America has engineered Ukraine’s current existential reality to dislodge Vladimir Putin ~ilana

By America’s prescriptions, Russia should be a woke, minority white, multicultural sewer, awash with MeToo, BLM, and ANTIFA sensibilities ~ilana

Four minutes and 21 seconds into his YouTube interview with podcast-journalist Aaron Mate, John Mearsheimer, a political scientist, says this: “Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg [former Norwegian prime mMinister], made it clear that Ukraine would not be admitted into NATO until it had prevailed in the conflict [with Russia].”

The depravity of this reality notwithstanding, Mearsheimer addressed the purely pragmatic, utilitarian aspect of the geopolitical position into which Ukraine has been thrust. Ukraine cannot win the war with Russia. Therefore, deduces Mearsheimer, Ukraine will not be brought into the NATO alliance.

True. This much we all knew.

WIN OR DIE, DUMMIES

America has engineered Ukraine’s current existential reality by purging the pursuit of diplomacy and peace from its duties as the world Super Power. Mention of a negotiated truce between Ukraine and Russia is practically labeled treason by the command-and-control US media.

That the Ukraine-Russia “war is the health of the US State” was top-of-mind with one Dan Sullivan, Republican representative from Alaska, on August 3.

Following a recent NATO Summit, which determined that faithful stooge Ukraine would not be rewarded with NATO membership—Fox News, an establishment shill, entertained Sullivan for a comment.

With a demented grin you’d expect to see on a patient with end-stage syphilis (a career-destroying line I used on Genghis Bush in 2003)— Sullivan griped that Ukraine has not yet won. The question was not Ukraine’s admission into NATO, said this Republican reptile; the question was Ukraine vanquishing Russia.

“Win or die, dummies” is what Ukrainians are being instructed by the US UniParty, its NATO marionettes and their leader Zelensky, who is protected by the above forces.

The “win or die” policy imperialism, vis-à-vis Ukraine, was seconded, on August 7, by Joni Ernst, junior senator from Iowa. Ernst proves, in the end, that it is as Dr. Johnson said: “There is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.” Neoconservative or neoliberal; louse or flea, a pest is a pest is a pest.

SHOCK-‘N-AWE THE BOOBS

The words of this particular political pest were as follows, and I paraphrase their gist accurately with added cynical embellishment:

Once Republicans explain to Americans the nature of the mission to Iraq, oops, Ukraine—yes, where have we heard such Machiavellian GOP rhetoric before?—The People, being boobs, will somehow get behind the mission.

“Shock-‘n-awe of the old days,” beamed Joni. That will garner support for the war in Ukraine.

Oh, and, if the next cliche is new to you, dear reader: representative Ernst thinks that our “adversaries do not fear us” sufficiently.

No worries, Joni. America’s top pundits are with the pols. On August 5, also on Fox News, Victor Davis Hanson turned in his standard neoconservative performance. He critiqued Obama for the scant good 44 did: returning to Iran monies stolen by the American government and maintaining diplomacy with—rather than warring against—Russia.

Hanson has been avidly cheering for the Ukrainian project—and seems unable to quiet his vision for a more robust Manifest Destiny in American foreign-policy. His first instinct was to support the Ukrainian endeavor and he holds the most mundane neoconservative views on Russia. Being wrong and neocon earns America’s pundits plaudits for posterity.

This was just another tête-à-tête between a Fox News interchangeable anchor and the archetypal Republicans.

In any case, the depravity—the immorality—of Ukraine’s American-decreed destiny is that, the United States, via its NATO front, has used Ukraine, mercilessly dangling NATO membership before this poor people, to attempt to dislodge Vladimir Putin.

WARRING TO MAKE RUSSIA WOKE

Putin is a reactionary Russian patriot, natural ally of any sovereign, conservative nation-state. The American objective is to end Russian sovereignty and make it over in the woke image of America: a radical Jacobin stronghold. By America’s prescriptions, Russia should be a woke, minority white, multicultural sewer, awash with MeToo, BLM, and ANTIFA sensibilities.

As your columnist had remarked in commentary about “America’s radical, foreign-policy Alinskyites, in March, 2021, “Certain national-conservative governments in East Europe should be natural allies to conservative policy makers, stateside, if such unicorns existed. Vladimir Putin’s, for example. Before his death, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, one of Russia’s bravest and most brilliant sons, praised Putin’s efforts to revive Russia’s traditional Christian and moral heritage. For example:

“In October 2010, it was announced that The Gulag Archipelago would become required reading for all Russian high-school students. In a meeting with Solzhenitsyn’s widow, Mr. Putin described The Gulag Archipelago as ‘essential reading’: ‘Without the knowledge of that book, we would lack a full understanding of our country and it would be difficult for us to think about the future.’ … If [only] the same could be said of the high schools of the United States. (Via The Imaginative Conservative.)

