Saturday, May 17, 2025

Air Force One, President Trump … and The Art of the Deal



By accepting a gift of a like-new and opulent replacement for the current, rapidly-aging Air Force One from the king of Qatar, President Trump has spurred the far-left Dem Progressives (pronounced Damn Progressives) into another round of pointless faux outrage. 

This time, they’re claiming that Qatar’s leader is giving his private flying palace – an opulently upgraded Boeing 747-800 model – to Trump.  This, they say, violates the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8.  And Trump’s actions might have done that, except the Dems – in their frenzy to nail Trump for “something” – got it all wrong. 

Again. 

The Qatari king isn’t giving this $400 million dollar flying palace to Donald Trump.  Instead, they’re giving it to the American people.  Trump is merely accepting the plane on his country’s behalf. 

Such gifts are far from rare.  For example, France gave the Statue of Liberty to the American people in 1876, not to then-President Ulysses S. Grant. 

This was not in violation of the Constitution. 

However, to generate the funds needed to relocate and mount the Statue in New York Harbor, instead of using tax dollars – something Grant might have done, but chose not to – he called on private, charitable donations.  This led to a massive national fund-raising campaign, with a remarkable number of Americans eager to donate a dollar apiece to cover the costs of bringing the Statue to America, building a suitable site for its permanent residence, then assembling this monster on its new home, an island in New York City’s harbor.

Of course, President Grant wasn’t a billionaire, and this is where – with enough dissimulation, always a razor-sharp tool in the Dem Progressives’ toolbox – President Trump has offered to use his personal wealth to fund the conversion of a king’s flying palace to the in-the-air high-tech office of the leader of the free world.  Just as Trump doesn’t accept a Presidential salary – he’s a billionaire – he has no problem paying to revise the interior and upgrade the aircraft’s military technology out of his own pocket.   This really is a free gift to America, and might in the end save the taxpayers a billion or more dollars.

The Dem Progressives, ignoring the truth, cite the U.S. Constitution as the basis for their latest outrage.  They hope it will lead to a national grassroots outrage that will scar Trump’s term of office, while paving the way for electoral gains in Congress in 2026.  The point of their objection says:

No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

If President Trump was doing what the Dems claim, this could even be an impeachable offense. 

Why? Because, on the surface, it may appear that Trump has violated indeed this clause by accepting a gift worth $400 million from the emir of Qatar. 

But this bogus charge overlooks several facts:

  1. Despite claims to the contrary, this new Air Force One will become the property of the Department of Defense’s U.S. Air Force, to be flown and maintained by the Air Force squadron based at Joint Base Andrews (formerly Andrews Air Force Base) that provides a variety of VIP transports for presidents and cabinet members, as it has done since the Eisenhower Administration.
  2. Trump has pledged his own personal wealth to help convert this flying palace to an aircraft more fitting to a president than a king.  It will be compete with aerial protection devices – thankfully too top-secret to mention, except as “informed guesses” – also including top secret, highly-secure communications gear, allowing the president to conduct the affairs of state while in the air.
  3. After Trump completes his second and final term of office, he has pledged that the plane will be donated to the Trump Presidential Library.  It might, like Reagan’s own Air Force One, to be literally built into the facility.  There is precedent for this.  One of the earlier models of Air Force One, in its military guise of VC-137A. 
  4.   When it was retired, it was literally built into the Reagan Presidential Library, along with one of the President’s VIP helicopters. 

If you’d like to be impressed by a wonderful example of a Presidential library, find your way to Simi Valley.It is a great way to remember a great president.

  1. Trump is accepting this gift on behalf of the United States, just as President Grant accepted the Statue of Liberty from the Emperor of France, way back in 1876.  Other presidents have accepted gifts from foreign nations and leaders, but always on behalf of the American people. Both the Clinton Presidential Library and the Reagan Presidential Library – I’ve seen them both, in detail – display hundreds, perhaps thousands of gifts made by countries, potentates and others to the American people.  All perfectly legal. 

