety that the president has not followed the advice of the intelligence community in some matters. He does get to listen to their analysis and advice, but he ultimately has the authority set the direction of foreign policy.

In my lifetime, I have watched as we spent 10 years in a war in Viet-Nam as 58,000 young men in my age group died and thousands more were permanently damaged, both physically and emotionally for an endeavor advocated and managed by our intelligence community and state department. Our men routinely conquered hills and watched their fellows die only to turn it back over to the enemy the next day. Our pilots were forbidden from bombing enemies until authorized from Washington. Our allies shipped goods to the enemy but we were forbidden to embargo their shipping. This was all the new policy of containment, no victory, just police action. At the expense of out fortune and our best young people. 

We saw how we made Saddam our ally to attack Iran, then destroyed his army after we gave him the go-ahead to invade Kuwait. Then we installed permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, which prompted some Saudi's to attack us on 911.  Then in the war on terrorism we listened to our intelligence community who swore that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We ignored those on the ground who said it was not true. We then removed the counter to Iran and an enemy of AL-Queda who was not bound by rules, who would have stamped out ISIS in its infancy.

We then set out to help to overthrow the governments in Egypt, Syria and Lybia, destabilizing the whole middle-east and creating a migration crisis in Europe. These actions were all endorsed by our intelligence community. If they were batting .250 we would have better results. They are either incompetent or they have an agenda that is not in the best interest of the United States.

There was a time when I blamed much of this on the Bush Presidents, Clinton and Obama, but it is becoming obvious that out foreign policy has been determined by others who have not been elected. I have come to believe that our country is being run by those with an agenda that is determined to engage in continuous war and chaos. Is it for monetary gain or just using the U.S. military as the police force of Global government, I don't know the answer, but I applaud anyone who has the guts to question their motives and expose their duplicity.