Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

For someone destined to be such an indispensable man in the incoming Trump administration, it’s remarkable how few Americans outside of Washington know anything about Russ Vought. Remarkable, but perhaps unsurprising. Vought isn’t a politician. He’s a thinker. And the former director of the Office of Management and Budget in Donald Trump’s first term, who currently serves as the president of the Center For Renewing America but will likely return to government in some grand capacity (quite possibly in his old OMB job, or perhaps in something with respect to finance), is peculiar in that respect. Vought is a guy who runs a Washington think tank, but to hear him talk you quickly recognize that he’s not all that complimentary of most think tanks inside the Beltway. Neither is he particularly complimentary of the conservative movement — or, more particularly, the three-legged stool “fusionism” which signified its political rise in the back half of the 20th century, and particularly after Ronald Reagan rode it to American political dominance and victory over communism in the Cold War. In an entire 100-plus-minute interview with Tucker Carlson that was published on Monday, Vought never once mentioned the word “Bush,” but it’s very obvious based on that interview that he’s completely opposed to the establishment “conservative” mindset I’ve called Bush Republicanism. And ready to bury it once and for all. Interestingly, Vought, who describes our current moment as not quite midnight for America but more like 11:59 p.m., and speaks repeatedly about the need to “save the country,” places great emphasis on retracing conservatism’s steps in an effort to find where it went wrong. He says that at his organization’s events, attendees will find themselves being given books — old books, in fact, like Whittaker Chambers’s Witness or Pat Buchanan’s various works. Vought’s conservatism — what I would call, and have repeatedly called, Revivalism — is the kind that the Washington establishment can’t stand. But it turns out that the American people like it a whole lot better than anything the elite political class has to offer. It’s what the public just voted for, in fact. In the Carlson interview, Vought lends a good deal of intellectual and policy heft to Donald Trump’s re-ascension to the presidency, and he frames Trump’s challenge in ways the elite will see as a binary, existential conflict. Reagan framed a not-dissimilar conflict, then with the Soviets, as “we win, they lose.” Listening to Vought, that’s how it’s going to have to go with the Deep State. He talks about the necessity of learning quickly how to manipulate the system to permanently alter, if not destroy, the abusive corruption it now inflicts on society. About how elected officials must retake power from unelected bureaucrats. The president must take it from the corrosive fourth branch of government in the agencies using various tools to manage employment of bureaucrats, and Congress must take it from bureaucrats by writing legislation that clearly delineates what power the agencies have and what power they don’t. In the aftermath of Supreme Court decisions that have done away with Chevron deference, this seems obvious. Interestingly, though, Vought also talks about the president retaking power from Congress, and in particular the power to impound funds appropriated by Congress but are neither needed nor wanted. He notes this was a long-standing tool of American presidents that was taken away in the post-Watergate era, the effect of which being that the federal budget has skyrocketed out of control ever since. Reorienting the American government toward accountability, transparency, and a lighter footprint on American life is a clear passion of Vought’s, but interestingly, he advocates using the full power afforded to the executive branch by the Constitution in order to do that. What didn’t come up in the Carlson interview was Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led playbook for a second Trump administration that Vought wrote a chapter for. His was titled “Executive Office of the President,” and the Center for Renewing America is listed as a contributing organization to the 922-page document. Trump’s campaign disavowed Project 2025, but it’s fairly clear that was just an effort to deflect something the Democrats were trying to weaponize against him. Essentially, Project 2025 is Fight Club. And the first rule of Fight Club is that you don’t talk about Fight Club. Politically, it’s a waste of time to try to defend against Democrat attacks on it; none of those were made in good faith, and basically all of them were distortions and untruths. So deny you’re doing any of it while speaking generally in favor of its aims by another name, diffuse the issue during the campaign, and then implement as many of its recommendations as possible once in office. Everybody knew this was happening. Nobody was particularly angry about it, because everybody knew the attacks on Project 2025 were typical campaign fearmongering. And what Vought clearly understands, as does Trump’s team, is that the change they represent doesn’t scare the American people much but it absolutely terrifies the Washington elites. Which he expresses as a good thing. In the interview, Vought uses the word exhilarating several times in talking about the proposed Trump cabinet and the impending structural reforms of the federal government that await. I’ve said that the world changed on Nov. 5 and that we’re now officially through with the New Deal/Great Society era of American politics. Watch Vought’s Carlson interview and you’ll get a solid glimpse into what comes next. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Shapiro Has a Major Opportunity In Stopping the Pennsylvania Steal Five Quick Things: Trump’s Cabinet Picks Are a Political Sea Change Does Government Really Regulate Industry, or Is It the Other Way Around? The post Saving The Country With Russ Vought appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

James Holmes, the J.C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, reminds us in The National Interest that the Monroe Doctrine is under challenge by the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and China’s Mahanian sea power strategists. Holmes is the co-author (with Toshi Yoshihara) of China’s Naval Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to Mahan. Mahan is, of course, Alfred Thayer Mahan, the great American historian and sea power strategist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Back in 2008, Holmes and Yoshihara warned us in that book that, “Mahan’s writings and theories on sea power furnish an indispensable framework for understanding China’s emerging maritime strategy.” So it has come to pass, as China seeks to use sea power in its broadest sense “in search of economic prosperity and martial clout.” That is what Xi Jinping was doing in Lima, Peru, last week, where he participated in a virtual ceremonial ribbon-cutting for the deepwater Chancay port, which was financed by a $1.3 billion investment from China. This is the latest venture in China’s Belt and Road Initiative in which China uses its economic power to enhance its global geopolitical footprint. Xi said, “China is willing to work with the Peruvian side to take the Chancay project as a starting point to forge a new maritime-land corridor between China and Latin America.” NBC News describes Chancay as a “megaport” that China intends to use as a “major shipping hub between Asia and South America.” Holmes, in his National Interest piece, describes the port as a “lodgment for Chinese sea power on this side of the Pacific Ocean.” China’s Mahan was Admiral Liu Huaqing, who served as commander of the PLAN from 1982 to 1987, and led a major shift in Chinese naval strategy from “Coastal Defense” to “Offshore Defense.” Holmes and Yoshihara called Liu “a central figure in China’s dramatic turn to the seas.” They cited Liu’s memoirs in which he favorably referenced Mahan’s works as furnishing a theoretical weapon for great powers to expand and seek hegemony. Holmes and Yoshihara also noted that Chinese naval strategists in the 21st century looked to Mahan for geopolitical guidance. Chinese strategists interpret sea power in broad Mahanian terms that, Holmes notes, include trade, supply chains, merchant vessels, diplomacy, and access to overseas ports. Holmes calls this activity “maritime entrepreneurship.” And Xi has taken this activity to the Western Hemisphere in an unambiguous challenge to Pres. James Monroe’s doctrine. The brains behind the Monroe Doctrine, which was announced by Monroe in December 1823, was Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. The doctrine sought to prevent further foreign (in those days European) colonization in the Western Hemisphere. Until the Obama administration, every American president invoked the doctrine as a geopolitical necessity for U.S. security. In 2013, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the Monroe Doctrine was dead. Obama’s diplomacy served as an invitation to China to exert economic and political influence in the Western Hemisphere. China was quick to grasp the implications of this American retreat. During his first term as president, Donald Trump sought to revive the Monroe Doctrine by announcing at the U.N. that the United States “reject[s] the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere.” Later, Trump’s national security adviser told a Miami audience that “the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.” (READ MORE: With Trump’s Presidency, the China Hawks Are Back) Holmes hopes that a second Trump administration and a GOP-led Congress will be “mindful of [China’s] hemispheric challenges.” He reaches back to another great American geopolitical thinker, Nicholas Spykman, who, he writes, “cautioned Americans not to assume Latin America was their natural preserve.” Spykman was writing when Hitler’s Germany sought to expand its influence in Latin America. China today poses a much greater hemispheric threat than Germany ever did in the 1940s. Holmes’ article reminds us that the geopolitical competition with China is not limited to the Western Pacific or even the greater Indo-Pacific — it is global. It will define world politics for the foreseeable future. READ MORE from Francis Sempa: Is Biden Trying to Start World War III Before Trump Takes Office? With Trump’s Presidency, the China Hawks Are Back Satan Never Sleeps in Communist China The Growing Irrelevance of the Mainstream Media The post Rejuvenating the Monroe Doctrine appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When Pres. Donald Trump took office in 2017, he promised free, fair, and reciprocal trade, including deals to open markets to U.S. exports and bring more investment to the United States. Unfortunately, his chief trade advisors, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, overlooked the “free” part of Trump’s pledge. Instead of opening foreign markets to U.S. exports, their policies closed them. Instead of working to bring more job-creating investment to the United States, they characterized foreign investment as conquest by purchase and a transfer of wealth. Lighthizer even endorsed a capital access fee — aka a tax — to discourage foreign investment. Their tariff schemes were an undisputed failure. Lighthizer’s Section 301 tariffs on China alone have cost American manufacturers and families $235 billion and counting. That’s the equivalent of nearly $1,800 for every American household. Rather than changing its unfair practices as Lighthizer expected, China instead imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, as pointed out in Trump’s 2019 Economic Report of the President. Americans will soon learn whether Trump is ready to try something different. As he wrote in The Art of the Deal, “I also try to protect myself by being flexible. I never get too attached to one deal or one approach.” Let’s hope so. During his first term, Trump proposed a smarter approach than the one pursued by Lighthizer: reciprocal zero-tariff trade deals to eliminate unfair foreign trade barriers and boost U.S. manufacturing. Early in his first term, Trump specifically called for dropping all barriers to trade between the United States and the European Union. Trump adviser Larry Kudlow repeatedly reiterated that Trump saw tariff threats as a negotiating tool to get to zero tariffs, in contrast to some of his advisors who pushed tariffs as an end goal. There is ample precedent in U.S. history for Trump’s reciprocal zero-tariff approach. Our country’s first commercial treaties, with France and Great Britain, called for equality, reciprocity, and the avoidance of burdensome preferences. In the early 1800s, Congress endorsed agreements based on general and reciprocal abolition of all discriminating duties. In 1890, the McKinley Tariff Act eliminated tariffs on goods like sugar and tea. Congress hoped that Pres. William McKinley could use the threat of reinstating them to secure reciprocal tariff cuts from our trading partners. Following the Great Depression, U.S. trade negotiations were governed by a succession of reciprocal trade agreement acts. The resulting deals significantly reduced foreign trade barriers. The average world tariff for countries participating in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade coming out of World War II was 22 percent. As of 2017, the average world tariff rate was just 2.6 percent, a remarkable 88 percent cut. Trump embracing reciprocal zero-tariff trade deals would be a welcome change from the Biden administration’s trade policies. Agreements pursued by Biden explicitly failed to seek tariff cuts. The Biden administration even called this a feature of its approach, not a bug. Instead, it pursued international regulations designed to promote equity, women’s empowerment, and inclusivity. Trump’s zero-tariff deals would reject this model of complex, bloated agreements governing noneconomic issues. Trump often refers to McKinley’s tariff policies. According to McKinley, “Most desirable from every standpoint of national interest and patriotism is the effort to extend our foreign commerce.” Trump can leave a lasting legacy by pursuing reciprocal zero-for-zero trade deals that extend our commerce abroad and combat high prices at home. Bryan Riley is the director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. READ MORE: Tariffs, Cars, and the Whiskey War The Spectacle Ep. 150: Rand Paul on Violence Against Trump, Balancing Budgets, and Tackling Tariffs Time for a Teachable Moment on Tariffs The post The Time Is Definitely Right for Trump’s Reciprocal Zero-for-Zero Tariff Plan appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Given that Donald Trump is now the president-elect of the United States, how has the Muslim world reacted to him recently? It has been a mixed bag, with watchdog groups like Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and Palestinian Media Watch reporting the president-elect received relatively positive coverage in the Gulf and Egyptian press and negative coverage coming from Qatar, Iran, and the Palestinian Authority. Trump as a Peacemaker  One columnist in the Saudi daily Okaz stressed that Trump could broker peace in the Middle East, and took an implicit swipe against “some Arab… organizations and nations,” presumably Iran and its proxies, who don’t see it that way: Trump, who was despised by some Arab and Western organizations and nations that were taken in by the propaganda leading up to [his election] as president… became the man who will save the world from a possible nuclear war and save the Middle East from Sisyphean wars, and the man who enables [us] to dream and makes peace a reality… Another Okaz columnist criticized the current Biden–Harris administration and looked forward to Trump’s leadership to end the wars in the Middle East. The editorial stated: In light of the wars [raging across the world], from Ukraine to Gaza and Lebanon — as well as the political and security tensions, regarding which the Democratic administration has failed to achieve any breakthroughs so far — the overwhelming victory of the Republican candidate Donald Trump comes at a time when the world needs decisive action and positions in order to put out the raging fires and stop the bloodshed… The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, published a piece that was hopeful that Trump would leverage Arab allies to fight against terrorism. The editorial stated: The issue of combating terrorism was at the forefront of Trump’s election campaign, so he is expected to work for broader cooperation with the moderate governments in the [Middle East] region, which likewise seek to fight terrorism. It is known that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE lead these moderate forces, and Donald Trump will [therefore] work towards greater cooperation with them… A London-based Emirati daily, Al-Arab, column predicted that Trump would bring a return to the Abraham Accords and check some of Iran’s threats to the region: In the Middle East, Trump…is expected to work to tighten his relations with his traditional allies in the region, especially the moderate Arab states… The region will also witness a return to the Abraham Accords with Israel, which will put an end to the crises currently hanging over the region – in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Yemen and elsewhere. As for Iran, it will be in a difficult position, as its leaders understand that Trump’s return could mean more pressure and sanctions [against their country], and perhaps even military threats that could endanger its nuclear program. However, Iran will continue to be driven by considerations related to its available military and economic power, which might force it to maneuver and make some tactical concessions, albeit without undermining the core of its regional strategy, especially its support for its local proxies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Trump as a Warmonger However, other press in the Muslim world was more inflammatory against Trump, painting him as a warmonger. An editorial in the London-based Qatari daily, Al-Arabi Al-Jadid, stated that Trump’s “return to the presidency of the world’s most powerful country is a serious nightmare… in the case of Trump and his expected administration, we are looking at a higher level of arrogance, Zionism and racism… Before us is a man [characterized by] storms, recklessness, extremism, populism, hostility toward the press and its freedoms, and love for tyrants and dictators…” Hamshari, the most widely circulated daily in Iran, featured an image of Trump in handcuffs and called out his “past crimes against the Iranian people,” including sanctions and the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force Commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani. The official Palestinian Authority daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, stated that Trump, “[W]ith his colonialist and racist path… constitutes a danger to the American people, the world’s peoples, its stability, its security…” and that Trump “will exceed Adolph Hitler due to the strengthening of his belief in ‘racial superiority.’” The newspaper also stated that “[Trump] has said things a billion times more destructive than the destruction caused by the two atomic bombs that were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” It is likely the conciliatory rhetoric from the Saudi, Emirati, and Egyptian press versus the examples of more belligerent rhetoric from the Qatari, Iranian, and Palestinian press will resemble the way that these respective governments will react toward President-elect Trump once he assumes office. The former group has more to gain under a second Trump presidency (a Saudi–Israel–U.S. deal and expansion of the Abraham Accords), while the latter has more to lose (decreased tolerance for the material financing of terrorism, and maximum pressure on Iran). READ MORE from Steve Postal: Despite $1.3 Billion in US Aid, Egypt Endorses Hamas UK Parliament Gets Its Own Pro-Palestinian Squad The Palestinian Authority Is Jihadist Too The post Trump Gets Mixed Press From Muslim World appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star: It’s interesting to watch the world-wide meltdown and responses to Mr. Trump’s re-election, and one of these I think might  – and I stress, might – be taking place in Germany. That country, it seems, has established it’s own space command, according to this story from 2021 shared by M.D. […]

by Mish Shedlock, Mish Talk: Pennsylvania officials have admitted willingly counting illegal ballots. It’s time to prosecute. State Supreme Court Rules Against Fraud Please consider State Supreme Court: Incorrectly Filed Ballots Will Not Be Counted in PA Senate Race Recount. TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/ With a recount ensuing, incumbent State Senator Bob Casey argued that undated […]