Tag: Trump

  • Trump willing to meet North Korean leader

    United States President, Donald Trump, has said he would be “honoured” to meet North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, in the right circumstances.

    “If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would – absolutely. I would be honoured to do it,” the BBC quoted the U.S President as saying to Bloomberg on Monday.

    The previous day he described Mr. Kim as a “pretty smart cookie.”

    The comments come amid escalating tensions over North Korea’s nuclear programme.

    The White House issued a statement following Mr. Trump’s remarks, saying North Korea would need to meet many conditions before any meeting between the two leaders could take place.

    Spokesman Sean Spicer said Washington wanted to see the North end its provocative behaviour immediately.

    “Clearly conditions are not there right now,” he added.

     

     

  • Trump and Obama’s shadow

    In a few days’ time, the Trump administration will mark its 100 days in office. To what extent President Donald Trump has so far been able to successfully focus on fulfilling his electoral promises to the American electorate is neither here nor there. One thing that is, however, clearly identifiable  and deeply entrenched in the Trump administration’s  style is Mr. Trump’s predilection towards demonizing his predecessor, Barrack Obama over every challenge that his administration has had to grapple with since its inauguration. This approach has become so recurring that it is almost becoming an obsession for President Trump.

    In the wake of recent horrific gas attack on civilians in Syria, the void in the Trump administration’s foreign policy became quite pronounced. Initially, the White House was unusually quiet in its reaction to the ugly incident. While the attack was swiftly and roundly condemned by leaders across the world, the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, who was then on a visit to neighbouring Jordan disregarded questions from probing newshounds about the event, thereby maintaining his habitual quietness in the face of  troubling global occurrences.

    When the Trump administration eventually found its voice, it simply laid the blame on Barack Obama. In what now seems like a routine, President Trump used the attack, which killed dozens of people, including children, to score a cheap domestic political point against Barrack Obama when he described it as a direct “consequence” of Obama’s Syria policy. He said:  “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the last administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing.”

    The response, no doubt, exemplified President Trump’s continuing sense of being in his predecessor’s shadow. Curiously, aside lambasting Obama, President Trump did not reveal what impact the attack would have on Washington’s approach to Russia and Iran who are major backers of Assad. It would be recollected that President Trump and his campaign team are being investigated to ascertain the extent of Russia’s involvement in the last American election.

    Till date and in-spite of his blame game, the Trump administration is yet to come out with an official position on Syria. Interestingly, prior to the Idlib attack, Paris had expressed deep worries over Washington’s inability to take a definite stand on Syria.  Indeed, after the gory Idlib event, French Foreign Minister, Jean -Marc Ayrault, vented his frustration at the confusing Trump’s Syria policy, arguing that the Idlib attack was carried out by Syria as a result of the Trump administration’s seeming non- committal stance towards Syria. He said: “It’s a test. That’s why France repeats the messages, notably to the Americans, to clarify their position.” Rather than blame his government’s failure on the previous administration, the Idlib massacre only goes to underscore a deep hole in the Trump administration’s weak approach to Assad’s barbarism.

    The same Obama bashing trend was taken to a rather ridiculous height when President Trump made unsubstantiated claims that Obama wiretapped him during the last election. This wild allegation which President Trump made on Twitter, as usual, has since been debunked by the chairman of a congressional committee investigating the affair. Indeed, Mr. Trump has been accused by former CIA Director, Leon Panetta of making the claim as a calculated diversionary ploy. He said: “They are trying to obfuscate and trying to cover up. They are trying to somehow raise other issues”.

    Similarly Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Intelligence Committee have affirmed that they had no concrete evidence backing President Trump’s claim that the Obama administration wiretapped him. Curiously, when President Trump alleged that Obama ordered a wiretap on his phones during the election, he didn’t turn to the federal intelligence agencies for proof.

    There is, perhaps, no other event that portrays President Trump’s obvious discomfort with Obama’s shadow other than his administration’s recent bungling of its controversial health care legislation. After the health bill hit the brick wall, President Trump blamed everyone but himself. Characteristically, President Trump figured out Obama as the key guy responsible for the premature death of his health bill.

