Washington — Making future military aid to Ukraine contingent on its participation in peace talks with Russia. Chinese nationals are prohibited from purchasing property within a 50-mile radius of US government structures. Filling the national security sector with supporters of Donald Trump.

One group attempting to prepare the framework for a second Trump administration if the former Republican president wins in November has released a new policy book articulating an “America First” national security strategy.

The book, which was shared with The Associated Press before its release on Thursday, is the America First Policy Institute’s newest endeavor. Like the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” the group aims to help Trump avoid the mistakes he made in 2016 when he entered the White House unprepared.

In addition to its policy activities, the institute’s transition project has been working on dozens of executive orders and a training program for prospective political appointees. Heritage has been developing a comprehensive personnel database and providing its policy manuals.

Both organizations emphasize their independence from Trump’s campaign, which has frequently made an effort to distance itself from such efforts by claiming that the only ideas the candidate supports are those that he has himself expressed.

Still, the book’s editor, Fred Fleitz, stated that he and retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who served as Trump’s acting national security adviser and wrote several of the chapters, have been in frequent contact with the former president, soliciting feedback and discussing topics such as Ukraine in depth.

We hope this is where he is. “We’re not speaking for him, but I believe he will approve,” said Fleitz, who formerly served as the National Security Council’s chief of staff.

Times – VOR News Image

A Trump Affiliated Group Has Released A New National Security Book Outlining Prospective Second-Term Approaches.

He thinks the book will serve as “an intellectual foundation for the America First approach” to national security and be “easy to use.”

“It’s a grand strategy,” Kellogg continued. “You do not begin with the policies first. You start with the strategies first. And that’s what we did.”

The group portrays the current direction of US national security as a failure, blaming the foreign policy establishment for embracing an interventionist and “globalist” strategy at the expense of America’s national interests.

While lacking in specifics, the book provides guidelines for how a potential Trump administration should address foreign policy concerns such as Russia’s war against Ukraine. Trump has stated that if elected, he will resolve the problem before Inauguration Day in January but has yet to specify how.

The war chapter in the book focuses on how the conflict developed rather than how it was resolved. However, it states that any US military help should be subject to Ukraine’s participation in peace talks with Russia.

It forecasts that the Ukrainian army would gradually lose ground and warns against the US continuing “to send arms to a stalemate that Ukraine will eventually find difficult to win.” However, once a peace accord is reached, it states that the United States will continue to arm Ukraine as a deterrence to Russia.

The authors appear to support a framework in which Ukraine “would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory” but would agree to diplomacy “with the understanding that this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough, which probably will not occur before (Russian President Vladimir) Putin leaves office.”

AP – VOR News Image

A Trump Affiliated Group Has Released A New National Security Book Outlining Prospective Second-Term Approaches.

It recognizes that Ukrainians “will have difficulty accepting a negotiated peace that does not return all of their territory or, at least for now, hold Russia accountable for the carnage it inflicted on Ukraine.” Their supporters will, too. However, as Donald Trump stated during the CNN town hall in 2023, ‘I want everyone to stop dying.’ That is our viewpoint as well. It’s a good first step.

The book blames Democratic President Joe Biden for the war and reiterates Trump’s argument that if he had been president, Putin would never have invaded. Its key argument in support of that assertion is that Putin regarded Trump as powerful and determined. Trump developed a close relationship with the Russian leader and hesitated to question him.

Most of the chapter outlines an, at times, inaccurate timeline of Biden’s management of the conflict.

Moving forward, it appears like Putin could be convinced to participate in peace talks if Biden and other NATO leaders offer to postpone Ukraine’s NATO membership for an extended time. It proposes that the United States develop a “long-term security architecture for Ukraine’s defense that focuses on bilateral security defense.” It needs to explain what this entails. It also proposes charges on Russian energy sales to fund Ukraine’s rehabilitation.

The book criticizes Trump’s 2016 transition operations, citing a general lack of preparation before Trump took office.

“The tumultuous transition of 2016/2017 did not serve President Trump and the nation well and slowed the advancement and implementation of his agenda,” the writers stated. For example, they point out that before the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton’s transition team submitted over 1,000 names for future security clearance. Trump’s team filed only 25.

The group claims to have identified over 1,200 national security-related roles that the future administration would need to fill and wants it to be prepared on Day 1 with Trump loyalists who support the “America First” strategy.

“It is not about retaliating against individuals or attempting to politicize official posts. “It’s about ensuring that government employees do their jobs while keeping politics out of it,” Fleitz added.

The book portrays China as the country’s most significant national security concern, eager to dethrone the United States as the world’s dominant force. It advocates a hardline policy that builds on methods taken under both the Trump and Biden administrations to render Beijing’s actions “largely irrelevant to American life.”

AP – VOR News Image

A Trump Affiliated Group Has Released A New National Security Book Outlining Prospective Second-Term Approaches.

