A Rare Arab Occurence: Judging Leaders By Their Peformance

How refreshing. Part of the mobocracy in the Arab world is to judge leaders by hearsay, not by performance. There is a weakened sense of nationalism in a 400 million population of whom 40% are illiterate. A combination which makes the rumor and personal interest the parameters for judging leadership performance. Yet, I was lucky enough to look up the sky when a shooting star was streaking across that darkness.

That was an article in the e-journal of Al-Qabas of Kuwait by a leader whom I have known for years to enjoy the gift of critical thinking. It is Ambassador Abdullah Bishara, former Kuwait representative to the UN, and later, the first Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council (6 Gulf States). I always read his stuff and learn from it: the graceful Arabic rendering; the political analytical approach; the absence of pandering to leadership.

Bishara, as the founder and president of the Kuwaiti think tank of diplomatic and strategic studies, has been, and rightly so, critical of Egypt under Nasser (1950-1970), and aficionado of the democracy of Egypt before the Nasser Coup. On that plane, he and I, friends since 1968 (50 years ago) are on the same page. The ideological and contentious trajectory of Nasser's Egypt, and the lack of attention to the sovereignties of other Arab States caused the Egyptian public plenty of headaches.

Under Nasser, the great educational edifice crumbled. It was replaced by the rantings of hucksters, such as Mohamad Hassanain Heykal of Al-Ahram newspaper who sermonized that Arab leaders who did not accept Nasser's approach to Arab events were "traitors." I had once confronted Heykal at a dinner in Cairo in 1969 about the destructive hegemonic of attributing "treason" to others.

There has never been a consensual definition of "treason" which the Arab community of nations has reached. Nor can that be reached as each of these countries values its independence as an insulator from outside intervention under the guise of the controversial term "pan-Arabism." 

Under Nasser, Egypt became saddled with the inordinate price of his seeking to be a pan-Arab leader. The results were a series of catastrophes: The Sudan split from Egypt; Yemen descended into its first civil war (1962); Israel quadrupled its size following the 1967 war (the Six-Day War). The Arab leaders in Khartoum in 1967 declared: No negotiation, no recognition, no peace. That was at a time when Israel was ready to deal; but Nasser, and behind him, a corrupt Palestinian leadership, were after their image, not after an honorable accommodation.

Three years later, Arafat tried but failed to take over Jordan; the PLO immigrated to Lebanon; and Sharon of Israel, though through genocide at Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, forced Arafat and his corrupt coterie to flee to Tunisia. At every step, that failed Arab leadership assigned the word "victory" to every defeat. Even the massive defeat of 1967 was called "the setback" (Al-Naksah). The Nasser scene was one of phony image, but no substance. "The voice of the Arabs" was nothing as radio broadcasts more than unworthy propaganda in the service of Nasser.

Then in 1970, an Egyptian regeneration occurred with Vice President Sadat succeeding Nasser who passed away that year. An under-valued leader, the son of a Sudanese mother, whom the Nasser goons had disparaged and defamed as unfit to fill the shoes of his towering predecessor.

Being the heirs to the legacy of bombast, they were proven wrong. There was talk of attempted coup with Aly Sabri ready to assume the helm. Sadat, unexpectedly struck back; the armed forces stood solidly behind the legality of succession; and the suspected perpetrators ended up in jail, including the real author of "The Philosophy of the Revolution," Heykal.

With the era of pretended leadership of the fractious Arab world gone, Sadat, a true Egyptian patriot, saw in his presidency two vital goals: Regain Sinai from Israeli occupation, and rebuilding his country through economic and financial opening. As to the Arab world, Sadat ended any form of intervention, whether by the military, by the intelligence services, or by pretentious inflated propaganda.

Egypt, under Sadat, was not above other Arab countries; it acted as an example of a sovereignty which respected the sovereignties of its Arab sister States. Soon the era of good feelings generated by the Sadat regime (1970-1981) paid its national dividends, especially through Saudi Arabia under the enlightened leadership of King Farsal Ibn Abdel Aziz. His generosity was crucial to rebuilding, not only Egypt's economy, but also its demoralized huge armed forces.

With the Soviets dismissed by Sadat in 1972, the Supreme Armed Forces Command planned and successfully executed the crossing of the Suez Canal on October 6, 1973; destroyed the Israeli Bar Lev lines and partially penetrated Sinai. Egyptian honor was restored because that was not a fight, a la Nasser in Syria or Yemen. It was a fight by Egyptians, assisted by other Arab countries, for Egyptian liberation. The final outcome was peace with honor in the form of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979 which is still standing.

From Sadat, to Mubarak (1981-2011), to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (2011-2013), to the transitional government of Counsellor Adly Mansour (2013-2014), to El-Sisi (2014 to the present). The Sadat approach to Egyptian leadership held.

This brings me to the thoughtful assessment by Ambassador Abdullah Bishara of Kuwait in Al-Qabas newspaper in December 2017. Entitled (in Arabic) as "El-Sisi's leadership and Reforming Egypt," the author, eloquently, hit all the right keys. Bishara states that

• Modern Egyptian history records the names of two leaders who relieved Egypt from unprecedented burdens: Sadat, the liberator of Sinai; El-Sisi as Egypt's reformer;
• As the preparations for Sinai liberation distanced Sadat from the woes of its declining economy, El-Sisi came to give that economy his full attention;
• In the process, El-Sisi boldly relieved Egypt's economy from public subsidies for food stuffs, gas, electricity and water;
• Simultaneously, El-Sisi relentlessly pursued all those corrupt officials who have tarnished the dignity of Egypt and its public. There was no truce with those suspected of corruption whhom he exposed to public view;
• Referring to the other national preoccupation of El-Sisi, namely combatting terrorism, Bishara rightly points to El-Sisi perspective on terrorism as a retardant of Egypt's development.

Bishara's conclusion, which happily conforms to the reality of President El-Sisi, is that he is a true Egyptian leader, deeply immersed in his country's economic and social progress. Within that frame of mind, El-Sisi has patterned his diplomatic road map to align it with the improvement of the lot of his people.

Thus, Bishara, finds in El-Sisi approach a negation of the adventurism which characterized earlier regimes. The author sees in that sane and pragmatic approach the best way to stretching the hands of friendship and cooperation to all capitals. The goal, Bishara says, is to gain for Egypt access to technology and investments. For under El-Sisi, Cairo has become a capital with no enemy capitals abroad.

At the same time, Bishara sees the urgent need for Egypt to deepen the culture of investment. Laws, by themselves, are not enough. The educational process in regard to investment needs the elucidation of a philosophy which suffered greatly under Nasser. Nasserism has wrongly painted investment as a disease which robs Egypt, weakens its national resolve, and conspires against its security.

The remedy, as seen by Ambassador Bishara, is to inform the nation that investment creates job opportunities, opens up foreign markets, and introduces the new arts of management and technological innovation.

Only through such approaches, asserts the author, could Egypt create global partnerships which uplift the status of Egypt. This is feasible. Such a regime, which is confident in its capabilities and is a believer in the worthiness of its national program, can find in the societies of the private sector a true collaborator.

To Bishara, the yardstick for measuring the performance of El-Sisi government is: the educational and institutional innovations of Muhammad Ali Pasha, the founder, since 1805, of Egypt's last royal family. Then as now, seeking knowledge and education everywhere abroad, was the norm.

His parting shot in that seminal article in Al-Qabas of Kuwait, is a "We stand with Egypt, as we understand the nature of the leadership weight placed on the shoulders of President El-Sisi." This is particularly so after the terrorist massacre at the mosque in North Sinai -a massacre perpetrated by the devils of assassinations.

"May God Save Egypt and the Egyptians" was Bishara's prayer at the end of his article.

It is refreshing and inspiring to have such an Arab thinker, like Abdulla Bishara of Kuwait, pick up his pen to assess the Egyptian leader in terms of performance, not in terms of the dying personality cult and fake propaganda.

Note: Alazhar Forever replaces Tahrir Forever. Its focus is "The New Islamic Religious Revolution."

A Foolish American Interpretation of Egyptian-Russian Relations

It is foolish because it is as old as the 1950s. Out of sync with the march, always accelerating, of the global political life. Judging should be based not on yesterday's facts. It should be based on the facts of the moment, even when you glance at the prior cases.

The New York Times of December 1 headlined on its first page: "Egypt Agrees to Open Bases to Russian Jets." A neutral headline, followed by the imperial interpretation of yester years. Here follow the points where the reasoning is as old as a museum piece telling how the past was:

• "The agreement would give Russia its deepest presence in Egypt since 1973;"
• The U.S. has provided Egypt with more than $1.3 billion a year for four decades because that aid "secures the use of Egypt's airspace and bases for the American military;"
• Analysts "characterized the preliminary deal as the latest sign of the waning influence of the U.S.;"
• Then quoting from a former American deputy assistant secretary of defense, the paper bolsters its foolish interpretation by his imperial language. "Power abhors a vacuum, and when the United States pulls back, we can't be under the impression that the world is going to stand by and wait for us."

These are pitiful points of reasoning because they reflect mental sclerosis regarding Egypt. That country, throughout its long history has never been a client State of any power. No foreign military bases have ever been allowed by any Egyptian government, monarchical or republican. Not even during the 400 years of Ottoman nominal rule (1517-1917). No bravado in this. Only historical facts.

In fact, it was the Egyptian army of modern Egypt, built by Muhammad Ali as of 1805, that punched through the Ottoman Empire in 1832 to punish an impudent Sultan. Marched as far as only 60 miles from the seat of that Empire. British troops were stationed in Egypt as of 1882 as an occupation presence, and were gone by 1956. And the U.N. Peace-Keepers, in Egypt as of 1957, do not constitute occupation since the host country can always invite them out.

This phenomenon of Egyptian freedom from clientism or, for this matter, occupier-inclination in the modern era, cannot be due only to one single factor. Among the multiple factors, account should also be taken of: the longevity of the deep historical State (7000 years); demographic cohesion; the nilotic tendency to stay close to home; the inter-continental bridge between 3 continents, thus heightening the innate apprehension of suffering, say, the history of Poland or the Korean peninsula.

And when Rommel, the German brilliant general, pushed eastward from Libya into Egypt, reaching less than 100 miles from Alexandria in 1942, we, as high school students donned military uniforms to fight him. 

Hence the fallacy of the rationale of the New York Times experts as they make the facile claim of: "The danger and the reality (of landing rights in Egypt for Russian military aircraft in Egypt) is that other countries will take advantage of the opportunity presented when America chooses to pull back."

Even the linkage between this new facet of Egyptian-Russian relationships to the Cairo/Moscow agreement to have Russian building nuclear power facilities at Al-Dhabaa is patently counterfeit. For what does Cairo's search for energy has to do with the implied claim of subjugation of Egypt to the will of Putin's Russia? A contradiction of today's revelations about the Trump's administration feverish search for Russia's helping hand to put Trump into the Oval office.

Getting away at this juncture from these deceptive claims to the content analysis of this imperialistic posture, we find the unmistakable resurrection of the colonial notions of:

• The Russia/Egypt agreement is a symptom of a power void. There are power voids only in failed States due to their inability to conduct foreign affairs. Not applicable to Egypt; 
• Egypt entered into that agreement with Russia to boost its tourist industries. The plain fact is that tourism is rebounding in Egypt mainly from Arab and other Asian arrivals.
• The relationship between Cairo/Washington/Moscow is a zero-sum relationship. A gain by Moscow in Egypt is perceived as a loss by D.C. Not so. In Cairo, there has been a strategic shift away from non-alignment under Nasser, to multi-alignment under El-Sisi. Purchasing military hardware from Moscow and Paris, while keeping the contracts with Washington intact in the areas of maintenance and fresh supplies.

Even Saudi Arabia under King Salman, has pivoted in the same direction. The King was the first Saudi monarch to pay a State visit to the Kremlin last month. That is after he teamed up with Trump in Riyadh in a sword-dance, and multi-billion dollars contract for modernizing the Saudi arsenal.