    Ironically, President Trump’s Republican Party controls the majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate. That he could not push through his first major bill in a government where his party controls the legislative arm speaks volume of the amateurish character of the government he leads. While he lashed out at the Democrats for not supporting the bill, one doubts if the usually self-confident President Trump ever deemed it fit to approach members of the Democratic caucus in the two legislative houses for support. He was so sure that his party’s superior numerical strength in the two houses was enough to seal the deal.

    Ironically, there were reports that he didn’t even make any concrete overture to the particular Republican caucus that was strongly opposed to the bill. At the end, President Trump unwittingly acknowledged his administration’s incompetent handling of the wobbling bill when he said: “We have learnt some hard lessons about negotiations through all this”. Certainly, a larger chunk of the lesson learnt would be that he failed to appropriately canvas for the bill before it met its waterloo. To highlight his gross disdain for the shadow of Obama, President Trump said that Obamacare offers nothing good for the Americans and will simply “explode” by itself. What simply meant is that, if possible, his administration would undermine Obamacare.

    Funny enough, analysts have claimed that there seems to be no remarkable differences between Mr. Trump’s aborted health bill and the much vilified Obamacare. Interpretation: He wanted Obamacare out at all cost and by all means, but he had no superior replacement for it. Before now, one used to think that it is only in Africa that this sort of politics that tends to undermine or obliterate the achievements of a previous government out of sheer envy and malice. President Trump has simply proved that politics in his homestead could be as crude as it is in other climes.

    In a nutshell, it would do Mr. Trump and his administration not much of a good, if he continues to make chasing the shadow of Obama as a key policy of his administration. The earlier he realizes that the elections are over, the better for him.

     

    • Ogunbiyi is of the Ministry of Information & Strategy, Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos.
  • What is it that, quite unbelievably, Trump and Buhari have in common as leaders?

    What is it that, quite unbelievably, Trump and Buhari have in common as leaders?

    In terms of personality, there cannot be two people who are as dissimilar as night is to day as our president, Muhammadu Buhari, and the American president, Donald Trump. But as rulers, the similarities between the two men are as uncanny as they are utterly surprising. Briefly stated, here is the bottom line in our profile of these similarities: a gift of masterful personal charisma that is almost completely neutralized by an unacknowledged proneness to weakness, confusion and obtuseness in running the affairs of the nation. There is nothing inherently antithetical between great personal charisma and the demands and responsibilities of governance. Indeed, some of the greatest statesmen and women in history have been endowed with large and equal doses of the two. But when charisma comes with either an innate or determinate propensity for weakness, confusion and coarsened sensibilities in exercising power over a nation and its populace, then the charisma becomes a liability, an alibi for mediocre, unjust and frightening political governance. This, I contend, is what we have in the unfolding scenario of the rule of our president and the incumbent American president.

    In making these opening observations in this piece, this much I must immediately admit: of all the thirteen executive heads of states that we have had in this country, Muhammadu Buhari is one of the two or three rulers who seem the least comparable to Donald Trump. Indeed, to speak quite candidly on this issue, the two Nigerian heads of states that I personally find the most comparable to Trump are Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. Obasanjo: like Trump, he is a supreme egomaniac whose first, second and third locus of ethico-political priority or investment is himself. Babangida: like Trump, he freely mixes amorality with immorality, so much so that he is as incapable of remorse as a recidivist rapist who is forever hoping to be given the chance to revisit and re-enact all his previous crimes. Buhari is not a saint, but he is not an Obasanjo or a Babangida. And as a matter of fact, either as a military dictator or an elected ruler, Buhari is not among my favouriteNigerian ruling class politicians. But I want him to succeed. I want him to succeed simply because his success will help to bring our country closer to the minimum of consolidation of a democratic order of the developing world that can meet the challenges of a global economic and political system that is overwhelming rigged against the interests and aspirations of the poor nations and regions of the world. If this is true, what then is the basis of my comparing Buhari with Trump?