The massive Boeing 747 that became the second type of jet-powered aircraft to become Air Force One started life as a design in competition for the U.S. Air Force’s massive new cargo transport.  Three new designs competed for this honor, planes by Douglas, Boeing and Lockheed. 

The Douglas design, which went on to become the wide-bodied DC-10 airliner and later, in military guise, the KC-10 cargo transport and aerial tanker aircraft.  Lockheed’s design, which won the competition, became the C-5 Galaxy.  An alternative Lockheed design went on to become a wide-bodied airliner, the Lockheed 1011. 

The Lockheed C-5 went into production in the late 1960s, and by chance, the first article I ever wrote for publication was about this aircraft. 

Researching it, I not only got to tour the production line, but also to climb the stairs up to the cockpit of the 82nd plane in production at Lockheed.  As the C-5 M Super Galaxy, this plane remains in front line service with the US Air Force as its premier long-range heavy lifter.  This latest version of the C-5 may well remain in service past the 100th anniversary of the design’s first flight. 

Finally, among the runners-up, Boeing’s heavy-lifter became the conceptual airframe prototype for the Boeing 747 passenger and cargo jet airliner.  This fifty-five-year-old aircraft remains in service today, though it is no longer in production.  Several of these Boeing 747s became the first “wide-body” Air Force One, was vastly more capable than the 707 adaptation that it was replacing.

Now here’s where the Art of the Deal comes in. 

During Trump’s first administration, back in 2018, he negotiated with Boeing for the construction of two newly rebuilt VC-25A – the VIP 747’s Air Force designation – to replace the then-aging aircraft. Though the Air Force sustains a vigorous maintenance schedule to ensure the planes are completely safe – and they are – between the age of the airframe (in years) and the tech that makes the plane useful as the President’s airborne “Oval Office,” which is several generations behind today’s state of the art. 

They finally struck a deal, but then Boeing – realizing they were losing money on the fixed-price deal they struck – slow-walked the project.  

A lot.  

The contracted replacement Air Force One ordered by Trump’s direction in 2018 won’t be ready until at least 2029, after Trump has left office.  These airframes were built decades ago, then eventually put out to pasture for less costly aircraft.  Still in good shape, these are not even new builds, yet it’s taking Boeing more than a decade to refurbish them, equip them and get them to the Air Force.

And this is where the Qatari aircraft comes into play.

Even with all of the safety and security inspections, the stripping out of “royal” trappings – such as the reported solid-gold commodes used by the Qatari King – and installing a new interior with all the trappings of a presidential command post in the sky, this plane could be ready to be used by the president by September of this year.  These upgrades – especially the interior features – will be revised under the president’s directions. But these planes are going to do much more than that.

They’re going to allow the president to implement The Art of the Deal.

For the first time, Boeing is looking at the possibility that – since they’re not now a sole-source provider – Trump could cancel their contract and seek out others in the private sector who could take over the aircraft Boeing has been upgrading for nearly a decade and finish the job much more quickly, at a lower cost. 

Just as he’s done with tariffs. 

Trump was quick to cast aside tarriff increases as soon as other nations came to the conference table; Trump now has something to hold over Boeing’s heads.  He wants the planes he bargained for – and quickly – as he’s got less than four years left in office.  If he can’t move Boeing off the dime, his own successor – either J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio – might be flying increasingly antiquated relics of the Cold War.

The Qatari King’s 747-800 is a stalking horse intended to push through an accelerated deal with Boeing.  Nothing more.  Well, one more.  At least he’ll be flying in a state-of-the-art aircraft, instead of a relic.



Red Pill News and Badlands Media- May 17

 



Gun owners secure historic settlement with DOJ, ATF over Forced Reset Triggers

 

The Trump administration will also return all FRT devices that were seized by the Biden administration, if individual owners request the returns by September 30, 2025. Instructions for filing the requests will be posted on the ATF's website.

