Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media

Giuliani: Trump Told Me He Wanted A “Muslim Ban”

rudy_giuliani_by_gage_skidmoreThe Trump Administration has maintained that the new executive order on refugees is not a Muslim ban.  It is a compelling argument given the fact that only seven Muslim countries are singled out.  Yet, Administration lawyers will have to deal with countervailing statements from President Trump that he wants to give preference to Christians as refugees.  Now Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), a close confidant to President Trump, may have magnified the problems with an interview where he discusses how President Trump asked him to craft “Muslim ban.” 

Guiliani told Fox News that Trump told him that he wanted to enact a “Muslim ban” and turned to him to help: “When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban. He called me up and said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”

Giuliani formed a “commission” of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and others.  Guiliani said that they decided that the legal way was to “focus[]] on ― instead of religion ― danger . . . The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis ― perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

The interview is yet another headaches for Administration officials and an unexpected boon for challengers of the law.  Here is Guiliani publicly stating that Trump really did want a Muslim ban when he asked for the order to be legally drafted.  Usually confidants of  a president studiously avoided disclosing such communications, particularly when it clearly undermines the legal position of the president.  

In fairness to Guiliani, he was trying to explain that, despite the initial reference to a Muslim ban, the commission chose to focus not on the dominant religion but the inherent danger of certain counties.   However, he has giving an added source for the alleged motivation behind the order for those who say that the order is little more than thinly veiled religious ban,

In the end, neither the Trump nor Guiliani comments should be determinative in the analysis of the ACLU challenge.  The Court will analyze the order according to the justification advanced by the Administration as it did in 1972 in Kleindienst v. Mandel. In that case, the Court voted 6-3 to uphold a refusal to allow a marxist Belgian scholar to enter the U.S. to give a series of lectures. It was an abusive and wrong decision by the Administration in my view but the Court did not get into the wisdom but the constitutionality of the decision.  While the court affirmed that it could review such decisions, it also held that it was enough that the government based the decision to exclude Mandel on  reasons that were “facially legitimate and bona fide.”

Thus, the public statements will likely be cited by the challengers but the standard remains highly forgiving to the President and his executive order.

119 thoughts on “Giuliani: Trump Told Me He Wanted A “Muslim Ban””

    1. Roscoe Coltrane – I think right now it would be cheaper to just buy Argentina and make it a puppet state. Less rebuilding.

  2. Well, according to seer George Carlin, it’s all over. And that’s before even taking into account the huge number of libtards/leftists who want to see civilization destroyed through the promotion of Islamoterrorism:

  5. My God what has happened to the GOP who wanted all of this.
    The GOP is just upset with the way it’s rolled out.

    Please remind yourselves, MSM how insignificant you are.
    Bob Corker, Lyndsey Graham and John Mc Cain are respectively insignificant and just can’t handle it either
    They would drool to be the executive Trump is showing himself.

    It’s like you gave me an orgasm I’ve been dying for, but I didn’t want it up the ass.
    Bend over we will all survive and like it.

  6. Here is what is WRONG with America. We have so-called leaders, like Charles Schumer, who cries over the prospect that some Muslims will have to be inconvenienced, so they can be vetted to save American lives. But when Americans die at the hands of the Islamic Terrorists, does he shed one tear? No, of course, he doesn’t.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GnjQsqUIRE

    Libtard/Leftists are beyond the level of mere ultrasubcretins. And here’s what the Muslims think of libtard/leftists. They’re right:

  8. Throw all the muslims out and start from scratch. Throw them out of the West Bank and Gaza too.
    No tentheads.

  10. At least 5 judges believe there is overreach, Ann Donnelly, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, NY; Leonie Brinkema, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, VA; Thomas Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, WA; U.S. magistrate judge Judith Dein and District Court judge Allison Burroughs, both of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston. A Constitutional crisis is the making since those holding the green card holders, visa holders, etc. are refusing to release persons, or even their names.

    Another legal problem: Under the law, there are only two statutory advisers to the National Security Council and that’s the Director of Central Intelligence, or the DNI, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both have been removed from the NSC and replaced by Trump’s political counselor, Bannon.

    2. I do not believe this statement is true.

      I read the order, and it seems that they still sit on the NSC. From the order:

      “The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings.”

      However, the DNI and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will attend the Principals Committee (“PC”) “where issues pertaining to their responsibilites and expertise are to be discussed”.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and

      1. Yes, they are still members of the NSC but demoted to the Deputies Committee. They attend the Principals meeting only when invited. Bannon, a political advisor, has been elevated to the Principals committee. Of course, the politics of any NSC action is far more important than any input from the Joint Chiefs or the CIA. Sorry, forgot what blog I was on.

    3. U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California Dolly Gee became the sixth federal judge to block Trump’s executive order on deportations. She ordered the immediate return to the United States of Iranian national Ali Vayeghan, a U.S. visa holder, from Los Angeles back to Dubai. Vayeghan was en route to see his son, a U.S. citizen, in Indiana. Gee ruled that Trump’s immigration ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Trump’s order also resulted in acting Attorney General of the United States Sally Yates proclaiming that the Justice Department would not defend Trump’s order in court as it is a violation of the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Source: WayneMadsenReports)

  12. While leftists like JT and Chuck Schummer share a good cry over their purportedly righteous but false stance on Islam, the Muslims are preparing for their next 911.

    1. Another way of putting that is that for the last 15 years, we haven’t been able to provoke those damned Muslims into all out war with the United States and Europe for the illegal acts of certain groups that have perverted their religion, but by Gawd Trump is ready to fix that problem by doing a Man’s Job where a Democrat wuss left off.

      But in reality, this vague, purposely undefined and unending war has far less to do with Muslim blood thirstiness than with the hegemony of empire.

      1. And Trump knows that perfectly well. The trillions being spent is about empire, not about saving citizens from a risk that is ridiculously smaller than the risk of being struck by lightening.

    2. Trump had already called Chuck Schumer “Head Clown” – and now he is asking who his acting coach is for his crocodile tears performance. It’s quite brilliant, actually. The country will survive. But, my God, it’s fun watching Trump ‘work.’

      Schumer’s new theme song: Tears of a Clown.

  13. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/30/the-case-for-impeachment-donald-trumps-islamophobia-and-the-threat-to-the-constitution-2/ “The ban appears to be a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment, which states that “no person” shall be “deprive[d] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and that the government shall not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” While the 14th Amendment refers to states’ denial of liberty and equal protection, the Supreme Court has long held that equal protection and the liberty clause apply against the federal government as well. Some might question that a 14th Amendment violation is not possible for individuals not under U.S. jurisdiction, but that position is hard to defend considering Trump’s ban discriminates against Muslim refugees who were already on U.S. soil. Clearly these individuals fall under “U.S. jurisdiction” if they are on U.S. soil.”

    1. Would you recommend a continuation of immigration policy that allows “immigrants/refugees” safe haven FIRST and then vetting AFTER they have proven their fidelity to laws inconsistent with western civilization and more specifically the very constitution under which they appeal for justice? How is that rational?

      Did Teddy Roosevelt get it wrong?

      “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

      1. Teddy had more to say on this issue. This is from Snopes, which confirms the accuracy of your quote:

        On 1 February 1916, for example, Roosevelt advocated measures for strengthening and ensuring the “loyalty” of American immigrants:

        Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at a luncheon given yesterday by Mrs. Vincent Astor for the National Americanization Committee in the Astor Court Building, declared that one of the reasons why many German-Americans have shown greater love for their native land that for their adopted country is that the German system demands greater loyalty than is demanded in this country, and a greater contribution to the common welfare. “And all of you know I am free from a taint of neutrality,” he added, “so I can say this without suspicion.”

        The encouragement of better housing conditions and a compulsion to learn the English language, Colonel Roosevelt said, would help the process of Americanization.

        “We cannot make the Americanization movement a success,” Colonel Roosevelt said, “unless we approach it from the economic standpoint. It is true that governmentally Germany is an autocracy. But there has been a great deal more industrial freedom there than many of our old industrial communities. The German Government says we expect you to work out good results, to get together with the laborer, and yourselves decide what you are going to pay to the doctors who are to pass upon the health of the employes, and the amount of damages any employe merits. The Government insists upon a great amount of self-government by the people themselves.

        “I feel that by insistence upon proper housing conditions we shall indirectly approach this. I want to see the immigrant know that he has got to spend a certain amount of his money in decent housing; that he will not be allowed to live on $2.50 per month board basis.

        “Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.

        “We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.

        “If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren. They will not be so if he lives in a boarding house at $2.50 per month with ten other boarders and contracts tuberculosis and contributes to the next generation a body of citizens inferior not only morally and spiritually but also physically.”

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp

        There is more at the link. But that was back in the days when the norm was, “America First.”

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  14. Christians are being persecuted in many Muslim countries, especially those controlled by ISIS or other extremists. Their religion automatically makes them qualify for refugee status if they live in an area where they are rounding up and murdering Christians. The same goes for the Yazidis and the lost Yazidi girls.

    If the problem he’s trying to fight is radical Islamic terrorism, then Islam is intrinsic. That obviously does not mean that Muslims are all extremist. There are moderate Muslims happily living in the West. But he can want a Muslim ban all he wants. Our laws do not allow it. He has to limit the ban to a region and then use the asylum process to only allow in those who want to assimilate with our Western values, or those whose lives we can save. He based his platform on fighting radical Islamic terrorism. Of course he’ll make statements wishing to keep back the Muslim expansion into the US which has gone so very badly for Germany. It was political suicide for Merkel. Sure, she can claim to be the most tolerant person in the world, but you cannot import people from a region where they abuse women, Jews, and gays, and expect that behavior to magically stop once they arrive. My friend’s neighbors tried to stone her dog to death because they believed dogs were filthy animals not to be allowed. So they threw rocks at him in her own yard. Another example is how common it is nowadays to send young Muslim girls from the countries where it is practiced back to the Old Country “on vacation” to suffer Female Genital Mutilation. It’s very hard to throw off those Old World beliefs. It can be done, but it takes effort. And it’s especially difficult when people come from isolated areas. Sure, this is non PC to say, but we have to face uncomfortable facts. I believe that we need some type of program in place that helps people assimilate when they come from such different parts of the world.

    I am absolutely sympathetic to the cause of the Syrian refugees. It haunts me how Assad has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. It would be foolish, however, to forget that Syria is a hotbed for terrorism, and extreme care must be taken in allowing people to immigrate from there en masse. And by “extreme care”, I do not mean spending 2 years “vetting” people who have no identifying papers and no way to check their story. I don’t think that counts as vetting at all. Somehow, we have to verify who they are and how they feel about the West.

    Right now, our immigration policy heavily discriminates against anyone who is not from Mexico and South America. You don’t see efforts to have open immigration with Afghanistan or Latvia. Opposing illegal immigration as opposed to legal immigration of people from the ME is not called racist. And our system heavily enables those who live close enough that they can simply walk across the border, and receive drivers licenses, subsidized car insurance, health care, and other free stuff.

      1. DSS – I always tells friends when I am giving them advice that they got for free so should value it at that level. 🙂

  16. I watched your participation in the panel on a Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN this past Sunday. While I understand your position that the courts may side with the executive administration, I have to ask why they would in this instance when the band order has given the agencies of the executive Administration a license to discriminate.

    Over the weekend a large number of people were detained and prevented from leaving or even boarding flights entering American airports. Some of those people were not Muslim or of an age to do anything illegal. For example, a five year old Iranian boy who was traveling with a family member it was planning to meet his mother upon arrival but instead was detained for hours before he was reunited with her on the other side of the gate.
    6 Syrian Christians were denied entry at the Philadelphia International Airport as well.

    Given these examples of discrimination by executive branch agencies, and not even taking into account the public remarks made by TЯUMP, how can you say that the courts would side with the executive branch in this matter when their agencies are acting in this manner based upon directions from the president?

    1. VA activist,

      This is well put.

      We also see part of law enforcement appearing to disregard their judicial orders. That is quite disturbing.

    2. “Some of those people were not Muslim or of an age to do anything illegal.”

      And you call yourself a VA activist? How many US soldiers have been killed by people “not of an age to do anything illegal”?

      What constitutes “a large number of people”? 1 or 100 or 1,000? What percentage of people were detained and prevented access into the United States?

      1. Olly,

        The USG bombs, brutally murders children all the time. USGinc. thinks nothing of killing children and young people. Our govt. does not have a moral high ground on the matter.

        As a service member there is something I think we might agree on. Many of the local interpreters, people who have saved our service members lives, are effected by this order. They are marked women and men in their own country and they can’t get out. That is not just. This order will cost American soldiers their lives. We are going to have a much more difficult time recruiting people on the ground as interpreters or guides. We’ve basically told them we’re going to let them twist in the wind. How many people will sign up to help us out under those terms?

        You know this will cause our soldiers to be harmed. Having a local in place, saves lives. This is a bad order. It’s not well thought out. It’s not just. It should be rescinded and rethought.

        1. As a service-member, you should recognize a safety stand-down when you see one. When the military has an incident that injures or kills a service-member or damages property, they immediately do an investigation into the cause so they can prevent it from happening again. If it’s isolated to only one place they will correct without disrupting operations. If it happens more than once at that one place they will impose a safety stand-down and suspend operations at that one location, retrain where necessary and then resume operations under new policies and procedures, AND likely under new leadership. If it is not isolated and instead it is occurring in multiple locations, they will do a branch-wide safety stand-down, investigate, identify corrective action, amend policy and procedures, train and then implement the new process when they resume operations. This branch-wide stand-down impacts everyone, those that are already doing it correctly and of course those that are not.

          When it comes to the safety and security of the citizens of this country, we should always seek to do it right, because when it comes to lives, we don’t get to do it over.

          1. Olly,

            I’m not a service member so I’m very sorry if I gave that impression. I’m married to one and have many in my family.

            No one from any of those nations has come to the US and killed anyone. Not one person. There are nations not on the list who are allowed in, no problem, who have committed terrorist attacks against US citizens. Thus, this order cannot be about safety of our citizens or the nations whose people have attacked us would be included on the list. They aren’t.

            This is a bad order. It’s hurt innocent people. It may be unconstitutional. If our govt. wants to save lives they have a very effective means of doing so which they refuse to take. Stop making war all over this planet. There is no need for these wars except to war profiteers. Our soldiers and their civilians are all being slaughtered. Trump could stop this today and he ought to do so.

    3. The courts have a history of siding with the President regardless of tribe, Constitution, separation of powers, international treaties, law, or -particularly- common sense.

  17. http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/29/is-steve-bannon-trying-to-instigate-a-constitutional-crisis/“It’s possible that this chaos is simply a result of overzealousness and incompetence on the part of the Administration. But Bannon is known to be a cunning a strategist who doesn’t show his hand and doesn’t like to openly talk about his tactics. His actions are seldom random and always deliberate.

    We do know that Bannon implemented a highly controversial, high-profile order that he knew to be illegal and particularly cruel, but of great importance to his white nationalist base. We know that on the same day he placed himself on the national security council, removing the joint chiefs from the room. We know that Bannon idolizes Andrew Jackson and sees himself as above the courts.

    We don’t yet know the Trump Administration’s response to the court rulings. But it’s worth considering the possibility that Trump’s closest adviser is actively seeking a Constitutional crisis that tests the power of the judiciary to stop any potential actions by the Executive Branch.

    This is a very dangerous time for the country.

    Update: Donald Trump’s team has removed The Judicial Branch from the White House website. This is not a joke.

  18. Last night Bryan Cranston won the SAG award for his portrayal of LBJ. It was well deserved. But instead of the boilerplate angry, drivel we saw from other actors, he gave an INTELLIGENT comment. Cranston said, “36 would put his arm around 45, and SINCERELY wish him luck” then Cranston got into his LBJ character and said LBJ would use one of his favorite lines, “Now don’t piss into the soup we all gotta eat.”

    The left is in a manic phase. It was preceded by a depressed phase when they realized their drone happy Messiah was not who they thought.

    1. Rule of Insanity wrapped up as Rule of Kings wrapped up as Rule Of Law

      Excellent link. Jimmy Dore, as always, is spot on. But he raises a thorny issue that will be incredibly difficult, possibly downright impossible, to sort out given the hyper intense -AND INTENSIFYING- tribal polarity the country is stuck in.

      Yes, Obama started this, (or continued it from Bush), yes, he is the one who provided the resources to cluster bomb the poorest country, Yemen, into the stone age (to mention just one instance), and who continued to thumb his nose at every possible human right there is, literally up to and then PAST the time he walked out of the White house for good, and finally yes Trump is simply continuing the horror Obama started. And here we are yelling at Trump when we didn’t so much as yawn at those carpet bombs and other absurdly miscalculated excesses of force unleashed by Obama.

      But what that actually means is NOT that one is right and the other wrong. Nor does it seem to matter that they are both wrong. Rather it means we ( “we” meaning members of both tribes) have lost the ability to sort it out. Instead, we utterly ignore the facts by our lethargic complicity with the MSM in order to defend which ever tribe we have managed to get ourselves brain washed into.

      Rule of law now means what ever the President says is our new rule of law du jour, a self justifying absurdity (claimed by both Parties – but only for their President) wrapped up in hollow catch-all excuse of protecting the people (by putting them at war with half the damned world, snort) that makes a mockery of any rational discussion. Torture? Fine, it’s NOT legal only until the President says it IS legal, damn to hell any binding international treaties (and as of Jan 20th, the monopoly on that absurdity has passed from a Democrat to Republican President). And in the meantime, we loose collectively, as a whole country, the ability to stand back and say, No – such an arbitrary power was reserved for Kings and aristocracy – not for Presidents no matter what the color of the establishment brain wash they represent and that power is the diametric opposite of any rational notion of Rule Of Law. It is Rule of Kings wrapped up in an ideological fig leaf, supposedly eliminated two and a half centuries ago.

      The result of this is that we are careening almost haphazardly into an inevitable collapse by tribal insanity with its origins in the hopelessly unsustainable, self interested, contradictory, and irrational powers that be and their amazingly successful think tanks and other means of mass manipulation.

      1. Very well said BB!

        I moved to a primarily Democratic niche area. The hatred spewed towards Trump supporters here is extreme. I find it’s not possible to talk with Democrats, 1. because they are so full of hate while 2. simultaneously, they seem to have no idea about what Obama or Clinton did while they were in office. There is absolutely no honest evaluation of their candidates or own personal actions or honest conversation to be had.

        At the same time I see the cult of personality arising around Trump. This will soon cut off any reasoned discourse about Trump’s policies in the same way that Democrats cut off reasoned thought or discourse concerning Obama’s actions. Further, it’s not helping that Democrats keep calling Trump supporters truly vile names, which of course, makes people very defensive and closed down. On the Trump side, we also see insults and slurs about snowflakes and SJW, etc. Again, this isn’t productive in inducing an honest conversation between our citizens.

        I believe the above is the planned result of years of work by the oligarchy- resulting in a populace which has been divided and conquered. They are also loaded for bear!

        In the meantime, there has also been a near complete suppression of actual left wing ideas. We hear from the far right (Democrats) and the far right (Republicans) with an occasional allowance for civil libertarian ideas. The actual left has been shut down by both major parties and there is no real alternative voice to far right policies of war and economic devastation which both parties represent/present.

        This is as much of a planned disaster for creating social chaos as the rest of the oligarchy’s work. If we don’t work with people who are different from us, we will just keep implementing the policies of the oligarchy. What a mess.

        1. Thank you Jill, your comment adds considerable depth and perspective. Excellent points about the complete suppression of actual left wing ideas. Instead, “left” has come to mean a catch all insult with barely repressed venom. What a mess is right.

        2. Also, it hardly helps that the press is covering Trump’s every twitch while Obama got a pass for almost everything horrific.

          It is thin gruel to point out that in Obama’s case it was wrong to keep everything secret where as in Trump’s case it is right not to let them become secret.

          1. Yes, BB, that is true. I heard the following on NPR this A.M. A Trump administration official who refused to have his name released for this interview ..Heretofore, all NPR would say is– an Obama administration official who requested anonymity!

            I don’t think NPR and other newz sources should be granting all this anonymity in the first place but what a difference in how each spokestool’s action was described!

  20. Legal or not, this EO makes no sense. It reminds me of the mindset of all the oligarchic preppers who are buying bunkers and houses in New Zealand to save themselves from climate disaster and social chaos. Trump and his fellow oligarchs can only think one way. It would never occur to them that if you bomb the crap out of other nations and go for regime change, not only is this morally reprehensible, it’s going to cause a refugee crisis.

    The oligarchic preppers can’t understand that if they steal most of a nation’s wealth and horde it, they will create social chaos. Since they won’t invest their money in any alternative energy that would help with global warming, but instead, insist on more dirty fuels and pipelines, they are creating the very problem they need to “prep” against. My conclusion is these people aren’t very bright and they have no ethical bottom.

    If Trump would like to keep more Americans safe, he can stop bombing the crap out of other nations. He can stop engaging in regime change. Here is an interesting update to where the seven nations came from. I had thought they were just Trump’s business partners but that isn’t exclusively the case. The nations were put in place by Obama, Mr. Peace Prize. Here is the breakdown of how this came to be.

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    1. Indeed. I think I just read over the weekend that Obama dropped 26,000 bombs? Hmmmm. Seems to me that many bombs creates a lot of refugees. When you bomb stuff, the survivors have to live somewhere. Problem is that 26,000 bombs made someone a big cash bomb. Time to cut this stuff off at the neck…

      1. WELL SAID! Some one always benefits from war. Always has, always will. Did Obama not use more drones to attack ISIS than any other president? Was either Reid, Schumer or Pelosi disgruntled? NOPE! Is it not clear DEMS will drop all forms of political drones on Trump when convenient? Is it not obvious DEMS sought to delegitimize Trump from day one? Were the seven countries placed on the original vetting list not placed there by Obama? Need I go on? NOPE! In short, Obama had no apparent appetite for vetting Muslim refugees.

        1. NOPE! In short, Obama had no apparent appetite for vetting Muslim refugees.

          Huh? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you seem to take away a slanted message. It’s not that Trump makes sense because he is simply following what Obama set up for him, but rather that BOTH of them are using extraordinary excess in a war that has little or nothing to do with keeping the American people safe and everything to do with transnational Oligarchic commercial and military interests.

          1. transnational Oligarchic commercial and military interests -> transnational Oligarchic commercial, military and geopolitical interests.

Comments are closed.