    I promise: I will give a straightforward and unequivocal answer to this question at the end of this piece. Before then,it it is necessary to further expatiate on my claim that a similarity does indeed exist between Buhari and Trump with regard to the gift of an enormous personal charisma that is neutralized by an unacknowledged weakness, confusion and crassness. We must of course admit it: American democracy is much older and far more stable than our own fledgling, abiku democracy in Nigeria. Moreover, America is the most affluent country in the world while Nigeria is one of the poorest and most economically unjust. These significant facts notwithstanding, women and men are the same all over the world and the moral and political coordinates of governance are comparable everywhere in our common earth. Moreover, please think of this fact, compatriots: the Nigerian presidential system is closely, even apishly modeled on American presidentialism. Above all else is the fact that kleptocracy reigns supreme in both countries, though it is of course more rampant, more “unashamed” in Nigeria than in the United States. No, dear readers, there is nothing fanciful in comparing a Nigerian mode of questionable political charisma with an American one.

    And so: what are the expressions of charisma suffused by weakness, naivety and confusion in the respective vocations of the current presidents of the two countries? We can only be selective in our response to this question. Like Trump, Buhari came into office thinking that the sheer charismatic force of his personality would blow away corruption and bring “change” to the status quo andthe country. But corruption has not only fought back in the president’s chosen or preferred theatre of war (the law courts), it has invaded the inner chambers of his presidency, right up to office of the SGF, thereby making the Nigerian president look utterly feckless.

    Trump had a more colorful metaphor for the same thing: he was going to “drain the swamp” of corruption and inertia in Washington, DC, he shouted to the four corners of the land during the electoral campaigns right up to his inauguration as the new incumbent of the White House. But before he could settle down in the nation’s morally diseased capital, the “swamp” had claimed Trump and drawn him and many members of his administration into its murky embrace. Indeed, as I write these words on Friday, March 31, 2017 inside the US itself, it has just been revealed that the disgraced former National Security Adviser to Trump, General Michael Flynn (Rtd), was a secret foreign agent of Turkey and had also received large cash handouts from Russian parastatals close to Putin. Thus, in both cases in Abuja and Washington, DC, the question is loud and clear: why has the charisma of each president been so ineffectual, so naïve, so laughable in its utter lack of critical self-awareness?

    Charisma in Buhari and Trump has perhaps found its most effective limits in its confrontation with divisions and vested interests within each president’s own ruling party, respectively the APC (Nigeria) and the Republican Party (the US). This scenario seems worse in Buhari’s encounter with the political robber barons in the APC, but that may be because Trump has been in office for less than three months while the Nigerian president has been in office for about two years. Thus, while Buhari has now more or less completely given up all pretense to being in control of the political bosses of his party in the National Assembly and the states, Trump is still twitting and barking orders at rebellious operators in his party to fall in line and give his programs legislative backing. This is regardless of the fact that dissolute factions within his own party have just handed the American president a crushing defeat in the form of failure to repeal and replace the so-called “Obamacare”, a cornerstone of Trump’s campaign for the presidency.In both the Nigerian and American cases, the following questions are now being asked: can a president whose “charisma” cannot match the machinations of politicians and vested interests inside his own party be expected to carry out promises and programs intended to be beneficial to the whole country? Why is “charisma”, alone on its own and without much else to fortify and make it hardy and resilient, why is it so ineffectual?

    These questions find their most pertinent application in the framework of the much larger question of the survival of the nation itself.  Here I must perhaps make a confession: I have just arrived in the US after a long stay in Nigeria and I find that this same politically existential question of the survival of the nation is on nearly every thinking person’s mind in each country. Please note the qualification of “existential” here with the adverb, “politically”. This is because it is not so much the literal survival of each respective country that is in question; rather, it is what will be left of the country, after the “charisma” of Buhari or of Trump might have been finally contained by forces that neither man can grasp, let alone master? Put differently, here is the same question: what will be left of the country, its unity, the moral, psychological and cultural resources in its patrimony, after the president’s “charisma” has finally caved in to the nation-wrecking interests tearing away the last remnants of vitality, justice, solidarity and honour across the length and breadth of the land?

    At this point in the discussion, it is time for me to now return to the question that I earlier promised I would answer unequivocally at the end of this essay. Here is the question, slightly rephrased from the form in which I first posed it: if Nigeria and the US are so different in the age and the nature of their democratic dispensationsand in the wealth and power of each nation, and if Buhari is one of the least comparable of Nigerian rulers to the current American president, Donald Trump, why then have I thought it necessary, perhaps even instructive to compare the two men? I shall be very direct and concrete in my response to the question.

