New World Order Cartoons

Trump's national security strategy shows he is willing to champion American values around the world

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump presented a revised version of U.S. foreign policy that was a departure from the “New World Order” espoused by President George W. Bush and modified by President Obama.

With the release of his National Security Strategy report this week, it is obvious that President Trump has a handle on “realism” and a belief – justified in my view – that the world is an increasingly dangerous place.

In naming China and Russia as disruptive forces on the world stage, the president’s strategy notes that the two nations are rivals that must be challenged – but not necessarily enemies that must be defeated. That’s a distinction important for future tactics.
The report identifies Iran and North Korea as rogue states clearly interested in regional destabilization. It also identifies transnational threats such as jihadists and cyber warriors.
While these designations yield to the obvious, they also depart from the Obama narrative that the arc of history is moving inexorably toward stabilization.
Some critics of President Trump agree that there isn’t an arc of history that assures U.S. dominance. That’s correct, but it is wrong to argue that the Obama team didn’t employ this argument through its continuing assertions such as “the tide of war is receding.”
Since the Obama foreign policy mission was disengagement, President Obama underestimated the role unpleasant actors might play in the vacuum he left behind.
President Trump’s newly stated national security strategy is a clear corrective to that misguided vision. He puts the threats we face in perspective, indicating his desire to marshal “our will and capabilities” to compete and prevent unfavorable shifts in various regions of the world.
In the past, it was conventional wisdom to contend that China and Russia were invited into the global forums so that they would be tied down by a rules-based order. But this did not happen and was a further extension of Obama naiveté.
President Trump recognizes the return of “great power competition” that belies ideological commitments. He embraces the view of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger regarding a world of balance of power that relies on clearly viewed national interest.
President Trump’s assessment of Russia demonstrates this point: “Russia aims to weaken U.S. influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners.” So much for friendly rhetoric.
From my point of view, the most newsworthy portion of the report is the willingness of the Trump administration to “champion American values” around the globe, including fair treatment for religious minorities and “the dignity of individuals.”
Rather than hide behind the gilded belief that America is widely detested, the president is sending out the message the U.S. is an unequivocal defender of Western Civilization and has the inner strength to defeat the dark impulses of totalitarianism.
President Trump is unquestionably a realist; yet there is a decidedly romantic dimension to his vision as well. His leap away from “perfection” to stability is one thing. On the other hand, the president wants to win because he believes in American principles.
As a result, President Trump envisions our military prowess and economic muscle as offering distinct advantages. These conditions must be nurtured and cared for, but when competition emerges our side should prevail.
America rose to the occasion when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, believing at that time that our “edge” was lost. But we rose to new heights in our schools and factories. We accepted the challenge and in a decade we had reacquired our national confidence. That is the romantic side of the strategic story in this 68-page document that sets the stage for the Trump doctrine.

Trump's travel ban exceeds presidential authority, court rules

Doesn't Work here anyway.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order at the White House, June 15, 2017.  (Reuters)

A federal appeals court panel in San Francisco ruled late Friday that President Donald Trump exceeded his presidential powers with the third version of his controversial travel ban.  

The panel ruled unanimously in a 77-page decision that read, “We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once against exceeds the scope of his delegated authority.”

But the ruling by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will have no immediate effect because the Supreme Court decided earlier this month that Trump's ban could be fully implemented while the administration appeals a pair of injunctions against the policy, Politico reported.
Presidential Proclamation 9645, signed in September, is the third iteration of the Trump administration’s controversial travel ban this year, after previous versions in March and January.
The latest version restricts nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen from traveling to the U.S. Unlike the previous versions, the latest installment of the travel ban has no definitive expiration date.
According to the Trump administration, the countries were chosen because they don’t do a good job of verifying or sharing information about their citizens and thus the U.S. government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they might pose to the U.S.
Judges have previously ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives Trump broad powers to regulate immigration. But in order for the travel ban to be upheld, the Trump administration would have to legally prove that a person’s entry from the list of banned countries would be harmful to the interests of the United States.

Trump era brings changes to presidential coin

A U.S. Army officer holds a zippered pouch with "Challenge Coins" for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to hand out to U.S. military personnel stationed at Yokota Air Base in Japan, Sept. 17, 2012.  (Reuters)

Now that Donald Trump is president, the traditional presidential challenge coin has undergone major changes, including the addition of his "Make America Great Again" slogan.

In addition, the presidential seal has been replaced with an eagle bearing Trump's signature, the Washington Post reported.

The 13 arrows representing the original states are also gone. The national motto, "E pluribus unum" -- a Latin phrase that means "Out of many, one" -- also has been removed.
Some ethics experts questioned the unprecedented decision to include a campaign slogan on the coins, which are often given to members of the military, the newspaper reported.
“For the commander in chief to give a political token with a campaign slogan on it to military officers would violate the important principle of separating the military from politics, as well as diminishing the tradition of the coin,” Trevor Potter, a Republican and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, told the Post.
In addition to his signature, Trump’s name appears three times on the coin, which is nearly twice as thick as its predecessors, while the traditional subdued silver and copper coloring is replaced with gold, the report said.
Challenge coins originated from military baubles bearing division insignia and presented by officers to troops for exemplary service, the Post reported.
Not everyone in the Trump administration has created their own challenge coin; among them is Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general.
“It’s not about him. It’s about the person whose hand he is shaking,” Mattis' spokeswoman told the Post.
White House officials declined to say how much the coins cost or who designed them, according to the report.

Democrats 'manufacturing a crisis' over prospect of Mueller firing, sources say

Democrats are “manufacturing a crisis” with their drumbeat of warnings about the possible firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, sources familiar with the relationship between Mueller’s office and President Trump’s legal team say.

The sources insisted to Fox News that Mueller is not going to be fired, and the discussion is nothing more than speculation and rumor. Further, they said the legal team has an “excellent” and “very professional” relationship with Mueller and his team.

“The fact is [Democrats] have been caught red handed manufacturing a crisis and all the phony allegations,” one source said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is among Democrats warning about a Mueller firing -- despite Trump denials.  (AP)

Over the past couple weeks, Democratic lawmakers and liberal activists have ramped up warnings about a potential Mueller firing and called for protests to defend the “Republic” if Trump takes that step.
KURTZ: TRUMP SAYS HE WON'T FIRE MUELLER, BUT MEDIA WON'T LISTEN
GOP frustration over Mueller’s probe has indeed intensified in recent weeks amid allegations of bias on his investigative team. Complaints have focused lately on the disclosure of anti-Trump text messages between two former Mueller investigators. Trump’s team also alleged last weekend that Mueller and his investigators improperly accessed emails from the transition team before the start of the administration.
But Trump recently denied any plans to fire Mueller, as did legal counsel Ty Cobb.
The only sign of a looming firing any lawmaker cited was an unconfirmed rumor. Democratic California Rep. Jackie Speier claimed a week ago that “the rumor on the Hill” was Trump would fire Mueller at the end of this week, after lawmakers leave D.C. for the recess – which has not happened as of Friday afternoon.
“It would be a Saturday massacre – worse than that,” Speier said on KQED Newsroom last week. “Without a doubt there will be an impeachment effort.”
Despite denials from the Trump team, more and more Democratic lawmakers amplified their warnings in the run-up to the recess.
“If the president were to fire special counsel Mueller, our country would face a constitutional crisis,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., delivered a letter advising the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee to be prepared to call the panel back to Washington – and consider impeachment – if Trump ousts Mueller.
“Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee should be ready to launch an immediate investigation into obstruction of justice if the President takes this action over the holidays and be prepared to fight to impeach him,” he wrote.
Fox News’ Judson Berger and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
John Roberts currently serves as the chief White House correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network as a senior national correspondent in January 2011, based in the Atlanta bureau.

Illegal Voter Cartoons

Trump says he's not firing Mueller, but the media keep insisting he might

The media are constantly warning that President Trump might fire Robert Mueller, triggering a political firestorm and a constitutional crisis.

There is, however, a small problem with this story line: Trump and his top aides keep denying it.

Not that journalists are letting that spoil the fun.
A reporter asked the president days ago if he was considering firing Bob Mueller.
"No I'm not," Trump said.
On "America’s Newsroom" yesterday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: "We have no intention of firing Bob Mueller. We are continuing to work closely and cooperate with him. We look forward to seeing this hoax wrap up very soon."
Now an investigation that has led to an indictment of Trump’s former campaign manager and a guilty plea from his former national security adviser is not exactly a hoax. But Sanders was unambiguous on the firing question.
Still, the pundits keep pounding away. On MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" yesterday, John Heilemann told Republican Sen. Bob Corker: "I want to ask you personally what your reaction would be if the president did try to fire the special prosecutor."
Corker said "there would be an uprising and a revolt."
In fairness, Heilemann was reacting in part to a Senate floor speech by Democrat Mark Warner, who declared that any attempt by Trump to dump Mueller or shut down the Russia probe "would be a gross abuse of power" and that these were "red lines" that could not be crossed.
Was Warner just taking a partisan shot? He gave no indication that he believes such a move is in the works.
Now no one can say it's impossible that Trump won't change his mind and try to get rid of Mueller. The prosecutor could bring new charges or make sweeping demands for evidence that would anger the president and prod him into action.
But the administration isn't sending such signals. In fact, the firing would have to be carried out by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who recently testified that he thinks Mueller is doing a good job and could only be removed for valid reasons.
So at the moment, all this amounts to an orgy of speculation.
The Washington Post, jumping on Warner’s remarks, ran a story yesterday titled "The Growing Specter of Robert Mueller’s Firing." The article declares that “the environment for attempting to fire Mueller is clearly improving.”
Here’s a Bloomberg piece titled "What Might Happen If Trump Orders Mueller Fired."
The media mindset was perfect captured by a Chicago Tribune column with the headline: "Trump Says He Won’t Fire Bob Mueller. Don’t Believe Him."
Why not? Eric Zorn wrote that "the big reason is that I simply don't believe it, just as I didn't believe Trump’s assurance that he had a plan to provide 'great health care, at a tiny fraction of the cost.' I didn’t believe him when he said super-wealthy people wouldn't benefit from a Republican tax overhaul, that it would personally cost him a fortune and that someday he'd release his tax returns."
In other words, he doesn't trust the guy and disagrees with his policies.
The media will have every right to go bonkers if Trump tries to oust the prosecutor investigating him. But for now, it may be the most overcovered hypothetical question in politics.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Border wall contractors face growing boycotts from Dem-led cities

As President Trump pushes forward with his promised U.S.-Mexico border wall, companies competing for the chance to work on the multi-billion-dollar project are facing mounting boycotts from local Democratic lawmakers moving to blacklist the border builders.

Coordinated efforts have been launched in California, Arizona, Illinois, New York and Rhode Island that would prohibit cities and towns from doing any official business with the companies as part of a larger resistance strategy to delay construction of the controversial wall.

Most recently, Berkeley’s City Council in California approved an ordinance that would ban it from contracting with companies involved in the construction.
The proposal, drafted by Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Councilmembers Ben Bartless, Sophie Hahn and Cheryl Davila, argues that the wall would harm California’s prosperity.
Arreguin called the border wall a “highly impractical response to America’s broken immigration system, and a symbol of hatred that will only further demonize the people of Mexican and Latin American descent.”
This follows a March measure approved by the council that would vet contracts to avoid business with border wall-affiliated companies. Earlier this month, the council expanded the policy to prohibit investment with companies involved in the “designing, building or financing” of the wall. The latest ordinance formalizes those rules.

'This is the worst kind of populism.'

“Our divestment policy is a message that we don’t want to do business with companies that seek to profit off of separating families, degrading the environment and heightening tensions with long-time partners such as Mexico,” Arreguin told Fox News.
Berkeley’s new mandate comes on the heels of a similar economic boycott that passed in Oakland last month.
In that case, the Oakland City Council barred the city from entering into new or amended contracts with companies that work with the federal government to build the border wall.
Construction, engineering, planning and information technology businesses are all subject to the ban. So are subcontractors and financial institutions.
Councilmember Abel Guillen said it is important to put “our dollars where our values are.”

Companies involved in a planned U.S.-Mexico border wall are facing boycotts in several cities.  (AP)

A December committee proposal in Los Angeles -- still under consideration -- requires anyone wanting to do business with the city to disclose any bids they have made. However, it does not prohibit the city from entering into contracts with border builders.
It so happens that some of the cities boycotting these contractors have the kind of 'sanctuary' policies that the Trump administration is aggressively fighting.
"It's just amazing to me why any city would not want to rid itself of criminals who are also in the country illegally," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said earlier this month.
The Associated General Contractors of America told Fox News it has gone to the White House and Sessions, asking that they apply pressure and sue states and localities trying to deny contractors work based on their involvement building the border wall.
“This is the worst kind of populism,” Brian Turmail, spokesman for the AGCA, said. “Given the fact that this administration has been aggressively pursuing sanctuary cities, this seems like an easy slam dunk.”
He also accuses ambitious state and local lawmakers of trying to score political points off of contractors and says it sets a dangerous precedent.
“Today, it’s you don’t like the border wall while tomorrow you could have an anti-war mayor who refuses to work with defense contractors,” Turmail said.
At the center of the sanctuary city debate is California, which has also considered going after border wall companies at the state level.
Earlier this year, three Democratic state senators introduced a bill that would require California’s pension funds to divest from any company involved in building the wall. It would also require the California Public Employee Retirement System and the California State Teachers Retirement System to liquidate any investments in companies that aid in construction.
“This is a wall of shame and we don’t want any part of it,” Assemblyman Phil Ting said in a written statement. “Californians build bridges not walls.”
Nearly 100 of the roughly 600 companies interested in bidding on the border project are based in California.
On the East Coast, Rhode Island state Rep. Aaron Regunberg introduced legislation in May requiring the state divest any funds from companies involved in Trump’s border wall.
“We’re saying he shouldn’t be creating this symbol of xenophobia and hate using Rhode Island state dollars,” Regunberg said.
During a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump said he might soon head to San Diego where six construction companies have built eight border wall prototypes for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
“I may be going there very shortly to look at them in their final form,” Trump told members of his Cabinet.
It remains unclear when the wall might actually go up. Trump campaigned on building it and set an ambitious timetable for construction. But aside from potential funding and political complications, there have been court challenges from geologists.
Critics also say the barrier would be ineffective and costly. On the campaign trail, Trump said Mexico would pay for the bill. That’s not happening. He also said the cost to build the wall would be $4 billion. Estimates have ranged wildly, but have since soared as high as $70 billion, though the actual cost is not clear.