Monday, November 12, 2018

Trump: His Desire, Style, Strategy for Outcomes That Favor and Benefit Only Him

The flock will follow regardless of turmoil

In the limelight with more false voter fraud accusations

Only Trump matters – no one else, and all the time at home or abroad.

Everyone must be 100% loyal to him in every conceivable way or get insulted, bashed, and if working for him, get fired or forced out.

He brags on himself and accomplishments to the umpteenth degree and always with extreme exaggerations and false statements passing as his version of the truth – yet he insists that he, not the facts or truth, matter – examples:

 His #1 Bragging Topic is the economy: Yes, it is healthy, but it's not “unbelievable or unprecedented,” or as he claims “the nation's greatest economic success ever.”

  The Facts: The economy expanded at a 4.2% annual rate in the April-June quarter, and then by 3.5% in the July-September quarter. Those are the best two quarters in just four years.

But, growth reached 5.1% in the second quarter of 2014, followed by 4.9% in the third quarter of that same year (under Obama – Trump’s arc-rival). And, the economy has boomed much more dramatically in the past.

In the late 1990s, growth topped 4% four straight years, after it had reached 7.2% in 1984 (under Reagan).

That unemployment rate is now at an impressive 50-year low of 3.7%.
But historically, it remained below 4% for nearly four years in the late 1960s (during the VN war years and “great society” under LBJ).

So, did the Trump-GOP 2017 tax cut drive the economy the way he says it did? Facts about tax cuts in general and the 2017 cut in particular:

1. First of all, and yes, we all love tax cuts. Politicians will argue that they will improve the economy by boosting spending. Those who oppose say tax cuts only helps only the rich (as see most of the time).

They also say tax cuts hurts by reducing government services which lower income people rely on (e.g., food, gas, healthcare, affordable housing, education, job training, etc.).

2.  High tax rates usually discourage work, savings, investing, and innovation. Specific tax preferences can affect the allocation of economic resources, too (food, gas, healthcare, consumer goods, etc.). 

Tax cuts can also slow long-run economic growth by increasing deficits – which is exactly what we now see since that 2017 cut.

3. Basic economics rule 101: When the economy is weak, the Federal Reserve tries to boost consumer and business demand by cutting interest rates or purchasing financial securities. Congress for its part can help boost demand by increasing spending and cutting taxes. 

Tax cuts increase household consumer demand by increasing workers' take-home pay.

4. The Trump-GOP tax cut (2017) was sold as “a pig in a poke” as they say and now it will hit home – and hit hard, e.g., the Senate's Official Scorekeeper says the tax cut would add $1 Trillion to the deficit. The Senate’s non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation says the $1.5 trillion tax cut will not pay for itself.

And now, Trump wants to push through a big 2nd tax cut – consider this from a Washington Post analysis: The so-called “tax reform 2.0” would make permanent many of the individual and estate tax provisions in the 2017 tax law – and which the CBO said would already add about $1.9 trillion to the deficit, factoring for interest costs.

A second round would cost $631 billion before 2028 and an additional $3.15 trillion in the decade after that (again to the Tax Policy Center).
And, once again his flat-out lies about voter fraud because he didn’t get the results he wanted (or needed) – target the FL recount:

Trump cannot help himself but lie incessantly – from the article:

Trump on Monday suggested that the ongoing recounts in Florida should be halted and the razor-thin races called for Republican candidates while floating baseless claims of voter fraud – in a tweet (as usual):

The Florida Election should be called in favor of Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis in that large numbers of new ballots showed up out of nowhere, and many ballots are missing or forged,” the president tweeted. “An honest vote count is no longer possible — ballots massively infected. Must go with Election Night!”

Trump did not officer evidence of the alleged massive ballot infection.

My 2 Cents: Not much else to add – we pretty much know the man and his methods (lie and con 24/7) – end of this saga cannot come soon enough.

Thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

Trump Lining Up Protection: Always Him First Everything Else Last — Will He Succeed

Showdown brewing: Interim AG Whitaker vs. Mueller
(Whitaker has shown prejudice against Mueller) 

 Trump Criminal Troika (story): Trump, Cohen, Weisselberg

Trump made his move against the Russia investigation to shut down Mueller’s probe

My introduction note: That Mueller probe by all accounts has been very successful and is nearing completion since he held off until after the election in a very smart decision. 

The source is this fine article at the Daily Beast – edited below to fit the blog:

By forcing AG Jeff Sessions to resign and then going around the established line of succession at the DOJ to appoint a rabid partisan Trump loyalist, Matt Whitaker as the Acting AG, the one who will now oversee Mueller, Trump clearly has signaled his intent to end Mueller one way or another. 

Possible scenario follows since there is no mystery as to why Sessions was removed: He recused himself and Trump has been crystal clear about that and that he wants in an AG who is someone who will protect him. Sessions’ recusal took that away from Trump and he has been livid since. Now he gets his way – maybe?

Picking Whitaker first off is quite possibly illegal. So why put at risk the authority of your Acting AG?


He wrote an op-ed a year ago outlining a strategy to kill the Mueller investigation by strangling it bureaucratically by seeing the Mueller budget cut – ergo starving it of funds.

Also, the AG can stop Mueller from issuing any more indictments and try to quash the release of any reports from the investigation to Congress.

For example, on CNN last year, Whitaker previewed that saying: “I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced. It would be a recess appointment, and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt.” 

Now Trump is running that exact chapter.

Consider Nixon’s Watergate actions and see how that fits Trump today: Nixon initiated the so-called “Saturday night massacre”— that is he removed the AG, then Dep. AG, then the Special Counsel investigating Watergate.

— Robert Bork suddenly became acting AG he immediately gave the new Special Prosecutor full authority over the investigation. So, if the “Bork standard” was good enough for Nixon then, it should be good enough for Trump now, right? DEMS actions needed:

They should send a message to career officials making it clear that anyone that participates in this effort to obstruct justice will be held to account – whether it’s the President, Acting AG, or any other DOJ officials. 

Note: As an employee of the executive branch, Mueller simply may not have many great options in this showdown with Trump – the Chief Executive as it were.

Stopping Mueller would not stop the investigation – here’s why:

For weeks Washington has been a buzz about coming activity from the investigation.

Mueller’s grand jury is clearly busy and an indictment of Roger Stone appears imminent, as Stone himself expects to be indicted.

However, should no indictments come, should the Mueller investigation, which was quiet before the election, stay quiet, then it is likely that the investigation is being strangled to death. 

Mueller’s record to date here, here, and here.

So, who is next line that is close to Trump who may be indicted (even he says so himself) is: Roger Stone. See below – FYI:


If Whitaker refuses to meet the “Bork standard and give Mueller full independence,” the new Democrat-run House needs to act fast from day one in January. Steps needed:

The House Judiciary Committee will need to immediately investigate to determine whether the investigation is being killed (or has been) from within.

They should bring before Congress: Matthew Whitaker, Jeff Sessions, Dep. AG Rod Rosenstein, possibly Robert Mueller himself, and any other officials from the DOJ and find out whether the investigation is or was obstructed.

Finally, there will be a debate if this is politically the best course, as this might be seen as distracting from a more, preferred messaging. But this goes beyond politics.

If Trump is able to get away with killing an investigation into him, in effect showing that the rules don’t apply, that he is above the law, he will feel emboldened to get away with so much more.

This is how democracies often die. An elected leader uses their position to eliminate the checks on their power, and when they’re not stopped they eliminate additional checks. 

This can happen here, just as it is happening elsewhere. Fortunately, a buffer now exists in the form of a Democratic Congress. But they have to be ready to act.

Full details at the Daily Beast link – enjoy, and thanks for stopping by.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY FELLOW MARINES WORLDWIDE SEMPER FI



A step back in history the birth of the Corps right until today.


Friday, November 9, 2018

Trump or Nixon: Cons, Crooks, Liars — Same Cloth, Same Cut, Same Outcome

History may indeed be repeating itself

Opinion piece on Jeff Sessions follows below highlighted in part from the Atlantic (via MSN):

Introduction: As AG, Sessions rolled back civil-rights enforcement, failing to file even a single voting-rights case in a country where the Republican Party has settled on disenfranchisement of rival constituencies as a tactic for winning elections.

He failed in his duty to prevent the president from attempting to influence the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and then aided the president in presenting a patently false justification for firing former FBI Director James Comey over that investigation.

In virtually every consequential way, Sessions should go down in history as one of the worst attorney generals ever to hold the office.

Related and germane to this issue: Trump forced out Sessions just one day after the midterm elections and after nearly a year of berating him for recusing himself from the DOJ/Mueller Russian “collusion” investigation. 

Now Sessions’ temporary replacement is Matthew Whitaker, his chief of staff — and thus also effectively Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s new boss. Whitaker has expressed repeated skepticism over the scope of Mueller’s inquiry in the past, raising immediate questions about whether he will try to limit it.

(My note: Experts all across the legal spectrum say Whitaker is unfit to be AG, let alone in a position to shut down such an important and critical investigation by some accounts is nearing completion).


Original post continues on the Sessions firing and Trump’s next move(s):

Trump was enraged (Note: He still is BTW) about Sessions recusal meant since it meant he could not control the investigation himself. He will not make that mistake with his next choice of attorney general.
Trump’s losses in the midterms will not make him more cautious; they will only make him more dangerous. 

Trump’s only true ideological commitment is to his racially exclusive vision of American citizenship.

His authoritarianism is more instinctive than ideological, closely tied to his desire to enrich himself and his allies without facing legal consequences. If the only way the president can save his own skin or that of others implicated in his corruption is to violate the rule of law, then he has no compunctions about doing so.

With Democrats in charge of the House, the president is no doubt confident that he can blatantly break the law and still convince his supporters, sealed in an impenetrable bubble of pro-Trump propaganda, that he did no such thing. 

Protecting the rule of law will fall to a Republican majority in the Senate whose willingness to do so is deeply in question.

Indeed, the president said as much during his rambling press conference post-election morning, warning that if House Democrats looked into this campaign or his finances, he would retaliate, saying: “They can look at us, we can look at them, and it will go back and forth, and it will probably be very good for me politically. I can see it being extremely good politically, because I think I am better at that game than they are, actually.”

(My note: So, once again as always, it’s Trump first, and county, what, last?)

The racial element of Trumpism is an essential one, but so is this: Trump believes that he and his friends and allies are above the law. There is no act they could commit that would warrant prosecution or sanction.

At the same time, there is no act committed by his critics or rivals that could not be subject to prosecution, should he so choose. It is not simply that the president does not believe in the rule of law. It is that he believes the law is a shield that protects him, and a sword that can be used to impale his enemies.

Nothing has made this clearer than his constant demands for prosecution of his critics, and his decision to issue federal pardons to men like Dinesh D’Souza and Joe Arpaio, whose violations of the law he regards as trivial because they are pro-Trump sycophants.

This is not how things are supposed to work in a democracy, and certainly not in the United States. But with Sessions gone, Trump will be looking for a replacement who sees the law the way he does: as a set of rules that applies to his enemies but not to himself or the charmed circle that surrounds him. The danger to American democracy did not subside with House Republicans’ defeat in the midterms. It has only grown.

End of the Atlantic article

My 2 cents: Not much more I can add to this except to say, I believe, that S/C Mueller has the “goods” on Trump Empire, Inc. and in understatement line: “Trump’s going down hard.”


Memo to Mr. Trump: In most people’s view that is blatant obstruction of justice and Mr. Trump: “No one is above the law” no one, Capiche?

Absolutely stay tuned as I’m sure you will, and thanks for stopping by.



Wednesday, November 7, 2018

"Super PAC Money Sources:" Unregulated Undisclosed Will be Our Downfall Quickly

Source logo of story linked below

Here, go git 'em kiddo - need more, give us a call
(Super PACs R Us, Inc.)