By Misty Severi for Just the News 16 May 2025

Illustration from: https://arizonaregulator.com/

Two gun rights groups on Friday signed a historic settlement with the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), over a series of lawsuits regarding Forced Reset Trigger (FRT) devices.

The settlement comes under a new presidential administration, which agreed to drop three pending lawsuits filed under the Biden administration and not prosecute owners of FRTs if the devices meet a legal definition upheld in a summary judgment last year.

The Trump administration will also return all FRT devices that were seized by the Biden administration, if individual owners request the returns by September 30, 2025. Instructions for filing the requests will be posted on the ATF's website. 

The agreement was made by the ATF, DOJ, National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights (TXGR).

“This is one of the most stunning victories in the history of the gun rights movement. We didn’t just beat the ATF — we put them in a submission hold, and they tapped out,” NAGR President Dudley Brown said in a news release. "This decision marks a new era of holding the DOJ and ATF accountable when they trample the rights of law-abiding gun owners. We made them give back what they took, and that’s a precedent they’ll never forget.”

Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/gun-owners-secure-historic-settlement-doj-atf-over-forced-reset-triggers

Financing Ukraine


The modern conflict between Russia and Ukraine began in February, but there’s debate about which February. Depending on whom you ask, it was February 2014, thanks to President Obama, who did nothing in response to Russian actions, which was a response in itself. Or February 2022, thanks to President Biden, who then poured billions upon billions of our dwindling resources into the renewed conflict. Regardless of the start date, it seems like the only things accomplished were the wasting of two neighboring nations and the deaths of so many of their men.

On April 30, the United States and Ukraine signed a minerals deal. A text of the agreement, without appendices, was published in Kiev. The agreement establishes a framework for a reconstruction and modernization fund for Ukraine, utilizing revenues from natural resource deals. More than likely, this will be a very good thing. According to the White House, details are yet to be hammered out.

Trump Cabinet members made two announcements regarding the minerals deal.

Treasury Secretary Bessent said, “Thanks to President Trump’s tireless efforts to secure a lasting peace, I am glad to announce the signing of today’s historic economic partnership agreement between the United States and Ukraine, establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.”

He went on to say more, ending with “both the United States and the Government of Ukraine look to quickly operationalizing this historic economic partnership for both the Ukrainian and American people.”

Director of National Intelligence Gabbard said during an interview with Megyn Kelly, “This minerals deal is a way for the American people to get some...kind of a repayment based on the taxpayer dollars that have been expended and used to pay for someone else’s government.”

Appropriations, donations of excess government property, and the extension of the Lend-Lease Act to Ukraine have dedicated an estimated $350 billion in a variety of forms of taxbucks to Ukraine. According to my calculations, eight separate bills appropriated $131.6 billion to efforts to help Ukraine. My earlier analysis of a couple of these bills in draft pointed out that the bulk of this funding was to be spent right here at home.

We can anticipate that the full formation and maturation of the minerals deal and reconstruction fund will take some time. What do we do in the meantime?

We can certainly urge our allies, most importantly those who already have contributed to Ukraine’s defense, to participate in the reconstruction. The whole of the country, its transportation architecture, nuclear plant, and other energy infrastructure, agricultural sector, air and sea ports, and medical and instructional facilities and staffs will all need work. It should not fall solely to the United States to address every need.

One answer lies in how Ukraine appropriations were divided during the 117th and 118th Congresses, with expiration dates ranging from 2022 through 2026. The Department of Defense received nearly $93 billion for staff, operations and maintenance, procurement, research and development, health, working capital, and Inspector General operations.

  • Health and Human Services received $1.4 billion for refugee assistance.
  • The National Defense Authorization Act was increased by $1.7 billion.
  • The Department of State, USAID, and several Treasury international assistance programs got $2.4 billion.
  • Justice had $67 million to manage assets seized from Russian oligarchs. It sounds like it has cost more than that, and so far, no assets have been sold.
  • Energy received $312 million.
  • The intelligence community got $2.5 million.
  • $32.7 billion was appropriated to the President to be expended at his discretion for a variety of purposes.