In Analysis, which also goes by another name, interpretation, one has to seek not only what was said, but also what was not said. Of the latter category, there is plentiful of examples:

• The worrisome ups and downs in Congressional attitudes towards aid to Egypt. Though contractual and linked legally to the peace treaty of 1979 between Egypt and Israel, it has become akin to a ball in the field of competition between American special interests, lobbies, and stable foreign policy;
• The constant drumbeat emanating from Washington questioning the legitimacy of the elevation of El-Sisi to the presidency of Egypt. That process was not, as those nay-sayers claim, a military take-over. It was the result of the implementation of the Egyptian secular Constitution of January 2014: a fair and open election contest between El-Sisi and Sabbahi;
• The continuous intrusion in the internal affairs of Egypt through American governmental actions (the annual assessment of human rights in Egypt by the State Department) and non-governmental organizations like Human Rights watch;
• In a country like Egypt, where terrorism has felled hundreds of casualties, the country has perforce to put societal right to security, ahead of individual rights, in the context of emergency laws. The American Civil War of the 1860s witnessed the partial suspension of the US Constitution. And where is American due process and the jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus in keeping Guantanamo open since 2002, even when the American judiciary asserts the viability of application of these basic rights to Muslim detainees?! These helpless victims have not even been charged by military commissions;
• Add to the above the manifestations of anti-Islamism exhibited nearly daily by President Trump, members of his administration, and his supporters?! This is no longer freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Calls to hate have increased the volume of incidents, both anti-Semitic and anti-Islamists. These go largely unprosecuted. They are lumped together within the Nazi-like call for "Save Us From Islamization;" 
• Muslim bans are, in effect, igniters of ISIS-like terrorism as they become fodder for jihadi propaganda helping recruitment and funding;
• And how could Trump's ill-considered decision to declare Jerusalem, whose eastern part is occupied territory since 1967, the capital of Israel advance the cause of peace generally, or of American/Egyptian amity, specifically?

In all of this, one sees America's lurch to the Right, staggering towards white nativism which seeks in the old imperial lingo a mode of self-assertion. This is the essence of hegemony. America today has military presence in more than 100 countries.

There is no American physical retreat. Only a retreat from rationale regarding other sovereignties claim to the right to action independent of the wishes of other sovereignties. Facts are facts. They are not alternatives. 

Alternative facts are falsehoods. Including foolish interpretations deriving from the bygone days of the Cold War of a bipolar world. 

And one has to be blind not to admit that America under Trump is now experiencing a period of irrational governance. This great country is divided between right and left to the point of outright tribalism. Trump, lacking the power of inquiry, is following what appears to be a formula for destroying "the administrative State."

With an approaching constitutional crisis, how can America's allies rely upon Washington's promises? On December 1, General Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security advisor, pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to the FBI about conversations with Russian officials regarding elimination of sanctions imposed by Obama, prior to Trump becoming president.

The claim by Trump on December 3 that Flynn's life is unjustly being destroyed by the judicial system is manifestly bogus. It puts the American President in further legal jeopardy.

Commenting on this State of chaos in the White House which can only become worse, Garry Wills in an article on Trump in the New York Review of Books dated December 21, 2017, says: Trump's "neglect of necessary requirements for governing offers in itself grounds for impeachment."

NOTE: My new book entitled, "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution" is now available to be purchased through Amazon from the following link: https://www.amazon.com/War-Jihadism-Ideology-Religious-Revolution/dp/1979932182

NOTE: The frequency of posting this blog in 2018 shall be reduced due to my concentration on writing my autobiography.

Judging By His UN Speech, Trump Should Be Certified "Insane"!!

If in doubt, read his declaration of wiping off North Korea off the map. And if still in doubt, read his attacks on Iran, and Venezuela. Still in doubt regarding the U.S. President gone rogue? Read his declaration at the U.N., an organization of equal state sovereignty, about "America First."

Could it be the stress of multiple investigations in his possible collusion with Russia to put him on top in the 2016 elections? Or could it be that his flaunted wall on the American/Mexico border cannot be funded? Or that his son, Donald Jr. and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner are now in the cross-hairs of multiple investigators? With no hope of eventual pardons by Trump, unavailable at the New York State level?

To fathom how "Trump is the shame of America," compare his UN speech with that of a leader, El-Sisi, of Egypt -a developing nation!! For content analysis is a useful tool for comparing two speeches given at the UN on September 19 from the rostrum of the General Assembly. I served there for more than 30 years and wrote many speeches for the UN Secretary-General and for other presentations in his name. As a long-time insider, I know how leaders often talk, behave, interact and project. By these standards, I judge Trump as the American Idi Amin of Uganda, or Qaddafi of Libya, or Chavez of Venezuela. The Fraternity of the Deplorables!!

The UN Charter, in its Article I on "Purposes and Principles" provides for taking "effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." That charter is a World War II document which was in the making since 1942, though signed in San Francisco in June 1945.

In spite of those provisions, Donald Trump stood under the dome of the UN General Assembly to shoot holes into that international treaty. Declaring war of annihilation of North Korea, he said: "The United States has great strength and patience. But if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but totally destroy North Korea." An unequivocal threat to the peace in East Asia.

By comparison, the Egyptian President declared from the same spot on which the Trump's sabre-rattling took place: "We are certain that the purposes and principles of the United Nations are still valid for the founding of a world which provides for all its inhabitants the opportunity for benefiting from ...the great potentiality of realizing the dream of a just and peaceful world order. An order of open interaction with all of humanity." How more statesmanship can one hope for?

But that direct threat of genocide, uttered by an unhinged Donald Trump, against North Korea was not enough for the American President. Other verbal idiocies followed, as he castigated Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and more. Armed with a teleprompter, but baffled by the lack of applause from a chamber silenced only by diplomatic protocol, he pontificated: "If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph." 

It is said that Bush Jr.'s downfall began with his infamous description of "Iraq, Iran and North Korea" as the axis of evil. That slogan underpinned a non-winnable war of 16 years in Afghanistan, the sectarian mayhem in Iraq, the voids filled by the crazy jihadists, and the launching by both Iran and North Korea of the quest for an ultimate deterrent called nuclear armament.

Contrast this aggressive hyperbole from the US, reflecting disdain for a UN world of equal sovereignties, with what El-Sisi said only four hours after the Trump's shameful spectacle. The Egyptian leader said: "In an interconnected and complex world, replete with challenges which are difficult to overcome by any single State, regardless of its capacities and determination, it has become logical for Egypt to aspire to implementing a development plan. Such a plan has to be intertwined with an energetic foreign policy which draws its inspiration from a moral code entrenched in our heritage and culture. Such a policy closely adheres to the legal principles of the world order to which Egypt has contributed to its emergence."

Well!! Haven't Trump invoked the concept of "sovereignty" from the UN General Assembly rostrum 20 times? Sovereignty is not a weapon which is uncheased at will by the strong with a view to overwhelming the sovereignty of the weak. The UN General Assembly is the world's house of commons where Malta and China have co-equal voting powers, regardless of demographic size and influence.

That concept is also operational as reflected in Article I (par.2) of the UN Charter. That provision calls on all UN members "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

An important mechanism for fostering that coveted "universal peace" is to respect the sanctity of treaties and international agreements. At law schools, we drill in the minds of our students the Latin phrase: "Pacta Sunt Servanda." (Pacts must be observed). But Trump has consistently demonstrated that pacts are a process whereby their terms must remain open for possible unilateral change.

An ominous demonstration of that Trumpian trait is his attacks on the Iran nuclear deal. Assailing that agreement, which had been ratified in 2015 by the Security Council, nitwit Trump declared at the UN: "The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into." Then looking straight in the direction of Iran's seats in the GA hall, he belligerently fulminated: "Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don't think you've heard the last of it, believe me."

Unbelievable!! The parties to that historic deal are all the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany and Iran. America alone cannot undo that agreement. Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified Iran's adherence to that agreement which postponed for 15 years Iran's non-enrichment of uranium.

The reaction by both Iran's President Hassan Rouhani and its foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was swift. Rouhani warned that America's exiting that agreement would lead to "no one will trust America again." Less diplomatically, Zarif who negotiated that agreement for two long years said: "Trump's ignorant hate speech belongs in medieval times -not the 21st Century UN."

But El-Sisi speech at the UN in regard to "Pacta Sunt Servanda" belonged to the 21st Century UN. Referring to the Egypt-Israel treaty of 1979, he directly addressed both the Palestinians and the Israelis. To the Palestinians he said: "Your unity is most important for achieving your goal. Do not waste any more time in readying yourselves to co-exist with the Israelis in security and peace."

And for the Israelis, El-Sisi said: "I address this call to you directly. We, in Egypt, have with you a great experience -living in peace with you for forty years. It is an experience which, once more, can be replicated -security and peace for the Israeli citizen living side by side with the Palestinian citizen."

Where is scatter brained Trump from the President of a country in transition "From Chaos To the Strong State," as I described Egypt in my 2016 book by Amazon? The Greeks invented the term Enosis as a movement for unity -unity between Greece and Cyprus. El-Sisi and many other leaders like him made of enosis a global cause in their UN speeches. Who is Trump kidding when he told the General Assembly: "The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies!!" Really, Mr. President?! Your own Chief of Staff, General John Kelly was observed bringing his head between his two hands while you fulminated nonsense as if in an American campaign rally.

At the UN, by his measured statement on September 20, Hassan Rouhani of Iran proved that Trump was irrelevant to the very concept of the UN. His words rang true as he said: "The ignorant, absurd, and hateful rhetoric with ridiculously baseless allegations that was uttered before this body yesterday was not only unfit to be heard at the UN which was established to promote peace and respect between nations. But indeed also contradicted the demands of our nations from this world body to bring governments together to combat war and terror." And "the prize goes to" --the leader wearing a turban!!

In the New York Times of September 25, 2017, Peter Baker, the author of "Obama: A Call to History," said about Trump: "He has made himself America's apostle of anger, its deacon of divisiveness ... Mr. Trump has attacked virtually every major institution in American life ... even the United States of America."


Note: New blog postings will resume on a weekly basis after my new book is ready for the press this Fall. Its title: "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution"

The Ottoman Evil Spirit In Trump's White House

President Trump may not need a chief of staff. He is his own chief of staff. But he may need an exorcist to free him from the Ottoman evil spirit. The manifestations of that spirit have multiplied. Creating a White House in turmoil.

What should that exorcist, if found, be armed with: His holy water is the U.S. Constitution; his luring Trump into exorcising sessions should be in the pre-dawn hours when Trump is about to tweet his crazy statements; his voice should be soothing with words of adulation for that perplexing Commander-in-Chief.

Above all, the exorcist should use some Russian words, because no Ottoman (Turkish) spirit could bear the sound of the Russian language. First Lady Melania from ex-Yugoslavia might assist in keeping the Donald from frothing at the mouth during that ritual.

That Ottoman evil spirit has so far replicated in the White House what the Sultans in Istanbul (Constantinople) had done for 500 years:

• All senior White House staff distrust one another;
• Your opponent is someone with easy access to Trump;
• Making the Sultan (Trump) fearful of the intrigue by others outside of the Oval Office is a national duty;
• Lying to the President, or by the President, or for the President to the nation and the world is loyalty, honor, and courage; and
• Back-knifing is a patriotic sport.

Above all, the exorcist should ignore Trump's tantrums and vulgar language. The more that filth pours out of his mouth, the closer the exorcism is to a happy end: Trump, now hopefully cured, is out of the White House.

His embodiment of the Ottomans, brought about in part by General Mike Flynn, a foreign agent for Turkey while becoming a national security advisor, has brought unspeakable harm to America and the world:

• The turmoil of successive firings of a dozen senior staff has stalled work on the national agenda: jobs, health, the economy, taxation, infrastructure, and security;
• The obsession with repealing the legacy of President Obama, including its signature legislation in the areas of health care and the environment, has led to a rupture of Congressional bipartisanship, attacks on Obamacare while being the law of the land, and threats by the Executive against Congress -a co-equal branch of government;
• The repeated attacks on the integrity of the judiciary and the institution of free press have given life to the agenda of the ultra conservatives led by Steve Bannon, chief strategist for the President. Its main tenet is "the destruction of the administrative state;" 
• The abuse by the President of laws against nepotism and conflict of interest through appointing his daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as senior presidential advisors. These violations constitute a danger to the trust in government and in the Rule of Law; and
• The calls by the President for condoning of violence against protesters, suspects in police custody, persons perceived as immigrants, are attacks on a national environment of law and order.

