How ‘America First’ helps bring about the Chinese Century

China's Rambo: The piece in The New Yorker leads with the wild success of a new film in which the Chinese hero flexes muscle abroad...

China’s Rambo: The piece in The New Yorker leads with the wild success of a new film, “Wolf Warrior II,” in which the Chinese hero flexes muscle abroad…

Last night, New Yorker journalist Evan Osnos was on Fresh Air, talking about his new piece in the magazine headlined “Making China Great Again.” The subhed of the piece is “As Donald Trump surrenders America’s global commitments, Xi Jinping is learning to pick up the pieces.”

No kidding. All the way home as I listened, my reaction was essentially “Duh!” I mean, everything he was saying about the way Trump has damaged U.S. standing in the world — and elevated that of China and others who can’t wait to fill the vacuum — was obvious. Anyone would know that this would be what would happen as a result of his “America First” idiocy.

Except, abundant evidence exists that this is not obvious to everyone. So I thought I’d share. And I learned a lot of details about how the predictable has actually played out. It’s particularly interesting to hear him talking about how Chinese leadership has figured out where all Trump’s buttons are, and manipulated him to their advantage at every turn.

Here’s the basic thrust of the New Yorker piece:

China has never seen such a moment, when its pursuit of a larger role in the world coincides with America’s pursuit of a smaller one. Ever since the Second World War, the United States has advocated an international order based on a free press and judiciary, human rights, free trade, and protection of the environment. It planted those ideas in the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and spread them with alliances around the world. In March, 1959, President Eisenhower argued that America’s authority could not rest on military power alone. “We could be the wealthiest and the most mighty nation and still lose the battle of the world if we do not help our world neighbors protect their freedom and advance their social and economic progress,” he said. “It is not the goal of the American people that the United States should be the richest nation in the graveyard of history.”

Under the banner of “America First,” President Trump is reducing U.S. commitments abroad. On his third day in office, he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a twelve-nation trade deal designed by the United States as a counterweight to a rising China. To allies in Asia, the withdrawal damaged America’s credibility. “You won’t be able to see that overnight,” Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, told me, at an event in Washington. “It’s like when you draw a red line and then you don’t take it seriously. Was there pain? You didn’t see it, but I’m quite sure there’s an impact.”

In a speech to Communist Party officials last January 20th, Major General Jin Yinan, a strategist at China’s National Defense University, celebrated America’s pullout from the trade deal. “We are quiet about it,” he said. “We repeatedly state that Trump ‘harms China.’ We want to keep it that way. In fact, he has given China a huge gift. That is the American withdrawal from T.P.P.” Jin, whose remarks later circulated, told his audience, “As the U.S. retreats globally, China shows up.”

For years, China’s leaders predicted that a time would come—perhaps midway through this century—when it could project its own values abroad. In the age of “America First,” that time has come far sooner than expected….

This is something I’ve worried about for a long time. One of the first editorials I ever wrote for The State, probably in January 1994, was about the way China was quietly insinuating its way into positions of influence around the globe, including in our own Monroe Doctrine backyard — Latin America. But at least for the next 23 years, we had leaders who understood why this was a problem (as we had my whole life), and were taking steps to counter it — such as with the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia, of which TPP was a critical part.

I never dreamed that we’d have a president who on Day One (OK, Day Three) would just trash it all, and invite China to jump in with both feet. Trump was so eager to do this that he even took a moment out of his busy first-week schedule of loudly proclaiming that his inauguration crowd had been the biggest ever.

And why does it worry me (one or more of my relativist friends will ask)? I always feel a little absurd having to explain it, but I feel a lot better living in a world in which the global hegemon is the planet’s greatest liberal democracy than in one dominated by the oppressors in Beijing. So should all of you who like to exercise your freedom of expression here on this blog. It’s that simple. Or rather, it’s that, and my belief that the rest of the world is better off with the U.S. playing the role China wants to play.

I recommend you listen to the radio interview and read the piece in The New Yorker. Then let’s discuss…

58 thoughts on “How ‘America First’ helps bring about the Chinese Century

  1. Juan Caruso

    China’s rejection of Western democracy and free speech in favor of Communist Party leadership in every aspect of life is, historically speaking, an unsustainable liability for the longer term. Any desire to challenge the United States’ preeminent role in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond is not helped by its largely successful recent forays into capitalism (Choices Among People in Their Allocations of Leisure to Idleness, Self-improvement, and Materialism).