A serious report worth reading. 
Highlight: A sum of $5,190,063,790 (yeah, that's right in billions for both the House and Senate and key Governor races). B/L: “Unlimited and most donors can remain anonymous.”
Examples are in the report – the headline:
Background – two key USSC rulings:
Citizens United v. the FEC (5-4) (January 21, 2010): “Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.”

“This ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path the Court has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”  — Justice John Paul Stevens (Dissent in Citizens United)

McCutcheon v. the FEC (5-4) (April 2, 2014): “The Supreme Court issued a ruling that struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined.”
As polls showed after the 2012 election cycle, there was an unprecedented torrent of negative TV attack Ads that took their toll on almost every presidential and congressional candidate.  A lot of Americans have spoken out about that dreadful Citizens United ruling and the McCutcheon ruling that followed and for good reason – some of that damage: 
·  It swept aside decades of bipartisan regulation of campaign finance and “went back to the future” as it were.
·  Some 23 billionaires contributed a minimum of $250,000 each so far in the upcoming cycle. (Much more was forthcoming).
·  That number is really much greater because many of these contributions are made in secret.
·  That small handful of powerfully rich Americans are just not content to own our economy, that 1 percent wants to own all of government.
·  That small handful already own a significant part of the wealth of America and have enormous control over the entire economy.
·  The wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans — half the country.
My 2 cents: What we seem to see now more so than ever is either premier democracy in action, or the demise of “We the People” – take your pick. 
As noted this massive uncontrolled amounts of money is thanks to USSC rulings ... a sad day in America for sure. Ideas be damned – who has the fattest bank account and who can fork over the most for narrow (and in most cases, shellfish motives) policies for their pick to write laws that favor them – but not quid pro quo, right, Mr. and Mrs. America – just good old-fashioned politics and favoritism, um?
One word sums it up: Pathetic or pitiful – maybe both. 
Thanks for stopping by.

Sunday, November 4, 2018

Democratic Threat: "Legislators Choosing Voters, Not Voters Choosing Legislators"

Solution: Independent computerized systems to draw the boundaries — not the politicians

Expressed better than anyone in simple lingo and always with a touch of humor and common sense. 

But NoteThis is an HBO presentation and it has some “salty language” that may offend some, so be forewarned:

John Oliver: Last Week Tonight

My 2 cents: I hope you enjoyed the video.

The B/L in my view that is based on historical results and patterns, and not my own personal political view is simple: The current system has to go if we truly want the country we say we do.  

So, we must demand change – the kind of change that is fair and honest because right now it is not.

Thanks for stopping by.



Friday, November 2, 2018

GOP's Classic Political Tactics to Win at Any Cost: Cheat, Lie, Steal, Bogus Schemes

GOP’s most-recent party theme poster

Two new dirty tricksters out to smear Robert Mueller

Boy is that bogus Robert Mueller sex scheme that broker recent falling apart piece-by-piece – update here on the two maggots pictured above who tried to pull a fast one. This stunt reported on here from NBC News with the following headline: 

One savvy reporter asked the two jerks (Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman): “Are you both prepared for federal prison?” – Those two men are the main actors in this bogus sex assault allegation scheme against Mueller while offering no evidence and no witness.

BTW: Both men are also GOP-connected operatives in various ways.

My 2 cents: This stunt reminds me of past GOP-connected “dirty tricksters” like: Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Roger Stone, George Hearing, Robert Benz, and a lot of others over the past 40-50 years and now worse it seems – they are more savvy and hi-tech, e.g., false information via Robocalls and massive disinformation over social networks (e.g., Facebook and Twitter to name the big ones).

Now the two above are trying to discredit Robert Mueller – thereby discrediting his forthcoming Trump-Russia report, and all on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

Stay tuned … this ugliness will get worse.

Thanks for stopping by.