For a long while, the Russian president patiently tolerated America’s demented, anti-Russia monomania. As our country sank into the quicksands of what Conservatives call “Cultural Marxism”—by contrast, and since the get-go, your columnist has framed the new, woke Western dispensation as anti-Whiteness—Putin’s inclinations have remained decidedly reactionary and traditionalist.

The Russian leader had prohibited public sexual evangelizing by LGBTQ activists. He comes down squarely on the side of the Russian Orthodox church, such as when vandals, the Pussy Riot whores, obscenely desecrated the cathedral of Christ the Savior. He has also welcomed as refugees persecuted white South Africans, where America’s successive governments refuse to acknowledge that the latter are under threat of ethnocide. Also, policies to stimulate Russian birthrates have been put in place by the conservative leader.

Ukraine, for its part, is led by a vainglorious fool. “Zelensky is a kept man, his flesh softer than sin under the khaki costume.” For all his Jewish-lineage boasting, Zelensky ought to know that, in the Hebrew Bible, a “leader who fails to haggle for the lives of his people is considered a failed leader.”

“The US is today running bigger deficits than ever.” According to gold bug Egon von Greyerz, “There is only one buyer of US debt – the Fed.” The last assertion is hard to verify, namely that nobody is now buying US debt. Nevertheless, this is entirely believable.

So, it has been ordained that Ukraine be destroyed on the altar of the imploding, decrepit, fiscally and morally debased American Empire and its European zombie satellite states.

©2023 ILANA MERCER
WND, August 10
Unz Review, August 10
The New American, August 10

The post Win Or Die: Ukraine’s America-Engineered ‘Options’ appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

THE HYPOCRISY and sanctimony playing out over the corporate media outlets about Putin’s savagery is galling. For example, on Feb. 28, Sean Hannity proclaimed that a murdering thug of a leader who invades a sovereign country and kills innocent people needs to know that he will be forthrightly removed. Mark Esper, Trump’s defense secretary, concurred. “For the sake of what is decent in the world,” seconded Sen. Ben Cardin, a Democrat, Putin must be taken out.

Putin is savage alright, and his is a war of aggression. But how dare we?!

Remember the little Iraqi boy with a charred torso? (https://www.ilanamercer.com/2003/04/murder-by-majority/)
Uncle Sam did that.

What about this armless Iraqi child and thousands like him?
Did Putin disarm him? No; an American-dropped dumb bomb did. (https://www.ilanamercer.com/2003/04/on-pimps-and-presstitutes/)

Look at little Shakira, a Pakistani tot “burned beyond recognition by a U.S. drone and left for dead in a trashcan.” (https://www.ilanamercer.com/2012/02/bho-uncle-sams-assassin/)
There were thousands of these children, every bit as precious as Ukraine’s.

If Putin belongs in the Hague’s International Court of Justice, so do Genghis Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and their countless culprits. Colin Powell is already in the Hadean afterworld for his role in the invasion of Iraq.

America is still the undisputed leader in attacking sovereign nations and killing their kids. Russia’s foreign meddling since the early 1990s is insignificant by comparison.

Nevertheless, it is always asserted, never argued, that the difference between, say, a Putin invasion and an American one is that the latter is by good people for good causes. Alas, the broken children we’ve shown you, now adults, have not regrown their limbs. Iraq has been destroyed for good. Not counting the number of refugees displaced internally or exiled, children orphaned, women widowed, people plunged into permanent poverty, birth defects and environmental contamination—between 183,535 and 206,107 Iraqis were killed directly due to the unprovoked American invasion. This estimation is a most conservative one. Likewise, Libya is a failed state with a vibrant slave-trade. Who can argue with such a record of moral superiority?

Another insult to the intelligence is to have to endure conga lines of cretins expatiating on foreign policy—from Fox’s Harold Ford to Gillian Turner to Kayleigh McEnany—when we still have Pat Buchanan. The wise and brilliant Pat has borne witness to the events of history that have shaped the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, has chronicled  the run-up to this war of aggression and repeatedly and futilely counseled on how to avoid it:

We were warned. Surround Russia with NATO members, refuse to negotiate in good faith and Putin will go to war. Yet, the stance on both sides of the Atlantic has been dismissive, even contemptuous, of Putin’s reasonable, long-standing security concerns. Writes Buchanan:

When Russia’s Vladimir Putin demanded that the U.S. rule out Ukraine as a future member of the NATO alliance, the U.S. archly replied: NATO has an open-door policy. Any nation, including Ukraine, may apply for membership and be admitted. We’re not changing that.

Certainly, the U.S. has remained wedded to an ever-accreting, ever-inclusive, open-door, liberal vision of NATO membership. What for? Cui bono?

REALPOLITIK

Indubitably, good-faith, high-level negotiations with Putin could have averted the invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the president of the Russian Federation was discounted and demeaned. Now, the failed leaders responsible should be made to eat their words.

There is something utterly obscene—as rudely shocking as the front-row viewing of the “Shock and Awe” visited on Iraq—about watching the displacement of people and the destruction of innocent lives in real time, on television, without lending a hand.

And I don’t mean a military hand.

Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky—who is the toast of the town simply because he did not skedaddle from the mess in which he mired his country—to this ass with ears goes a special award for recklessness. Not fleeing a situation largely of your making does not a hero make. Curiously, we Americans have offered Zelensky the coward’s way out, when we ought to have forced him to sit down with his foes.

Granted, America, as British paleolibertarian Sean Gabb quips, is “some kind of zombie apocalypse plus nuclear weapons that might not yet be past its use-by date. It has not won a war against an equally-matched power since it defeated itself in 1865.” However degraded, the onus is on the USA, the only so-called responsible superpower, to calmly negotiate with Putin on behalf of his innocent, weak victims. Instead, world leaders watch the suffering on TV and bemoan the fate of the sufferers. Both sides are a disgrace and a failure to have brought us thus far. Ditto NATO and the EU.

This is precisely what President Joe Biden should be shamed into doing now: talk to Putin; thrash out a cease-fire, ASAP; haggle for the lives of the population under siege because led by imbeciles.

Ukrainians, for their part, are tireless and wily lobbyists in Washington, way more cunning than their American counterparts. To all intents and purposes, Zelensky, head of the corrupt American client statelet that is Ukraine, had tethered the fate of his country to America, NATO and the EU, constantly trying to bend these foolish and feckless entities to his will; too much of a clown to look out for his countrymen’s safety, rather than his own popularity in the West.

Having sat out the ‘67 and ‘73 wars in Israeli bomb shelters—I still remember what old-school diplomacy and statesmanship—realpolitik—sounded like. Diplomatic tools like substantive talks, a cease-fire, and an agreement between warring sides, however, have been absent from the repertoire of the two tools, Presidents Biden and Zelensky.

Good old realpolitik is what Zelensky should have been practicing with his powerful neighbors and historic brethren, the Russians.

Realpolitik is practical politics, the art of getting along, differences and all, in a real world in which reality, including the differences between people and their political systems, is accepted and dealt with.

Contrary to proclamations, it is not a moral foreign policy that America practices but a moralistic one. Be like us or we’ll destroy you! Instead of realpolitik, Zelensky adopted America’s moralistic, impolitic, uppity manners. It took a war to get Zelensky to the negotiating table with Putin, where he ought to have been from the start.

‘RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA’

LASTLY, what had to drive the Russian Bear to distraction is the daily demented “Russia, Russia” monomania emanating from America.

The antiquated electrical grid fails. Russia. Birds fall out of the sky. Russia. Americans loathe each other. Russia. Democracy is a farce and a failure. Russia. Deplorables won an election. Russia. Deplorables elected a president: a Russian. A young and flighty Russian girl, Maria Butina, arrives in the country full of faith in the American system. She flirts with US law makers, slips between the sheets with some. “A spy,” we shriek! Jail her! Break the wanton waif! And, we did.

I believe that this dangerous, endless, and mostly baseless, barrage of bullying and berating finally helped push Putin over the edge.

****

WATCH: David Vance and I discuss this on “Hard Truth.” WATCH “Russia To America On Ukraine: Pot. Kettle. Black.” PLEASE SUBSCRIBE HERE:

https://rumble.com/vw897h-russia-to-us-on-ukraine-pot.-kettle.-black..html

©2022 ILANA MERCER
WND, March 3
Unz Review, March 3
The New American, March 4
American Greatness, March 7
Free Life, For Life, Liberty And Property, April 19

The post Uncle Sam Still King Of All Invaders: Ukraine, Realpolitik And The West’s Failure appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

As this column pointed out in 2014, “the struggle for Ukraine” is a chapter in a series of US orchestrated provocations, which began with the expansion of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) eastward to abut Russia’s borders—an expansion begun by President Clinton and pursued by Bush and Obama alike. It gathered momentum with the US-backed attempts to incorporate Georgia and the Ukraine into the North Atlantic alliance, forgetting that the Ukrainian people, not unlike the “American People,” are not one people. The country is riven—divided into Western and Eastern regions, respectively. The West has been seduced by potential EU membership; the East is culturally and historically enmeshed in Russia. The disputed Ukrainian regions—mainly the Donbas, Crimea and the Black Sea city of Odessa—are Russian-majority separatists, and are almost entirely ethnic Russian.

With central and eastern Europe being swallowed up progressively by NATO, Russia finds itself between Scylla and Charybdis—allow a buildup on its border, or act, for it has legitimate security concerns. On its border, Russia will soon have to endure the provocation of the NATO club, carrying out military maneuvers. As the Eurasia Review has quipped, “America has a military presence in the Black Sea and in several former Soviet republics.” Imagine if the Russian military sailed the US Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, as well as the Gulf of Mexico? As we know so well, NATO, at the behest of its paymaster, the USA, would never-ever dream of effecting regime change anywhere in the world. It’s not like the US has done that before!

Kiev is already controlled by Washington (through the IMF, the International Monetary Fund). We all remember (or should) how Obama State Department floozy Victoria Nuland was overheard and recorded plotting to “midwife a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government.”

You can see why the US State Department has purportedly requested recently that Russia not make its demands public. Making these public would show Russia’s security concerns to be immanently reasonable. And Foggy Bottom has no intention of allowing Russia to be anything but demonized.

Before his untimely death, the late Stephen Cohen, the foremost scholar of Russian studies, had warned of just such a conflagration with Ukraine as a catalyst. On the facts, US policy toward Ukraine and Russia has not promoted peace between the two, but sought to sever the former’s centuries-long ties to Russia and bring it into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. Cold War is when conflict outweighs cooperation. Détente is when conflict and friction are reduced. We’re in a new cold war, argued Cohen, more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Although Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, who understood and feared nuclear weapons, thought they had ended the frightful Cold War, by the early 1990s, Bill Clinton had ignited it. It all began, in Cohen’s estimation, with President Clinton expanding NATO and bombing a Russian ally, Serbia. Although Bush Sr. had cast Russia as a defeated power beholden to America; Clinton amplified this characterization. Russia to these leaders had become a “vassal state.” Bush II, for his part, had flooded Russia with waves of “Democracy promoting” agitators. In a word, it is the US that has meddled in Russia in an attempt to make it over in its image.

So, why is the new cold war so much more dangerous? As Cohen had explained in his voluminous work on the topic, we have been raised without nuclear war awareness. In swallowing up countries and pitting them up against Russia, NATO, moreover, has moved the epicenter of any putative conflict to Russian borders. Whereas proxy wars used to take pace in Africa (Angola, for instance); now these are ongoing closer to Russia—in Syria, Georgia and Ukraine, increasing the likelihood of conflict.

After the Cuban missile crisis, cooperation ensued, as the crisis awoke both sides to the dangers of a war to end all wars. Since then, however, nearly all cooperation with Russia has stopped. Talks have stalled, treaties have not been revived as they ought to have—although President Joe Biden’s administration must be commended for renewing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the US and Russia, lapsed under Trump. And both sides are developing “useable nuclear weapons,” which is Orwellian speak for working to make nuclear war more user-friendly, as though that were morally acceptable or practically possible.

Scurrilous catalysts of a Cold War redux are the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Department and the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, all proven to be malign, politicized forces in recent conflicts and wars, engaged in expedient myth-making. They cooked up the Russiagate libel, and actively crafted the “myth propagated by elements of the US intelligence community that Putin is attempting to subvert American democracy.”  “The reverence with which some liberals greet pronouncements made by today’s intelligence chiefs is in sharp contrast to their past critiques of the malevolence and misinformation spread by” the intelligence community, notes Irish historian Geoffrey Roberts.

A read through the fevered briefs produced by America’s once-venerable intelligence agencies reveals that these are artsy concoctions scribbled by girls like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, whose personal correspondence is a portmanteau of hysteria and hate: “F–k the cheating motherf—ing Russians. Bastards. I hate them.”

A not-so-silent Greek chorus are America’s media, ever tuned-out, turned-on and hot for war. Having shed all fidelity to fact and truth, media, the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, inch Russia and America ever closer to conflict by constantly lying about and libeling Russia. Rumors for which no evidence can possibly be adduced are regularly recounted as facts in newsrooms that now function as rumor mills.

Finally: The reason this is a new Cuban missile crisis only more foreboding is that America has sundered what Cohen has referred to as the Parity Principle—the custom in diplomacy of considering both sides to a conflict. Leaders and thinkers who attempt to avert conflict with Russia are thoroughly demonized and destroyed, even accused of treason. Naturally licit behavior—comity or diplomacy with Russia—is criminalized by a Federal Government that has enough laws on the books to indicts each one of us, if it so desired. Witness the Helsinki summit, for which Trump’s diplomacy saw him branded a traitor. Anyone who wants to reduce pressure with Moscow is run out of town.

So far, the political storyline du jour has been manufactured by America’s gilded elites. To this, DC operative Karl Rove confessed during the era of Bush II: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” When you’re the most powerful entity in the world, as the US government certainly was—you get to manufacture your own parallel universe with its unique rules of evidence and standards of proof. What’s more, as the mightiest rule-maker, you can coerce other earthlings into “sharing” your alternate reality. And when war is on the horizon, America’s elites enter a state of hysterical mass contagion, almost like animals in-heat.

Why wage a war in furtherance of interests not our own? ask paleoconservative patriots like Messrs. Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson. The question, alas, is a non-sequitur, as it is incorrectly premised on the false notion that the United States government and Department of State conduct foreign policy in the interest of the American people. The assumption of congruity between US foreign policy and the interests of the American people is utterly false.

No such congruity exists. US State craft is driven, first, by the arrogance of power and delusions of ideological superiority, as well as by self-serving elite concerns. The US ruling interests to prevail are those of “The Blob” (the permanent foreign policy establishment), military-industrial-complex, a media also engaged in expedient myth-making, not news reporting, crooked corporate elites, and a sanctions-giddy US Congress, in which there are currently no pro-détente thinkers (nor thinkers, for that matter).

To remain powerful, these factions must reflexively project power. Because the relationship between the elites and the American people is zero sum, the stronger the elites aforementioned get; the weaker and more imperiled the American People become.

WATCH “Neocons, Neolibs & NATO Inch Us Closer To Nuclear War With Russia” And SUBSCRIBE HERE on Rumble

https://rumble.com/vtea18-neocons-neolibs-and-nato-inch-us-closer-to-nuclear-war-with-russia.html

©2022 ILANA MERCER
WND, January 27
Townhall.com, January 28
Unz Review, January 27
The New American, January 28
CNSNews, January 31
American Greatness, January 30

The post Neocons, Neolibs And NATO Inch Us Closer To Nuclear War With Russia appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

©2016 By ILANA MERCER 

“Unsophisticated rambling,” “simplistic,” “reckless.”

The verdict about Donald J. Trump’s foreign policy, unveiled after his five-for-five victory in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut, was handed down by vested interests: members of the military-media-think tank complex.

People like Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. People Dwight Eisenhower counseled against, in his farewell address to the nation: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

Naturally, Albright wants U.S. foreign policy to remain complex, convoluted; based not on bedrock American principles, but on bureaucratically friendly talking points, imbibed in the “best” schools of government, put to practice by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Like so many D.C. insiders who move seamlessly between government and the flush-with-funds think-tank industry, Albright has worked for CFR. (Yearly revenue: $61.0 million. Mission: Not America First.)

Neo-Wilsonian foreign policy is big business. Wait for the Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation and the Center for American Progress to pile on Trump’s “unsophisticated,” America-centric foreign policy—especially now that the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee has signaled his intention to get the U.S. “out of the nation-building business.”

Like an invasive Kudzu, these anti-American forces are everywhere. What Trump’s advocating translates into a reduced profile for them: less demand for their neo-Wilsonian schemes, promulgated in focused blindness by think tank types and by most tele-tarts.

Reduced demand for American agitation abroad will mean fewer “media references per year,”less “monthly traffic” to monetize on websites, less influence in the halls of power and, ultimately, reduced revenues.

We might even see fewer color-coded revolutions around the world.

Trump’s promised change to American foreign policy can’t sit well with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Freedom House. These have been described by the press as “Washington-based group[s] that promote democracy and open elections.”

More like Alinskyite agitators.

The IRI and the NDI are excrescences of the Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively. As Trump supporters know, on the foreign-policy front, not much distinguishes America’s duopoly. Republicans and Democrats work in tandem, Saul-Alinsky style, to bring about volcanic transformation in societies that desperately need stability. Or as Trump put it, “We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed.”

CNN is right to fret that the Trump foreign policy address delivers “little in the way of a recognizable foreign strategy.”

Fear not, CNN. Trump’s promise to pursue “peace and prosperity, not war”—the candidate’s commitment that, “unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be [his] first instinct”—is recognizable to those whose loved ones have returned in body bags, from the blighted and benighted territories into which Trump adversaries want to keep tunneling.

Evidently, victims of liberal interventionism and neoconservative global democratic crusades think putting Americans first is a wildly sophisticated idea.

Ordinary, patriotic Americans have been hoodwinked by these sophisticates into sacrificing their children to Madeleine Albright’s Moloch. It would appear these Trump supporters and America’s soldiers no longer wish to throw beautiful young lives to the think-tank industry’s God of War.

“Trump’s foreign policy platform would dismantle the post-World War II architecture so lovingly built up by the War Party and its congressional Myrmidons,” posits Justin Raimondo, editor at Antiwar.com. “This is why he’s made all the right enemies … Trump’s triumph would mark the end of the neocons as a viable political force on the Right.”

Amen Selah. 

It’s by no means axiomatic, moreover, that “defense treaties and overseas bases that emerged after World War II still serve U.S. interests,” confessed policy analyst Rosa Brooks.

As with any bureaucracy, NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is good for those it employs; bad for The People who must pay for it and tolerate its self-perpetuating policies and sinecured politicians forever after.

NATO, conceded the Washington Post, was “formed to fight the Soviet Union. … The USSR evaporated a quarter-century ago.” Like a zombie, this segment of the international superstate “has lurched along, taking on new roles. ”

The establishment, Left and Right, equates what governments do with what people need.

Take CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. In ways intellectual, the anchor is impoverished. She is, however, never poor. Amanpour’s net worth is $12.5 Million. She’s lived, loved and worked among the upper echelons her entire life, including in her birth place of Iran. Terribly privileged, Amanpour is more authentically “Shahs of Sunset” than an ordinary American.

The CNN personality has ridiculed Trump’s “poor me America” routine. She disputes his tack about a weakened America whose exploiters should “pony up.” Simply put, said Trump, “Our allies are not paying their fair share.” “We have spent trillions over time … provid[ing] a strong defense for Europe and Asia”:

The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.

When Trump challenged America’s continued membership in NATO, shysters like Amanpour, Ted Cruz too, cupped hands to claim the charity of the gullible American people. They “argued” that we need to continue to give over two percent of GDP to keep this welfare-warfare elephantiasis going.

Their error—Amanpour’s error—is to collapse the distinction between America (overall, relatively wealthy) and individual Americans, legions of whom are dirt poor and desperate.

But businessman Trump makes no such mistake. He can’t help but put Americans first.

The Donald’s foreign policy coup de grâce: “Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries.”

“Our foreign policy goals must be based on America’s core national security interests,” he asserted, as he “pledged to … focus on stability in the [Middle East and the region], not on nation-building.” Recognizing the differences America has with China and Russia, he also vowed to ‘seek common ground based on shared interests.'”

“My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations centered on prioritizing America first.”

Remarkably, our foreign-policy maze-bright rats see this Trump stance as unsophisticated. To the contrary: Trump’s foreign policy evinces a sophisticated understanding of the role of government in the lives of a free people.

The duty of the “night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory” is primarily to its own. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first. As Americans, we have a solemn, negative, leave-them-alone duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty and property.

We have no duty to uphold their rights. Why so? Because (ostensibly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—inalienable American lives, liberties and livelihoods.

By promising to “never send our finest into battle, unless necessary,” Trump demonstrates a visceral, critical understanding that an American president is obligated to defend—he dare not squander!—the lives of Americans. He thus comes closest to fulfilling the executive duties of an American leader.

©ILANA Mercer
WND, Quarterly Review, 
The Libertarian Alliance &  The Unz Review
April 29, 2016

The post Trump’s America First Policy: Remarkably Sophisticated appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

The post Let’s Fret About Our Own Tyrants appeared first on ILANA MERCER.