    The Soviet Union, totally unencumbered by tolerance of capitalism despite its very competiteve military, went “out of business” rather early. As the PRC embraces more of the protocols of first-world leaders, which it certainly has been, it should rightfully accede to greater world prominence.

    On the other hand, if it continues to steal intellectual property like a third-world state, it should face the customary legal consequences.

    We have seen and at last have a leader who plainly paints deserving U.N.members as a basket of ingrates and deplorables. Trump does not wish to disband the U.N., he merely wants the deplorables to stop taking advantage of U.S. largesse that has spoiled them without really requiring their meaningful contributions to accomplishing improvements required by the U.N.”s stated goals in their own countries.

    Some of us see the value of truth plainly spoken AND backed by effective policy rather than is only couched by lame, politically ‘correct’ euphimisms.

      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        Oh, and get back to me when you find someone who will do as you say — plainly speak the truth and back it with effective policy. That would be awesome.

        Actually, just having someone with the slightest inkling of a clue what the truth is would be a HUGE step in the right direction…

        Some of the best parts of the radio interview are when Osnos is talking about how Chinese leaders can’t believe their luck: They are faced with an American president who knows basically nothing, and has a pathetically fragile ego that makes him uniquely susceptible to the traditional Chinese strategy for handling ignorant foreigners. They’ve never had anyone so easy to manipulate:

        And this is actually an old Chinese playbook. If you go back to the 19th century, the imperial government at the time laid down in writing some of its techniques, really, for dealing with foreigners. And one of them was, as they put it, barbarians like receptions and entertainment. That’s the term they used – barbarians. They said that foreigners respond to that kind of treatment with great appreciation. Before Donald Trump went to China this fall, Chinese officials had said to some Americans, people with high-placed sources in the Chinese government, that they intended to wow him with thousands of years of Chinese imperial history. They thought that he was, as one person put it to me, uniquely susceptible to that.

        And they laid it on. They laid it on thick, frankly. I mean, they gave him a personal tour of the Forbidden City by Xi Jinping. They gave him military bands. There were kids with pompoms who were shouting uncle Trump in Chinese. And he responded to it gloriously. The first thing he said when he got to the podium standing next to Xi Jinping was how grateful he was for that magnificent military band. He was willing to not allow questions from the press, which of course is something that China would want. But traditionally, an American president insists on questions from the press. So from China’s perspective, that summit could not have gone better.

        GROSS: So do you think that this means that President Xi sees President Trump as weak and easy to manipulate?

        OSNOS: He sees him as very manageable. He sees him as somebody who is responsive to the techniques that China uses to handle foreigners. What he sees him as – well, to use the Chinese term, the one that they have used, is that they see him as a paper tiger, which is to say that he’s somebody who makes larger threats than he’s willing to back up, that he promises things that he can’t deliver.

        As they say, look; he has not been able to build a wall on the border with Mexico. He has not succeeded in doing some of the things that he said he was going to do. But even more important than that is that they see him as somebody who is unaware of the details of foreign affairs. He frankly just doesn’t know enough about complicated issues like Tibet, Taiwan, North Korea….

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          The really bitter irony is that Trump supporters actually believe, contrary to all evidence, that Trump is strong and savvy and a great advocate of American interests.

          The Chinese see him for what he is: An ignorant blowhard who is pathetically weak and easy to manipulate.

          If Trump’s fans could only SEE that basic truth, even for an instant, his support would instantly evaporate…

          1. Juan Caruso

            “The really bitter irony is that Trump supporters actually believe, contrary to all evidence..” -Brad W.

            Let’s see your significant evidence. Your constant bluffs and endless personal attacks on an actual leader versus another idealistic, politically correct member of the bar, does not change many minds, as well you already know.