It raises economic concerns about China to national security ones and advocates a reciprocal strategy that would deny Beijing access to US markets in the same way that American enterprises have been denied access in China.

The book also calls for more stringent screening of cyber and digital enterprises owned by US rivals, particularly China, to ensure they are not collecting sensitive information. It also advises prohibiting Chinese people from purchasing property within a 50-mile radius of any US federal facility.

It advocates for visa restrictions on Chinese students seeking to study in the United States and the ban of TikTok and other Chinese apps due to worries about data privacy. Conversely, Trump has spoken out against legislation that would force TikTok to sell or ban access in the United States.

Analysts’ interpretations of what constitutes an “America First” policy frequently reflect the writers’ own interests.

Ellie Cohanim, a former Trump senior State Department ambassador in charge of monitoring and combatting antisemitism, sees “America First” as a shopping list for Israel’s military.

The United States should provide Israel with a squadron of “25 Lockheed Martin F-35s, one squadron of Boeing’s F-15 EX, and a squadron of Apache E attack helicopters,” Cohanim stated.

The United States should give Israel some of its billions of dollars in military funding in Israeli currency so that it can spend it at home, and Washington should press Arab states to foot the bill for Gaza reconstruction and accept Israel’s suspension of any political talks with the Palestinians pending an indefinite period of compulsory deradicalization for the Palestinian people, she wrote.

SOURCE – (AP)

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s attempt to unseat Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House of Representatives failed. She had requested Johnson’s resignation because he supported a $61 billion aid plan for Ukraine.

However, Democrats and Republicans voted 359-43 to defeat her motion. Other chamber members loudly booed Ms Greene’s address on the House floor.

Shortly after the vote, Mr Johnson said it would end “the personality politics and frivolous character assassination that has defined the 118th Congress.”

“I’m glad that this distraction is not going to inhibit that important work and all the other things that are on the table and on the agenda for us right now,” he stated.

The long-awaited move proved a rare show of disobedience against the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Earlier, he expressed his support for the House Speaker and described the effort to remove him as “unfortunate”.

Only two Republican members of Congress, Thomas Massie and Paul Gosar, supported Ms Greene’s move.

Ms Greene, joined by Mr Massie, took to the House floor to criticize Mr Johnson for a series of compromises he has reached with Democrats, who have a Senate majority.

“This is the ‘uniparty’ for the American people watching,” she told the politicians in the chamber, who booed her. “By passing the Democrats’ agenda and handcuffing the Republicans’ ability and influence legislation, our elected Republican Speaker Mike Johnson has aided and abetted the Democrats and the Biden administration in destroying our country,” she stated.

Mr Johnson was spotted striding around the House floor after Ms Greene introduced her motion, with Republican supporters shaking his hand and slapping him on the back.

Former President Donald Trump listens during an event called “Kids First: AP Photo

Trump goes against Marjorie Taylor Greene.

During Ms Greene’s address, former President Trump posted on his Truth Social platform a message urging Republicans to reject her request to remove the speaker’s post.

Former President Trump opened his article with “I love Marjorie Taylor Greene.” He warned Republican members of Congress that “now is not the time” to remove Mr. Johnson.

“If we show DISUNITY, which will be portrayed as CHAOS, it will negatively affect everything!” he remarked, adding that the Republican Speaker was a “good man who is trying very hard”.

Ms Greene submitted the move in March, which would eventually trigger the vote on Mr Johnson’s dismissal, but it was unclear when or if she would advance it. She did so on Wednesday, requiring the Republican-led chamber to vote on the House leader’s position within two legislative days.

A similar parliamentary maneuver was used to oust former Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the autumn, leaving the house without an elected leader for three weeks.

Democrats took the rare decision to support a Republican House Speaker due to the chamber’s razor-thin majorities, but they recently chastised Mr Johnson for meeting with her several times this week.

“When Speaker Johnson meets with her for hours, the American people should be asking ‘what is Marjorie Taylor Greene extracting from the speaker?'” According to Axios, Democratic Representative Ted Lieu spoke on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, Mr Johnson stated that the conversations were not a “negotiation” and disputed that Republican leaders were considering any concessions in exchange for her support.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a far-right Republican lawmaker noted for her controversial views and confrontational rhetoric. She has been fired for supporting conspiracy theories such as QAnon and making harsh remarks about various groups.

Greene’s outspoken attitude appeals to her audience but alienates many others. Despite calls to resign, she remains a powerful voice in the Republican Party’s hard-right fringe.

Source: AOL

When all hell broke loose in the House last week, those with experience as parliamentarians couldn’t believe our eyes. Speaker Greg Fergus tossed out the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, on the flimsiest pretenses.

Fergus is highly partisan. We all knew that when Trudeau backed him in the election to replace Anthony Rota), who’d been forced to step down after introducing a former Nazi soldier in Parliament.

When Fergus got caught making a partisan video for an Ontario Liberal colleague, many calls were made for him to resign. He had egregiously breached the most basic rules requiring neutrality in the chair. He’d even made the video in his Parliamentary quarters, wearing his robes of office.

I pleaded that his error was serious, but it was a rookie mistake, and he deserved a second chance. Watching his dreadful performance with Poilievre last week, I regretted defending him.

After Poilievre’s ejection, Trudeau and the company were gloves off. During a campaign, they put on a full-court press worthy of a war room. Other pundits I spoke with were dutifully spun by whatever Liberal had contact with them. They thought they had finally caught a break in their Holy War against the evil Poilievre.

The usual Liberal supporters were out there spinning that Poilievre had done it on purpose to get thrown out. That was nonsense as it was unpredictable that someone who’d “simply withdrawn” the word “wacko” — as requested by the Speaker — would nonetheless be turfed.

Trudeau had called Poilievre “spineless” with impunity

It was unprecedented to throw out the Leader of the Opposition without a clear final warning and unambiguous instructions, especially after Trudeau had called Poilievre “spineless” with impunity.

If anything, getting Poilievre turfed seemed to have been concerted and planned, not by Poilievre, but by the Liberals in cahoots with their Speaker.

My vantage point into that desperate, full-bore Liberal effort to spin this against Poilievre came from an early morning call from a senior Liberal minister. In my line of work, as an observer and analyst of the political scene, knowing and being able to speak with ministers is part and parcel of doing your job well. Being able to call us, in return, is no doubt also part of theirs.

My interlocutor quickly understood that, with my years of experience, no one would convince me that Fergus was right. I was elected for three mandates to the rough-and-tumble National Assembly in Quebec City, where I served as Deputy House Leader, both in opposition and power. I also served as Official Opposition House Leader in Ottawa before assuming the same role Thilievre has today: Leader of the Official Opposition.

I mention all that to reinforce that I know the ropes and the important institutional roles involved. My senior Liberal changed tack when it was clear I thought Fergus had to go. They went all-in, making a negative and personal attack against Poilievre. It was brutal and came off as orchestrated, if not contrived.

It was not just an attack on Poilievre. It was a plea for me to acknowledge just how awful he was. He represents a clear and present danger for our institutions. It had an air of fin de régime, the end of Trudeau’s political era, and it wasn’t going out on a high note.

Trudeau is still lagging 20 points behind.

It may mark the beginning of the end, but Trudeau isn’t about to leave simply because Canadian voters have decided to give him his pink slip. He has options, and he knows it. Sure, hardly a day goes by without an article detailing the plans of one cabinet minister to replace Trudeau or an outside potential successor giving an eloquent speech to the Liberal faithful.

Polls are being published to show which possible new leaders have the most public favor. This is happening against a backdrop of Trudeau still lagging 20 points behind, with nothing to show for his mammoth pre-budget tour or from the budget itself.

However, Trudeau still holds many good cards in his hand. He brought the Liberal Party back to life after the Ignatieff debacle. They owe him everything. He’s not about to be given the boot. He’ll be the only one to decide when and if he’ll leave. He’s won three elections in a row, but he should have noted that Canadians cast more votes for the Conservatives in the 2019 and 2021 campaigns. The writing was already on the wall. He couldn’t, or wouldn’t, decode it.

I know several senior Liberals, both high-level volunteers and MPs with access to Trudeau, who has been encouraging him to consider this is his ‘legacy mandate,’ to be graceful and leave his place to someone else so that the party still has the time to give a new leader a chance in the next election. All say that Trudeau refuses to admit that he may be the problem, much less listen to their heartfelt advice.

Of course, it’s not in Trudeau’s nature to admit he and his hapless administration of Canada could be to blame. Now that the proof is in front of him daily in the polls, how long can he deny the obvious?

The writing may be on the wall, but it’s important to remember that Trudeau could still decide tomorrow to walk across the lawn from Rideau Cottage, where he lives, to Rideau Hall and ask Gov.-Gen. Mary Simon to call an election, and she’d have no choice but to do so.

Those senior Liberal organizers know it as well. The longer Trudeau dithers, the less likely there will be a push by frustrated potential successors to drink from a poisoned chalice. With no time to fully present themselves to Canadians, much less organize properly for an election, they’d be cannon fodder for Poilievre’s Conservatives.

The Liberals I speak with still clutch at the hope that a lot of Singh’s NDP vote will drift over to them when progressives sense the impending doom of a Poilievre Conservative victory. The fact that a considerable cohort of NDP MPs has either quit or announced their intention not to run indicates that there may be far fewer votes to purloin than there may have been before the NDP-Liberal deal and before Poilievre’s ascendancy.

In the meantime, if last week’s shenanigans are any indication, Canadians can expect a brutal, personal knock-down, drag-out fight between the leaders of the two parties that have governed Canada since Confederation. It’s going to get ugly.

By Tom Mulcair, Leader of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada between 2012 and 2017