    Unlike what obtains in Buhari’s Nigeria, Americans have not (yet) started killing one another in bloodbaths based on ethnicity, religion, regionalism and settler-indigene identities backed by destructive, rampaging violence. But this is no comfort to most decent, humane, thinking Americans since everyone recognizes that the present period is more filled with hatreds and phobias based on race, gender, sexuality and religion than any other period in at least the last half century if not longer. In plain terms, American society is more riven by these divisions now than anyone can remember in living memory. Both Buhari and Trump are products of this deeply troubling history, Trump far more culpably so than the Nigerian president. Indeed, one could go so far as to say that Trump is as much an instigator, a catalyst of this development as he is also its product. Buhari is not completely innocent of being a fomenter, an instigator of violently irredentist identity, but for the most part, this belongs to his past. His “present”, so to speak, is shrouded in mystery and irresoluteness. The nation and the world expect far more of him than he has either been willing or able to give and this is the main or real issue: his charisma is wearing thin and becoming jaded, torn.

    Speaking only for myself, I found it deeply disturbing that throughout all the killings in Southern Kaduna, Buhari hardly uttered a squeak. The cries of the dead and their grieving families hardly reached or touched him, it seemed. More portentously, his administration seems totally lacking in the will and the understanding needed to bring justice, restitution and peace to all the aggrieved communities in the country in all parts of the country, east and west, north and south. Justice is indivisible, restitution and peace are due to all communities without discrimination. But Buhari’s administration is dithering. And meanwhile, as a baleful background to the violent inter-communal bloodletting in the land, the looting is still going on, the heavens help us!

     

    • Biodun Jeyifo

    bjeyifo@fas.harvard.edu

  • Trump: The bearing and baring of America

    Trump: The bearing and baring of America

    A mighty army is required to defend a great nation yet but one froward tongue can destroy it.

    Due to the specious leadership in both the Democratic and Republican clans, America has cast itself into an existential struggle. It fights to seek which of its inferior selves will become the nation’s dominant visage. Withered, perhaps, gone is the best of America, orphaned by the decision of the nation’s modern leaders to sell themselves to venal special interests that seek a powerful nation populated by a weak, debt-subservient populace. The contradiction is obvious yet lost on those engineering this asymmetry.

    Since the era that terminated with the Civil Rights Movement, America’s national leaders have increasingly shunned the pursuit of economic justice and reform. They have accepted a growing inequality as if the inevitable order of things. Their policy has been to fool the poor, accommodate the wealthy and personally advance as far as Machiavellian ambition and lack of principle can take a career operative. The sole difference between Republican and Democrat is the pace and fashion of implementing the barren policy.

    As with all empires, America’s greatest danger is of the homespun variety. Maintenance of an empire built on military prowess and far-flung holdings is not conducive to the long-term governance of the nation at the core of imperial project. Geographic expansion beyond its close proximity does not enhance a nation. Such expansion is purchased at the exorbitant cost of internal improvement and social justice. No land has ever managed to be fairly governed at home yet perpetually expansive in its conquests and military reach.

    By the 1930’s, the British empire was being torn both inside and out. Colonies, with India at the forefront, clamored to break old shackles. The British working class seethed with unrest at the austere reply of their government to the exigencies created by the Great Depression. The British elite saw communists everywhere, under their beds, in their closets, drawing crowds in Hyde Park and leading independence movements in distant but dear colonies.

    Due to this fear, the British ruling class fraternized with the authoritarian lunatic enthroned in Berlin until he finally turned on them. Had he not done so, they might be siding with him still. The appetite of the rich and powerful conceals them from the poignant lesson. All they see is domestic and foreign conquest. They see not the danger of their ways. Both military conquest abroad and financial conquest of the home population depart from the democratic openness and vitality that helped prosper the nation. At such a point, the nation flirts with decay only to marries decline.

    Today, this historic phenomenon regarding the self evisceration of empires is coupled with the modern debt peonage affecting most Americans due to the rapid conversion of the national economy from mean capitalism to carnassial financialism. Only the financial sector and big corporations allied to it profit. All others must take on ever increasing debt to maintain a modest standard of living. The harder an American works, the more indebted he becomes. He works not for the good of his family or community; he works to remain one step ahead of the bill collectors who seek to torment him and extract his last dollar in payment of some obligation he is convinced to bear in order to be possessed of the American way of life. He has been deceived to acquire real debt to purchase false prosperity.