Such palace authoritarianism mentality, coupled with silence on the vulgarity of Anthony Scaramucci, former Director of Communications, has led to:

• Congressional defiance of Trump especially through sanctioning Russia for, among other things, meddling in the 2016 national elections. The near unanimous resolution on these sanctions was made veto-proof by Trump;
• Trump's forced signature on that resolution, now made law, was bemoaned by Trump as an unconstitutional interference in his foreign policy making;
• Resort by the Senate to staying in pro-forma session to prevent Trump from attempts at removal of the Attorney General as a means to derailing investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 elections;
• Expansion of the investigations by the Special Counsel beyond potential electoral conspiracies to also cover Trump's business and family finance has become public knowledge. This in spite of Trump's description of that investigative expansion as "red lines" -another aspect of Congressional defiance to this rogue presidency.
• The convening by special counsel of a grand jury, or his resort to empowering an existing grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C. are clear indications that those investigations are robust. Subpoenas have already been issued. They are the primary method by which prosecutors gather evidence in criminal investigations.

The international repercussions of the Ottomanism of this presidency are legion:

• Russia's reaction to American punitive sanctions, especially in the areas of energy and banking, has been swift. Russian actions against American diplomatic presence on Russia is only the beginning. Giving up on the prospects of warmer relations between Moscow and Trump's Washington, Putin derided anti-Russian sanctions as "Russophobic tools;"
• Trump's calls for China's help with restraining North Korea from posing a nuclear threat to America's mainland were quixotic. His attacks on China as a currency manipulator, the naval confrontations by the two powers in the South China Sea, and the flow of American arms to Taiwan, have all made such calls contradictory. President Xi's rebuff to Trump was made public in late July by Chinese media describing the Donald as "green horned" -a novice;
• Even in America's neighborhood to the North (Canada) or to the South (Mexico), the thrust of dealings in regard to trade has now sidestepped the federal government and refocused on directly contracting with individual American states.

The gravest aspect of this presidency remains its daily affront against the Rule of Law. Washington, D.C. is not the Astana of the Ottomans, although there is a strong whiff of it over this White House.

In and op. ed. page article in the New York Times of July 29, Sally Yates, a former Deputy Attorney General, leveled these attacks against Trump: "He's ripping the blindfold off Lady Justice and attempting to turn the department into a sword to seek vengeance against his perceived enemies and a shield to protect himself and his allies."

And on July 31 came the revelation that Trump has personally written the cover-up statement of his son, Donald Jr.'s liaison with Russia.

Finding himself in early August besieged by multiple investigations, Trump fell back on an old Ottoman device: Ascending the pulpit to harangue his devotees that attacking him is an affront to legitimacy -a political apostasy bordering on insurrection.

That Ottoman evil spirit was in plain sight inhabiting Trump at his rally in West Virginia on August 4.

Time to fire that exorcist as weak and ineffectual. The evil that Trump knows is better than the evil that he doesn't know!!


Note: New blog postings will resume on a weekly basis after my new book is ready for the press this Fall. Its title: "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution"                                                   

Peering Through Middle Eastern Fog: Wahhabism Receding, Ottomanism Rising

On the one-hand, Wahhabism was originally forged by a reformer. Muhammad Ibn Abdel-Wahhab sought an Islam based on its sources: The Book (the Quran), The Sunna (Muhammad's tradition) and The Hekmah (common-sense interpretation). Earned high praise by Sheikh Muhammad Abdoh-the all-time Egyptian reformer and liberator.

On the other hand, Turkey, once relieved by Ata Turk in 1923 of the yoke of the Caliphate, began to move on as a secular State. Secularity, supported by its armed forces, was its way forward, straddling both Asia and Europe.

But then, as of the 1920's, the unification of most of the Arabian peninsula by King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud came at a heavy cost. The cost of ceding to the Wahhabis (Al Alsheikh) all matters relating to Islam. About the same time frame, Turkey's stabilization came also at a heavy cost to secularity: No tangible civil rights to either opposition or to the Kurdish minority.

In both Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) and Ankara (Turkey), the sword became the arbiter. That is the sword of a repressive Islam in Riyadh, and the sword of a repressive secularity in Ankara. In both countries, the contents of Islam was converted into non-Islamic authoritarianism.

Yet after nearly 100 years, something happened in both capitals. On the way to the 21st century, a new ideology came to the Saudi government as of the reign of King Abdullah -openness. But to the Turkish scene, came Ordogan, bent on closing the door to secularity, and espousing Islamism. From King Abdullah to King Salman, the road was leading to cutting Wahhabism down to size.

But in Ankara, under Ordogan, the road was leading through dictatorship and Islamism. Expunging secularism for the sake of an Ottoman-like revival.

The two opposite currents had a direct effect on the Muslim Brotherhood and its sanctuaries in both Qatar and Turkey, among other places. In tandem with the New Egypt, Riyadh closed its door to the Brotherhood. That was a historical extension of King Abdul-Aziz's famous retort to the Brotherhood: "Why a Brotherhood center in Riyadh, when we all are Brothers and are all Muslims!!" 

The reverse took place in Ankara where, Ordogan raised his hand of four fingers in a symbolic salute to the Brotherhood.

From reading the tea leaves of the future, the gradual shrinkage of the Wahhabi role in governance is most likely to succeed. Riyadh now seeks true integration in the modern world community. By contrast, the gradual islamization of the new sultanate of pro-Ottoman Ordogan, is most likely to falter due to the historic inculcation of the Ata Turk secularism.

It is a tradition built in the Turkish Constitution as being the sacred trust of the huge NATO-supported armed forces. It was nearly a year ago that a coup against Ordogan nearly succeeded. Its reversal by Ordogan came at the cost of more than 250 people killed and more than 2000 injured.

Reflection on the happenings in both Riyadh and Ankara is a comparative way of guessing at the future in the entire Middle East, following the liberation of Mosul (Iraq) and Raqqa (Syria). While the destruction of the so-called caliphate of ISIS in its two centers of power is a most welcome development, one has to wonder as to what next?

What can the future role of an islamized Turkey and of a less-Wahhabi Saudi Arabia be? In Riyadh, we have a crown prince, Muhammad Bin Salman, seemingly bent on a Saudi Arabia for the 21st century. Can Syria or Iraq remain territorially united? And if not, what might be the effects of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq, or of Kurdish nationalism in Turkey? Could the diplomatic isolation of Iran in the New Middle East last while the influence of Tehran in Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and Sanaa (Yemen) is a fact of political life?