Sunday, October 28, 2018

Brazil & Chinese Banks: Thanks Mr. Trump for the JBS & WH Group Pork Bailouts

Trump Proudest Moment: Tariff Proclamation Signed
(Harmful to Cheaters Like China)

Tariff Bailout Table this Way, Jinping
(Next bailout stop: Brazil)

The Trump Art of the Con smack dab in our face:

Chinese-owned AND a Brazilian-owned pork producers are eligible for Federal payments under Trump’s $12 billion farm bailout, a program that was established to help U.S. farmers hurt by Trump’s trade war with China.

The Chinese company “Smithfield Foods,” a VA-based pork producer acquired in 2013 by a Chinese conglomerate now named “WH Group,” and “JBS” a subsidiary of a Brazilian company by the same name, are both eligible to apply for the Federal money (according to the bailout program created this summer says Agriculture Department spokesman Carl Purvis).

(Note: Combined the two companies are the biggest pork producers in the U.S. that according to the National Pork Board, a quasi-government agency).

Further, the Trump administration has hailed the plan as an effort to shield farmers from retaliatory tariffs from China (Note: That they themselves caused).

However, the possibility of U.S. tax dollars flowing to foreign-owned firms underscores the difficulty of trying to craft government programs that benefit only domestic firms, which Trump said and promised, “Believe me!”

The international reach of such companies makes it hard to ensure that federal dollars stay in U.S. hands, regardless of their intended target.

The bailout program has also angered smaller hog producers, who expressed frustration that it appears likely to help large, international farms that already dominate the U.S. pork market. 

(But, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and his son, who own a big soybean farm, can also benefit, plus now Grassley does not approve of the Chinese pork bailout. Irony? 100%...).

Also, noteworthy regarding both of these companies:

“WH Group, Smithfield’s owner,” said in its 2017 annual financial statement that its American operations account for about 60 percent of its overall revenue, as well as close to half of its profits.

Lawmakers have probed ties between the “WH Group and the Chinese government. The previously named “Shuanghui,” received a $4B from a Chines state-run bank to buy Smithfield in 2013 – a move aligns with Chinese objectives (according to the Center for Investigative Reporting).

“The WH Group” did not respond to a request for comment about its relationship with the Chinese government and neither did a “JBS spokesman” when multiple requests for comment were asked from them.

My 2 cents: Folks, we have been conned by the greatest business mind ever; no not Bernie Madoff (he’s in prison) – I mean by Donald J. Trump.

His “MAGA” slogan is as pathetic as he is. 

How about:KBCG (Keep Brazil and China Great) – okay, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer?

Tell your Rep. and Senator to reverse this Trump-run policy con –ASAP would be just fine.


Thanks for stopping by.


Friday, October 26, 2018

Trump Wants to End INF Nuclear Arms Treaty: One of of INF Signers Speaks Out

INF Signers: Mikhail Gorbachev, former USSR president 
and former president Ronald Reagan (in 1987)


Synopsis of the letter in the NY TIMES from Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

(Related article of meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan prior to the signing).

From Gorbachev in part: “There are still too many nuclear weapons in the world, but the American and Russian arsenals are now a fraction of what they were during the Cold War. At the Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference in 2015, Russia and the United States reported to the international community that 85 percent of those arsenals had been decommissioned and, for the most part, destroyed.”

“Today, this tremendous accomplishment, of which our two nations can be rightfully proud, is in jeopardy. President Trump announced last week the United States’ plan to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and his country’s intention to build up nuclear arms.”

“I am being asked whether I feel bitter watching the demise of what I worked so hard to achieve. But this is not a personal matter. Much more is at stake.”

“A new arms race has been announced. The INF Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs. In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty; this year, from the Iran nuclear deal. Military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising.”

“As a pretext for the withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions.”

“Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related from NATO:

BRUSSELS (CBS News) – NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he does not expect a nuclear buildup in Europe as tensions rise over U.S. threats to pull out of a Cold War-era missile agreement, and backed allegations that Russia is violating the pact.

The United States insists that Russia's 9M729 missile system contravenes the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), and NATO allies agree that is probably the case.

Stoltenberg told Financial Times reporters: “The treaty is not working if it's only being respected by one side. The problem, the threat, the challenge is the Russian behavior, which has been ongoing for a long time.”