    Car, television and home, all are mostly borrowed, not owned. With so much debt placed upon him, the borrower belongs to his creditors. America is not a nation of the free. Despite its great abundance, America is the land of modern day sharecroppers and debt serfs. Such economic feudalism is not the basis for greatness. Any person who seeks to lead but not reform this iniquity cannot be trusted with the welfare of the average person. Sadly, both Republican and Democratic elites are wedded to this profound unfairness.

    America borrowed much from ancient Rome. Like Rome at its zenith, its military prowess is unrivaled. Rome was also the first major society from the Mediterranean/Mesopotamian outcrop of civilizations to dispense with the curative of periodic debt forgiveness for the poor debtor, even the slave. In Rome, money lenders and the military took undue control, corrupting the political class and the important institutions of the political economy; all was slowly drained of vitality; then all was lost. Clownish and ghoulish dictators came to rule where august figures once led.  The lesson America seems to have learned from its remarkable ignorance of history is that, in the case of empire, it is best to do as the Romans did. The outcome will be the same.

    Because the American political elite treated the populace with such cool disdain for such a long time, enough people revolted to elect Donald Trump. He came about not so much because people wanted him. They wanted to signal to the smug establishment that something profound was missing from governance and from their lives. A vote for Trump was an act of desperate rebellion, of mindless defiance. Sadly, this symbolic gesture brought to power an actor fixed on doing the opposite of what most of his voters had in their hearts. They voted for Trump because he was new and they had their fill of the old establishment. That he chucked stones at parts of the establishment deceived them into believing he was for them. Yet, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. You need to carefully study the basis for their disagreement. Their dispute may be limited to a difference in how to carve and cook you then who shall dine on your choicest morsels.

    Instead of a hero, the people selected a buffoonish impostor with an ill temper and a dictator’s heart. He is a bloated caricature of America gone wrong in much the same way Nero personified the felony that Rome had become unto its citizens. While one must blame Trump for what he does, the blame for his presence in the White House lies with establishment Democrats. In the smug comfort of their inflated intellectual prowess and false moral superiority, they were blind to the travesty they had made of themselves. In truly imperial style, Obama treated the party as subservient to his ambitions. During his years in office, he soaked up all the sunlight, allowing the party to desiccate as an organization. Structures at the state and local levels atrophied. His concern stretched no farther than the Oval Office. Rarely has a two-year incumbent left his party organization in such tatters.

    Compounding this error, the Democrats ran perhaps the only candidate who could lose to Trump. Clinton deepened the ditch into the party would fall by embarking on one of the most insipid campaigns in the annals of American national elections. It was as if the Democrats tried to lose. The sad truth is that, for establishment Democrats, losing to the Republicans is not much of a defeat. Over the years, the parties have become increasingly combative over social issues. The feuds over abortion, gun control, gay marriage are intense.

    This veils a deeper truth, deceiving the innocent into believing the parties are far apart. The parties spend more time battering each other over these few issues because they stand in general accord on the order of things economic and financial. Regarding core economic and national security issues that really dictate the trajectory of a nation, the leadership of the two parties are kissing cousins. The incessant partisan battle over these other emotional issues is but a mirage to cover the profane unity between the parties on how the bread is cut and who gets most of the slices.

    Be not distracted by the theatrics surrounding Trump’s presidency. He sees himself as a man of action, In fact, he is a child of privilege who has the scornful disposition to prove it. He is prone to say what comes to mind notwithstanding the quality of the idea. The media has frenzied over this. Yet,  most of what they focus on is but straw in the wind. The media has feasted for days over the spurious claim that Obama wiretapped Trump’s phones. This is silly confusion. The media conveniently forgets to remind people the NSA illegally eavesdrops on every phone call in America. Obama needn’t specially tap any phone. Trump’s calls were already captured in the NSA universal dragnet.  In a manner, Trump is both right and wrong in claiming his conversations were surveilled.