Some money was available for use until expended. Other funds have start and end dates that are more complicated. The way that federally appropriated funds are calculated to have been timely used is that they are obligated against a contract before the funds expire. These contracts can take years to execute, and even more years to be fully paid out after billing disputes are resolved.

To add to the complications, some of these funds are still waiting to be contracted. Others may have been contracted, but contractors may not have begun the work yet. Some contracts may no longer be necessary, considering the anticipated cessation of conflict, and could be cancelled at the government’s convenience. Any funds no longer required to support a war, or a country at war, could certainly be used to jump-start the reconstruction fund, and work could get going very soon.

How do we claw back such monies? First, we halt any further contracting until a full evaluation of the need is completed.

Then we audit the obligated funds. In 2024, the DOD issued an audit of its execution of funds to assist Ukraine. The auditors examined 479 disbursement transactions valued at a little more than $2 billion, or 4% of total DOD appropriations. It was able to validate only 154 of them, totaling $1.1 billion. Can we expect that, if every transaction were reviewed, fully half of them would be inadequately documented to the point of being classifiable as questionable costs?

Have any of the other agencies audited their funds? I think, given their excellent track record so far, we should turn this effort over to DOGE. DOGE-Ukraine could possibly recover billions.

In the meantime, perhaps we could insist that we only fund those portions of the Ukrainian government that are functioning, and only the staff who are showing up in person for their work. Kind of like what we’ve done right here at home. And maybe we should return their assets to the oligarchs, if the conflict is resolved.



New Syrian president told lawmakers he wants to move his country away from Iran, China and Russia

 

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., said he saw "Make Syria Great Again" signs around Damascus as Trump's popularity grows inside the war-torn country.


One of the few U.S. members of Congress to meet with Syria's new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, says the former terrorist wants to pivot his country away from China, Iran and Russia and closer to the U.S. amid signs of President Donald Trump's growing popularity among the war-weary Syrian people.

"There's actually signs around Damascus to say, 'Make Syria Great Again.' So they're big fans of President Trump," Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., told the Just the News, No Noise television show. "I think this new president...I told him, 'the opportunity you have is incredible.' The Syrian people are remarkable."

Trump met with al-Sharaa this week in a sign that Syria is growing closer to the United States after years of ostracization over concerns about its human rights, terrorism and Iranian ties. The American president lifted sanctions against Syria as well.

Earlier, Stutzman and Florida GOP Rep. Cory Mills met for an hour during the Easter vacation with al-Sharaa in Damascus, walking away impressed that the former al-Qaeda member turned politician is moving Syria in a positive direction.

"I was impressed with the people that he's picking around him, the things that he's saying and the actions that he's been taking are showing that he seems to be wanting to move in a direction towards the West," Stutzman explained.

Stutzman said al-Sharaa told him he had refused an offer from Russia and doesn't have any interest in doing business with China. 

"They want to do business with the West," Stutzman said. "If they can move and stop any sort of jihad training [or] any sort of that jihadi mentality in the Middle East, there is a real opportunity for peace and prosperity there."

Trump told reporters that al-Sharra was a "tough guy" who had the opportunity to bring stability to Syria.

In December of last year, Islamist rebels stormed the Syrian capital of Damascus, resulting in dictator Bashar al-Assad fleeing the country. Al-Sharaa soon took over as president after Assad was ousted.

Stutzman said that regarding al-Sharaa's relationship with Iran, he was open to letting the country have an embassy, but its visas would be limited.

"He actually was very much to the point on Iran, especially," Stutzman said. "He said that he was open to letting Iran have an embassy, but he would limit their visas and the amount of traffic coming from Iran, and he didn't want to let them basically congregate in a certain part of the country."