            By the way, you have not mentioned the now pending investigations of the Dem’s reprehensible she-lawyer. Ex-FBI Director Comey (another scheming lawyer) admitted (in a early draft) HRC was “grossly negligent” in her handling of secret emails, a top senator said Monday, revealing early drafts of the statement that James B. Comey drew up as FBI director. To educated working people even gross negligence is often a terminable offence equated with incompetence. Either way, Lefty leaders (lawyers) continue their coverups, while ex-FBI Director Mueller (just another lawyer) goes after Trump for collusion. Let’s see how that turns out for Mueller.

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              “Let’s see your significant evidence.” You’re kidding, right?

              Well, let’s see — to start with, you should read the New Yorker piece. That spells out pretty clearly what a buffoon he is, and what a blessing that is to the Chinese.

              Then, just look any day at any credible news source — which means the MSM, not people whose business plan is to tell you what you want to hear.

              Here are the links to the websites of The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

              By the way, why did you change the subject to Hillary Clinton? What does a person no longer on the public scene have to do with our discussion?

              You do know, right, that the election is over… Trump is president of the United States, making his incompetence a HUGE issue. Hillary Clinton is nobody…

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Yeah, we know that’s what you, and Doug, and Trump and Steve Bannon say. George Wallace would likely have said the same.

      Thank God that for most of my life, until the current nightmare, others with a broader perspective were in charge…

      1. bud

        Thank God that for most of my life, until the current nightmare, others with a broader perspective were in charge…

        Why bring God into this? I get it that you really think constant meddling in international affairs somehow makes us more secure, wealthier, wiser or healthier somehow. But you have never connected the dots. If we send Israel money that will grow my bank account? If we continue keeping troops in Okinawa that makes my blood pressure lower? Will my children’s education be more affordable if we send troops into Syria? You see what you’re doing here is stating something as fact simply as an article of faith. Ok, now I understand why you invoked God.

      2. Doug Ross

        You equate military spending with influence. I would prefer we generate respect through our economic strength. My view doesn’t require the threat of force and doesn’t bankrupt our country to prop others up. We should be a beacon of liberty, not a mafia protection racket.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          Actually, no, I don’t. In fact, did I mention the military here?

          You and other isolationists always come back to that, no matter how much I speak of diplomacy, trade and other forms of engagement in the world, all of which are critically important.

          But just ignore what I say and what I mean, build your straw man, and have fun knocking him over…

          1. bud

            Diplomacy and trade DONT involve keeping thousands of troops overseas. Again I ask and please try to answer how does maintain a military presence in Syria benefit me and my family?

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              Diplomacy is important. Trade is important. Keeping troops overseas (which we weren’t talking about until you brought it up, but OK), is equally important.

              Overseas is where they are useful. Where would you keep them — Kansas? Those thousands of troops in Korea, for instance, have kept the uneasy peace for more than 60 years, just by their presence. They’d be serving no purpose in Kansas…

              1. Doug Ross

                “Overseas is where they are useful.”

                Not so much in my lifetime. We’ve done more damage than good and killed tens of thousands of innocent people who have relatives and friends who will NEVER look upon the United States as some benevolent exceptional country.

                Sorry, but your claims that trade and diplomacy are equally as important as our military presence ring very hollow based on your years of written evidence. You and Lindsey Graham see the military as the first priority of America’s presence in the world and do not want to hear any opinion that would suggest refocusing the resources spent on it within our own borders.

                I’d rather have 20% of the defense budget shifted to American infrastructure, healthcare, and education. See, that’s not an anarchist view or isolationist — that’s a pragmatist’s view.

                1. Doug Ross

                  When you think about it, the whole mindset that views America as the world’s protector is based on a few years between 1941 and 1945 and that we were willing to use atomic bombs to wipe out whole cities. Nothing we did since has demonstrated we’re good at it — other than being willing to pour trillions of dollars into an arsenal of weapons that can destroy the world.

                  1. Bryan Caskey

                    Nothing we did since has demonstrated we’re good at it [being a superpower as a force for good] since 1945.

                    Our occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952 was pretty good. The entire country of South Korea is pretty grateful we interceded in the Korean War. Those millions of people who are leading prosperous, free lives in South Korea are pretty happy. I’m guessing the people of Kuwait are pretty happy that we helped them get their country back, too. From 1992-1996 we had a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was a pretty big deal. We helped Haiti keep fair elections have meaning in 1994.

                    In 1999, we fought against the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

                    Now, I don’t want to hear any counter-points about our military doing bad things. That’s not the point. We’re not arguing that the US has been perfect since 1776. YOU made the assertion that “nothing we did” demonstrated we’re good at it. The above points refute that assertion. Don’t argue against a straw-man by giving me negative things.

                2. bud

                  Our occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952 was pretty good. The entire country of South Korea is pretty grateful we interceded in the Korean War. Those millions of people who are leading prosperous, free lives in South Korea are pretty happy. I’m guessing the people of Kuwait are pretty happy that we helped them get their country back, too. From 1992-1996 we had a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was a pretty big deal. We helped Haiti keep fair elections have meaning in 1994.

                  I saw that trap coming. It’s an impossible task to demonstrate that NOTHING or EVERYTHING is the proper view of any major policy discussion. But it’s interesting the examples Bryan cites here. Only the Kuwait invasion had a major military component. But I would say that in general the vast majority of our military escapades since 1953 have made the world worse. As a whole the Middle East stuff has been very much of a disaster. I would maintain that our actions overall have led to the rise of international terrorism. At least with Vietnam the ultimate outcome has been pretty favorable. Iraq, not so much.

              2. bud

                Where would I keep the troops? I wouldn’t have them at all. At least no more than is necessary to defend our actual borders. It’s ridiculous to keep thousands of Americans in harms way in places like Syria and Afghanistan. But Trump seems to agree with Brad since he’s very hawkish in the Middle East with relaxed rules of engagement and more men (apparently) in Syria. So where is this reduction in involvement that neocons seem so horrified about? Some people just have an insatiable appetite for meddling.

                1. Bryan Caskey

                  “Where would I keep the troops? I wouldn’t have them at all. At least no more than is necessary to defend our actual borders. It’s ridiculous to keep thousands of Americans in harms way in places like Syria and Afghanistan.”

                  Hmmmm, where would we vacate and draw back from if we only defended the actual borders of the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii?

                  Let’s start with the obvious places in the Far East and Pacific:

                  1. We would leave Okinawa, and Japan would fend for herself against an aggressive China. Since Japan couldn’t depend on us, they’d have to build up their armed forces, which always works out well.

                  2. We would leave all our bases in Germany and throughout Europe, and the Swedes, Germans, French, Polish, and other European nations would have to figure out how to counter Russian aggressiveness in Eastern Europe without us. Say bye-bye to Ukraine and the Baltics. But who cares about those people, right? They aren’t part of our worries. Who cares about their sovereignty? Each man is an island, right?

                  3. We would pull out of South Korea and North Korea would probably immediately invade. No worries, though, because who cares about people all way the way across the Pacific? I mean, it won’t affect us here in Columbia. It will be super cool to have South Korea become North Korea. They’ll save a ton on electricity.

                  4. Navy? Who needs a Navy at all if we’re just defending our borders? Keeping the blue water Navy is directly at odds with that, so we can basically cut everything down to the Coast guard. Bye-bye to aircraft carriers, submarines (fast attack and boomers), destroyers, or battleships, because all they are for is projecting power around the world.

                  Might as well close down Annapolis while we’re at it, since we won’t need any Naval Officers. Keeping ocean trade routes open, free, and safe for international commerce is something we can let the Swedes do.

                  5. Air Force? Eh, we’ll close and give up all our international bases around the world where we can fly supplies and deliver force at a moment’s notice. I mean, we’ll never need that because we won’t be dropping any humanitarian relief, defending anyone beyond our borders, or doing anything like the Berlin Airlift.

                  That’s all I got off the top of my head. Neat idea, though. That sounds like a pretty awesome world where the US is powerless to project any force for good. What else you got?

                2. bud

                  1. This argument gets The Chinese have no designs on conquering Japan. The Japanese have no interest in becoming a major military power again. It’s just not an accurate portrayal of the situation. Removing our troops would actually serve as a peace offering to the Chinese who regard us a threat. Imagine if the Chinese had thousands of troops stationed in Saskatchewan. Would we not view that as a threat?

                  2. Bye bye Ukraine and Baltics. Why is that a concern of the US? Those places were in the Soviet sphere of influence for decades and our economy flourished while the Russians festered. Besides, the same general arguments in 1. would apply here.

                  3. What makes everyone think the North Koreans would immediately invade? South Korea has twice the population and 10 times the economy. Can’t they defend themselves? But I’ll make one concession here, since George W. Bush allowed them to develop nuclear weapons we should still provide nuclear deterrent. Just not ground troops.

                  4. That’s just condescending. Of course we need some type of navy. Just not the massive fleet we’ve wasted $billions on for decades.

                  5. Ditto.

                  It would seem that after the whole Iraq debacle this whole neocon bluster would be embarrassed to even try to defend the huge military footprint model any longer. But some lessons never seem to get learned.

            2. Bryan Caskey

              “Again I ask and please try to answer how does maintain a military presence in Syria benefit me and my family?”

              Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen over in Syria have routed ISIS, destroyed their caliphate, liberated Raqqa and saved lives of innocent people. The world is a better place for everyone because the sick and twisted people of ISIS are defeated.

              1. bud

                Bull. That is the most selective description of a the great American tragedy of Iraq I’ve ever heard. We’ve killed thousands of civilians in this whole misguided war. Many have distraught families with long memories. That’s why we had ISIS in the first place. Besides another “Mission Accomplished” celebration seems a bit premature.

              2. Mr. Smith

                I’m not for the US withdrawing from Syria – or anywhere else for that matter. But talk of “sav[ing] the lives of innocent people” paints our role in the region in overly pretty and self-aggrandizing terms. First of all, it was overwhelmingly other countries’ soldiers who “routed ISIS,” not ours. More importantly, since January of 2017, coalition airstrikes against Daesh (which means US airstrikes, since we fly the vast majority of sorties) began to far outpace Russian airstrikes in terms of the number of civilian deaths they have caused. See: This is not a record to be cavalier about, let alone proud of. Moreover, killing innocent civilians often acts to undermine our own efforts and interests. So let’s dial back the glorified rhetoric some.

                1. bud

                  Setting aside the moral aspects of killing civilians using airstrikes and drones it has the practical and security effect of engendering a terrorist movement. Why is that not obvious?

              3. bud

                You can’t really separate the two. Still I’m a long way from being convinced that our military presence now can or should be justified because our own flawed military decision create this situation in the first place.

                1. bud

                  Mission Accomplished I – Iraq 2003
                  Mission Accomplished II – The surge
                  Mission Accomplished III – Liberation of Raqqa
                  Mission Accomplished prequel – First Iraq war

  2. Brad Warthen Post author

    I have GOT to see that movie, “Wolf Warrior II.” Osnos describes this bit toward the end:

    In the final battle, a villain, played by the American actor Frank Grillo, tells Leng, “People like you will always be inferior to people like me. Get used to it.” Leng beats the villain to death and replies, “That was f___ing history.”…

    That may sound laughable — Terry Gross DID laugh when she mentioned it during the radio interview — but it says SO much about China’s historical sense of itself and its determination to replace the old imperial Western powers (and America) in world dominance.

    Little wonder that it struck such a chord with Chinese audiences…

  3. bud

    I suggest that rather than continue the same worn out imperialist policies of the last 5 decades we instead try to emulate the Scandinavian countries or perhaps Switzerland. They don’t meddle in foreign affairs constantly and their life expectancy is much higher than ours. Wouldn’t that approach be worth a try?

    1. Barry

      Won’t happen. They don’t “meddle” in other countries because no one expects them to do so, no one looks to them to take that role, and they are typically incapable of doing so.

      When a humanitarian disaster hits fast even countries that supposedly hate us come quietly calling for help and have for decades.

      1. Richard

        “When a humanitarian disaster hits fast even countries that supposedly hate us come quietly calling for help and have for decades.”

        Trump has started by pulling funds out of Pakistan… who knowingly hid Osama Bin Laden. Hopefully this is just the beginning. A famine hits Somalia, an earthquake hits Afghanistan, Libya gets invaded… pass the popcorn.

        1. Norm Ivey

          A famine hits Somalia, an earthquake hits Afghanistan, Libya gets invaded… pass the popcorn.

          I’ve never considered that famine, tragedy and war could be forms of entertainment. It doesn’t matter what our relationship with their governments are. When people need help and you have the means to help, you help.

            1. Richard

              “And the United States of America has the means to help.”

              We do? Have you seen our national debt lately? If the country were a person, not only would we be broke, we’d likely be in prison. It’s people like Brad who don’t understand money or feel that money management is important, if you’re out of money just apply for another credit card mentality.

                1. Claus2

                  If we have “plenty of money” why aren’t we paying our bills? Where is this money you speak of? Sitting in a bank somewhere? Fort Knox perhaps???

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    Again we — the people of the United States — have plenty of money. But, again (again), we lack the will either to tax ourselves sufficiently or to cut spending enough to eliminate our debt.

                    Collectively, we want everything the government supplies, but are unwilling to cough up the money to pay the bills…

                2. Doug Ross

                  Did you ever respond to my calculation that a full 50% of my income goes to taxes? I’ve got the details to prove it if you’re interested. 30% Federal, 10% state (income, sales, gas tax, other fees), 10% local (property, sales tax).

                  I really want to know how much more you want to of my salary to achieve your objectives? Another 10%? 20%? I already know you want to increase my Social Security and Medicare taxes. What else?

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    I was just stating a fact. If we care about the debt, we have to cut spending drastically, increase taxes substantially, or both.

                    Do you disagree? I don’t see how you could…

        2. Barry

          But trump will try to triple the funds to Pakistan if their president says he’s a super guy.

          Trump is a blip on a raccoon’s butt in the foreign policy realm.

    2. Brad Warthen Post author

      Actually we can’t stop using imperialist policies until sometime after we START using imperialist policies, so you might want to put that one on the back burner…

      If you want to live in Switzerland, go to Switzerland. The truth is, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries pretty much depend on the United States being the United States. Our being the chief guarantor of collective security is what allows Sweden to be Sweden, happily living in its little Swedish bubble.

      Of course, that bothers the hell out of people like Trump and Doug — or anyone whose world view is based in resentment that someone, somewhere is taking advantage of him — but I’m fine with it. I’d believe that if I were Swedish, or Japanese, or Australian, or what have you. I look around the world, and the United States seems the best equipped to handle the job.

      And it’s also the nation I — as a hypothetical Brit or German or whatever — would most trust with that responsibility. Or at least, that was the case before the past year. The fact that this most-powerful country is being run by an idiot who exhibits his startling insecurity by tweeting about his “big button” would worry the hell out of me, whichever country I lived in.

      But from 1945 to 2016, that would seem the best state of affairs…

    3. Bryan Caskey

      I would like to see the enactment of a socialism exchange program, whereby US citizens who want to live under socialism can go to live in a given socialist country in exchange for their citizens who want to live under a capitalist system who can, in exchange, come here. Who’s in?

      1. bud

        To be clear I’m referencing actions since 1953 so the Korean war certainly did have a military component. But it was an international operation. Same with Kuwait.

      2. bud

        Sweden has a form of socialism. I’m in.

        This is a typical either/or argument that really doesn’t exist. No country has a purely capitalist economic system. Certainly not in the US. If libertarians have their way, and they are certainly gaining traction within the Republican Party, we will likely see more reliance on the invisible hand of capitalism to magically make everything much better. But I would maintain that an over reliance on the invisible, and unregulated, hand will lead to most people getting bitch slapped.

  4. Barry

    The ironic thing is tha Steve Bannon also believes China wants to and will take over that role from the United States.

  5. Doug Ross

    Of the entire world population of 7.3 billion people outside of the United States, what percentage actually held a very positive view of the United States prior to Trump’s election? Most don’t care about the U.S. We’ve created more global enemies in the past six decades than we have converted to our “side”. How many generations will it take to get on the good side of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.?

    The ones who like us like us because we give them protection and buy their products. It’s based on fear and greed.

    1. Barry

      Doug’s posts always convince me to enthusiastically embrace the point of view he is arguing against.

          1. Doug Ross

            Any time “Barry” is willing to reveal his identity, I’ll back off. Until then, trolls don’t deserve any respect. Sorry. if you can’t put your name on what you believe, I wouldn’t trust you to be honest about anything. Every word I write here is under my name and I stand behind it.

Comments are closed.