Welcome to the 26th issue of The Outsider Perspective, brought to you by The Beltway Outsiders.
Good Friday Morning! I hope you had a blessed Thanksgiving with friends and family. I know I give thanks for the growing list of people who count this weekly newsletter as part of their weekly reading. I am grateful and humbled by your support. I’m especially humbled by those of you who have convinced friends to sign up or have forwarded this to a friend or family member. If you have been forwarded a copy of this newsletter, feel free to sign up here. Past issues can be read here (my analysis of the 2016 Presidential election can be found in issues 24 & 25).
This week I’m covering the foreign policy storylines to watch in the new Trump administration. Of all the areas Trump can impact, foreign policy will likely contain the largest footprint. I’m going to largely ignore appointments Trump has made to his cabinet, just as I did two weeks ago. We have to see the cabinet in action and see the parts moving together and making decisions. There’s just no way to see who has real influence in the administration to extrapolate official policy. Everything you’ve read about what the new administration will do is pure guesswork. Trump’s cabinet is eclectic and shares vastly different views on nearly every subject.
That said, before jumping in, I want to note an observation I’ve had regarding Trump’s appointment process:
Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney, and Ted Cruz: How Trump is consolidating his right flank
Two weeks ago, I wrote how Ted Cruz’s nomination to the Supreme Court would consolidate Trump’s right flank and eliminate intra-party opposition. Since then Trump has made more moves to consolidate his base. Many pundits are joking this new motley crew of cabinet members is Trump’s “Team of Rivals,” an allusion to the famed Lincoln cabinet. They joke about this because Lincoln’s cabinet was stacked with ample experience whereas Trump’s cabinet lacks experience. Ironically, the team of rivals comparison is apt in this case. Lincoln placed his political rivals in his cabinet as a means of uniting the party behind him with the dissolution of the union and start of the Civil War:
When he became president in 1861, Lincoln had few strong allies in Washington; he was mainly a stranger to the ways of this most political of cities, and he faced the dissolution of the Union in a matter of weeks. Even more than most chief executives, he needed all the help he could get. So Lincoln made a strategic decision to include his major Republican party rivals in his Cabinet: Salmon P. Chase as secretary of the treasury, William H. Seward as secretary of state, Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war and Edward Bates as attorney general. Chase, Seward and Bates had been competitors for the GOP presidential nomination, and all of them, especially Chase and Seward, had a shockingly low regard for Lincoln’s abilities and promise. In short, this was not a Cabinet made in compatibility heaven.
Contrary to modern presidents’ approach to Cabinet-making, Lincoln wanted not compliant ciphers that he could ignore but men of accomplishment with their own base of support. As Goodwin argues, this is unquestionably admirable — but then, what choice did Lincoln have? He had been elected with a mere 39.8 percent of the votes in a four-way contest, and at the very least, he required a completely united party to have a chance of governing successfully in the greatest period of crisis the United States has ever known.
Lincoln simply applied the time-tested axiom that a politician should hold his friends close and his enemies closer. His approach worked. As ambitious men almost always do, Chase, Seward, Stanton and Bates were easily induced to accept their high-status posts, and they wanted to keep them, which meant that they could only go so far in opposing the president’s policies. In fact, for the most part the four Cabinet members raised remarkably few strong objections even in private discussions with the president, while fulminating from time to time about Lincoln’s alleged high-handedness. More significant, Lincoln gradually won over Seward, Stanton and Bates as they came to appreciate the homespun leader’s keen intellect and skillful sense of politics. Lincoln was not at all what they had once thought. The awful bloodletting of the war and their common, solemn purpose in restoring the Union no doubt contributed to the eventual solidarity of this unexpected band of brothers.
Notice that one name has been omitted. Salmon Chase never joined the brotherhood. His contempt for Lincoln was unabated, and his desire for the presidency was never quenched. Incredibly, Chase plotted to replace Lincoln as the Republican party’s presidential nominee even while still in the Cabinet; Lincoln knew all about it but kept him on anyway. After repeated provocations and intrigue that might seem unthinkable today, Chase finally exhausted Lincoln’s goodwill, as well as the president’s self-serving belief that Chase was less dangerous under his close supervision. Lincoln accepted Chase’s resignation in the summer of 1864. Stunningly, after Lincoln’s reelection, he chose Chase to be chief justice of the United States, believing no one was better qualified — and Chase swore in Lincoln for his second term, just five weeks before the president’s assassination.
Trump is in a similar position. He won a minority of the primary vote and lost the popular vote in the general election. He needs to consolidate a base of support. Trump has taken similar steps to Lincoln, except he’s taken it further and linked the past, present, and future of the party to him. He’s forcibly remaking the Republican Party into the Party of Trump. One of the first meetings he had post-election was with Ted Cruz. The rumor mill officially chose two theories on why Trump met with Cruz: 1) Cruz was a potential nominee for Attorney General, and 2) Cruz is a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. Cruz privately voiced acceptance for both posts.
Both rumors are right and here’s why: First, Trump’s actual nominee for AG, Sen. Jeff Sessions, faces a tough nomination battle. I’m not going to cover all the reasons why, but suffice it to say, Trump’s team is expecting a tough fight against Senate Democrats. Trump, however, can always keep Cruz in his back pocket as leverage against Senate Democrats. If they don’t choose Sessions, he can threaten Democrats with a Cruz-led DOJ. Which option do you think is worse for Democrats: Jeff Sessions or Ted Cruz? I’d wager they would fear Cruz far more. Sessions would become more palpable to Democrats in a deal with Trump.
Second, Trump also faces a battle for his Supreme Court nomination. He can use Cruz in the exact same manner as the Sessions fight. At the Federalist Society national convention, most attorneys there expect Trump to choose one of the people off the list of 21 Trump’s campaign produced during the campaign. This is a safe bet, though I do not believe it is the full bet. Trump can use Cruz or the list of 21 judges as his stalking horse to draw out his competition.
I think Trump makes this decision based around how loyal he believes Cruz will be the next 4 years. If Trump believes Cruz would betray him, then I think Trump sticks Cruz on the Supreme Court. Betrayal would be opposing Trump on issues in Congress or challenging Trump to a primary in 2020. If Trump believes either of these events would happen, he could nominate Cruz and remove him entirely from the political landscape (and no one, not Cruz, movement conservatives, nor establishment Republicans would complain). This is effectively what Lincoln did to Salmon Chase. And even if Cruz isn’t the first SCOTUS nominee, and I think there will be a second opening (maybe a 3rd), Trump will have another opening to put Cruz there and remove a political rival.
This also has a way of tamping down any dissent from Cruz. If he truly does want a nomination to the Supreme Court, he will be far more nice to Trump. In most things political, Cruz is entirely self-serving. The choice of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court vs an uncertain shot at the Presidency would be a no-brainer. To get it, he’ll play nice with Trump to get the position. You can notice this effect already, with Cruz maintaining radio silence over all the Trump cabinet choices.
So while Trump is likely using Cruz as leverage over both conservatives and Democrats, Mitt Romney and Nicki Haley are an entirely different power play. Like Lincoln, Trump sees a need to unite the Republican Party behind him. And if Cruz represents the present leadership for the party, Mitt Romney and Nicki Haley represent the past and future of the Republican Party. Trump has already chosen Haley. Rumors are heavy around Romney. But even if Romney isn’t chosen, by including Romney as a potential cabinet member, Trump is forcibly attaching party leadership to himself. Romney gives Trump the appearance of old-guard establishment acceptance. Cruz gives Trump power over the present conservative wing. And Haley gives Trump power over the future of the party. Future leaders will now have to contend with Trump’s legacy.
Trump won a minority of the vote in the primaries and a minority of the popular vote in the general election. By pulling party leadership and attaching it to himself, Trump is building the appearance of acceptance and consensus. That’s the reason he’s being highly public with his meetings and letting rumors fly about who he will and will not have in his cabinet. In TV-language, he’s audience testing potential cast members. In business terms, he’s using these people as a stalking horse (stalking horse offers to be specific).
The never ending carousal also runs all of the steam out of his opposition. While they may try to keep up a constant barrage of outrage, eventually everyone will tune them out. If everything Trump does is a DEFCON 5 special outrage event, then nothing is special or outrage worthy. The Left was expertly played this week when the public was given the juxtaposition of liberals/communists burning American flags while Trump “brought jobs back” to Indiana through Carrier. Burning American flags is already a settled form of Constitutionally protected free speech (I have my doubts any prosecutor would actually try to enforce it). So while the Left uselessly spun their wheels and took the bait to go and burn flags publicly, Trump focused on Carrier jobs.
You can book Trump having 50+% approval ratings by inauguration day at this rate.
Foreign Policy Storylines in the Trump Administration
I’m going to go through the major storylines awaiting Trump when he takes the Oval Office in order of most pressing importance.
Russia: The threat of a new Cold War standoff
Whatever your thoughts are of President Obama in foreign policy, there’s only one takeaway from his foreign policy regard Russia: complete failure. At the end of George W. Bush’s tenure, US-Russian relations were already chilled. Vladimir Putin had taken the lame duck status of Bush to invade the country of Georgia. Bush had started walking back the nice things he had said of the Russian leader. In response, the incoming Obama administration wanted a reset to US-Russian relations. Obama naively believed the relations soured because of Bush. The reset was marked with the now infamous photo of Hilary Clinton and her Russian counterpart pushing the “reset” button.
Since then: Russia has invaded the Crimean region of the Ukraine; supported the rise of Iran; supported Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; committed war crimes in Syria in support of Assad; engaged in a proxy war against the US by attacking US allies in Syria; assassinated political dissidents domestic and abroad; committed open cyber warfare and espionage against the US and her allies (this was occurring before the US election); backed out of Cold War nuclear proliferation treaties with the US; and backed political extremists on the left and right in Western Democracies to weaken global coalitions. This list ignores the numerous propositions Russia and China have blocked in the UN to thwart the spread of human rights and western interests.
In short, dealing with the threat of Russia and an ascendant Putin is the number one issue for the Trump administration. The US’s ability to engage globally depends on pushing Putin and Russia back into their regional backyard. The great irony in all of this is that the US is more powerful than Russia in nearly every respect. All we lack is the political and Presidential will to deal with them. Putin is not an ally of the US. Trump should not treat him that way.
China & Asia
China and the rest of Asia is the next major obstacle for the new administration. The Obama administration’s Asian pivot has collapsed entirely before Trump takes office. The TPP trade deal was the main building block in the region. With both Democrats and Republicans rejecting the deal out of political fear, the deal is dead on arrival. This also means the US has less economic leverage over China in the region. This, combined with China’s military adventures in the South China Sea and the decreased US influence in the Philippines, reduces US influence throughout Asia.
China, sensing a weakened US presence in the region, is flexing its international muscle:
It is fair to assume that Donald Trump, like millions of Americans, has never heard of the Senkaku islands, a small group of uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea claimed by both Japan and China. There is no reason why he should. As a businessman, he would not have considered them to be prime locations for a luxury hotel or golf course.
Thus it might come to him as a considerable surprise to learn that the islands are at the center of a major dispute between China and Japan and that previous administrations have pledged American treasure and, if need be, American blood to defend these islands should the Chinese move to occupy them.
This year, Beijing has become more aggressive in asserting its ownership of the islands, just as it has upped its claims in the South China Sea. Two weeks ago the Chinese Coast Guard intruded into Japanese controlled waters. That was not so unusual. Beijing has been sending vessels into Senkaku waters on average once every two weeks for the past two years, 31 occasions this year.
What was unusual was that four coast guard cutters intruded on Japanese waters. Beijing is not just sending solitary vessels into Senkaku waters anymore; it is dispatching whole flotillas. It shows that China’s crash program to build coast guard vessels, something I’ve called a coast guard arms race, is bearing fruit.
Beijing now has the resources to dispatch coast guard vessels to all corners of the East and South China Seas, from the Senkaku in the north to the Natuna waters to the south where the Chinese coast guard vessels have clashed with Indonesia. And they can do this simultaneously.
As the Senkaku dispute escalated, Tokyo sought assurances from Washington that its promise to defend Japan under the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Security applied to the islands even though the U.S. does not formally acknowledge Japan’s sovereignty over them.
In 2010 then secretary of state Hillary Clinton told her Japanese counterpart, Seiji Maehara, that the treaty did in fact cover the Senkaku. Her position was affirmed by her successor John Kerry who said that Article 5 of the treaty obligated the U.S. to come to the defense of “territories under the administration of Japan.”
All well and good, but Tokyo was eager to have the American president himself make his country’s position clear. In his 2014 visit to Japan President Barack Obama did that saying, “Historically they have been administered by Japan, and we do not believe that they should be subjected to change unilaterally.”
Enter Donald Trump. The president-elect has not fleshed out his foreign policy objectives in Asia, much less on the Eat China Sea dispute. But if he is wobbly on America defending, say, Estonia, a firm NATO ally, how much more wobbly would he be on defending the Senkaku?
The leaders in Beijing have no doubt begun to take the measure of the new American president and quite possibly have concluded that they now have a much freer hand to assert their prerogatives up to and including possible Chinese occupation, which could spark a war with Japan.
The US has strong mutual defense agreements with Japan, South Korea, and Australia in the region. Asia cannot simply be ignored by US leaders. China will struggle in the future with an aging population shrinking their economic power. But even an aging country poses a threat. If they begin to believe military action is the only means to contain their populace and grow economically, China could prove to be very dangerous. We do not need China engaging militarily like Russia is currently doing.
And all of this ignores the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. A possibility Washington DC has started openly discussing as Trump prepares his cabinet.
The Middle East has multiple flash points. The region is far less stable than it was 8 years ago. Trump will step into a situation where multiple hot spots are active with US military on the ground.
The Syrian conflict and the need for a change in US policy is one I’ve written about numerous times, including this column. Suffice it to say that current US policy towards Syria is not working and it is allowing Russian and Syrian war crimes. Bad US policy in the region endangers US troops and allows ISIS to roam free. As a result, we’ve just had our first US fatality in the war in Syria:
A US service member was killed in northern Syria Thursday from wounds sustained in a blast from an improvised explosive device, according to the US-led coalition fighting ISIS.
This marks the first time a US service member has been killed inside Syria since a small number of US Special Forces were sent there last year to advise and assist Syrian forces battling ISIS, also known as ISIL.
The entire counter-ISIL coaltion sends our condolences to this hero’s family, friends and teammates,” Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, commander of Combined Joint Task Force for Operation Inherent Resolve, said in a statement.
It is customary for the US military to wait at least 24 hours before identifying casualties to allow for next of kin notification.
The incident occurred in the vicinity of Ayn Issa, some 30 miles north of ISIS’s self-declared capital of Raqaa. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and other top defense officials have said operations to retake the city from ISIS would begin in the near term, as the battle against ISIS in its Iraqi stronghold of Mosul is already underway.
An estimated 300 US Special Forces are currently operating in Syria advising the Syrian Democratic Forces, which is made up of a number of local militias, including the Kurdish YPG.
Beyond the death Thursday, four US service members have been killed in Iraq since military options to dislodge ISIS from both countries began in 2014.
No measurable change can occur in Syria until Russia is driven out of the country. The war crimes occurring there are carried out by Russian and Syrian forces. Trump will have to decide whether and how the US shifts policy. His past statements indicate cooperating with Russia. This would be complicated given that our biggest Allies are convinced Russia has committed war crimes. Linking the US up with this behavior would harm US standing abroad and make it more difficult to deal with other countries.
US policy towards Iran is expected to change because of Trump’s statements on the Iran deal. Since Iran has been freed from economic sanctions, it has engaged in a number of bad acts:
Army Gen. Joseph Votel said the agreement, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for limits to its nuclear program, was being “implemented appropriately,” but that it has not changed Iranian behavior.
“I am concerned about continued malign activities of Iran across the region,” Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command, said at a forum hosted by the Foreign Policy Initiative.
Those included Iran’s cyber activities, the use of surrogate forces, facilitation of lethal aid, buildup of missile and anti-access capabilities, and unprofessional and aggressive activities in the Persian Gulf, he said.
On Saturday, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boat in the Persian Gulf trained a weapon at a U.S. Navy helicopter. The incident happened as the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier transited the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has used the deal to push back at US military forces, engage in cyberattacks, and finance the spread of their state sponsored terrorist groups. In effect, the myopic focus of the Obama administration on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which have not gone away, have allowed Iran to roam free in the Middle East. Trump will effectively have two options upon entering office: rip the deal up, or enforce it heavy handedly:
It is highly questionable whether Trump’s proposed approach could lead to stability in Syria and Iraq. Instead it would likely cement the dangerous trends that are already occurring in Syria. The armed opposition is increasingly cooperating with extremist organizations in the face of intense attacks on Aleppo, and with the withdrawal of American support, any motivation to moderate would disappear. The combination of Assad, Russia, and Iran have not, until now, had the manpower to take and hold northwest Syria and there is no indication that will change. The end result would be Assad in power in most of the country with an Al-Qaeda affiliated safe haven in northwest Syria that is much more firmly entrenched than it is today.
This decision would also be morally reprehensible giving the Assad regime and its allies carte blanche to continue and expand on the atrocities of the past five years, which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. But for all its faults, this approach, at a minimum, represents a coherent strategy. But if the Trump administration chooses to combine this Syria strategy with efforts to unilaterally dismantle the Iran nuclear agreement – the situation goes completely haywire. Our European partners, as well as the Saudis and Israelis, have already signaled that they would prefer the United States did not walk away from the deal. The international consensus that was so critical to economically isolating Iran prior to the nuclear agreement would collapse.
Even if Trump did not abrogate the deal on day one, there is still a good chance it could collapse over time. As part of the deal, six months into his administration President Trump would have to sign a waiver to continue to keep U.S. sanctions from being reimposed on Iran. And if small disagreements over implementation of the deal are not handled delicately through diplomatic channels, they could explode into major confrontations that kill the agreement.
In any of these scenarios, a collapse of the deal would likely lead to increasing U.S.-Iran tensions. Iran would likely restart its nuclear program but no longer face a unified international sanctions regime. As Iran got closer to a nuclear weapon, the likelihood would increase of an Israeli strike or a decision by the Trump administration to use military force against Iran’s nuclear program. We would essentially be back in the days of 2009 to 2012.
In that world, Iran’s most effective tools against the United States would be its surrogates and proxies across the Middle East – especially in Iraq and Syria. In recent years, Iran has pushed its proxies to focus on supporting Assad and fighting ISIL. However, if Iran-U.S. tensions start to rise the priority would quickly shift back to using the groups it supports to exact a cost on the United States and deter American military action. Shia militias in Iraq, who since the start of the ISIL campaign have coexisted uneasily with American forces in Iraq, could start launching attacks on U.S. forces. Iran could push for a more sectarian Shia government in Iraq and seek to topple Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. Iran may encourage Hizballah to reprioritize forces currently directed at the Syrian civil war to prepare for the possibility of a new conflict with Israel in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program.
The decision Trump takes in regards to Iran will likely be decided by his advisors. It will also depend heavily on which advisors win out in the cabinet arguments. Different potential cabinet members have pushed everything from cooperating with Iran and the Russians to prepping first strike capabilities against Iranian reactors. Starting out though, the most straightforward path may simply be enforcing the current agreement so harshly that Iran leaves the deal. Especially since Iran has little interest in following the agreement.
Other Middle East Storylines
- Mosul, Iraq: How will Trump handle the ongoing battle for Mosul? He will enter office with an active war zone in the Iraqi city of Mosul. Even if the Iraqi army is able to gain control of all sectors of the city, guerrilla warfare guarantees forces they will be engaged for a longer period of time. And with ISIS cutting off water to 500,000 people in the city, it seems more likely than not they are digging in for a longer fight.
- Aleppo, Syria: The UN is holding emergency meetings over the Syrian city’s “descent into hell.” With the last hospital bombed to the ground by Syrian/Russian forces, civilians have no place to flee. International observers are worried that Russian and Assad will reduce the entire city to a gigantic graveyard of bodies in the streets. The UN’s response to Aleppo will provide an early test for Nicki Haley.
- Turkey: Since the failed coup earlier in the year, Turkey has descended into country ruled by a Putin-esque dictator. Erdogan has dramatically curtailed freedom of the press and jailed political dissenters. He has also drawn his country close to Russia and Putin. Trump will have to adjust how the US handles an increasingly tyrannical and anti-American Turkey.
- Afghanistan: The major problem facing Afghanistan is a resurgent Taliban. Many of the gains made by US troops of the past 15 years are being lost. President Trump will face the decision of how reshape US policy in the country and what, if any, new military tactics we should be taking. This is the longest lasting war in American history. It’s currently a back burner issue for many.
There are many other storylines you can follow in the new administration. But what I’ve listed here should dominate a majority of the coverage in the next year. Any action the US takes towards ISIS will involve several of these other countries. Anything Trump does regarding trade or a post-Brexit Europe will also affect these storylines. Each of Trump’s new cabinet officials will come in with specific beliefs on each of these areas. The relationships in the cabinet and arguments that develop will shape all the polices. As will who ultimately has Trump’s ear.
Other links for your radar
- Euphemistic ‘alt-right’ can turn Party of Lincoln to Party of David Duke – Evan McMullin in his first op-ed since the election, The Hill
- The Most Rejected Man in America – Joel Searby, Campaign manager for Evan McMullin, describing how he got McMullin’s campaign off the ground.
- How Evan McMullin’s Campaign launched in 3 days, Joel Searby.
- The Spread of Fake News on social media websites was supported and pushed by Russian intelligence agencies – Washington Post
- Trump advisor tells House GOP: “You’re no longer the Party of Reagan.” – The Hill
- Rep. Keith Ellison, potential new head of the DNC, faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic figures – CNN
- Democrats are regretting their changes to the filibuster rules now that they’re in the minority – RealClearPolitics
- Nancy Pelosi and the Purification of the Democratic Party – Washington Examiner
- Reelecting Nancy Pelosi is the definition of insanity – Commentary
- Buzzfeed targets HGTV Hosts for attending Christian Church – Ricochet
- Buzzfeed wants to destroy Chip and Joanna Gaines for being Christian and Wildly Popular – The Federalist
What I’m reading
Populism, IV: The German victory over American populism by Fred Siegel, The New Criterion
The fourth piece in the populism series in the New Criterion is another masterpiece. In this piece, Fred Siegel, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The Revolt Against the Masses,” traces how Germanic philosophy from Nietzsche in the 1800’s provides the intellectual backdrop for modern coastal elites. Specifically he traces how these elites comfort themselves in arguing that all populism on the right is fascist and racist at its core. It’s a long but worthwhile read. This gem is where he wraps his argument:
The winners in Obama’s America, where the stock market has doubled even as wages have stagnated, have been the big guys—big business, big labor, big government—in short the people populists despise. Unelected bureaucrats have never had it so good. The Affordable Care Act, for instance, created 159 new boards, commissions, or programs. Elected officials more and more resemble job-for-life bureaucrats, likelier to die in office than to be fired (or voted out) for cause. Washington, D.C., recently passed Silicon Valley as the richest region in the United States. The federal government’s reach has become so vast that it suffocates informed debate and political accountability. No one in the Obama administration has been held accountable—as Richard Nixon’s operatives were—for using the irs as a mechanism to punish dissenters.
The void left by the Hofstadterian destruction of the Tea Parties produced the mendacities of Donald Trump, who had no trouble mocking Obama. The President represents the debacles at home and abroad that have left trust in our “leaders” at an all-time low. The many failures of Obama’s post-Constitutional presidency have produced Trump’s post-Constitutional populism with its calls for a great, forceful leader to set things right. Trump’s patchwork populism builds on something new under the sun: it melds Trump’s anti-elitism with the showman’s monied connections in New York. In the presidential election, Trump matched up against Hillary Clinton, whose honesty was continuously in question, as she campaigned for a third Obama term.
The Germans have won: Mencken and the Frankfurt School each in their own way have displaced civic egalitarianism. Their disdain has become commonplace among upper-middle- class liberals. This might not have produced the current nausea if the pretensions of our professionals were matched by their managerial competence. It isn’t, and the German victory is moving us towards a soft civil war.
Quote of the week
Donald Trump has nominated retired Marine General Jim Mattis for the Department of Defense position. This will be a widely praised choice. I highly recommend reading some of the quotes Politico and The Free Beacon put together. I’ll post this gem:
“Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
Thanks for reading!