    But this skips the larger issue. After NSA illegal operations have been disclosed, they have not been ended. America has blatantly gone from a nation of laws into one where government can flagrantly break the law by rationalizing the illegal excess as necessary to battle terrorism and protect national security. This is not the hallmark of a mature democracy. It is in the manner of a police state where weak leaders feign strength by scaring people into the forfeiture of their rights. The people are told they are being kept safe from a wicked and omnipresent enemy. Yet, these enemies are neither numerous nor strong enough to harm but a handful of the 300 million people who are America. It is more likely an American will be struck by lighting than by a terrorist. To complement his proposed southern wall, perhaps Trump will build a ceiling over the nation to protect people from the terror of a chance lighting strike.

    Establishment Democrats, Republicans and media obsess that Russia “hacked” the election to favor Trump. That there is no proof of this seems not to bother those spewing the tale. They can’t even prove Russia hacked the Democratic Party’s computers. There is no sign of Russia tampering with election machines or tabulations. Consequently, there is no evidence that Russia influenced one single vote. That such nonsense and non-proof are paraded as sure evidence of Russian perfidy can mean but one thing. The establishment wants confrontation with Russia for reasons they dare not disclose. They will not allow facts to obstruct such designs. Thus, they must beat Trump into submission. Trump’s position toward Russia is the wisest tree in his thicket of folly. Yet, it is the thing for which he has drawn the most ire. He is not used to pressure and to standing alone. Eventually, he will succumb to the dictates of the establishment, that powerful state within a state.

    We dare not think Trump a pacifist. He merely thinks clashing with Russia is bad business. Like the rest of the establishment, he remains in need of foreign monsters to kill and foes to maim. He would just rather bully a less powerful Iran. Overcoming Iran and taking its oil is a less troublesome venture than confronting Russia. There is no true restraint in American leadership. They all seek to subdue some nation and exterminate some false enemy. Trump’s problem is not that he has the concept wrong; he simply prioritized the wrong foe as public enemy number one.

    Even Trump’s travel ban is a relatively minor infraction. At most, a few thousand people in a world of 7 billion are touched. More concern is placed on the ban than on why America bombs the lands from whence these people come. Halting the bombing would be a humane act toward stemming the flow of refugees. Should not the death of thousands of innocents concern us more than whether a few are lucky enough to escape the carnage.

    Mercy dictates that safe haven be granted to those fortunate in escaping the hellish bombing. Yet, it would be better to end the wanton destruction and have no refugees than to ignore the bombing yet encourage refugees. The latter is but a hallow consolation to genuine humanitarian concern. Pandering always to the lesser truth, the American media berates Trump for the bigoted travel ban. However, the media mentions not a word that the new administration has escalated the pace of bombing these African and Middle Eastern nations in excess of Obama’s already high levels. Seems that it is fine to kill multitudes as long as you don’t treat rudely the handful that make it to your border. The morality of this position is curious and could not be more perverse.

    Fortunately, the courts have nullified Trump’s travel order. Yet, Trump has a sobering trump card of his own to play. The way his administration will mince the lives of poor and working class Americans may answer his refugee problem. America will become such a harsh place to its own that only the most intrepid foreigner will seek respite there.

    The bitter truth is that for all of Trump’s foolery, there is little difference between him and the united Democratic/Republican establishment. Elite Democrats are no longer liberals or leftists. They are the Republicans of the thirty years ago. Today’s Republicans are yesterday’s reactionaries. Republicans have defined the American political economy since 1980. Instead of fighting this, the Clintons and Obama joined the choir. On the economic issue which most people vote, the difference between Clinton and Trump was minor. In fact, Trump was more left-leaning on trade and job creation than Clinton. Thus, the election boiled down to a choice between a wild but real Republican and Democrat who acted like a Republican. In such a contest, the Republican usually wins. Democrats immolated themselves with the losing strategy of being Republicans in Democratic dressing. Not only did Clinton lose, Democrats were decimated in all elections from president to town crier.

    Stylistically, Clinton/Obama and Trump are worlds apart. Trump is a disheveled waste bin while Obama and Clinton cut the accustomed figure of a political leader, albeit in different ways. Yet, in terms of where they want to take America, this unlikely trio occupies the same room. They sit side by side. They seek to further institutionalize an economy tilted in favor to those who need no favors. These people want to turn Social Security into a private pension so Wall Street can profit in multiple billions of dollars from the fees and commission that would newly arise from such wrongful engineering.

    They seek to turn public education into a private, for profit enterprise as well. They call this freedom of choice. In reality, is will give poor people less opportunity to overcome the education gap, assuring their status as a permanent underclass with no social mobility, accentuated by no social services due to the massive budget cuts that will imminently ensue. The choice this really gives to the people who need help is but one: abject failure.

    Democrats and Republicans spar over the health insurance law. This shadowboxing has little to do with actual health care. Any insurance law Trump may pass will closely resemble Obama’s, except the new version will exacerbate the flaws of the prior one. With Obamacare, the gigantic insurance firms did a public relations masterpiece. They publicly complained about Obamacare but privately profited due to the measure’s lax cost controls. They will profit even more under whatever careless remedy Trump may concoct. The people will suffer a great hidden cost, that of a lost vision for something profoundly better. Burdened by Trump’s monstrous repair, they will dream of returning to the flawed Obamacare instead of hoping for something better like the cheaper, more efficient universal health care extant in other Western nations.

    Perhaps Obama is more at ease with a Trump victory that we dare believe. Conventional wisdom was that Obama wanted Clinton to preserve his legacy. However, his tenure was one of heady oratory but policy in the miniature. The best way to preserve such a meager legacy may be to destroy it, then institute something worse in its place.  The glass barely full is only better than no glass at all. A slave who moves from a master that beats him once weekly to one where beating is a daily affair starts to view the prior warden more favorably. Freedom stops being the option most considered. In this way, the slave becomes an unwitting accomplice in his own servitude. Such is the way of America.

    American leadership is now a choice between wrong and wronger. What is right is no longer part of the bidding. Greatness recedes. Mediocrity and compromise take hold. Leaders who are smaller than the issues confronting them are selected because the power behind the power bristle at change. They want a government that functions to secure their dominate position. It is as if the rich and powerful hold a mortgage on the rest of the nation. The sons of debtor families are sent to war in distant nations for reasons they barely understand. They fight a thousand miles away from their shores but are told they protect the homeland. Becoming comfortable with such lies, a nation steals its own greatness. Decay scribes its name on all institutions, great and small. Evil readily enters. Not long afterwards, so does someone like Trump.

     

    Sms only 08060340825

  • Trump defiant after healthcare bill pulled before vote

    Trump defiant after healthcare bill pulled before vote

    AS President Donald Trump has suffered a major setback after his healthcare bill was withdrawn before a vote in Congress on Friday night.

    The bill faced certain defeat from members of Trump’s Republican Party, who control both houses of Congress.

    However, Mr Trump blamed the minority Democrats for the failure.

    Repealing and replacing the healthcare programme enacted by his predecessor, Barack Obama, was one of the president’s major election pledges.

    Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said he and Trump agreed to withdraw the vote, after it became apparent it would not get the minimum of 215 Republican votes needed.

    Multiple reports suggested that between 28 and 35 Republicans were opposed to President Trump’s draft American Health Care Act (AHCA).

    Some were said to be unhappy that the bill cut health coverage too severely, while others felt the changes did not go far enough.

    The bill also appeared unpopular with the public – in one recent poll, just 17% approved of it.

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the AHCA would reduce the deficit by $336bn between 2017 and 2026.

    However, the number of Americans without health insurance would stand at 52 million by the same time – an extra 24 million compared with Obamacare.

    Speaking after the withdrawal, Trump repeatedly said Obamacare would “explode”, without explaining why.

    However, he refrained from criticising Ryan, whose job as speaker of the House involves rallying support for controversial bills.

    Trump said: “I like Speaker Ryan. I think Paul really worked hard.”

    Ryan also told reporters the president had “really been fantastic”.

    President Trump said the Republicans would probably focus on tax reform for now.

    “We have to let Obamacare go its own way for a little while,” he told reporters at the Oval Office, adding that if the Democrats were “civilised and came together”, the two parties could work out a “great healthcare bill”.

    “We learned about loyalty; we learned a lot about the vote-getting process,” he said.

  • US court blocks new travel ban

    A federal court judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump’s new travel ban, hours before it was due to begin after midnight on Thursday.

    United States District Judge, Derrick Watson, cited “questionable evidence” in the government’s argument that the ban was a matter of national security.

    President Trump described the ruling as “unprecedented judicial overreach.”

    The order would have placed a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees, the BBC reports.

    Mr. Trump insisted the move is to stop terrorists from entering the US but critics said it is discriminatory.

    An earlier version of the order, issued in late January, sparked confusion and protests, and was blocked by a judge in Seattle.

     

  • Trump signs new immigration order

    United States President, Donald Trump, has signed a new executive order placing a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations.

    Iraq – which was covered in the previous seven-nation order – has been removed from the new one after agreeing additional visa vetting measures.

    The directive, which includes a 120-day ban on all refugees, takes effect on March 16.

    The previous order, which was blocked by a federal court, sparked confusion at airports and mass protests.

    Citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the other six countries on the original January 27 order, will once more be subject to a 90-day travel ban.

    Iraq has been taken off the banned list because its government has boosted visa screening and data sharing, White House officials said.

    The new directive said refugees already approved by the State Department can enter the US.

    It also lifts an indefinite ban on all Syrian refugees.

  • Wiretap: FBI chief dismisses Trump’s claim on Obama

    FBI director James Comey has rejected President Donald Trump’s claim that his predecessor, Barack Obama, ordered a wiretap of his phone before he was elected United States president.

    Mr. Comey reportedly asked the US justice department (DOJ) to publicly reject Saturday’s allegation, according to the New York Times and NBC.

    He is said to have asked for this because the allegation implies the FBI broke the law.

    The BBC reports that the DOJ has not commented on the matter.

    US media quoted officials as saying that Mr. Comey believed there was no evidence to support Mr. Trump’s allegation.

    The Republican president, who faces intense scrutiny over alleged Russian interference in support of his presidential bid, made the claims in a series of tweets on Saturday.

    He offered no evidence to support his allegation that phones at Trump Tower were tapped last year.

  • Obama  is ‘a bad,  sick guy’  –Trump

    Obama is ‘a bad, sick guy’ –Trump

    Says ex-president tapped his phone before election

    US President Donald Trump got his English lexicon mixed up again yesterday as he exploded on Twitter against former President Barack Obama, accusing him of wire tapping his phones before the election.
    Although he provided no evidence to back up the claim, one of his Tweets gave evidence of his weak English knowledge by not spelling correctly the simple word: tap. Trump spelled it as ‘tapp”. It was not the first time that the US leader would be so cavalier in his writing.
    “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!,” he wrote.
    “Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!” he added
    It wasn’t clear what, exactly Trump was referring to as he raged against his predecessor, whom he labelled a bad (or sick) guy!”
    He also said a talented lawyer could make a “a great case” out of the situation.
    Obama’s post-presidency office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Yahoo News on Trump’s accusation, and the White House did not immediately clarify from whom Trump had “just learned” this new information.
    Trump has the authority to declassify almost any classified material, and could substantiate his accusations if he wanted to.
    The Saturday-morning Twitter storm was striking as Trump and Obama had largely appeared to paper over their differences — at least publicly — since the election.
    Trump called Obama “a very good man” shortly after his stunning November victory.
    But Trump had started to increasingly blame Obama for his misfortunes, particularly an embarrassing and politically toxic string of leaks coming out of the federal government.
    Trump has been particularly irked by reports linking his campaign and transition team to Russia.
    He fired his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, after it was revealed that the retired lieutenant general talked to Russia’s ambassador about Obama-era sanctions and then misled Vice President Mike Pence about them.

  • Trump backs under-fire Attorney General

    United States President, Donald Trump, has defended Attorney General Jeff Sessions as “an honest man” amid calls for him to quit.

    The Democrats said Mr. Sessions “lied on oath” at his confirmation hearing about contacts with the Russian ambassador.

    Mr. Trump said Mr. Sessions “could have stated his response more accurately but it was clearly not intentional” and accused Democrats of a “witch hunt.”

    The BBC reports that Mr. Sessions has removed himself from an FBI probe into alleged Russian meddling in the US election.

    The Democrats have maintained their attacks on Mr. Sessions, saying his explanation regarding his contacts with the Russian ambassador in 2016 were “simply not credible.”

    House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, said Mr. Sessions should step down.

    Mr. Trump said the Democrats had “lost the election and now they have lost their grip on reality.”

    His campaign was dogged by allegations that some of his team had met with Russian officials and that Moscow had interfered in the election on his behalf.

    The president has branded the allegations “fake news.”