‘Trump’s National Security Strategy is Decidedly Non-Trumpian’

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, IMMIGRATION

Well of course. Trump’s National Security Strategy is largely neoconservative.

Strategically, the Trump administration’s NSS “is thematically consistent with many previous administration’s strategies,” the official who’s read the full draft said. “In fact, it even shares many similarities with” the Obama administration’s 2015 Strategy. … [recognizing] that promoting economic prosperity is core to sustained U.S. global leadership; both highlight the value of preserving an open and liberal international order that has often times benefited the United States; and both underscore the importance of preserving core American principles and values. “What’s most striking is how disconnected the Trump NSS is from the words and actions of the president himself …
… the United States will always stand with those who seek freedom … [and] continue to lead in championing human rights. …
“the United States must continue to attract the innovative and the inventive…[and] create easier paths for the flow of scientists, engineers, and technologists into and out of public service.” [The last sentence is commensurate with Trumpism as it’s vague. What does it means? Who? Immigrants? Hi-tech immigrants must go into government? WTF!?]

“The draft NSS does contain a few uniquely ‘Trumpian’ themes, including multiple references to ‘sovereignty.’”

It states that “the United States affirms its sovereign right to determine who should enter the country and under what circumstances.” It also discusses physical border security, such as through “a border wall, the use of multilayered technology, the deployment of additional personnel” and through the use of “enhanced vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees, and other foreign visitors.”

Another classically ‘Trumpian’ theme is the idea that, while the liberal international order has helped advance U.S. interests in some cases, it has also hurt the United States. The NSS’s second pillar, “Advancing American Prosperity,” notes that “we oppose protectionism, but take the view that globalism and multilateralism have gone substantially too far to the point that they are hurting U.S. and global growth. Our partners and international institutions can and should do more to address economic and trade imbalances, including overcapacity in industrial sectors.”

The Sage Of Fox News

Celebrity, Media, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Republicans

Bret Baier is keeping the flame alive for Chucky Krauthammer, who’s been ill (and should make every liberty lover ill). Everything about Chucky is “brilliant,” don’t you know? Even his baseball commentary is on the “graduate-school” level. The immoral, unconstitutional wars the neoconservative Chucky has supported and continues to indiscriminately cheer: simply sublime, too. Genius.

Bret Baier is baring his Chiclets nonstop.

As is clear from the thread on Twitter, Fox News dittoheads seem as devoted and devoid of critical faculties as Bret.

More: “The Curse of Chucky Krauthammer“

Economic Growth In Zimbabwe

Africa, Europe, Foreign Aid, South-Africa

Economic growth in Zimbabwe in the age of Mugabe’s successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, will depend on achieving “the minimum economic and political reforms needed to unlock largess from the World Bank, IMF and others.”

This was pointed out and fleshed out in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for American From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” written in 2011. The growth will not be organic, but will come from outside.

NEW COLUMN: Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity And Chicks In Camo

Cultural Marxism, Government, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Military, Paleolibertarianism, Sex

THE NEW COLUMN,  colorfully titled by the editor, is “Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity and Chicks in Camo” (“army men don’t want “mate who suddenly grows breasts and bats eyelashes”).

Now on WND, it revisits the reversed ban on LGBTQ in the military. Among all else, it challenges the idea that everyone is eligible to serve in government institutions, an idea that runs counter to the libertarian imperative to contain government growth and reach.

(Of course, tele-Judge Andrew Napolitano, a lite, left-libertarian, has celebrated the freighting of men with females in combat as a great step toward the ideal of “judging individuals based on their merits and not their group.”)

An excerpt:

President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directive, signaling his intention to ban the politicized transgender production from the theater of war, has been overturned.

Pursuant to a complaint filed by US service members (ISIS was tickled pink), a federal judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, blocked the enforcement of the president’s ban. “The reasons given for the ban do not appear to be supported by any facts,” she ruled.

Judge KK was not alone. Predictably, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had pooh-poohed the president, too.

Why “predictably”? Whether Republicans like it or not, the military is government; it works like government; is financed like government, and is marred by the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that kills.

LGBTQ is a political program why? Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Z, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance.

In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Contra Judge Kollar-Kotelly, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies [are] playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?” …

… READ THE REST. “Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity and Chicks in Camo” is now on WND.com.