For now, such questions have to remain unanswered. What is assured for now, is that Islam, whose main thesis is unity, shall continue to be divisively interpreted. Especially in the holy land of Mecca and Medina, and in the land of the neo-Ottomans!! No relation or linkage to the Fourth Caliph after Muhammad: Othman Ibn Affan. He was an enlightened leader. The Ottomans, whether old or re-invented, are not.


Note: New blog postings will resume on a weekly basis after my new book is ready for the press this Fall. Its title: "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution"

The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Arab Calamity Caused by Nasser

That was the Six-Day War, begun by Israel on June 5, 1967. It ended by its occupation of Sinai (Egypt), the Golan (Syria), the West Bank (Jordan), Gaza (Egyptian administration), and East Jerusalem (Jordan and the Muslim world). Israel was the aggressor; Nasser was the unwitting creator of those circumstances. Thus in mere 6 days, Israeli administered-territories quadrupled.

Yet there has never been an Egyptian commission of inquiry into Nasser's huge miscalculations whose disastrous consequences are still plaguing the Arab world. Nasser's leadership, though still perceived as gaining honor for the Arab homeland, gained that homeland neither muscle nor relevance to the world community or to regional or universal institutions.

In a historical summary, Nasser was largely about Nasser being seen as the Arab world leader. It was a fake leadership: The Egyptian-Sudanese unity collapsed as Nasser pushed President Naguib (of Sudanese parentage) out; the cozying up with Russia translated into anti-west; the union with Syria into a United Arab Republic lasted only for 3 years (1958-1961). Then came the intrusion into the civil war in Yemen (1962-1967) causing a rupture with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf; the enthusiasm for the 1969 Qaddafi rise to power in Libya was mere empty optics; and the coddling of Arafat of the PLO was at the expense of both Jordan and Lebanon.

There is no doubt that internally in Egypt, Nasser caused the re-start of Egyptian industrialization; the construction of the Aswan dam; the launching of agrarian reform; the moving forward with the Egyptian nuclear program for energy; and the inclusion of the peasants and workers into parliament.

There is also no doubt that Nasser did not steal from the public treasury; stimulated free university education for all; and garnered respect for Egypt as a player in African unity, and in the non-aligned movement.

These are achievements whose roots were mostly planted prior to his military coup of July 23, 1952 (65 years ago). And the price for whatever was achieved under his leadership internally was inordinate: the  the abrogation of the historic Egyptian Constitution of 1923; the muzzling of all voices of dissent; the disbanding of the vestiges of Egyptian democracy (1922-1952).

There was also the encouragement of the Islamists in order to counter the influence of the communists; the break-up of viable agricultural land holdings in favor of micro-agricultural land holdings of 5 acres or less; the improper ascertainment of the adverse effects of stopping the silt from the Nile water behind the Aswan dam.

Under Nasser, Egypt with its vast and underused human intellectual resources, became a one-man show. The show was called "the struggle," and was given a cliche by the Nasser mouth-piece, Mohamed Hassanain Haikal, in the propagandistic words: "No voice is above the voice of the struggle."

And officially, the propagator was Abdel-Qadir Hatem who refashioned the Egyptian Information Department in the model of a Goebbels Nazi operation. Lies by Ahmed Saeed of the "Voice of the Arabs" were given credence. Calling Saudi King Faisal, Jordan's King Hussein, and Tunisian President Bourguiba "traitors" was common currency as a Nasser means of intimidation of whoever in the Arab world dared to say, "Gorilla!! Your Eyes are Red" -an Egyptian saying.

As the only dinner guest to dinner hosted by Haikal in Cairo on a Friday 1969, my host asked for my opinion of his weekly column in Al-Ahram newspaper. It was entitled "Frankly Speaking" (Bissarahah). Its heading in that particular issue was "The Four Traitors."

I have cited above three of those four, but the name of the fourth escapes me. My response was: "How do you measure treachery? There is no agreed pan-Arab definition, as each Arab sovereign State pursues its policies guided only by its national interest."

Measuring Nasser's achievements against Nasser's blunders, I find the scales tipping heavily on the side of blunders. For those affected a whole region, and decided the history of hundreds of millions for years to come. Nasser was not a very educated man. He was ill-fated by a conspiratorial mind. That mind dictated his preference for persons whom he trusted over persons who possessed experience.

Haikal is a prime example: a high school graduate; with no university education; but with self-education focused only on copying (Naql), translation, and plagiarism (no attribution to original sources). A story teller in the mode of "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves." The author of Nasser's "The Philosophy of the Revolution."

In it, there is a vacuous blueprint consisting of aspirational generalities. A Bla Bla Bla that glitters but does not educate. Its real companion, though more in the superlatives, is Qaddafi's "Green Book." Two books considered by their die hard fans historic, yet you find them today in the dustpan of history.

More strategically located beside Nasser was General Abdel-Hakim Amer, commanding ill-equipped large armed forces. Amer's education in military strategy and military intelligence could not be compared to that of his Israeli counterparts. The latter were methodically sent for specialized education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA.

That is while Amer was dispatched by Nasser to the Northern Region (Syria) during the short-lived United Arab Republic. (Egypt was the Southern Region). As Amer in Syria (1958-1961), assisted by the then Syrian Interior Minister, Abdel-Halim Al-Sarrag, was turning Syria into a security State, Israel was innovating militarily.

The flow of US armaments into Israel was the price which Ben Gurion as Prime Minister had extracted from President Eisenhower for withdrawal from Sinai in 1957. Israel had, at that crucial junction, shifted away from France and refocused on the innovative American military technology. By comparison, Egypt was reliant on Soviet weaponry: simpler to use, but technologically inferior to the American arsenal.

The stage was set for the Israeli historic strike of June 5, 1967 against all its Arab neighbors. Nasser was preoccupied with his war in Yemen where napalm was used by Egypt against opposing Arab forces; Amer of Egypt was no match for General Moshe Dayan; the Baath Party of Syria which collapsed the union with Egypt was taunting Nasser as a paper tiger because of the stationing of the UN Blue Helmets on the Egyptian side of the line of demarcation with Israel.