While meeting with al-Sharaa, Trump delivered a stern warning to Iran that its only path to normalization is to abandon both terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

https://justthenews.com/world/middle-east/indiana-congressman-who-met-syria-leader-al-sharaa-says-trump-popular-middle-east

If Walz Were a Real Man, He Would Pardon Derek Chauvin

From the training manual

A Wednesday New York Post headline momentarily deceives those inclined to optimism. It reads, “Gov. Tim Walz feeds rumor mill about Derek Chauvin pardon, despite Trump saying he knows nothing about it.”

That optimist might think that the Minnesota governor was moved to reconsider Chauvin’s fate, the inspiration being a recent judicial order issued by Hennepin County Judge Edward Wahl. The ruling followed a defamation suit brought by Assistant Minneapolis Police Chief Katie Blackwell.

Blackwell sued Liz Collin of Alpha News and the other parties responsible for her book, Theyre Lying: The Media, The Left, And the Death of George Floyd, and her documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis. Collin argued that Blackwell appeared to lie on the witness stand when she claimed Derek Chauvins use of force on George Floyd was improvised and unauthorized.

In a comprehensive, illustrated 58-page order, Wahl roundly rejected Blackwells suit. Collin and her co-defendants, he wrote, hit every legal standard necessary to avoid the lawsuit going to trial -- including that their questioning of whether Blackwell lied on the witness stand met the legal standard of substantial truth.’”

At question was Blackwell’s response to Exhibit 17, a still image of Chauvin with his knee on the back of Floyds neck. When the prosecutor in the spring 2021 trial asked Blackwell how Chauvin’s restraint differed from those the Minneapolis Police Department authorized, Blackwell testified, I dont know what kind of improvised position that is. So thats not what we train.”

As head of training, Blackwell’s testimony had particular weight. She appears, though, to have been following the party line. MPD Chief Medaria Arradondo said at trial about Chauvin’s technique, “That is not part of our policy, that is not what we teach and that should not be condoned.”

It seems likely it was Arradondo who fed this same line to Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the public just two days after Floyds death, That particular technique that was used was not authorized by the MPD. It is not something that officers are trained in on. And should not be used period.”

Wahl was having none of it. [Blackwell’s] answer reasonably invites viewers, jurors, and now the public to conclude that the depicted technique was never trained by MPD.” He added, That impression is undermined by evidence in the record showing that MPD training materials from 2018-2019 -- the period of Blackwells tenure -- included images of officers applying knees to the neck or upper back.”

Influencing the judge’s opinion was the fact that 33 former MPD officers who served with Blackwell swore under oath that the restraint used by Chauvin on Floyd was part of department training. Fourteen of those officers accused Blackwell of perjury.

Last month, Wahl dismissed Blackwells lawsuit and ordered her to pay the defendants $75,000 in attorney fees. This past week, Blackwell accepted the dismissal of her defamation suit and agreed to pay the $75,000. This story has not gotten nearly the attention it deserves.

Ironically, Gov. Tim Walz was responsible for exposing these lies. He signed the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act in 2024, a law meant to limit frivolous lawsuits that seek to undermine the public discourse.” This was the first case adjudicated under that law.

Thanks to the law, Walz has very good reason to believe his two top police officials lied under oath to convict Chauvin. Those lies would have been mitigated had the jury been allowed to see the relevant images from the MPD training materials. Unfortunately, Judge Peter Cahill excluded all exculpatory images saying, improbably, there was no evidence Chauvin was trained in the technique.

This is not all Walz knows or should know. The documents filed by former Hennepin County prosecutor Amy Sweasy in a sexual harassment suit dating from August 2021 and a November 2020 exhibit that surfaced in the case of Chauvin partner Tuo Thao offer conclusive evidence that the final autopsy report issued by Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker was totally compromised.

A frightened Baker knew from day one that the autopsy results were exculpatory.  As Sweasy testified, “He told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyds neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.”

“Amy,” he asked, “what happens when the actual evidence doesnt match up with the public narrative that everyones already decided on?” Added Baker, “This is the kind of case that ends careers.’”