Despite concerns about the Russian missile capabilities, Stoltenberg said he does not “foresee that allies will deploy more nuclear weapons in Europe as a response to the new Russian missile,” but he added that the 29 member countries of the world's biggest military alliance are now assessing “the implications of the new Russian missile for our security,” then he added: “We don't want a new Cold War. We don't want a new arms race.”  

Tensions between NATO allies and Russia soared in the 1980s during the so-called “Euro-missiles crisis” when the United States deployed cruise missiles in Europe to counterbalance a perceived threat from Russia's SS-20 nuclear warheads.

The EU has urged both the United States and Russia to uphold the INF treaty, saying the pact is one of the cornerstones of European security. But Stoltenberg stopped short of calling on Washington, the biggest and most influential NATO member, to stay in the treaty concluding: “The INF is a landmark treaty but the problem is that no treaty can be effective, can work, if it's only respected by one part. U.S. is in full compliance, and the most plausible explanation is that Russia is in violation of the treaty.”

My 2 cents: In my view as with many others, Trump is potentially making huge and very dangerous decision about withdrawing from this treaty.

He has already proven to be irrational in pulling out of other treaties and agreements at the same time insulting, bashing, and ignoring our allies, friends, and partners.

Time will prove Trump, not others who is the threat to international peace and stability.

Thanks for stopping by.



Monday, October 22, 2018

Trump to End INF: To Build More Nuke Missile Systems to "Keep Us Safe" He Says

Whatever you want or need, Vlad, just ask: 
I'm with you all the way

View of Trump-world: The more nukes the merrier for Trump 
and his BFF (Vlad Putin)


Second update this continuing story that follows:

The Kremlin from Reuters (via MSN) said Russia would be forced to respond in kind if the United States began developing new missiles after quitting a landmark Cold War-era treaty.

Trump said Washington would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the INF) because Russia was violating the pact, triggering a warning of retaliatory measures from Moscow. That treaty, was signed by then-President Reagan and former USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. 

It required the elimination of short-range and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles by both countries. Its demise would raise the possibility of a spiraling arms race.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Monday that the U.S. move would make the world a more dangerous place and said Russia would be forced to act to restore the balance of military power if Washington quit the pact and started developing new missiles.

Peskov also said:This is a question of strategic security. Such measures can make the world more dangerous. It means that the United States is not disguising, but is openly starting to develop these systems in the future, and if these systems are being developed, then actions are necessary from other countries, in this case Russia, to restore balance in this sphere. Putin had repeatedly said that the demise of the treaty would force Russia to take specific steps to protect its own security.”

Peskov added that Trump's decision to quit the pact would obviously be a subject for discussion and that Moscow was looking for a detailed explanation for why Washington had decided to turn its back on the treaty.

Peskov further denied U.S. accusations that Russia had breached the treaty and he alleged that the United States had been steadily undermining it concluding saying: “Putin has said many times said the United States de facto is taking measures that are eroding the conditions of this treaty.” (e.g., referring to strike drones and anti-missile systems capable of destroying short- and intermediate-range rockets). 

He noted that there is a six-month period for the United States to withdraw from the treaty after Washington gave official notification it was leaving noted but it had not so yet done. He implied that meant the question of Russia developing its own new intermediate-range missiles that Washington already accuses it of doing “was not for today or tomorrow.” 

He then said that President Putin had repeatedly said that the demise of the treaty would force Russia to take specific steps to protect its own security.


My final 2 cents: NSC Adviser John Bolton is scheduled to hold talks with senior officials in Moscow and then meet with Putin.

So, I wonder if Bolton – who loves war and hates nuclear treaties – will tell Putin officially to his face “We are pulling out of the INF and you will be to blame for what follows.”

Which is how Trump deals: He causes a mess or scandal and blames everyone around him just not himself for the mess of his decision.