With Nasser's ego being nearly the size of the Giza pyramids, and against the quiet advice of the experienced Egyptian Foreign Ministry, he forced the withdrawal of the UN forces from the scene. And with the Nasser megaphone, false Egyptian claims of having closed the Gulf of Aqaba, were magnified. That played well in the hands of Israel. At the UN, Aba Eban, Israel's then Foreign Minister declaimed. "Israel is besieged."

American President Lyndon Johnson, together with UN Representative, Ambassador Goldberg, must have known that a big push by Israel against the Arabs was in the making. The USSR could only give lip service to their Arab allies. Russian global strength was receding; American hegemony was on the rise; and Israel was a willing strategic American ally. New American war weapons were tested in Israel held territories.

And on June 5, 1967, the Israeli air force struck all Egyptian airfields destroying Egypt's aircraft as they slept on their tarmacs. By noon, Nasser's Egypt had no air cover, and that great country laid defenseless. But Nasser had an obtuse explanation: "We expected the enemy to come from the east; it came from the west!!" DA!! Our Arab forebears have counselled: "War is trickery." 

But Nasser had little education in culture. His education was in how to pretend that the Arab calamity could be repackaged to the Egyptians as only "a set-back" (Naksah).

Has the October War of 1973 which was astutely planned by Sadat, Nasser's successor, mitigated that Arab disaster of 1967? Not really!! It led to Egyptian recovery of its territory through the Peace Treaty of 1979 with Israel. But other Arab territories are still under Israeli suzerainty.

That 1973 war also led to a later treaty of peace between Jordan and Israel. These peace moves, combined with the absence of a meaningful Palestinian leadership, have drastically redrawn the Middle East map for a long time to come.

Nasser, in effect, was a phantom leader. "Eternally-Remembered?" How misleading!! Nasser was nearly all throat and imagery. Substance was not his substance.


Note: New blog postings will resume on a weekly basis after my new book is ready for the press this Fall. Its title: "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution"

The Imperial Presidency of Donald The Mindless

In the early 1960's I sat at the UN to interview Mohamed Ali, the world boxing champion. Warming him to that interview in a UN Radio Studio, I humorously asked him: "Do you really think that you are the greatest?" With humility and a smile, his response was: "It is the world that says so!!"

The greats hardly ever describe themselves as such. Trump is an embarrassing exception. His call to "Make America Great Again" does not mean what it says. Its practical meaning is: "America shall be for whites only." All others are potentially un-American.

Never in the history of the cabinet meetings at the White House has there been one like that held by Trump in June. It was for the sole purpose of having himself being praised by members of his own cabinet. It was a disgusting show of servility. Cravenly submissive to the narcissist, egocentrism of Trump, they bathed him, one at a time, in adulating "thank you for the honor of serving under your leadership."

One of the most sickening behavioral traits of that mindless American President is his lashing at any critic. On May 13, he spoke at the commencement exercises of Liberty University, a bastion of religious evangelism. In that address, he said of criticism:

"Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic, because they're people that can't get the job done."

Yet it is well established that the primary lesson of a liberal democracy is how to live with critics. It was the composer Jean Sibelius who quipped: "No one ever put up a statue of a critic." Egomaniacal Trump has his name on every building or a golf course he owns, leases, or has licensed his name to be stamped on it. This is typical of Trump's delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

Trump's famous "I alone can fix it" could now be added to "I know more than the generals know." This is to appreciate the total nonsense of these irresponsible utterances revealing the gap between his empty words and their empty results.

His first baptism by fire was in Yemen where one of the seals was killed. But Trump blamed that mishap on the Pentagon.

Now finding it expedient to leave the generals face the blame for future mishaps, he has n ow ceded his central function as Commander In Chief to General Jim Mattis, his Defense Secretary.

It is now the Pentagon which would decide on a useless military surge in Afghanistan of 5000 more troops to be thrust in that unwinnable 16-years-old war. A war that rages on without any American arching strategy, and from which Obama had wisely begun to disengage as a gradual exit strategy.

Nonetheless, Trump focus on being not responsible for any bad outcome (his sole focus is on garnering ritualized flattery), shall not shield him from what The New York Times of June 16 has aptly characterized. The paper mocked Trump's self-absorbed tweet celebrating the 242nd birthday of the US army. Trump, the Tweeter-In-Chief has said: "Proud to be your commander-in-chief." This is the man who sought multiple deferments from military service. Thus the paper mocked his escapist decision to give General Mattis "the authority to determine troop levels in Afghanistan."

In the 1950's I witnessed as a UN staff member the Permanent Representative of Israel disparaging Saudi Arabia by a novel attack. He, in effect, said that the only UN member which is a family business is Saudi Arabia. Well, by that measurement of statehood, it would not be far fetched to apply it today to the Trump administration. But not as a State, but as a government. Trump's daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, partake of official meetings with visiting Heads of State.

The fact of that American family business masquerading as the apex of executive power in the US is more compounded by other factors outside of blood relations. The intertwining of family and State business, representing violations of both ethical and legal nature, has been tolerated by a supinely-submissive Republican controlled Congress. A collective exhibition of mutual and moral slackness.

With the accumulation of portfolios of vital national interest in the hands of Kushner, from government organization to Middle East peace, comes the issues of conflict of interest. Trump and his enablers have vouched for a legal impossibility: The President is immune from conflict of interest. By what legal standard? None, except by dictatorial fiat. As a mindless president, Trump has declared that he could run his world-flung business and the U.S. simultaneously.

From all indications, especially through the avalanche of executive orders, paraded before cameras as Trump jabs his pen on folders bearing his tower-like signature, Trump fancies the US a corporation. His cabinet is his corporate board, his angry look as a threatening menace.

In his hallucinatory state of mind, Trump believes that his signature moves programs forward. No major legislation has so far moved forward, especially in the areas of health care, tax reform, trade promotion and national security. Only in the matter of appointing a very conservative justice to the Supreme Court, deregulation to benefit Wall Street, and environmental degradation through exiting the Paris accord on climate change.

All are nearly negatives, which Trump counts as "fulfilling my promises to the American people." The outcome has been the federal judiciary issuing stays of the application of his bans, including the Muslim ban which he declares to be not a ban. This is while his acolytes claimed it to be a non-ban. But the courts took Trump's own words as evidence of unconstitutionality.

This is while we see the rise of states and cities declaring their own defiance of federal power regarding rounding up illegal immigrants. Their police departments shall not cooperate with federal authorities in the pursuit of unconstitutional measures.

The American Declaration of Independence unanimously approved by the 13 United States of America on July 4, 1776 includes several passages which in their totality constitute obstruction of justice when violated by the Executive. One of these refers to endeavoring "to prevent the population of these states," through "refusing to pass (laws) to encourage their migrations hither." Trump bans against Muslims and plans to build walls on the Mexican-American border should be taken by the judiciary into account with these passages in mind.

As to the Constitution, Article III, Section 3 states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort." 

President, Donald Trump, assisted by others like General Flynn, his former national security advisor, have by Trump's silence on Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, given eloquent evidence of culpability. Not one word of protest against Russia's cyber attack during the campaign and transition has issued from the mouth of that mindless president.

• His firing of FBI Director, James Comey, for investigating what Trump called "the Russia thing." By his own admission in a TV interview with Lester Holt, he provided the Russian investigation as the reason for that firing;
• During his testimony on June 8, 2017 before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the question of Trump's attempt to have Comey abandon the Flynn investigation was confirmed. An honest finger pointing to Trump's attempt at obstruction of justice;
• During that historic testimony, the former FBI Director called Trump's trail of statements by which that mindless president tried to put the onus of firing Comey on Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General: "Those were lies, plain and simple." For the first time ever has an American president been called "a liar," repeatedly before Congress by an officer of the U.S. ;
• Trump, by his professed anger at Comey's refusal to publicly disclose that the President was not personally under investigation, has made himself actually the target of investigation.
• The revelation that Trump has cajoled Comey to pledge "loyalty" to him could not but point to the bubble in which Trump exists as a pretended potentate. 
• Instead, Comey, being the then director of an independent law enforcement agency, promised only his "honesty." Not enough for Trump "the Predator in Chief." An apt characterization by the New York Times of June 9, 2017.
• The day following Comey's testimony, Trump accused the dismissed FBI Director of lying. At a rambling press conference in the White House Rose Garden, Trump, in the presence of Romania's President said: "Yesterday showed no collusion (with Russia), no obstruction." 
• Then he hinted that he had tapes of his conversations with Comey. Comey, in his testimony, said: "I hope there are tapes." Various challenges to Trump to produce these tapes have gone unheeded. Pure bluster!!
• The misdeeds committed by Trump's aides and close associates shall, under agency law, be regarded as amounting to impeachable offenses. Said Elizabeth Drew in her article in the New York Review of Books of June 22, 2017. "Mike Flynn, Trump's former campaign adviser and dismissed national security advisor is obviously a problem for the president." Her article is titled "Trump: The Presidency in Peril."
• No less than seven Trump associates have been linked to Russia including his own son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Kushner is now a subject of a criminal investigation. He is suspected of having discussed with Russia's Ambassador to the US a secret back channel using the Russian Embassy as a conduit. The purpose is to deny US Intelligence Services the possibility of tracking those channels. If such an infantile attempt at hiding secrets from the powerful American intelligence community (16 such organizations) is proven, it could amount to a charge of espionage.
• With Trump and his entire phalanx and Trump himself lawyering up, important Republican Senators, and even senior Cabinet officers (e.g. Defense Secretary Mattis), are beginning to distance themselves from that toxic president. 
• In a rare such example, Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina presiding over the Intelligence Committee, asked Comey: "Do you have any doubts that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?" Comey's response was a single lethal word: "None."

The list of examples of Trump digging deeper a hole for himself can go on and on. The appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein of Robert Mueller Special Counsel to investigate the components of the dark cloud surrounding this fake presidency is a turning point.

Trump's test balloon launched on June 13 by his friend, Christopher Ruddy, suggesting that Trump may fire Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, is either a phony attempt at intimidation, or a terrible misreading of the pulse of the American people. They will have to conclude that their president is a crook. That admission by Ruddy may also indicate that Trump uses and abuses his executive privilege which prevents the divulgence of private conversation with the president.

Loosening that rule is also a manifestation of Trump's mistaken belief that he is above the law. He, as the saying goes, could run, but can't hide. His attempt to protect Flynn, his chipping away at the elaborate American civil rights edifice, his feverish attempts to dismantle the Obama legacy including the opening to Cuba, and his calling the investigations in the Russian connection a "witch hunt" is a reminder of a concerned rat moving in all directions in the hope of escaping capture.

Donald: What is happening in the way of multiple investigations is not "a witch hunt." It is a hunt for the truth. And the only recognizable truth about your five months presidency is what your main strategist, Steve Bannon,  has admitted to: "The destruction of the administrative State."

That administrative State seems to be marching towards an inevitable goal: Putting an end to the charade of the presidency of a mindless president. 

Statistical fact checking shows that Trump has lied 500 times since June 2015. The most recent lie being his bluffing that his conversations with Jim Comey had been taped. Now under the pressure of a Congressional subpoena to force Trump to disgorge these tapes, he came out on June 22 admitting that there were no such tapes.

The implication of that forced divulgence from the American Liar-in-Chief is clear: He intentionally meant that lie for possibly these purposes: (a) to intimidate Comey into silence; (b) to distract public attention away from the Russian investigation; and/or (c) to heap scorn on law enforcement.

There is a new theory called "Mindfulness." It advocates knowing yourself as a means of constructive engagement. By that standard, Trump, through his utterances and actions, is entitled to the counter-theory: "Mindlessness." It advocates self-absorption combined with always being on the offensive.

Donald the Mindless has been, if not on the defensive, in a constant attacking mode: From "crooked Hillary," to "I have inherited a mess." From "That judge is Mexican," to "The intelligence services have failed." From "The Muslims hate us," to "China is ripping us off." From: "The Media is the enemy," to "I heard it from someone." 

The superlatives are his lexicon. His imperial presidency is not to "Make America Great Again." It is to "Make America Hate Again." Where are all the allies gone? Even Mexico and Canada are no more America's longest unarmed borders.

Note: New blog postings will resume on a weekly basis after my new book is ready for the press this Fall. Its title: "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution"