Why Donald Trump Has the Perfect Presidential Temperament, Part II

Trump’s Temperament Part II

Conclusion to my assessment that Trump’s temperament is what we need once again

AUG 6, 2023

Why Donald Trump Has the Perfect Presidential Temperament, Part II



7 Jun 2016

Start writing today. Use the button below to create your Substack and connect your publication with The Patriot Shrink

Start a Substack

Everyone says Donald Trump is crazy, so I decided to test their theory and challenge the assumption that he is made of the wrong temperament. I run Republicans Overseas in the UK; we have to process the Trump victory; we think he’s being misrepresented.

The political elite, along with the media and their regular pundits, have been so busy picking on words — evaluating Trump according to their own personal standards — that they keep missing what is happening before their eyes. Across the board, no matter the group, they have applied their own elitist standards of how one should behave and how one should speak.

No matter how wrong they have been, it seems they care more about being right than analysing how our culture has changed and how the voters have spoken. At least CNN’s Quest for Business attempted to attribute the demise of our culture going all the way back to Jerry Springer.

The main criticism of Trump is his personality, not his temperament. Trump’s personality and tone do offend some people; however, after knocking out 16 competitors, perhaps these critics might have been better served analysing his successes rather than judging his behavior.

So, for those who want to understand Trump’s temperament, they would be best served by comparing him to history-making former presidents, such as: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ronald Reagan.

For each and every President, it was their temperament that led to their success. Like it or not, the Keirsey Presidential Evaluation reveals that Trump has the same temperament as these arguably successful past presidents. Scrutinizing the temperaments and characteristics of past presidents shows every one of them thrived on action, risks, challenges, and change.

While Franklin Roosevelt was not a long-term strategist, he was a prodigal tactician with a very clever ability to influence people and immediate events with an extraordinary sense of timing. Many political wonks and historians agree that Kennedy and Johnson were powerful politicians who understood the game and played it energetically, shrewdly, and unflinchingly. Both were crafty, hard-working opportunists, able to use any event to accomplish a goal. Clearly the same can be said of Trump.

Fairness never played a role in FDR’s temperament. In the book Eleanor and Franklin, the former First Lady revealed, ‘’The President used those who suited his purposes.  He made up his own mind and discarded people when they no longer fulfilled a purpose of his.’’ Even when he had nothing at stake, Franklin often would be devious simply for the pleasure of it.

Kennedy and Johnson could be equally underhanded, unprincipled, scheming, brazen, and downright dirty in the way they played the game of politics. Both JFK and LBJ were accused of being womanizers. FDR used people and cast them aside like paper napkins. JFK acted secretly during the Cuban Missile crisis, as did Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair. Sometimes these presidents were considered impulsive, even reckless. But each man served the United States during a time of complexity, great turmoil, and social upheaval. No president has ever proved to be a saint.

Like Trump, Reagan was accused of being loyal to a fault. Reagan genuinely fretted when he had to reprimand or fire anyone he knew or liked. Trump stood by his campaign manager in the Michelle Fields brouhaha. Calling for Trump to fire Corey Lewandowski can only be deemed as an extremely self-preserving act. Standing by Lewandowski proved the right, loyal, and fair decision.

When Trump declared the primary process was rigged, Cruz, Kasich, and the pundits tagged Trump as a “whiner.” However, rather than picking on words or tone, they would have recognised one of Trump’s strongest characteristics – his desire to ensure fairness in execution and implementation applied equally to all.

Theodore Roosevelt’s interest in fairness, honesty, and support of “the little guy’’ appealed to most Americans. Reagan was, and Trump is, an egalitarian. This strong belief in the principle that all people deserve equal rights and opportunity is somehow confusing the Conservative wing of the Republican Party. Reagan’s goal was the same as Trump’s – slice the fat out of the monstrous Washington bureaucracy. But not at the expense of citizens.

Mastering the mediums of the modern world changed how politicians connected with citizens. PR acumen served the political agendas of both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. They had a powerful ability to use the press to communicate directly with people. However, Franklin had a new medium – the radio – which took his message directly into the homes of Americans and which he used brilliantly to persuade voters without being edited by the newspapers. JFK did the same, only with television. He used TV to run a cutthroat, negative and cruel TV media campaign successfully exposing Nixon’s weaknesses.

It’s not really a surprise that in 2016 Trump took campaign communications to new heights, employing social media and a fearless use of Twitter to connect directly to potential voters and expose his opponents’ weaknesses. Most pundits agree: Trump rewrote the book on American politics. It will never be the same.

Reagan entered and occupied the Oval Office with a disarmingly simple agenda consisting of three objectives – release the entrepreneur from government bondage, restrict the size and activity of the federal government, and get tough with the “evil empire.’’

Should he win, Trump would enter the Oval Office with four straightforward proposals: put America first and rebuild her strength economically and militarily, use beneficial trade policies putting America first; solve the immigration crisis; and change our tax structure to bring money back to America.

Finally, Trump’s most noticeable characteristic is based on his ability to adapt swiftly to changing circumstances and to alter his behavior in the moment in order to operate effectively in the most unstable situations. It’s clear that what some pundits consider Trump’s weaknesses are actually evidence of his deeply ingrained principles: love of country, a desire to impact others in a positive way, a realistic grasp on how the world really works, and a strong mission to get things done.

So, let’s finally put this criticism of Trump’s temperament to rest. His temperament is exactly what our country needs at this critical time in our history.


JAG Convicts Former FEMA Boss Brock Long, Part II

JAG Convicts Former FEMA Boss Brock Long, Part II


FEMA’s perpetual degeneracy and Brock Long’s smugness seemed to genuinely irritate Vice Adm. Darse E. Crandall, who, for reasons not given to Real Raw News, has remained at Guantanamo Bay since Gretchen Whitmer’s execution, as opposed to flying back to Camp Blaz, Guam.

“Something big is brewing at Blaz,” was all we were told. “Admiral Crandall can try a case anywhere; just give him a crime and a defendant.”

Wednesday’s defendant was the loathsome former FEMA Administrator Brock Long, who had followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, abusing his authority to transform a disaster relief agency into a weaponized arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Neither Brock Long nor earlier FEMA bosses, Adm. Crandall mentioned to his paralegal, had a history of criminality before helming FEMA. It was as though the position itself instilled in them a rapacious desire to strip citizens of the rights and freedoms they hold sacred.

Following Wednesday’s lunch recess, Adm. Crandall summoned the prosecution’s first witness, Dr. Daniel Kaniewski, FEMA’s second-ranking official during Long’s reign of terror. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2017, Kaniewski was the agency’s Deputy Administrator for Resilience, responsible for addressing preparedness challenges in times of natural disasters. He spoke about his academic and employment history and was asked to identify the defendant.

“Orange jumpsuit. Handcuffs. Sitting at that table. That’s Brock Long,” Kaniewski said.

The admiral held in his hands a ream of paper. “Mr. Kaniewski, are you familiar with FEMA’s red and blue lists?”

Kaniewski swallowed hard. “I’m not on trial, right?”

“You are a witness, Mr. Kaniewski, a witness who’s been offered conditional prosecutorial immunity in return for honest testimony, which is what we expect of you,” the admiral said.

Kaniewski sighed. “I’ve heard of it.”

“You’ve heard of it? That’s amazing—because the defendant claims he has absolutely no knowledge of it. What have you heard and from whom?” the admiral asked.

“I’ve heard two stories. One says those lists have names of people FEMA feels need watching, people, you know, who don’t particularly like the political environment and the politicians running the country, and it has names of people who own multiple firearms and have bought, eh, excessive quantities of ammunition. The other story goes it’s all part of a roleplay exercise,” Kaniewski explained.

“And from whom did you hear these stories?”

“I honestly can’t recall who told me about the watch list. It was probably more than one person. After that, I asked Brock, the defendant, what the deal was, and he told me the roleplay scenario,” Kaniewski said.

“Do you recall when the defendant told you that?” asked the admiral.

“We’re talking about five, six years ago. I think it was sometime in early 2018,” Kaniewski said.

“I find this perplexing. Internet forums have been replete with rumors of these lists since the internet was a thing. Yet here we have former FEMA officials saying they have no knowledge or only a peripheral knowledge of them. It boggles one’s mind, it really does,” the admiral said.

“I’m telling the truth,” Kaniewski insisted.

“Would it surprise you to know, Mr. Kaniewski, that your name is on the red list?”

Long erupted in anger as the admiral laid a sheet of paper atop the witness stand.

“That’s a lie! His name is not on the list,” Long shouted. “If it’s on there, they doctored it!”

The admiral faced Long. “How would you know whether his name is or is not on the list if you have no knowledge of it?”

Admiral Crandall tapped the page with the tip of an index finger. “That’s your name, Mr. Kaniewski, right there, added on March 10, 2018. And for the record, we didn’t alter it.”

“Why did you do this to me, Brock?” Kaniewski said to Long.

The admiral asked him not to address the defendant. “You weren’t that special, Mr. Kaniewski; the database has 1,540,327 names, alphabetized. You’re in good company. If he didn’t insert your name, someone under his authority did.” He excused the witness.

Deep Staters, the admiral noted, had an uncanny ability to incriminate themselves under pressure. He mentioned how much he appreciated criminals willing to self-snitch.

He introduced a second witness, Mark Knowles, a FEMA Region 3 deputy supervisor from November 2017 – December 2018, after which he resigned from the agency to pursue other ambitions. He described himself as a cocky, ambitious man who never let rules hinder professional progress and said he and Long had often discussed the societal benefits of eradicating people who called themselves patriots.

“Is it safe to assume, Mr. Knowles, that you and the defendant are friends?” the admiral asked.

“We were friends,” Knowles said.

“Please state why you are here today, testifying against your friend.”

Knowles sniggered. “I said we were friends. And because I’d rather spend five years at Hotel GITMO than risk swingin’ from a tree.”

“That’s the deal we offered you?”

“Yup,” Knowles said.

“And why should this tribunal accept your testimony as fact?” the admiral asked.

“No reason you should, except I have receipts for much of it,” Knowles replied.

The admiral instructed Knowles to respond with yes or no answers unless instructed otherwise.

“Mr. Knowles, on March 22, 2018, did you observe the defendant at Barack Hussein Obama’s home in Washington, D.C., while he was there with former FEMA administrator Craig Fugate?” Adm. Crandall asked.


“Were you a passenger in the defendant’s government vehicle, and did he drive you both from FEMA’s office on 500 C St SW, Washington, D.C., to Obama’s physical address?”


“Yes or no, please,” the admiral reiterated.

“Yes,” Knowles responded.

“Did he tell you why he was going to see Obama?”

“No, he did not. Only said he had to talk with him,” said Knowles.

“Weren’t you curious? And you can elaborate?”

“Sure, but I wasn’t paid to ask questions,” Knowles said.

“And how exactly did you come to observe the defendant conversing with Obama and Fugate?” Adm. Crandall asked.

“Because they were out front with two Secret Service agents when we pulled up. I stayed in the car. Brock got out to meet them before they went inside.”

The admiral displayed a photograph of Long, Obama, and Fugate smiling and shaking hands. He said Knowles had taken the photo through an open car window and that JAG’s experts had forensically examined the image and metadata.

Long squirmed in his seat at the defense table, chewing on his lower lip.

“Mr. Knowles, you captured this with your cell phone, right?” the admiral asked.


“Why did you take this picture?”

“You never know when something come in handy in the future,” Knowles said.

In response to further questions, Knowles said Long, Obama, and Fugate went inside after minutes of senseless handshaking. He said he waited 45 minutes for Long to exit the dwelling.

“And since you were not in the house, you obviously can’t know what they discussed, right?” the admiral asked.

“Only what Brock told me.”

“And what did he tell you?”

Knowles laughed a little. “That they talked about fucking over Trump. Like if there were severe tornado outbreaks that spring, they’d withhold relief and then blame it on Trump, say he gut funding. And if FEMA got caught with hands in the cookie jar stealing from busted houses, they’d try to blame it on Trump.”

“Let’s step back. What did you and Long do after he finished at Obama’s place?” said the admiral.

“Oh, we went to a regional preparedness meeting not far away.”

“Do you think President Trump knew that Long visited Obama?”

“Hell no,” Knowles said with a chuckle. “I mean, I don’t know as fact, but c’mon, realistically, he didn’t know. Trump was FEMA’s enemy.”

“Why is that?”

“Because Trump wants to purge the Deep State, and FEMA is the Deep State. FEMA is not part of Homeland; FEMA is Homeland. Until you guys came along, FEMA controlled the most fortified arsenal in the country—Mt. Weather. Even Cheyenne has Walmart-grade security compared to what’s at Weather,” Knowles said.

The admiral thanked and dismissed the witness.

I will publish Part III asap. Behind schedule a bit.

Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. Real Raw News needs reader support to survive and thrive. 

Please do not give your hard-earned money to sites or channels that copy/paste our intellectual property. We spend countless hours vetting, researching, and writing. Thank you. Every dollar helps. Contributions help keep the site active and help support the author (and his medical bills)

If the link doesn’t show on Apple devices, it’s: https://www.givesendgo.com/realrawnews2
(Visited 5,804 times, 5,804 visits today)

Nancy Pelosi Military Tribunal, Part II

Nancy Pelosi Military Tribunal, Part II

December 18, 2022

After Mr. Ramirez left the witness box, Vice Adm. Crandall produced a second witness via a Zoom call, a Hispanic female who said her name was Elsa Fuentes and told the court she had been Pelosi’s unpaid intern between January-March 2018. Her appearance on video seemed to unnerve Pelosi, whose eyes narrowed contemptuously while gazing at the woman’s face on the screen. The admiral asked Ms. Fuentes a few routine questions: How did you become interested in politics? what were your routine duties? Did you enjoy the work? Was the environment pleasant? Did you enjoy Nancy’s company?

“I hated the bitch by day 2. My duties? Arranging her calendar, setting up appointments, cancelling appointments, fetching coffee and cappuccino, cleaning her office, taking her clothes to the dry cleaners, picking up her clothes from the dry cleaners, making her hair appointments, running to the liquor store for her twice a week…” Ms. Fuentes said.

“You sound a bit bitter,” Vice Adm. Crandall said. “Is it safe to say bitterness won’t affect your testimony?”

“Just cause she’s a bitch don’t mean I’d lie,” Ms. Fuentes said. “If I’m angry, was angry, it’s cause I knew interns for other Reps weren’t doing the sh—stuff I had to do. And most Reps paid interns, but Nancy didn’t. Hi, there, Nancy, good to see you’re finally where you belong,” she went on, suddenly smiling as she vigorously waved at the defendant.

Vice Adm. Crandall asked her to not address or incite the defendant. Meanwhile, Nancy sat still as a puddle of stagnant water.

“Let me pull your attention back to what you told me when you gave a sworn deposition, Ms. Fuentes. The day–March 10, 2018. You were in Nancy Pelosi’s offices then, is that correct?” asked the admiral.

“I was,” Ms. Fuentes answered without hesitation. “I remember cause Nancy kept me late doing spreadsheets and transcriptions, and other reasons.”

“And Nancy was present?”

“She was in her office and I was in what we called the side office. More like a large closet than an office, where secretaries or interns sit. A door connects the two, and it wasn’t really ever locked or closed all the way. I think Nancy probably wanted to eavesdrop, you understand, in case we were talking about her,” Ms. Fuentes said.

“Let’s refrain from speculation please, Ms. Fuentes.”

“Sorry, sir. Anyway, I overheard her on the phone talking to someone—no idea who it was—about killing President Trump. She was saying she didn’t care how much money it took. She wanted him dead. Nancy was spitting out large figures—like millions,” Ms. Fuentes said.

“Was there anyone in the offices besides you and the defendant?” Vice Adm. Crandall asked.

“Just us two. She was talking on a burner phone. Nancy didn’t conduct unofficial business on her office phone. She had a drawer full of burners,” Ms. Fuentes said.

“Let the record reflect that by burners the witness means, generally speaking, inexpensive, expendable, untraceable cellular phones paid for with cash. Do you recognize this?” asked the admiral, as he pulled from a cardboard box a plastic evidence bag holding the upper and lower halves of a prepaid phone someone had snapped in two.

“Of course, I do. I gave it to you,” Ms. Fuentes replied.

“How did you come to obtain this phone?” the admiral queried.

“Took it from her trash bin before I left that night. She’d left first,” Ms. Fuentes said flatly.

“Pretty bold of you and foolish of her, to just drop it in a wastebasket. Weren’t you worried she’d find out?”

Ms. Fuentes said Nancy that day had consumed a half-bottle of Smirnoff Vodka and was inebriated beyond comprehension when she stumbled out of the office at 8:30 p.m. Moreover, she said she’d covered her tracks: She proudly boasted how she had taken an identical, unopened burner phone from Pelosi’s drawer, broke it in a way the closely mimicked how Nancy had snapped the original, and laid it in the trash.

“When I got to the office next day, the trash had been emptied. Not a word was ever said,” she said.

“And you held onto it for what, almost five years now?” Vice Adm. Crandall said.

Ms. Fuentes nodded. “I wasn’t gonna hand it off to just anyone. Then I might have, you know, disappeared.

“Ms. Fuentes, I don’t think that’s anything to worry about anymore. You’re excused.”

The admiral told the panel that despite Pelosi’s pedestrian attempt to render the phone useless—she hadn’t even removed the sim card—from it JAG had extracted call logs and dozens of incriminating text messages that described not only assassinating President Trump but also her plan to “kidnap or get rid of” Trump’s then-12-year-old son Barron. Part of a message read, “ASAP. Take Barron and Trump won’t function. He’ll have to leave, and then I’ll have Pence. Wiring now to what’s been discussed.”

Another message: “Or Ivanka. Make her less pretty.”

“Of course her messages were sent to another burner phone—disconnected, but—” Vice Admiral Crandall began.

Nancy stood. She spoke. She said she was innocent. Innocent with an explanation. “It’s no secret I dislike Donald Trump. This is all fantasy—my fantasy, and fantasy is no crime. It was role play. Nothing more,” she hissed.

“We have your bank records. You wired $375K to an account in Zurich minutes after you sent that text. Ben Folds—a fake name, I’m sure. That’s a hefty sum to spend on role play, for someone who wouldn’t even pay her interns a dime,” Vice Adm. Crandall said.

“Your so-called witnesses are compromised, corrupt. I won’t stand for this.”

“Then please take your seat, or we’ll put you in it,” the admiral snapped as two Marines flanked Pelosi. “By the way, I think you got ripped off.”

“I’m sure you won’t like our next witness either,” the admiral continued.

He called to the stand a cooperating witness–Nancy’s estranged husband, Paul Pelosi.

Note: Part III ASAP.

Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. Real Raw News needs reader support to survive and thrive. In 2023 we aim to publish three books and hire on-air talent for a video channel. Your help can help make these goals a reality.

Please do not give your hard-earned money to sites or channels that copy/paste our intellectual property. We spend countless hours vetting, researching, and writing. Thank you. Every dollar helps.

If the link doesn’t show on Apple devices, it’s: https://www.givesendgo.com/realrawnews2
(Visited 5,908 times, 5,908 visits today)

George W. Bush Military Tribunal: Day 3, Part II

George W. Bush Military Tribunal: Day 3, Part II

Soft-spoken and reclusive, Donald Evans was an unassuming figure in George W. Bush’s corrupt administration. A longtime friend of “double-yew,” as he referred to Bush, the Texas-born energy mogul became one of many cabinet members upon whom Bush bestowed favoritism, a gesture of reciprocity toward those who had sworn fealty to 43 throughout his years as an elected official. While serving as the 34th Secretary of Commerce Evans kept to the shadows, seldom leaving his office unless summoned to meetings. Barely visible to begin with, he faded into total obscurity until surfacing as a witness for the prosecution Monday afternoon at Bush’s military tribunal.

He appeared on ZOOM to testify against his former boss.

Rear Adm. Darse E. Crandall addressed the witness. “Mr. Evans, this commission thanks you for being here. Could you please tell this panel what you said to me when you were first interviewed?”

As expected, Bush’s lawyer David Aufhauser voiced an objection, saying it was “highly unorthodox” to call a witness that he had not been given an opportunity to interview.

Bush for the first time raised his voice. “Of all the people, Donald, I never thought you—” he croaked.

But Rear Adm. Crandall interrupted them, saying he’d clear the chamber and finish the tribunal with Bush and Aufhauser in absentia unless all present agreed to maintain order. The commission, he said, would hear Evans’ testimony.

“I was in my office, as usual, Monday morning—that was September 10, 2001. At about 10 or 11 that morning, I can’t recall the exact time, Bush called my office phone. He said he had something to tell me. His voice, it sounded shaky—I don’t know how else to describe it. Nervous maybe. See, at the time I had family and friends working in the towers. Out of nowhere, he tells me I should tell them to not go in that day. In fact, he told me they should avoid the city,” Evans said.

“The defendant, George W. Bush, told you this? And you’re certain it was his voice on the phone?” Rear Adm. Crandall asked.

“I’ve known the man for 50 years. I’m sure I know his voice,” Evans replied.

“And did he share with you why your friends or family should avoid the towers, and Manhattan, that Tuesday, September 11?” Rear Adm. Crandall said.

“He only said something might happen, and that if it did, I was never to speak of it or the warning he gave me. He said it in a non-threatening but intimidating way, and you’d have to really know him to grasp what I mean,” Evans said.

“Did you take his advice? Did you warn them?” Rear Adm. Crandall asked.

“I did not, because I didn’t want to believe he could be serious. If I had, they’d still be alive today,” Evans said.

“And you were so fearful of Bush’s wrath that you never once in 20 years mentioned his warning to anyone?” Rear Adm. Crandall asked.

“That’s untrue. I sent a letter to the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Keane. He chose, I guess, to omit it from the final report,” Evans said.

After a pause, Rear Adm. Crandall asked whether the defense wished to cross-examine the witness.

“I have only two questions for you, Mr. Evans. First, did Rear Adm. Crandall, JAG, or the OMC make you any promises in return for your testimony today?” Aufhauser said.

“No, sir.”

“Do you have any proof this alleged call between you and the defendant ever took place? An audio tape, perhaps. Notes? A copy of the letter you sent to the 9/11 Commission?” Aufhauser pressed him.

“No, sir.”

Seemingly satisfied at the responses, Aufhauser had no added questions, and Rear Adm. Crandall said the next witness would appear before the tribunal Tuesday morning.

RRN is an independent publisher that relies on reader support. We fight for truth and freedom of the press in an oppressed society. We use GiveSendGo, a Christian-based fundraising company, through which to collect donations. Every dollar helps.
GiveSendGo Fundraising Link.