Donald Trump and I know more than the generals. You do, too.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Last year, Donald Trump famously said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.”

I believe him, because he also said:

“I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth.”
“I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?”
“Nobody knows more about debt. I’m like the king. I love debt.”
“I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world.”
“Nobody knows more about taxes than I do — and income than I do.”
“Nobody knows banking better than I do”
“I understand money better than anybody.”
“I think nobody knows the system better than I do.”
“I know more about contributions than anybody.”
“Nobody knows politicians better than Donald Trump.”
“I know more about Cory (Booker) than he knows about himself.
“Nobody knows more about trade than me.”
“Nobody knows jobs like I do!”
“Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.”
“There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”
“I know more about offense and defense than they (the generals) will ever understand, believe me.”
“There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me.”
“I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me.”

Is our President great, or what? Even North Korea’s Kim Jong-un can’t compare. Kim once claimed, he drank 10 bottles of Bordeaux during one meal. (Eh, not impressed.)

And his dad, Kim Jong-il, said he shot 38 under par in his very first round of golf, including 11 holes-in-one. (Child’s play. Those other 7 holes must have been lousy.)

So if I can believe the two Kims, I certainly can believe the one Trump when he says he knows more than the generals — because I do, too.

Here’s why:

Mattis hands over plan to ‘rapidly defeat’ ISIS
By Robert Burns and Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Monday gave the White House a plan to “rapidly defeat” the Islamic State group, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The strategy includes significant elements of the approach President Donald Trump inherited, while potentially deepening U.S. military involvement in Syria.

O.K., let’s get real, here. There absolutely, positively, 100% is no way we will “rapidly defeat” ISIS, unless “rapidly” means “within the next few hundred years” and “defeat” means “survive.”

Instead, I’ll believe this headline: “Mattis hands over plan to survive ISIS for the next few hundred years.”

ISIS is not a country or a team. ISIS is an idea, a concept related to religion. You cannot defeat an idea or a concept related to religion — not even in a few hundred years.

We have not even defeated such concepts as “Vaccination causes autism,” “Global warming is a hoax,” “Evolution is a myth,” and “My religion is better than your religion.” And those ideas aren’t backed with guns.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said Mattis, who traveled to Iraq last week to help inform his thinking, presented the results of a 30-day strategy review at a Cabinet-level meeting of the National Security Council.

It’s unclear whether the meeting included Trump, who said last week his goal is to “obliterate” Islamic State.

Does it really matter whether Trump was at the meeting? Really?

Davis described the Mattis report as “a framework for a broader discussion” of a strategy to be developed over time.

A framework for a broader discussion of a strategy. Does it get any more nebulous than that? And it took him 30 days. 

Even Donald Trump and I can come up with a “framework for a broader discussion of a strategy.” Here’s my framework for a broader discussion: “Let’s all sit down and discuss strategy.”

Good framework? And it took me only a few minutes.

Here’s Trump’s framework:

In a Jan. 28 executive order, Trump said he wanted within 30 days a “preliminary draft” of a plan to “defeat ISIS.”

See, I told you I believed him.

He could have said, “I want to see your plan.” But apparently, he believes that for the past few years, our military has been just sitting around, waiting for a President to tell them we need a plan.

So he gave them another 30 days to come up with one.

Davis said the report defines what it means to “defeat” the group, which he wouldn’t reveal to reporters.

Trust me on this one: “Defeat” will mean: “Wherever we happen to be at any given time in the future, we’ll claim we’ve defeated them.”

Beyond military options, the officials familiar with the review said the report increases emphasis on nonmilitary elements of the campaign already underway, such as efforts to squeeze Islamic State finances, limit recruiting and counter propaganda that is credited with inspiring violence in the U.S. and Europe.

Been there; done that. Does “doing exactly what we have been doing for years” count as a new plan?

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week the emerging strategy will target not just Islamic State militants but also al-Qaida and other extremist organizations in the Middle East and beyond, whose goal is to attack the United States. He emphasized that it would not rest mainly on military might.

Wait. You mean we haven’t already “defeated” al Qaida by squeezing their finances, limiting their recruiting and using counter propaganda? 

The officials familiar with the review say the recommended approaches will echo central elements of the Obama administration’s strategy, which centered on the U.S. military supporting local forces rather than doing the fighting for them.

Mattis already has signaled publicly he sees no value in having U.S. combat forces take over the ground war.

So in summary, we are going to rapidly defeat ISIS by using Obama’s strategy of bringing the boys home — you know, the strategy Trump and the rest of the Republicans so roundly have criticized.

Neither Trump nor I went to West Point, nor does either of us have any military experience (Well, I did spend 6 years in the reserves, so maybe I have more experience than Trump.)

But I agree that Trump and I both know more than the generals if this is their plan to “rapidly defeat ISIS.”

I’d guess, you know more, too.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ECONOMICS LAWS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY