"Above All" - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power
In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.
On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and concluded:
The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.
Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military. ...
The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do. ...
Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs. ...
Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...
Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.
All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.)
On January 20, the first day of the Not-Hillary presidency, I warned:
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological pilot. Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor General McMaster, had won. I stated:
A military junta is now ruling the United States
and later explained:
Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.
The military took full control of White House processes and policies:
Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.
With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress any and all criticism against itself.
On Thursday the 19th Kelly criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:
Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she “got the money” for the building.
The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's unjustified attack she responded:
MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that -- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's something highly inappropriate.
It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.
U.S. soldiers, and especially commanding officers, have a well pampered and safe life. Many civilian jobs pay less and are more dangerous. A myth is build around the U.S. military with the help of hundreds of millions in public relations and marketing expenditures. The U.S. military does not win wars, but its soldiers are depicted as being better humans than the general population. The soldiers themselves drink that Kool-Aid. At the end of his press briefing General Kelly belittled everyone who never signed up for the military or took a swig:
Before walking off the stage, Kelly told Americans who haven’t served in the military that he pities them. “We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” he said. “In fact, in a way we are a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our servicemen and women do—not for any other reason than that they love this country.”
'We do not look down on you. We think of you as a pitiable minor creature.' What an asshole.
If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military golf courses? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000 strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.
And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:
Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees’ peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees, consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.
Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.
On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis set (vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:
Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is - is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there, by putting our troops in a position to die?
In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:
So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights ...
Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought?
One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights" was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a dozen awards and decorations".
The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?
Will anyone really buy that bridge?
But who would dare to ask more about this? It is"highly inappropriate" to doubt whatever the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be blocked from communicating.
The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933 "Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will develop from it.
Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/ab ... power.html
It is not a coup, the prez is still in charge. Those generals are not a junta, they are glorified babysitters. They were put in place cause Trump has been conditioned to give automatic respect to the military, just like any other consumer of US TV. And they provide 'legitimacy' to a regime sorely lacking the gravitas that people expect. To say that they defeated the economic interests in a power struggle puts the cart before the horse. Well, 'b' has never shown a knack for class analysis.
It's been considered 'bad form', at the very least, to criticize the military since 'Nam, doncha know that cost 'us' that war?
Trump will automatically listen to The Brass, there is hardly need to control his information, my understanding is that he doesn't read that boring shit and bases his 'information' upon what he sees on TV. Seeing as that 'feed' for the masses is a product of well and very well paid clerks, class interests will do most of the work, overt interference by management is hardy necessary. Just tamp down the excesses of emotion which those broadcasts are meant to engender among us powerless commoners and steer Donald into policy acceptable to business and he'll be free to be his self, a hideous distraction, who as a bonus will continue to divide worker as he mainstreams those qualities of his class, cupidity, arrogance, hatred of all not rich, white and male. Meanwhile the business of Amerika remain Business.
Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
Against legal fetishism (part two)
Posted Nov 21, 2017 by Umut Özsu
Topics: Fascism , StrategyPlaces: United States
Originally published: Legal Form by Umut Özsu (November 3, 2017)
Couching Trump as a “lawless” autocrat-in-the-making has become a matter of routine, something of a mantra repeated by “liberals” and “conservatives” alike. The trouble with this characterization is not that it is inaccurate, but rather that it is incomplete.
Law’s Violence
To be sure, Trump has demonstrated a highly worrisome proclivity for clumsily drafted and hastily prepared executive orders and related presidential memoranda, some of which violate settled law. In itself, the executive order mechanism is fully in accord with US law. Further, heavy reliance upon such orders, and the massive presidential power they both presuppose and foster,1 predate the new administration by centuries.2 In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose Keynesian New Deal is often romanticized by social justice movements of varying persuasions, issued over 3500 such directives during his twelve years as president.3 Nevertheless, many of Trump’s federal actions, particularly his move to suspend the US refugee admission system and prohibit entry of nationals of various majority-Muslim countries, run afoul of domestic and international law.
Similarly, Trump’s incessant rants about the judiciary—echoed periodically in remarks about “judicial supremacy” from administration officials like Stephen Miller4—run against the grain of established legal standards. Such sentiments are not, of course, unprecedented. Invectives against “judicial activism” are a staple of political life in many states. Ad hominem accusations and other forms of intimidation are also not uncommon. In 2014, for instance, Stephen Harper, then Canada’s prime minister, questioned the professional integrity of Beverley McLachlin, then as now the Canadian Supreme Court’s chief justice, for allegedly contacting his office about a prospective judicial appointment.5 Similar examples can be given from many other jurisdictions. Still, the intensity and frequency of Trump’s indignant accusations are exceptional.
All of this is true. Indeed, it is undeniable. Yet it is too quick and easy to characterize Trump as a simple enemy of law. If Trump is an aspiring tyrant, this is due at least as much to the fact that he is an avid player of the game of law as it is to the fact that he is prepared to transgress the boundaries of the legal.
To begin with, it is telling (though generally ignored) that Trump tends not to press his rhetoric so far as to hazard an express disavowal of legality as such. Neither he nor we may believe that the “rule of law” is an “unqualified human good,” to use radical historian E. P. Thompson’s infelicitous and oft-derided expression.6 But it is clear that Trump appreciates the usefulness of legal legitimacy. Absent such legitimacy, he would not be able to enshroud his policies in the authority of law (or at least to claim that he is doing as much).
Some might object that such a stance can hardly be said to constitute “authentic commitment” to the law. After all, they might argue, recognizing that law is a powerful instrument of political rule is fundamentally different from respecting its overriding normative authority. This leads to a second point. Pace most forms of liberal legal theory, the “rule of law”, whatever exactly it may mean, is not easily distinguishable from the “rule by law”, the rationalization and institutionalization of power through law. As tempting as it may be to distance law from the ends that it serves, the unfortunate reality is that law, while emancipatory in many respects, has been complicit in all manner of violence, from the entrenchment of socio-economic inequality through contract and property law to the justification of colonialism, imperialism, and neo-colonialism through public and private international law. The power of law’s formal rules, norms, and institutions does not lie simply in a capacity to constrain political might and restrict discretionary authority (though law clearly can and does perform that crucial function). As has been demonstrated time and again by more than a century of legal realism, critical legal studies, feminist legal studies, and (not least) Marxist scholarship on law, the legal form has often underwritten and legitimated precisely the substantive injustice and inequality it is nominally designed to counter. Indeed, it is arguable (though not self-evident) that the world is what it is not because there is not enough law, but because it is suffused by so much law–or as China Miéville put it with his customary polemical hyperbole more than a decade ago, that “the chaotic and bloody world around us is the rule of law.”7
Extolling the virtues of the “rule of law” uncritically and without reservation is not simply an error; it is an act of bad faith. Don’t like what law has done to the world? Why not celebrate the “idea” of the “rule of law” instead, as an “aspiration” if not necessarily always as a “reality”? If nothing else, this is a terribly effective way of letting actually existing law off the hook.
Finally, it must be remembered that the spectacle that is “Trump” was made possible only because of law itself. Contracts, property, corporate, commercial, and real estate law, not to mention tax, securities, and antitrust law, facilitated the building (and rebuilding) of Trump’s fortune. Campaign finance laws, including “super PAC”-type “innovations” arising from the US Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United,8 enabled him to assume the presidency. A tradition of executive orders (and related instruments like presidential memoranda) that is as old as the republic has now provided him with a particularly potent means of formalizing his crime, trade, immigration, environmental, and national security agendas. Trump is a product of law, through and through.
The Struggle
None of this means that opposing Trump through legal means and procedures is pointless or delusional. When all is said and done, his administration can–and should–be opposed both legally and extra-legally. The game of law may be structurally biased, generally tilted in favour of the dominant, but it affords valuable, if limited, tools for achieving socio-economic change. Above all, what is needed now is a significantly greater dose of realism about what law can and cannot achieve. Such realism would yield an account of law that is at once “formalist”, in the sense that it takes the relative autonomy of legal structures seriously, and “anti-formalist”, in the sense that it nevertheless ultimately anchors these structures in concrete social relations. A realistic account of this kind would not repudiate law and legal action pure and simple, but it would also be clear about law’s limitations and its indebtedness to the liberal capitalist order that has engendered Trump (and so many others before him).
For obvious reasons, no one can say with certainty what Trump will and will not do. But one thing should be clear: the actions he undertakes legally are likely to be far more devastating than those he undertakes illegally. All the more reason to mobilize, in the streets as well as in the courtroom. Marshall law’s myriad resources, but do so without illusion–and certainly without fetishizing its “rule”.
Notes
↩See, e.g., Erica Newland, “Executive Orders in Court”, 124 (2015) Yale Law Journal 1836.
↩See “Executive Orders: Washington–Trump”, The American Presidency Project.
↩See Executive Orders Disposition Tables, Federal Register, U.S. National Archives.
↩For discussion see Ryan Goodman, “11 Top Constitutional Law Experts React to White House Stephen Miller’s Rejection of ‘Judicial Supremacy’”, Just Security (15 February 2017).
↩Canadian Bar Association Presidents, “Harper’s Disrespect for the Supreme Court Harms the Workings of Government”, The Globe and Mail (6 May 2014).
↩E. P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act (London: Pantheon Books, 1975), 266. For analysis of this and related statements, see especially Perry Anderson, Arguments Within English Marxism (London: New Left Books / Verso, 1980), 198–205; Christopher Tomlins, “How Autonomous Is Law?”, 3 (2007) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 45, at 49–52.
↩China Miéville, Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 319 (original emphasis).
↩Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
https://mronline.org/2017/11/21/against ... -part-two/
Posted Nov 21, 2017 by Umut Özsu
Topics: Fascism , StrategyPlaces: United States
Originally published: Legal Form by Umut Özsu (November 3, 2017)
Couching Trump as a “lawless” autocrat-in-the-making has become a matter of routine, something of a mantra repeated by “liberals” and “conservatives” alike. The trouble with this characterization is not that it is inaccurate, but rather that it is incomplete.
Law’s Violence
To be sure, Trump has demonstrated a highly worrisome proclivity for clumsily drafted and hastily prepared executive orders and related presidential memoranda, some of which violate settled law. In itself, the executive order mechanism is fully in accord with US law. Further, heavy reliance upon such orders, and the massive presidential power they both presuppose and foster,1 predate the new administration by centuries.2 In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose Keynesian New Deal is often romanticized by social justice movements of varying persuasions, issued over 3500 such directives during his twelve years as president.3 Nevertheless, many of Trump’s federal actions, particularly his move to suspend the US refugee admission system and prohibit entry of nationals of various majority-Muslim countries, run afoul of domestic and international law.
Similarly, Trump’s incessant rants about the judiciary—echoed periodically in remarks about “judicial supremacy” from administration officials like Stephen Miller4—run against the grain of established legal standards. Such sentiments are not, of course, unprecedented. Invectives against “judicial activism” are a staple of political life in many states. Ad hominem accusations and other forms of intimidation are also not uncommon. In 2014, for instance, Stephen Harper, then Canada’s prime minister, questioned the professional integrity of Beverley McLachlin, then as now the Canadian Supreme Court’s chief justice, for allegedly contacting his office about a prospective judicial appointment.5 Similar examples can be given from many other jurisdictions. Still, the intensity and frequency of Trump’s indignant accusations are exceptional.
All of this is true. Indeed, it is undeniable. Yet it is too quick and easy to characterize Trump as a simple enemy of law. If Trump is an aspiring tyrant, this is due at least as much to the fact that he is an avid player of the game of law as it is to the fact that he is prepared to transgress the boundaries of the legal.
To begin with, it is telling (though generally ignored) that Trump tends not to press his rhetoric so far as to hazard an express disavowal of legality as such. Neither he nor we may believe that the “rule of law” is an “unqualified human good,” to use radical historian E. P. Thompson’s infelicitous and oft-derided expression.6 But it is clear that Trump appreciates the usefulness of legal legitimacy. Absent such legitimacy, he would not be able to enshroud his policies in the authority of law (or at least to claim that he is doing as much).
Some might object that such a stance can hardly be said to constitute “authentic commitment” to the law. After all, they might argue, recognizing that law is a powerful instrument of political rule is fundamentally different from respecting its overriding normative authority. This leads to a second point. Pace most forms of liberal legal theory, the “rule of law”, whatever exactly it may mean, is not easily distinguishable from the “rule by law”, the rationalization and institutionalization of power through law. As tempting as it may be to distance law from the ends that it serves, the unfortunate reality is that law, while emancipatory in many respects, has been complicit in all manner of violence, from the entrenchment of socio-economic inequality through contract and property law to the justification of colonialism, imperialism, and neo-colonialism through public and private international law. The power of law’s formal rules, norms, and institutions does not lie simply in a capacity to constrain political might and restrict discretionary authority (though law clearly can and does perform that crucial function). As has been demonstrated time and again by more than a century of legal realism, critical legal studies, feminist legal studies, and (not least) Marxist scholarship on law, the legal form has often underwritten and legitimated precisely the substantive injustice and inequality it is nominally designed to counter. Indeed, it is arguable (though not self-evident) that the world is what it is not because there is not enough law, but because it is suffused by so much law–or as China Miéville put it with his customary polemical hyperbole more than a decade ago, that “the chaotic and bloody world around us is the rule of law.”7
Extolling the virtues of the “rule of law” uncritically and without reservation is not simply an error; it is an act of bad faith. Don’t like what law has done to the world? Why not celebrate the “idea” of the “rule of law” instead, as an “aspiration” if not necessarily always as a “reality”? If nothing else, this is a terribly effective way of letting actually existing law off the hook.
Finally, it must be remembered that the spectacle that is “Trump” was made possible only because of law itself. Contracts, property, corporate, commercial, and real estate law, not to mention tax, securities, and antitrust law, facilitated the building (and rebuilding) of Trump’s fortune. Campaign finance laws, including “super PAC”-type “innovations” arising from the US Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United,8 enabled him to assume the presidency. A tradition of executive orders (and related instruments like presidential memoranda) that is as old as the republic has now provided him with a particularly potent means of formalizing his crime, trade, immigration, environmental, and national security agendas. Trump is a product of law, through and through.
The Struggle
None of this means that opposing Trump through legal means and procedures is pointless or delusional. When all is said and done, his administration can–and should–be opposed both legally and extra-legally. The game of law may be structurally biased, generally tilted in favour of the dominant, but it affords valuable, if limited, tools for achieving socio-economic change. Above all, what is needed now is a significantly greater dose of realism about what law can and cannot achieve. Such realism would yield an account of law that is at once “formalist”, in the sense that it takes the relative autonomy of legal structures seriously, and “anti-formalist”, in the sense that it nevertheless ultimately anchors these structures in concrete social relations. A realistic account of this kind would not repudiate law and legal action pure and simple, but it would also be clear about law’s limitations and its indebtedness to the liberal capitalist order that has engendered Trump (and so many others before him).
For obvious reasons, no one can say with certainty what Trump will and will not do. But one thing should be clear: the actions he undertakes legally are likely to be far more devastating than those he undertakes illegally. All the more reason to mobilize, in the streets as well as in the courtroom. Marshall law’s myriad resources, but do so without illusion–and certainly without fetishizing its “rule”.
Notes
↩See, e.g., Erica Newland, “Executive Orders in Court”, 124 (2015) Yale Law Journal 1836.
↩See “Executive Orders: Washington–Trump”, The American Presidency Project.
↩See Executive Orders Disposition Tables, Federal Register, U.S. National Archives.
↩For discussion see Ryan Goodman, “11 Top Constitutional Law Experts React to White House Stephen Miller’s Rejection of ‘Judicial Supremacy’”, Just Security (15 February 2017).
↩Canadian Bar Association Presidents, “Harper’s Disrespect for the Supreme Court Harms the Workings of Government”, The Globe and Mail (6 May 2014).
↩E. P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act (London: Pantheon Books, 1975), 266. For analysis of this and related statements, see especially Perry Anderson, Arguments Within English Marxism (London: New Left Books / Verso, 1980), 198–205; Christopher Tomlins, “How Autonomous Is Law?”, 3 (2007) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 45, at 49–52.
↩China Miéville, Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 319 (original emphasis).
↩Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
https://mronline.org/2017/11/21/against ... -part-two/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
White House Plans Tillerson Ouster From State Dept., to Be Replaced by Pompeo, Within Weeks
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson in September at the White House.
DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
By PETER BAKER and MAGGIE HABERMAN
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
WASHINGTON — The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who has been a key ally of the president on national security matters, according to the White House plan. Mr. Cotton has signaled that he would accept the job if offered, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations before decisions are announced.
It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump has given final approval to the plan, but he has been said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and in general is ready to make a change at the State Department.
John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, developed the transition plan and has discussed it with other officials. Under his plan, the shake-up of the national security team would happen around the end of the year or shortly afterward.
The ouster of Mr. Tillerson would end a turbulent reign at the State Department for the former Exxon Mobile chief executive, who has been largely marginalized over the last year. Mr. Trump and Mr. Tillerson have been at odds over a host of major issues, including the Iran nuclear deal, the confrontation with North Korea and a clash between Arab allies. The secretary was reported to have privately called Mr. Trump a “moron” and the president publicly criticized Mr. Tillerson for “wasting his time” with a diplomatic outreach to North Korea.
Mr. Tillerson’s departure has been widely anticipated for months, but associates have said he was intent on finishing out the year to retain whatever dignity he could. Even so, an end-of-year exit would make his time in office the shortest of any secretary of state whose tenure was not ended by a change in presidents in nearly 120 years.
While some administration officials initially expected him to be replaced by Nikki R. Haley, the ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Pompeo has become the White House favorite.
Mr. Pompeo, a former three-term member of Congress, has impressed Mr. Trump during daily intelligence briefings and become a trusted policy adviser even on issues far beyond the C.I.A.’s normal mandate, like health care. But he has been criticized by intelligence officers for being too political in his job.
Mr. Cotton has been perhaps Mr. Trump’s most important supporter in the Senate on national security and immigration and a valued outside adviser. Officials cautioned that there was still a debate about whether Mr. Cotton was more valuable to the president in the Senate than taking in over the spy agency in Langley, Va., but he is the consensus choice at the moment.
Under Arkansas state law, Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, would appoint a replacement who could serve until the 2018 election. If Mr. Cotton stayed in the Senate, his seat would not be up for election again until 2020.
Asked about a possible move, Caroline Rabbitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cotton, said, “Senator Cotton’s focus is on serving Arkansans in the Senate.”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/u ... google.fr/
Bound to happen after that 'moron' stuff hit the press, the guy's skin is thin as a grape. The 'pragmatic capitalists' lose to the batshit imperialist in the intramural scrimmage. Proly not gonna be good news to the market, 'stability' is their watchword.
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson in September at the White House.
DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
By PETER BAKER and MAGGIE HABERMAN
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
WASHINGTON — The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who has been a key ally of the president on national security matters, according to the White House plan. Mr. Cotton has signaled that he would accept the job if offered, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations before decisions are announced.
It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump has given final approval to the plan, but he has been said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and in general is ready to make a change at the State Department.
John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, developed the transition plan and has discussed it with other officials. Under his plan, the shake-up of the national security team would happen around the end of the year or shortly afterward.
The ouster of Mr. Tillerson would end a turbulent reign at the State Department for the former Exxon Mobile chief executive, who has been largely marginalized over the last year. Mr. Trump and Mr. Tillerson have been at odds over a host of major issues, including the Iran nuclear deal, the confrontation with North Korea and a clash between Arab allies. The secretary was reported to have privately called Mr. Trump a “moron” and the president publicly criticized Mr. Tillerson for “wasting his time” with a diplomatic outreach to North Korea.
Mr. Tillerson’s departure has been widely anticipated for months, but associates have said he was intent on finishing out the year to retain whatever dignity he could. Even so, an end-of-year exit would make his time in office the shortest of any secretary of state whose tenure was not ended by a change in presidents in nearly 120 years.
While some administration officials initially expected him to be replaced by Nikki R. Haley, the ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Pompeo has become the White House favorite.
Mr. Pompeo, a former three-term member of Congress, has impressed Mr. Trump during daily intelligence briefings and become a trusted policy adviser even on issues far beyond the C.I.A.’s normal mandate, like health care. But he has been criticized by intelligence officers for being too political in his job.
Mr. Cotton has been perhaps Mr. Trump’s most important supporter in the Senate on national security and immigration and a valued outside adviser. Officials cautioned that there was still a debate about whether Mr. Cotton was more valuable to the president in the Senate than taking in over the spy agency in Langley, Va., but he is the consensus choice at the moment.
Under Arkansas state law, Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, would appoint a replacement who could serve until the 2018 election. If Mr. Cotton stayed in the Senate, his seat would not be up for election again until 2020.
Asked about a possible move, Caroline Rabbitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cotton, said, “Senator Cotton’s focus is on serving Arkansans in the Senate.”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/u ... google.fr/
Bound to happen after that 'moron' stuff hit the press, the guy's skin is thin as a grape. The 'pragmatic capitalists' lose to the batshit imperialist in the intramural scrimmage. Proly not gonna be good news to the market, 'stability' is their watchword.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
Capitalism is dying. Good riddance. Doesn't mean socialism will take its place, however...
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
Flynn's Devastating Confessions: Trump Colluded With Israel, Tried To Fulfill Campaign Promises
The anti-Trump "resistance" campaign alleges that the Russian government tried to "influence" the U.S. election. It insinuates that Trump "colluded" with the Russians in these alleged attempts. It has no evidence for any of its claims. The intent of this campaign is to handicap the Trump administration as much as possible and to prevent better U.S. relations with Russia.
A witch hunt was launched in which the Mueller investigation in the alleged election manipulation as well as Congress hearings are used to throw as much dirt as possible into the direction of the Trump administration to then see what might stick.
While retired army-general Michael Flynn worked for the Trump campaign he was also a lobbyist for a rich person near to the Turkish government. He made $600,000 off that gig. The Trump campaign did not know about this. Flynn also attended an anniversary celebration for Russia Today in Moscow. He had been hired as a paid speaker for the occasion and his speaker agency charged $40,000 for it.
Flynn was fired from the job as National Security Advisor 24 days after Trump#s inauguration. He had been stupid enough to announce that he wanted to reform the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. Those agencies made sure that such would not happen.
Flynn was questioned by the FBI in connection with the Mueller investigation into alleged Russian influence on the 2016 election campaign. He lied to the FBI about some diplomatic contacts he had made on request of the then incoming Trump administration. The FBI managed to prove that he had lied. In the U.S. lying to the FBI is a serious crime. (I am not aware of other country that has such a stupid rule.) Flynn was offered a plea deal. He is supposed to tell Mueller what Mueller wants to hear in exchange for a lower penalty for his "crime" of lying to the FBI.
But look what the real issues were Flynn lied about:
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and authorities indicated in court he was acting under instructions from senior Trump transition officials in his dealings with the diplomat.
Flynn contacted the senior Russian diplomat in Washington DC. He was surely aware that the NSA and CIA notice and listen in to all such contacts. Flynn had no reason to believe that such contacts were out of norm because they ain't. Incoming administrations need such contacts to prepare their polices.
There are two different issues about which Flynn contacted the Russian ambassador:
In one of the conversations described in court documents, the men discussed an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter.
...
Mr. Mueller’s investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel, according to two people briefed on the inquiry. Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, took the lead in those efforts. Mr. Mueller’s team has emails that show Mr. Flynn saying he would work to kill the vote, the people briefed on the matter said.
The Security Council vote was on December 23 2016. The Israeli government lobbied the incoming administration to influence that vote in the Israeli government's interest. The Trump administration in-waiting could not influence the Obama administration which had decided to abstain. It contacted the Russian ambassador to influence the Russians to block the vote in the UNSC. The Russian's did not do such.
The "collusion" here is between the Israeli government and the Trump campaign. The "influence" is two part. A successful Israeli attempt to influence the incoming Trump administration and an unsuccessful attempt by Trump people to influence the Russian UNSC vote. The issue has absolutely zero to do with the U.S. election.
Now onto the second issue:
In the other discussion, according to court documents, Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Kislyak that Moscow refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions announced by the Obama administration that day against Russia over its interference in the presidential election. And Mr. Kislyak told Mr. Flynn that Russia “had chosen to moderate its response,” the documents said.
The following day, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said Moscow would not retaliate against the United States in response to the sanctions.
Mr. Trump praised the Russian leader in a Twitter post.
“Great move on delay (by V. Putin) — I always knew he was very smart!” Mr. Trump wrote.
Throughout his election campaign Trump had loudly argued for better relations with Russia. He said it would be easier to solve global problems if the U.S. and Russia cooperate.
The Obama administration had a generally hostile attitude towards Russia. It walked the relations towards a new cold war. Clinton's loss of the election which she blamed, without evidence, on Russia amplified his moves. According to the book 'Shattered', which describes the Clinton campaign, the decision to blame Russia for her loss was made a day after Trump's victory:
That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
At the end of 2016 Obama sanctioned Russian officials over allegedly influencing the U.S. campaign. No evidence was ever presented that such "influencing" was attempted or happened. Obama just willfully tried to worsen the relations with Russia.
The incoming administration tried to prevent more damage in the relations between the U.S. and Russia by contacting the Russian ambassador. It was a smart and well reasoned measure. There was no "collusion" in this. The "influence" was again from the Trump campaign into the direction of the Russian government, not the other way around. It had nothing to do with the election.
The Clinton fan-boys and girls seem happy with the Flynn's plea deal and are fretting about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. But how this is supposed to show that something nefarious was going on is not discernible. How the issues Flynn lied about (for whatever stupid reason) are supposed to prove "Russian influence" on the election or "collusion" with Trump during the election campaign is beyond me.
Posted by b on December 1, 2017 at 01:53 PM
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/fl ... mise-.html
b can be obtuse but this is pretty tight
The anti-Trump "resistance" campaign alleges that the Russian government tried to "influence" the U.S. election. It insinuates that Trump "colluded" with the Russians in these alleged attempts. It has no evidence for any of its claims. The intent of this campaign is to handicap the Trump administration as much as possible and to prevent better U.S. relations with Russia.
A witch hunt was launched in which the Mueller investigation in the alleged election manipulation as well as Congress hearings are used to throw as much dirt as possible into the direction of the Trump administration to then see what might stick.
While retired army-general Michael Flynn worked for the Trump campaign he was also a lobbyist for a rich person near to the Turkish government. He made $600,000 off that gig. The Trump campaign did not know about this. Flynn also attended an anniversary celebration for Russia Today in Moscow. He had been hired as a paid speaker for the occasion and his speaker agency charged $40,000 for it.
Flynn was fired from the job as National Security Advisor 24 days after Trump#s inauguration. He had been stupid enough to announce that he wanted to reform the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. Those agencies made sure that such would not happen.
Flynn was questioned by the FBI in connection with the Mueller investigation into alleged Russian influence on the 2016 election campaign. He lied to the FBI about some diplomatic contacts he had made on request of the then incoming Trump administration. The FBI managed to prove that he had lied. In the U.S. lying to the FBI is a serious crime. (I am not aware of other country that has such a stupid rule.) Flynn was offered a plea deal. He is supposed to tell Mueller what Mueller wants to hear in exchange for a lower penalty for his "crime" of lying to the FBI.
But look what the real issues were Flynn lied about:
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and authorities indicated in court he was acting under instructions from senior Trump transition officials in his dealings with the diplomat.
Flynn contacted the senior Russian diplomat in Washington DC. He was surely aware that the NSA and CIA notice and listen in to all such contacts. Flynn had no reason to believe that such contacts were out of norm because they ain't. Incoming administrations need such contacts to prepare their polices.
There are two different issues about which Flynn contacted the Russian ambassador:
In one of the conversations described in court documents, the men discussed an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter.
...
Mr. Mueller’s investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel, according to two people briefed on the inquiry. Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, took the lead in those efforts. Mr. Mueller’s team has emails that show Mr. Flynn saying he would work to kill the vote, the people briefed on the matter said.
The Security Council vote was on December 23 2016. The Israeli government lobbied the incoming administration to influence that vote in the Israeli government's interest. The Trump administration in-waiting could not influence the Obama administration which had decided to abstain. It contacted the Russian ambassador to influence the Russians to block the vote in the UNSC. The Russian's did not do such.
The "collusion" here is between the Israeli government and the Trump campaign. The "influence" is two part. A successful Israeli attempt to influence the incoming Trump administration and an unsuccessful attempt by Trump people to influence the Russian UNSC vote. The issue has absolutely zero to do with the U.S. election.
Now onto the second issue:
In the other discussion, according to court documents, Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Kislyak that Moscow refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions announced by the Obama administration that day against Russia over its interference in the presidential election. And Mr. Kislyak told Mr. Flynn that Russia “had chosen to moderate its response,” the documents said.
The following day, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said Moscow would not retaliate against the United States in response to the sanctions.
Mr. Trump praised the Russian leader in a Twitter post.
“Great move on delay (by V. Putin) — I always knew he was very smart!” Mr. Trump wrote.
Throughout his election campaign Trump had loudly argued for better relations with Russia. He said it would be easier to solve global problems if the U.S. and Russia cooperate.
The Obama administration had a generally hostile attitude towards Russia. It walked the relations towards a new cold war. Clinton's loss of the election which she blamed, without evidence, on Russia amplified his moves. According to the book 'Shattered', which describes the Clinton campaign, the decision to blame Russia for her loss was made a day after Trump's victory:
That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
At the end of 2016 Obama sanctioned Russian officials over allegedly influencing the U.S. campaign. No evidence was ever presented that such "influencing" was attempted or happened. Obama just willfully tried to worsen the relations with Russia.
The incoming administration tried to prevent more damage in the relations between the U.S. and Russia by contacting the Russian ambassador. It was a smart and well reasoned measure. There was no "collusion" in this. The "influence" was again from the Trump campaign into the direction of the Russian government, not the other way around. It had nothing to do with the election.
The Clinton fan-boys and girls seem happy with the Flynn's plea deal and are fretting about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. But how this is supposed to show that something nefarious was going on is not discernible. How the issues Flynn lied about (for whatever stupid reason) are supposed to prove "Russian influence" on the election or "collusion" with Trump during the election campaign is beyond me.
Posted by b on December 1, 2017 at 01:53 PM
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/fl ... mise-.html
b can be obtuse but this is pretty tight
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
British Prime Minister Theresa May speaks as US President Donald Trump listens during their joint news conference at the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2017The Nauseating Hypocrisy of Liberal Anger at Trump Retweets © REUTERS/ Carlos Barria
18:15 01.12.2017Get short URL
John Wight
There is no more unedifying a sight than the sight of the Western liberal establishment rushing to seize the moral high ground. Like a pack of hungry dogs presented with food, Western liberals, desperate to bolster their misplaced sense of exceptionalism and virtue, become positively deranged whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself.
Thus we have the feeding frenzy in response to Trump retweeting anti-Muslim tweets sent out by the far right political organization Britain First in the UK.
Though they are a small marginal group in the scheme of things, Britain First is known for being clever in its use of social media, working to achieve a ubiquitous presence that far outweighs its size or support. As such, they will no doubt be delighted at having achieved the tacit endorsement of the President of the United States.
Who would ever have thought that a few retweets could spark such a political crisis though? Indeed some are even speculating that the backlash could damage the much vaunted 'special relationship' between London and Washington; what with the President taking UK Prime Minister Theresa May to task in a separate tweet for daring to denounce him.
And who would ever think the US would be led by president who's so far to the right he makes George W. Bush seem like Che Guevara?
But here's where we come to the swamp of hypocrisy in which Trump's liberal detractors are swimming. The sight of people who supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and NATO-backed regime change in Libya in 2011, involving the deaths and suffering of countless Muslims — men, women, and children — the sight of them excoriating Trump over retweeting the bile of an anti-Muslim hate group in the UK, is as nauseating as it gets.
US President Donald Trump listens during a briefing on hurricane Harvey recovery efforts in Dallas, Texas, US, October 25, 2017.
© REUTERS/ KEVIN LAMARQUE
Trump Blasted for Retweeting Videos of 'Muslim Aggression'
It is more evidence of the parallel universe in which Western liberal leaders and their supporters exist. We are talking the same people whose championing of the anti-human free market neoliberal economic model, the fruits of which has been rampant inequality at home and war and regime change without end abroad — war and regime change that was responsible for Daesh — created the anger that got Donald Trump elected over the preferred establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, in the first place.
Similarly with Brexit in the UK, which arrived as another symptom of the collapse of neoliberalism and disdain for the liberal class with which neoliberalism is inextricably linked. That neither Trump's election nor Brexit is the solution to the crisis of neoliberalism is (at least to me anyway) self-evident. But you cannot escape the righteous anger that ushered in both.
These people — these self-appointed liberal guardians of moral virtue — have the blood and despair of millions on their hands, yet still their hypocrisy and sense of moral virtue never ends.
In the UK the mainstream media recently went cock-a-hoop over Prince Harry's engagement to Hollywood actress Meghan Markle; this at a time when 4 million of the country's children are living in poverty, at a time when the country is shamed by one of the highest rates of pensioner poverty in Europe, and when thousands of families are facing a grim Christmas of foodbanks and homelessness, courtesy of the harshest austerity program of any advanced economy, one administered with the objective of breathing life back into the corpse of the aforesaid neoliberal model.
Not that I have anything against Prince Harry or the royal family. On the contrary, they are also victims of this anti-democratic, semi-feudal institution, forced to exist in a gilded cage and treated like exhibits in a veritable zoo, with their every gesture and word pored over by a baying media. The issue is that ostentation has its roots in poverty, which is why listening to UK politicians and commentators arguing against the evils of poverty out of one side of their affluent mouths, while at the same time fawning over the monarchy out of the other, is impossible to swallow without gagging.
Are we really to believe that this evermore facile and shallow liberal establishment holds the solutions to the crises they themselves have authored at home and abroad? Are we?
Our credulity only stretches so far.
Jean Jacques Rousseau once opined scathingly:
"The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing."
Though perhaps the eighteenth century French social theorist may be guilty of overstatement, he's got a point when his words are applied figuratively to the UK in 2017.
For slaves to a liberal political and media establishment swimming in hypocrisy the British people most certainly are, condemned to be governed according to a set of economic, political and geopolitical nostrums that have benefited them and their lives not one whit.
Anti-Muslim bigotry is poison. Lest we forget, it is Muslims who have borne the brunt of Western foreign policy in recent years; their lives upended first by the initial crime of military intervention, sold to them on the basis of ‘destroying their countries in order to save them', and then by the emergence of the Salafi-jihadi barbarism of Daesh and other terrorist groups in the wake of the resulting chaos and societal collapse.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria: no amount of contrived anger and indignation over Trump's retweets could ever come close to making up for what this Western liberal order has wreaked in the name of 'democracy'.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/2017 ... ral-anger/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
When Donald Trump Falsifies History
A response to U.S. President Trump's blatant falsification of historical events.
By Nikos Mottas.
Donald Trump seems to have his own version of history. A version that complete falsifies the real historical events. The tycoon- turned President of the USA- decided to demonstrate his ignorance (or, perhaps, ability to distort history) during a Republican Party's rally in Pensacola, Florida on December 8th.
What did Trump say? Among others, the U.S. President said the following: “We are the nation that dug out the Panama Canal, won two world wars, put a man on the moon and brought communism to its knees".
Apparently, Trump thought that he addresses a crowd of illiterate idiots who were cheering at his moronic proclamations. But, unfortunately for Trump, not everyone is ignorant of historical events.
1. The U.S. didn't win two world wars. The First World War (WW1) began in 1914 and ended in 1918. The United States entered the war just a year before the end, in 1917. Britain, France and Russia were the major countries which bore the burden of war, while the U.S. claimed some victories over the heavily damaged German army when the later were unable to provide enough arms or food to their troops.
As for the Second World War (WW2), Trump is falsifying the historical truth too. Because, it was the Soviet Union - the Red Army and the people of the USSR- which actually defeated the Nazis. Someone must inform Trump about the epic battle of Stalingrad. Someone must tell him about the conquer of Berlin by the soldiers of the Red Army.
The United States' government had declared war against Nazi Germany in 1941, but it didn't actively involved in warfare until 1944. The focus of the U.S. was on the Pacific Front, against the Japanese. By the time of the so-called "D-Day", the Red Army had already won major battles against the Nazis, bringing the frontline close to Berlin.
The Soviet Union paid the highest price in casualties- more than 24 million people (troops and civilians) died during WW2. The respective casualties for the U.S. were approximately 420,000 people. Is Mr. Trump or any of his supporters aware of that?
2. The U.S. President said that his country "put a man on the moon". Indeed, astronaut Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. However, the first person to journey into outer space wasn't an American, but a Soviet, Yuri Gagarin. Gagarin's spacecraft "Vostok" completed an orbit on the Earth on April 12, 1961.
Someone must inform President Trump- in case he doesn't know- that the world's first artificial satellite was "Sputnik-1" which was launched on October 4, 1957.
3. Donald Trump also said that the U.S. "brought communism to its knees". This is a major argument frequently used by the various apologists of capitalism, especially after the counter-revolutionary events of 1989-1991. Trump repeats this convenient- for imperialism- narrative about the supposed "triumph" of capitalism over socialism. However, the reality is far from the grandiose nonsense expressed by Mr. Trump and his like-minded.
Socialism didn't "collapse"; it was the opportunist counter-revolution that prevailed in the USSR and the socialist countries in Eastern Europe in the end of 1980s. The counter-revolution consistued the last act of a process which led to the distortion of the revolutionary character of the Communist Party, the strengthening of social inequalities and ultimately to social regression. The roots of the reasons which led to the victory of the counter-revolution in the USSR goes back to the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
International imperialism played its own role in the long-term strengthening and promotion of the the counter-revolutionary forces, but it wasn't an imperialist intervention that led to the overthrow of Socialism. The truth exists in the various deviations from the laws of socialist construction and the weaknesses in solving existing issues of Socialism with capitalist tools, which led to the prevalence of counter-revolution.
IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM ©
https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2017/12 ... story.html
bolding added
Important point that, on the one hand those were the only 'tools' at hand, on the other hand methods dedicated to maximizing exchange value often are unsuitable for maximizing use value/human need. The necessities of life in a capitalist world were also in play. Live and learn. Guess that's why history takes so much time, huh?
Trump's understanding of the world goes no farther than CNN/FOX(& proly the History Channel when he's feeling 'high-brow'). It is that which the media has been cultivating in the average citizen for decades. To be clear, said cultivation is no conspiracy, it is rather a 'natural' convergence of imperialism(that is, state/capital collusion) and the class interests of public intellectuals/'journalists' whose 6 & up figure incomes are dependent upon 'being on the right page'. And there is the problem the ruling class has with Trump, he believes the propaganda meant for the masses. You can bet your ass that Bush I didn't believe that crap, Obama didn't either. So he has the beliefs that were meant to be inoculated in followers, not good for the program. And that is a major reason that people identify with him, such is the nature of his support.
A response to U.S. President Trump's blatant falsification of historical events.
By Nikos Mottas.
Donald Trump seems to have his own version of history. A version that complete falsifies the real historical events. The tycoon- turned President of the USA- decided to demonstrate his ignorance (or, perhaps, ability to distort history) during a Republican Party's rally in Pensacola, Florida on December 8th.
What did Trump say? Among others, the U.S. President said the following: “We are the nation that dug out the Panama Canal, won two world wars, put a man on the moon and brought communism to its knees".
Apparently, Trump thought that he addresses a crowd of illiterate idiots who were cheering at his moronic proclamations. But, unfortunately for Trump, not everyone is ignorant of historical events.
1. The U.S. didn't win two world wars. The First World War (WW1) began in 1914 and ended in 1918. The United States entered the war just a year before the end, in 1917. Britain, France and Russia were the major countries which bore the burden of war, while the U.S. claimed some victories over the heavily damaged German army when the later were unable to provide enough arms or food to their troops.
As for the Second World War (WW2), Trump is falsifying the historical truth too. Because, it was the Soviet Union - the Red Army and the people of the USSR- which actually defeated the Nazis. Someone must inform Trump about the epic battle of Stalingrad. Someone must tell him about the conquer of Berlin by the soldiers of the Red Army.
The United States' government had declared war against Nazi Germany in 1941, but it didn't actively involved in warfare until 1944. The focus of the U.S. was on the Pacific Front, against the Japanese. By the time of the so-called "D-Day", the Red Army had already won major battles against the Nazis, bringing the frontline close to Berlin.
The Soviet Union paid the highest price in casualties- more than 24 million people (troops and civilians) died during WW2. The respective casualties for the U.S. were approximately 420,000 people. Is Mr. Trump or any of his supporters aware of that?
2. The U.S. President said that his country "put a man on the moon". Indeed, astronaut Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. However, the first person to journey into outer space wasn't an American, but a Soviet, Yuri Gagarin. Gagarin's spacecraft "Vostok" completed an orbit on the Earth on April 12, 1961.
Someone must inform President Trump- in case he doesn't know- that the world's first artificial satellite was "Sputnik-1" which was launched on October 4, 1957.
3. Donald Trump also said that the U.S. "brought communism to its knees". This is a major argument frequently used by the various apologists of capitalism, especially after the counter-revolutionary events of 1989-1991. Trump repeats this convenient- for imperialism- narrative about the supposed "triumph" of capitalism over socialism. However, the reality is far from the grandiose nonsense expressed by Mr. Trump and his like-minded.
Socialism didn't "collapse"; it was the opportunist counter-revolution that prevailed in the USSR and the socialist countries in Eastern Europe in the end of 1980s. The counter-revolution consistued the last act of a process which led to the distortion of the revolutionary character of the Communist Party, the strengthening of social inequalities and ultimately to social regression. The roots of the reasons which led to the victory of the counter-revolution in the USSR goes back to the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
International imperialism played its own role in the long-term strengthening and promotion of the the counter-revolutionary forces, but it wasn't an imperialist intervention that led to the overthrow of Socialism. The truth exists in the various deviations from the laws of socialist construction and the weaknesses in solving existing issues of Socialism with capitalist tools, which led to the prevalence of counter-revolution.
IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM ©
https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2017/12 ... story.html
bolding added
Important point that, on the one hand those were the only 'tools' at hand, on the other hand methods dedicated to maximizing exchange value often are unsuitable for maximizing use value/human need. The necessities of life in a capitalist world were also in play. Live and learn. Guess that's why history takes so much time, huh?
Trump's understanding of the world goes no farther than CNN/FOX(& proly the History Channel when he's feeling 'high-brow'). It is that which the media has been cultivating in the average citizen for decades. To be clear, said cultivation is no conspiracy, it is rather a 'natural' convergence of imperialism(that is, state/capital collusion) and the class interests of public intellectuals/'journalists' whose 6 & up figure incomes are dependent upon 'being on the right page'. And there is the problem the ruling class has with Trump, he believes the propaganda meant for the masses. You can bet your ass that Bush I didn't believe that crap, Obama didn't either. So he has the beliefs that were meant to be inoculated in followers, not good for the program. And that is a major reason that people identify with him, such is the nature of his support.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media
The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.
In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post. Some of those documents were published by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian, others by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post. Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight.
In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive.
In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA.
In October 2013 Pierre Omidyar, the owner of Ebay, founded First Look Media and hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The total planned investment was said to be $250 million. It took up to February 2014 until the new organization launched its first site, the Intercept. Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site. Its management is said to be chaotic. It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet. Omidyar has worked, together with the U.S. government, to force regime change onto Ukraine. He had strong ties with the Obama administration.
Snowden had copies of some 20,000 to 58,000 NSA files. Only 1,182 have been published. Bezos and Omidyar obviously helped the NSA to keep more than 95% of the Snowden archive away from the public. The Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services and the Obama administration.
The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front, George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".
It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue.
The Intercept burned a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an (intentional?) mistranslation of one of his speeches. It additionally hired a Syrian supporter of the CIA's "regime change by Jihadis" in Syria. Despite its pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from U.S. policies.
The Washington Post, which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump.
Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them.
In Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim up. Whatever that writer wrote (see list at end) was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.S. election. The piece then dives into various cyber-operations against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed.
A second story in the paper today is based on "a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post." It claims that the Russian military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally removed from his office in a U.S. regime change operation. What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014, who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of bovine excrement.
An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell and Mike Rogers. Morell had hoped to become CIA boss under a President Hillary Clinton. The op-ed (which includes a serious misunderstanding of "deterrence") asserts that Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States:
Russia’s information operations tactics since the election are more numerous than can be listed here. But to get a sense of the breadth of Russian activity, consider the messaging spread by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter, which cybersecurity and disinformation experts have tracked as part of the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote is "#merrychristmas".
When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not even one plausible operation they could cite. Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit of weapon producers and U.S. influence in Europe.
None of the Russia-gate stories so far has held up to scrutiny. There is no proof at all, nor reasonable evidence, that Russia interfered in elections in the U.S. or elsewhere. There is no evidence of "collusion" with the Trump campaign.
One of the most complete debunking of the false claims can be found in the recent London Review of Books: What We Don’t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking. Consortium News has published many pieces on the issue as well as analyses and warnings of what may follow from it. Many other writers have caught up and debunk the various false claims. The Nation lists various cases of journalistic malpractice with regard to Russia-gate.
The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology.
The Mexican government controls the media by buying an immense amount of advertisement. It thus guarantees income as long as its political line is followed. The U.S. government has its own ways of controlling the media. In the 1950s to 1970s the CIA ran Operation Mockingbird which gave it control over much of the news and opinion output in U.S. media. During that time up to 400 main stream journalists were working for the CIA.
The method of control has likely changed. The handling of the Snowden affair lets one assume that the CIA induces billionaires to buy up media and to implement the CIA's favored policies through them. We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in foreign countries. One hand will wash the other.
James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, John Brennan as CIA head and James Comey from the FBI "assessed" that Russia influenced the U.S. presidential election. Annex B of their report, which hardly any report bothered to mention, read:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.
That sentence is the core of Russia-gate. There are lots of claims, assertions and judgments but no proof at all that any of the alleged Russian influence really happened.
It is probably due to the undue influence of the intelligence services that media have adopted that Annex B standard fro themselves. With regards to Russia (and other issues) assertions are now enough - there is no need to investigate, to find the truth or to verify claims.
How will that system work if an accident happens, some jet gets shot down and the issue escalates. Will there be any reporter left in the main stream media who is allowed to ask real questions?
Posted by b on December 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/wa ... -sham.html
The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.
In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post. Some of those documents were published by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian, others by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post. Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight.
In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive.
In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA.
In October 2013 Pierre Omidyar, the owner of Ebay, founded First Look Media and hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The total planned investment was said to be $250 million. It took up to February 2014 until the new organization launched its first site, the Intercept. Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site. Its management is said to be chaotic. It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet. Omidyar has worked, together with the U.S. government, to force regime change onto Ukraine. He had strong ties with the Obama administration.
Snowden had copies of some 20,000 to 58,000 NSA files. Only 1,182 have been published. Bezos and Omidyar obviously helped the NSA to keep more than 95% of the Snowden archive away from the public. The Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services and the Obama administration.
The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front, George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".
It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue.
The Intercept burned a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an (intentional?) mistranslation of one of his speeches. It additionally hired a Syrian supporter of the CIA's "regime change by Jihadis" in Syria. Despite its pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from U.S. policies.
The Washington Post, which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump.
Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them.
In Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim up. Whatever that writer wrote (see list at end) was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.S. election. The piece then dives into various cyber-operations against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed.
A second story in the paper today is based on "a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post." It claims that the Russian military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally removed from his office in a U.S. regime change operation. What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014, who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of bovine excrement.
An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell and Mike Rogers. Morell had hoped to become CIA boss under a President Hillary Clinton. The op-ed (which includes a serious misunderstanding of "deterrence") asserts that Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States:
Russia’s information operations tactics since the election are more numerous than can be listed here. But to get a sense of the breadth of Russian activity, consider the messaging spread by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter, which cybersecurity and disinformation experts have tracked as part of the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote is "#merrychristmas".
When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not even one plausible operation they could cite. Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit of weapon producers and U.S. influence in Europe.
None of the Russia-gate stories so far has held up to scrutiny. There is no proof at all, nor reasonable evidence, that Russia interfered in elections in the U.S. or elsewhere. There is no evidence of "collusion" with the Trump campaign.
One of the most complete debunking of the false claims can be found in the recent London Review of Books: What We Don’t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking. Consortium News has published many pieces on the issue as well as analyses and warnings of what may follow from it. Many other writers have caught up and debunk the various false claims. The Nation lists various cases of journalistic malpractice with regard to Russia-gate.
The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology.
The Mexican government controls the media by buying an immense amount of advertisement. It thus guarantees income as long as its political line is followed. The U.S. government has its own ways of controlling the media. In the 1950s to 1970s the CIA ran Operation Mockingbird which gave it control over much of the news and opinion output in U.S. media. During that time up to 400 main stream journalists were working for the CIA.
The method of control has likely changed. The handling of the Snowden affair lets one assume that the CIA induces billionaires to buy up media and to implement the CIA's favored policies through them. We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in foreign countries. One hand will wash the other.
James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, John Brennan as CIA head and James Comey from the FBI "assessed" that Russia influenced the U.S. presidential election. Annex B of their report, which hardly any report bothered to mention, read:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.
That sentence is the core of Russia-gate. There are lots of claims, assertions and judgments but no proof at all that any of the alleged Russian influence really happened.
It is probably due to the undue influence of the intelligence services that media have adopted that Annex B standard fro themselves. With regards to Russia (and other issues) assertions are now enough - there is no need to investigate, to find the truth or to verify claims.
How will that system work if an accident happens, some jet gets shot down and the issue escalates. Will there be any reporter left in the main stream media who is allowed to ask real questions?
Posted by b on December 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/wa ... -sham.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
Academic: Trump Has Brought a Degree of Chaos to the US Political System
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201712 ... tem-chaos/
Bloomberg's pessimist prognosis envisages US President Donald Trump winning a second term which would lead the US to a deep recession. David O'Brien from the School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, has told Radio Sputnik that the political chaos instigated by Trump could translate into economic problems.
Sputnik: Bloomberg's pessimist guide asserts that US would fall into a deep recession. What is the likelihood of this happening and what could trigger this recession?
David O'Brien: A couple of years ago everybody was predicting the decline of the Republican Party. Due to demographic changing nature of the American society the Republican Party was finished. Along comes Donald Trump and everything changed. This prediction always has to be incapable of seeing what's around the corner. With Donald Trump in office we have seen real political instability in the United States. To some degree that's what he wants, he works through chaos, he has brought instability to the system but political instability cannot be good for an economy in the long run. And we could see in the very near future a government shutdown if Congress can't agree to a budget and that is a real possibility. There is a serious trade deficit with China which could trigger a trade war. We have the possibility of international conflict on the Korean Peninsula, which would have very serious repercussions for the world economy, American economy, Chinese economy, environmental disaster or perhaps America's long slow decline, perhaps, similar to Japan.
Sputnik: Which of those scenarios you actually went through? Which you think is the most likely scenario of doom under Mr. Trump?
David O'Brien: All the indicators are up — GDP, the markets are doing well, unemployment is down, employment is up, people have more money in their pockets. American economy seems to be in the best shape it's been since before the financial collapse [of] 2008. But can Donald Trump take any credit for that? Is he responsible for that or is this a recovery that was already taking place? Lots of commentators and academics would argue it was already taking place before Trump came to office and that the economy moves slower than that. If we do see any increase in the political instability, if we do see a government shutdown you know that could very quickly come to a halt. I mean Donald Trump has brought a degree of chaos to the American political system. The political system and the economic system are obviously deeply entwined. The economy doesn't like chaos it doesn't like uncertainty, it doesn't like the potential for uncertainty. It's a real possibility that the political chaos could have an economic impact…or maybe not.
Sputnik: Is 2018 going to be a turning point? Trump started with the majority support in Congress, we are going to see elections; we are going to see, perhaps, a change in the makeup of Congress and the Senate in 2018.
David O'Brien: Donald Trump came into office with a huge, very strong hand. He had both houses and he has struggled to take full advantage of that. He's had very little success in getting his legislative agenda passed. Now as he begins to see a decline in the numbers in the Senate, the Republicans have just lost Alabama. There is an indication that he [Trump] is becoming weaker on that front. In mid-term elections are coming up, if Donald Trump performs badly his whole narrative, that of a winner, and if he encounters a situation where he is a loser that could be very tricky for the whole Donald Trump agenda and the whole Donald Trump narrative. So yes, maybe 2018 will be a turning point. But Donald Trump is like nothing we have ever seen before in American politics, hold on to the seats, who knows [what will be].
The views and opinions expressed by David O'Brien are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
This is tea leaf reading but one thing I think true is that the whole Trump phenom could fold on a few sharp blows
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201712 ... tem-chaos/
Bloomberg's pessimist prognosis envisages US President Donald Trump winning a second term which would lead the US to a deep recession. David O'Brien from the School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, has told Radio Sputnik that the political chaos instigated by Trump could translate into economic problems.
Sputnik: Bloomberg's pessimist guide asserts that US would fall into a deep recession. What is the likelihood of this happening and what could trigger this recession?
David O'Brien: A couple of years ago everybody was predicting the decline of the Republican Party. Due to demographic changing nature of the American society the Republican Party was finished. Along comes Donald Trump and everything changed. This prediction always has to be incapable of seeing what's around the corner. With Donald Trump in office we have seen real political instability in the United States. To some degree that's what he wants, he works through chaos, he has brought instability to the system but political instability cannot be good for an economy in the long run. And we could see in the very near future a government shutdown if Congress can't agree to a budget and that is a real possibility. There is a serious trade deficit with China which could trigger a trade war. We have the possibility of international conflict on the Korean Peninsula, which would have very serious repercussions for the world economy, American economy, Chinese economy, environmental disaster or perhaps America's long slow decline, perhaps, similar to Japan.
Sputnik: Which of those scenarios you actually went through? Which you think is the most likely scenario of doom under Mr. Trump?
David O'Brien: All the indicators are up — GDP, the markets are doing well, unemployment is down, employment is up, people have more money in their pockets. American economy seems to be in the best shape it's been since before the financial collapse [of] 2008. But can Donald Trump take any credit for that? Is he responsible for that or is this a recovery that was already taking place? Lots of commentators and academics would argue it was already taking place before Trump came to office and that the economy moves slower than that. If we do see any increase in the political instability, if we do see a government shutdown you know that could very quickly come to a halt. I mean Donald Trump has brought a degree of chaos to the American political system. The political system and the economic system are obviously deeply entwined. The economy doesn't like chaos it doesn't like uncertainty, it doesn't like the potential for uncertainty. It's a real possibility that the political chaos could have an economic impact…or maybe not.
Sputnik: Is 2018 going to be a turning point? Trump started with the majority support in Congress, we are going to see elections; we are going to see, perhaps, a change in the makeup of Congress and the Senate in 2018.
David O'Brien: Donald Trump came into office with a huge, very strong hand. He had both houses and he has struggled to take full advantage of that. He's had very little success in getting his legislative agenda passed. Now as he begins to see a decline in the numbers in the Senate, the Republicans have just lost Alabama. There is an indication that he [Trump] is becoming weaker on that front. In mid-term elections are coming up, if Donald Trump performs badly his whole narrative, that of a winner, and if he encounters a situation where he is a loser that could be very tricky for the whole Donald Trump agenda and the whole Donald Trump narrative. So yes, maybe 2018 will be a turning point. But Donald Trump is like nothing we have ever seen before in American politics, hold on to the seats, who knows [what will be].
The views and opinions expressed by David O'Brien are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
This is tea leaf reading but one thing I think true is that the whole Trump phenom could fold on a few sharp blows
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy
Russian meddling in Binomo? US continues to ‘remind’ Moscow of its place, UN envoy tells pranksters
https://www.rt.com/news/414086-prank-ni ... sia-place/
Published time: 24 Dec, 2017 05:05 Edited time: 24 Dec, 2017 07:53
Russian meddling in Binomo? US continues to ‘remind’ Moscow of its place, UN envoy tells pranksters
Nikki R. Haley, permanent US representative to the UN © Luiz Rampelotto / EuropaNewswire / Global Look Press
A Russian comedy duo has apparently pranked US envoy to the UN Nikki Haley, who assured them the US is closely following the situation on the fictional island of Binomo and will “continue to remind” Russia “what their place is.”
Famous Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus (Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov) released the recording of yet another one of their prank calls, in which they allegedly tricked Nikki Haley into believing she was speaking with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
During the 22-minute conversation with their interlocutor, whose voice and tone strikingly resembled that of the UN envoy, the pranksters raised concerns over Russian interference in the political affairs of an imaginary South China Sea island – Binomo – which does not exist on the world map. Haley, however, seemed to be on top of things, claiming the US is watching the situation there very carefully.
“Do you know Binomo?” the impersonator asked. “They have declared independence. They had elections, and we suppose Russians had its intervention.”
“Yes, of course they did, absolutely,” Haley confidently replied.
Read more
U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters © Jonathan AlcornPranksters seek US congresswoman’s support amid ‘Russian hacking’ of elections in fictitious land
“And now this Binomo land makes the situation in the South China Sea even more tense,” the pranksters said, posing as the Polish PM.
“And we’re aware of that. We've been watching that very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea,” Haley replied.
Continuing with the issue of alleged Russian interference in the world’s political affairs, the Polish PM-imposter asked Haley whether or not “Putin [will] be aggressive regarding Europe next year?”
“It is hard to know what Russia is doing right now. I think what we have seen in the Security Council and otherwise is they are trying to be relevant in every region and they are trying to have some sort of say in every region,” she replied. “In some cases, it has worked for them and in some cases, it hasn’t. So they don't have the influence that I think they would like to have but they are certainly trying to get that.”
“I think that many of the other countries, whether it is the Security Council or otherwise, are watching it very cautiously and carefully to make sure that they don't get too much of a foothold where they can cause chaos,” she continued.
“They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is,” Haley told the ‘Polish PM,’ just days before Poland begins a two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The last comment seems to have struck a nerve with Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, who took to Facebook to criticize Haley’s rhetoric. “Nikki, do you really want Russia to remember all of its ‘places’ in the world?” Maria Zakharova asked, calling the remarks of the US’ UN representative “somehow short-sighted.”
While Nikki Haley has neither officially denied nor confirmed the authenticity of the conversation, she very well might have become the latest victim of the Russian pranksters, who have become famous for their unique ability to reach out to high-profile politicians and celebrities.
Vovan and Lexus have made a name for themselves in Russia for pranking high-profile politicians and celebrities. In September 2015, the pair played a prank on Sir Elton John, subsequently forcing the Kremlin to apologize and arrange a real phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the iconic musician. Before that, the duo successfully pranked Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, as well as Georgia’s fugitive former president, Mikhail Saakashvili.
***************************************
Nikkki Haley is a world-class mediocrity.
https://www.rt.com/news/414086-prank-ni ... sia-place/
Published time: 24 Dec, 2017 05:05 Edited time: 24 Dec, 2017 07:53
Russian meddling in Binomo? US continues to ‘remind’ Moscow of its place, UN envoy tells pranksters
Nikki R. Haley, permanent US representative to the UN © Luiz Rampelotto / EuropaNewswire / Global Look Press
A Russian comedy duo has apparently pranked US envoy to the UN Nikki Haley, who assured them the US is closely following the situation on the fictional island of Binomo and will “continue to remind” Russia “what their place is.”
Famous Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus (Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov) released the recording of yet another one of their prank calls, in which they allegedly tricked Nikki Haley into believing she was speaking with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
During the 22-minute conversation with their interlocutor, whose voice and tone strikingly resembled that of the UN envoy, the pranksters raised concerns over Russian interference in the political affairs of an imaginary South China Sea island – Binomo – which does not exist on the world map. Haley, however, seemed to be on top of things, claiming the US is watching the situation there very carefully.
“Do you know Binomo?” the impersonator asked. “They have declared independence. They had elections, and we suppose Russians had its intervention.”
“Yes, of course they did, absolutely,” Haley confidently replied.
Read more
U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters © Jonathan AlcornPranksters seek US congresswoman’s support amid ‘Russian hacking’ of elections in fictitious land
“And now this Binomo land makes the situation in the South China Sea even more tense,” the pranksters said, posing as the Polish PM.
“And we’re aware of that. We've been watching that very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea,” Haley replied.
Continuing with the issue of alleged Russian interference in the world’s political affairs, the Polish PM-imposter asked Haley whether or not “Putin [will] be aggressive regarding Europe next year?”
“It is hard to know what Russia is doing right now. I think what we have seen in the Security Council and otherwise is they are trying to be relevant in every region and they are trying to have some sort of say in every region,” she replied. “In some cases, it has worked for them and in some cases, it hasn’t. So they don't have the influence that I think they would like to have but they are certainly trying to get that.”
“I think that many of the other countries, whether it is the Security Council or otherwise, are watching it very cautiously and carefully to make sure that they don't get too much of a foothold where they can cause chaos,” she continued.
“They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is,” Haley told the ‘Polish PM,’ just days before Poland begins a two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The last comment seems to have struck a nerve with Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, who took to Facebook to criticize Haley’s rhetoric. “Nikki, do you really want Russia to remember all of its ‘places’ in the world?” Maria Zakharova asked, calling the remarks of the US’ UN representative “somehow short-sighted.”
While Nikki Haley has neither officially denied nor confirmed the authenticity of the conversation, she very well might have become the latest victim of the Russian pranksters, who have become famous for their unique ability to reach out to high-profile politicians and celebrities.
Vovan and Lexus have made a name for themselves in Russia for pranking high-profile politicians and celebrities. In September 2015, the pair played a prank on Sir Elton John, subsequently forcing the Kremlin to apologize and arrange a real phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the iconic musician. Before that, the duo successfully pranked Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, as well as Georgia’s fugitive former president, Mikhail Saakashvili.
***************************************
Nikkki Haley is a world-class mediocrity.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."