Elliott Abrams and the Jewish Lobby

The media claimed that Elliott Abrams was the leading candidate for Deputy Secretary of State, that Tillerson wanted him badly, but then it reported that Trump vetoed Abrams for the job.  I think this whole Elliott Abrams episode was made up by a bunch of Jews who are desperate to get more Jews into the Trump administration.  Abrams was a good candidate because he is a Jewish Republican with foreign policy experience at high levels.  Tillerson may have said he wanted Abrams, but if so, he hardly knew him.  There is no reporting on their having a long relationship.  Influential Jews in State, and in Washington more generally, worked the levers of power to pressure Tillerson to ask for Abrams.

The Jewish-owned New York Times was pressed into this political service and complied with articles about Abrams’ great qualifications and his imminent appointment to the job.  On February 6, the Times ran an article by Gardiner Harris and David Sanger (probably Jewish), “Elliott Abrams, Neoconservative Who Rejected Trump May Serve Him.”   

Then, when Abrams did not get the job, the NYT still praised him, but said in the article, “Trump Overrules Tillerson, Rejecting Elliott Abrams for Deputy Secretary of State,” that the main objection to Abrams was that he had written a highly critical article about Trump in the Weekly Standard, run by the Jewish William Kristol, “When You Can't Stand Your Candidate.”  Interestingly this article deals at length with Abrams’ time working as a staffer for Senator Scoop Jackson, along with another Jackson staffer, Jewish Republican wildman Richard Perle.  Jackson is most famous for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, responsible for getting thousands of Jews out of the old Soviet Union.  According to Wikipedia, it was responsible for allowing about 500,000 Jews to emigrate from the old Soviet bloc to the United States and about one million to Israel.

On February 19, the NYT ran a follow-up article, “Trump, an Outsider Demanding Loyalty, Struggles to Fill Top Posts,” that still praised Abrams and still advocated for more Jews in the Trump administration.  The article quotes Richard Haass, a Jewish Republican who is the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, on how hard it will be for Trump to get people to work in his administration.  He said Trump had “ruled out much of an entire generation of Republican public policy types,” but the article added that Haass’ name had been floated for a position.  The article ends with a plea from Abrams encouraging “everybody to go into the government if offered an appropriate position.”  I take this to be a plea mainly to Jews who might not approve of Trump to join his administration if possible.  

Russians Did Not Nominate Trump

The American establishment, particularly the media, has pushed the idea that Russia was responsible for the election of Donald Trump.  Clearly the Russians hacked the DNC, but whether this had any effect on the election is unclear.  Interestingly, no one has claimed that the hackers falsified any of the emails. They published what they found; they did not make up derogatory emails.  It is les clear whether the Russians were involved in fake news.  The fake news seems to have come from all over, from all types of people all over the world.  

It looks like Trump won the Republican nomination on his own without help from the Russians or any other outside influence.  The Russians did not defeat Jeb Bush or John Kasich, darlings of the establishment.  It’s hard for the Democrats and the establishment to prove that he did not win the general election because of the same things that won him the primary.  

The Russian connection to the hacking has made the Democrats and the establishment hate the Russians.  This is a relatively new animosity, since Obama spent much of his administration trying to make nice with the Russians.  Because of the election, Democrats now think Russia is the world’s boogeyman, and are trying to foment conflict with Russia.  Democrats have become the new warmongers.  

Because the Trump administration has not gone along with the Democrats’ warmongering, the Democrats, the establishment, and the media have tried to portray Trump’s openness to Russia as treasonous.  The intelligence community has supported the establishment by leaking anything connecting Trump to Russia, regardless of classification or Fourth Amendment privacy concerns about wiretapping Americans.  The intelligence community has always had strong links to the establishment, and at the moment it looks like the intelligence types are more loyal to the establishment than to the President.  

When I was in the Foreign Service I wanted to be part of the establishment.  I probably did not make it in part because of my Southern roots.  (And maybe I wasn’t smart and smooth enough.)  At one time Southerners like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Woodrow Wilson were the core of the establishment.  But the establishment has moved north to New York and west to San Francisco.  Hillary, the former first lady of Arkansas, expressed the establishment view when she spoke of the “basket of deplorables,” which probably includes me.     

The establishment wants to blame the Russians for Hillary’s defeat, when in fact it was their contempt for at least half of America that was the real cause.  The Democrats have become a party that hates the great men who created it, that has turned its back on American history in order to appeal to new generations of descendants of slaves and immigrants who have no attachment to the history that made America the leader of the free world for a few decades.  

Flynn Leaks

I find 2 things strange about the Flynn leaks:

1) The intel guys always worry about “sources and methods.”  The Flynn leaks remind the Russians that we are listening to every one of their calls. They expect it, but Americans were shocked that we listened to all of Angela Merkel’s calls, too.  Is Russia the enemy, or do we just listen to everybody everywhere?

2) Before 9/11 and the Patriot Act there were very tight restrictions on listening to American citizens.  NSA was forbidden, and if they got an American by accident they had to protect it from distribution.  The FBI could tap Americans, but had to get a court order.  The Patriot Act and the FISA court apparently made it easier for both agencies to listen in on Americans.  .  

But any tapping of Flynn as an American should have been subject to high level review and protection.  The leaking exposes intelligence info to the Russians (presumably aiding the enemy) and probably violates Flynn’s 4th Amendment protection from searches and seizures.  If they prosecute Flynn, this evidence may not be admissible in court, like the confessions obtained by torture at Guantanamo.  Spying is a dirty business.  It’s interesting that the media loves the 1st Amendment, but not the 4th.  

North Korean Missile Test

The main US news shows - CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. - have been going nuts saying the North Korean missile test was timed to take place during Trump’s dinner with Abe.  Fortunately, I have seen former Ambassador Christopher Hill correctly say on BBC and one other show that the main concern for North Korea was testing the missile and that it was unlikely to have been specifically timed to challenge Trump.  

It sounds like this was a new type missile, probably one using solid fuel rather than liquid, and therefore it was not just a rocket North Korea had lying around to launch whenever it wanted to.  The media has played it up to make Trump look like a stupid wimp who doesn’t know how to respond to North Korea.  They made a big deal about the fact that he discussed the launch during dinner and was reading papers by flashlight.  The other interpretation of this incident is that Trump wasn’t panicked by the launch and didn’t let it interrupt his dinner.  Furthermore he was able to consult with Japanese Prime Minister Aba in real time about it.  Abe was much more affected by the launch than Trump, since Japan is much closer to North Korea.  Trump was able to reassure Abe immediately that the US stood firmly with him.  

The incident could well be interpreted as a show of strength rather than weakness, if the media had been so inclined.  Jonathan Karl was almost livid as he falsely described the huge threat represented by the launch and Trump’s amateurish response.  Karl struck me as a coward who was actually afraid.  He should not be allowed to cover military news.