Baker saved his career by yielding to threats made by then D.C. Medical Examiner Dr. Roger Mitchell. As Mitchell freely boasted to state attorneys, he coerced Baker into changing the autopsy report. As the state’s memo acknowledges, “Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis.”

To essure he got his way, Mitchell called Baker telling him he was about to send an op-ed to the Washington Post critical of Bakers findings. Said the memo, Mitchell said, you dont want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didnt see what they saw. You dont want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong.” In his final report, Baker surrendered to the pressure and added “neck compression.” There could have been no murder charge without it.

Finally, Cahill denied Chauvin a change of venue and refused to sequester the jury. He should have done both. There was extreme premium pressure, yes. The city was burning down,” Sweasys former colleague Patrick Lofton said in his deposition. He and Sweasy withdrew from the cases against Chauvins colleagues, Thomas Lane, Alex Kueng, and Tuo Thao just a week after Floyds death. They did not believe the three officers should be criminally charged.

I can tell you that everyone that I associate with to any degree, professionally or personally, agreed with our decision,” Lofton testified. He described the pressure on the prosecutors as insane.” Said Senior Assistant County Attorney Judith Cole in her deposition in the Sweasy suit, We had a governor who kind of threw us under the bus.” 

Now that governor is trying to throw Trump under the bus. Walz isn’t feeding the rumor mill to prepare for a pardon he would give. No, he is feeding the rumor mill to bait President Trump into offering Chauvin a federal pardon, a pardon that would spark the inevitable riots and further endanger Derek Chauvin and his colleagues.

If Donald Trump exercises his constitutional right to do so, whether I agree -- and I strongly disagree with him -- if he issues that pardon, we will simply transfer Derek Chauvin to serve out his 22 and a half years in prison in Minnesota,” boasted Walz. Knowing what he knows and acting as cravenly as he does, Walz just pretends to be a man. He apparently never learned the rules.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


President Trump Debriefs on His Middle East Trip, Outlining Results


President Donald Trump sits down with Brett Baier to discuss the results of his trip to the middle east.  President Trump discusses investments in America, trade negotiations, the ongoing discussions with Iran and plans to solve the conflict between Hamas and Israel in Gaza.

President Trump outlines Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “angry man,” albeit rightly angered by the attack on Israel on October 7th. President Trump’s remarks about Iran come as the Iranian regime is beginning to indicate a willingness to concede to Trump’s requirements.  It’s all about the economics of the thing, the Trump Doctrine.  WATCH:



THE TRUMP DOCTRINE – What you will notice from President Trump’s responses to questions during foreign leader engagements is the unique nature of his honesty.   In the most consequential of ways, President Trump is the most consequential foreign policy leader in generations.   We forget that during Trump’s first term in office, the headlines about North and South Korea were not about conflict, but rather about the possibility of unification on the Korean peninsula.

♦President Trump’s foreign policy approach brought North and South Korea together away from the table of conflict.  ♦President Trump’s foreign policy approach brought Serbia and Kosovo together away from the table of conflict.  ♦President Trump’s foreign policy rallied the Gulf Cooperation Council to stop Qatar’s support for Islamic extremists via the Muslim Brotherhood. ♦President Trump’s foreign policy brought Turkey and the Kurdish forces together away from war and conflict.  ♦President Trump’s foreign policy created a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed in Syria.  President Trump mediated a cessation of hostilities between India & Pakistan in the Kashmir region. ♦President Trump’s foreign policy brought Israel and the UAE together… and then Bahrain… and then Sudan in the Abraham Accords.

President Trump executes a unique doctrine of sorts, where national security is achieved by leveraging U.S. economic power. It is a fundamental shift in approaching both allies and adversaries; summarized within the oft repeated phrase: “economic security is national security.”

The Trump Doctrine using economics to achieve national security objectives and global peace is a fundamental paradigm shift.  Modern U.S. history provides no easy reference for the effective outcome.