First update on the original story that follows: It seems that some GOP members of Congress are finally waking up to Trump’s crazy-ass decisions regarding nuclear weapons.
This update with this headline comes from The Washington Post (via MSN):
GOP lawmakers criticize Trump’s decision to withdraw from nuclear arms treaty (the INF)

Key part of article from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) – soon retiring from the Senate who says:I hope we’re not moving down the path to undo much of the nuclear arms control treaties that we have put in place.”
Corker also noted that “he heard that Trump wanted to pull out of not only the INF, but also from the “New START,” adding:I think that would be a huge mistake.”
My 2 cents on this update: A key fact remains about this and all other treaties that Trump happens to like or dislike: The Senate as know ratifies all formal treaties but presidents can break them or pull out of them without any Congressional approval or disapproval – a crappy deal for sure and shows the need for any president to be both logical and rational – two traits that Donald J. Trump is surely missing.

This is a very bad move on Trump’s part but it does play well in Moscow with Putin as part of his grand new world-wide scheme – believe it.

Stay tuned … it’s apt to get very ugly very soon.

Thanks for stopping by.
 ==================================================
Original post starts from here and comes from this story (at TPM) and from the Guardian

I conclude without any doubt whatsoever that Trump is 100% in Putin’s pocket.

This action by him also beyond any doubt show that Trump does not seem to know or care that this “deal breaking” is a Putin a long sought-after strategy that will enable him to once again crank up his nuclear forces full force, and Trump gives him a “legal” way out by playing right into his hands.

This is very serious development folks, and on many levels.

Key points and Trump’s weak excuse from the Guardian and I felt that John Bolton, who hates nuclear deals, was behind this decision:

1.  Trump has confirmed the U.S. will leave an arms control treaty with Russia dating from the cold war that has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for three decades.

2.  Trump told reporters following his recent Nevada rally: We’ll have to develop those weapons. We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.” (Thus build more nukes not work to have less?)

Trump was referring to the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), which banned ground-launch nuclear missiles with ranges from 500km to 5,500km, which was signed by former president Ronald Reagan and for Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev.

That led to nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated, and an end to a dangerous standoff between U.S. Pershing and cruise missiles and Soviet SS-20 missiles in Europe. (Now, under Trump it’s “Back to the Future?).

The Guardian also reported (as I suspected) that Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser and a longstanding opponent of arms control treaties, was pushing for this withdrawal. The U.S, says Russia has been violating the INF agreement with the development and deployment of a new cruise missile – well this makes it official – have at it Vlad – the door is now open, yours truly: Donald J. Trump. 

Then add this part from The AP via MSN here:

The agreement has constrained the U.S. from developing new weapons, but America will begin developing them unless Russia and China agree not to possess or develop the weapons, Trump said. 

Note to Mr. Trump: China is not currently party to the INF pact.

Trump added: “We'll have to develop those weapons, unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say let's really get smart and let's none of us develop those weapons, but if Russia's doing it and if China's doing it, and we're adhering to the agreement, that's unacceptable.”

NSC Adviser John Bolton was headed Saturday to Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. His first stop is Moscow to meet with senior Russian officials at a time when Moscow-Washington relations remain frosty over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria and allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential race and upcoming U.S. midterm elections.


There was no immediate comment from the Kremlin or the Russian Foreign Ministry on Trump's announcement, but Dmitry Oreshkin, an independent Russian political analyst says (and this is part that should wake up everyone to Trump’s mentality – he is causing all this that’s my point):

“We are slowly slipping back to the situation of cold war as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, with quite similar consequences, but now it could be worse because Putin belongs to a generation that had no war under its belt. These people aren't as much fearful of a war as people of Brezhnev's epoch. They think if they threaten the West properly, it gets scared.”

Under the terms of the treaty, it would take six months for US withdrawal to take effect. So, what will this Congress do? GOP: not much/DEMS: no can do.

My final 2 cents: Trump is a dangerous clown and Bolton who always advocates more, not less U.S. actions around the globe is totally insane. 

Anything that reduces nukes is a good deal – this reverses that premise and aids Putin. We should all be very concerned.

Wait and see – that is if anyone is left to wait and see?

Related directly to all this is from here – “New nuclear arms race brewing???”

Thanks for stopping by.