President Trump doesn’t just represent an office or title, nor does he simply represent the majority of the American people; President Trump’s voice is the voice of every ordinary person, what the non-English speaking world defines as “simple people,” and he channels a global message from the majority to the top of the highest power structures.

The nature of the Trump foreign policy doctrine, is to hold manipulative influence agents accountable for regional impact(s); and simultaneously work to stop any corrupted influence from oppressing free expression of national values held by the subservient, dis-empowered, people within the nation being influenced.

The need for control is a reaction to fear.  President Trump is fearless because he doesn’t seek control, he seeks optimal solutions.  There are increasing examples of his doctrine at work.

When President Trump first visited the Middle East, he confronted the international audience with a message about dealing with extremist influence agents. President Trump simply said: “drive them out.”

Toward that end, as Qatar was identified as a financier of extremist ideology, President Trump placed the goal of confrontation upon the Gulf Cooperation Council, not the U.S.

The U.S. role was clearly outlined as supporting the confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates needed to confront the toxic regional influence; the U.S. would support their objective. That’s what happened.

Another example: To confront the extremism creating the turmoil in Afghanistan, President Trump placed the burden of bringing the Taliban to the table of governance upon primary influence agent Pakistan.

Here again, with U.S. support. Pakistan was the leading influence agent over the Taliban in Afghanistan; the Trump administration correctly established the responsibility and gave clear expectations for U.S. support.

If Pakistan doesn’t change their influence objective toward a more constructive alignment with a nationally representative Afghanistan government, it was Pakistan who will be held accountable.  Again, the correct and effective appropriation of responsibility upon the influence agent who can initiate the solution, Pakistan.

The process of accurate regional assignment of influence comes with disconcerting sunlight. Often these influences are not discussed openly. However, for President Trump the lack of honesty is only a crutch to continue enabling poor actors. This is a consistent theme throughout all of President Trump’s foreign policy engagements.

Recently President Trump remarked the G7 is only a group of Seven because the Obama-led group took out Russia.  How did that benefit the larger goals, it didn’t.  President Trump wants to bring Russia back into the group and make it the G8 again.

Perhaps the most obvious historic application of the Trump Doctrine was found in how the Trump administration previously approached the challenging behavior of North Korea.

Rather than continuing a decades-long policy of ignoring the influence of China, President Trump directly assigned primary responsibility for a DPRK reset to Beijing.

China held, and holds, all influence upon North Korea and has long treated the DPRK as a proxy province to do the bidding of Beijing’s communist old guard.

By directly confronting the influence agent and admitting openly for the world to see (albeit with jaw-dropping tactical sanction diplomacy) President Trump positioned the U.S. to support a peace objective on the entire Korean peninsula and simultaneously forced China to openly display their closely guarded influence.

While the Red Dragon -vs- Panda influence dynamic was quietly playing out in the background, the benefit of this new and strategic approach brought the possibility of peace between the two Koreas’ closer than ever in history.

No longer was it outlandish to think of North Korea joining with the rest of the world in achieving a better quality of life for its people.

Not only was President Trump openly sharing a willingness to engage in a new and dynamic future for North Korea, but his approach is removing the toxic influences that have held down the possibility for generations.

By leveraging China (through economics) to stop manipulating North Korea, President Trump was opening a door of possibilities for the North Korean people. This is what I meant when I said Trump was providing North Korea with an opportunity to create an authentic version of itself.

What ultimately came from the opportunity President Trump constructed was lost in the 2020 U.S. election outcome.  However, the opportunity itself was stunning progress creating a reasonable pathway to prosperity for the North Korean people.

Chairman Kim Jong-un had the opportunity to be the most trans-formative leader within Asia in generations; but it was always only an ‘opportunity’ that could exist if President Trump remained in place to provide it.

Whether Kim Jong-un could embrace openness, free markets and prosperity was never seen. But we saw the opportunity that was nonexistent without Trump’s guiding hand to create it.

♦The commonality in those foreign policy engagements was the strategic placement of responsibility upon the primary influence agent; and a clear understanding upon those nation(s) of influence, that all forward efforts must ultimately provide positive results for people impacted who lack the ability to create positive influence themselves.

One of the reasons President Trump was able to take this approach was specifically because he was beholden to no outside influence himself.

It is only from the position of complete independence that accurate assignments based on the underlying truth can be made; and that took us to the ultimate confrontations – the trillion-dollar confrontations.

A U.S. foreign policy that provides the opportunity for fully realized national authenticity is a paradigm shift amid a world that had grown accustomed to corrupt globalists, bankers and financial elites who have established a business model by dictating terms to national leaders they control and influence.  In Europe they are currently apoplectic at the thought of the unwashed masses becoming ungovernable.

We had/have our own frame of reference with K-Street lobbyists in Washington DC. Much of President Trump’s global trade reset is based on confronting these multinational influence agents.  The Wall Street crowd hate him for it.

When you take the influence of corporate/financial brokers out of foreign policy, all of a sudden, those global influence peddlers are worthless. Absent of their ability to provide any benefit, nations no longer purchase these brokered services.

As soon as influence brokers like the World Economic Forum are dispatched, national politicians become more accountable to the voices of their citizens. When representing the voices of citizens becomes the primary political driver of national policy, the authentic image of the nation is allowed to surface.

In western, or what we would call ‘more democratized systems of government‘, the consequence of removing multinational corporate and financial influence peddlers presents two options for the governing authority occupying political office:

♦ One option is to refuse to allow the authentic voice of a nationalist citizenry to rise. Essentially to commit to a retention of the status quo; an elitist view; a globalist perspective. This requires shifting to a more openly authoritarian system of government within both the economic and social spheres. Those who control the reins of power refuse to acquiesce to a changed landscape.  This is what Europe is currently doing.

♦The second option is to allow the authentic and organic rise of nationalism. To accept the voices of the middle-class majority; to structure the economic and social landscape in a manner that allows the underlying identity to surface naturally.  This is what El Salvador and Argentina are doing.

Fortunately, we are living in a time of great history.  National elections like Romania, Georgia, Italy, France and Germany are highlighting responses to dysfunctional multiculturalism and financial influences from corrupt elites within the institutions of globalist advocacy: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In the U.K. the voices of the British people voted to Brexit from the European Union, as noted by JD Vance during his speech at the Munich Security Conference.  However, we see the British government turning more authoritarian and distancing itself from the voices of the majority who chose to rebuke the collective association of the EU.  The U.K. government ultimately takes a harsher approach toward suppressing opposition, and as a consequence oppressing free speech and civil liberties. [Insert the example of Tommy Robinson here – there are many others.]

This does not come as a surprise to those who follow the arc of history when the collective global elite are challenged or rejected. Globalism can only thrive amid a class structure where the elites, though few in number, have more controlling power over the direction of government.

It is not accidental the EU has appointed officials and unelected bureaucrats in Brussels as the primary decision-making authority.  By its very nature the EU collective requires a central planning authority who can act independent of the underlying national voices.

As the Trump Doctrine clashes with European global elite, the withdrawal of the U.S. financial underwriting creates a natural problem.

Trump plays the economic card because in fact, subsidies are needed to retain domineering government. If the national citizenry has to pay directly for the indulgent decisions of the influence class, a crisis is only a matter of time.  This is the “fear” component within the need for control by the European elite.

Wealth distribution requires a host.

Since the end of World War II, the U.S. had been a bottomless treasury for EU subsidy. The payments have been direct and indirect.

The indirect payments have included U.S. military bases providing security, the NATO alliance, and also U.S. trade policy permitting one-way tariff systems.

All forms of indirect subsidy are now being reversed as part of the modern Trump Doctrine.

Brussels, led by the EU’s largest economy, Germany, is having fits!