Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

Trump-Land Shock Wave: Empire Inc on Steroids or ‘Drain the Swamp?’

President elect Trump faces daunting tasks as he forms his new administration, seeking to reconcile his opponents whilst keeping faith with his supporters, and as his own ideas of the way forward remain unclear.

Gilbert Mercier

Published

on

532 Views

Submitted by the author, first published by News Junkie Post

Donald Trump’s election is viewed by most on the United States’ left coast and worldwide as a regressive historical anomaly. It has left the political class in Washington, and the rest of the world, in a state of shock. The type of nightmarish hangover that a drunk time traveler would get if he was accidentally taken to let’s say the McCarthy era in the US or to Germany in 1933.

Uncertainty usually provokes anxiety, and this is precisely what we are witnessing in this time of history.

Trump is an accidental president as he was never supposed to be elected. Case in point: at the early stages of his campaign, the man running it was Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton’s main handler John Podesta.

Trump’s initial function was to be a decoy, a scarecrow and  an ostentatious crude comic relief to ensure Clinton’s election. Almost nobody made the forecast of a Trump victory, but it was however highly predictable as Trump started to personify a populist anti-establishment protest movement: the raw expression of rage from the victims of disaster capitalism.

The miscalculation was that Trump not only likes to compete, he also most of the time manages to win.

The mainstream US media, more or less all paid for or in collusion with the Clintons, is flabbergasted by the result and has lost the little credibility it had left. Wikileaks’ Podesta emails disclosures exposed many of them as corrupt propagandists. The problem with propagandists is that they often end up believing their own lies. Of course Trump became their favourite punching bag, but it eventually backfired on them and finally, blew up in their faces.

Trump claimed rightly that the US political system is rigged, but his mandate is far from a plebiscite, as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Therefore, before his inauguration in January President-Elect Trump must reach out and make peace with the left coast.

During this election, the divide between the heartland Bible and rust belt and the rich urban east and west coasts has grown. Trump’s first task should be to rebuild bridges between two cultures hostile to each other.

This is imperative, if he is to succeed, but it is, to say the least, an extremely challenging task. How will he reconcile the clash of values between a left coast socially liberal in terms of civil rights and climate change, and a poor heartland economic casualty of globalisation, living paycheck to paycheck, but socially conservative and a proponent of increased policing? 

Some of the names of the political players actively jockeying to jump on Trump’s train for the key cabinet positions give an indication that an olive branch strategy might not be in the forecast to bridge the deep cultural divide of this land.

Is the house of Trump built on quicksand?

On November 8, 2016, Americans rolled the dices and opted for the candidate viewed, rightly or not, as the anti-establishment candidate.

The premise is accurate: America is broken, but how to rebuild it is the issue.

Trump did start a movement to get elected; it had its slogans “Make America Great Again” and “Drain the Swamp”, but how will they be applied exactly and will they end up in the dustbin of history like Obama’s unfulfilled promises of “Hope and Change”?

Slogans are political marketing devices and get people elected by motivating voters, but they are rarely implemented and are certainly not policy indicators.

If America dodged the bullet of a potential civil war if the Clintons had successfully rigged the elections and won, the country is still divided and bruised. Does Trump have what it takes to be a healer-in-chief?

Further, the key campaign slogan refers to an era when America was great, but it never refers to an exact time frame. Are we talking about Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, or Reagan? If we are talking about the latter, I am sure that the president-elect is fully aware that Reagan was merely a figurehead run by George Bush Sr. who endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps Nixon could be an interesting model, as he managed to extract the US from the Vietnam quagmire as well as establish foreign relations with China, not to mention create the EPA.

President-elect Trump must clarify, as a guideline, when he thinks America was great so we may study that time frame and its leadership.

Draining the Washington Swamp

Trump was elected because he is an outsider, a savvy businessman who has promised to rebuild a land wrecked by globalisation and poor management. But now, he has to deal with the traitorous waters of Washington’s insiders.

There is a saying in DC: if you want a friend get a dog. This is why enduring politicians value loyalty above anything else.

Cultivating loyalty has its shortfalls, and as it becomes inbred and corrupt it can become borderline criminal.

In March 2015 I coined the notion that the two leading US political dynasties, Bush & Clinton, were largely operations like crime syndicates. This idea became very popular with Trump’s core base of the so-called deplorables.

The Bushes betrayed Trump during the elections, therefore we’ll find none of their crew in Trump’s cabinet.  This also goes for anyone connected with the Clinton crew and their Wall Street sponsors. President Barack Obama  was apparently given a list of Wall Street approved cabinet members before his election in November 2008.

One hopes that Mr. Trump will stay away from this type of conflict of interest. It is clear, judging by the way he has run his campaign, that President-Elect Trump will be the boss in the White House.

This seems to be exactly what the American people want at the moment, and as the CEO of America Inc. he will hire his own trusted people and won’t have any problem, if needed, with using his famous TV reality show line: “You are fired!”

Trump’s cabinet

It appears that former Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich will play a leading role in the Trump administration.

Other names are being floated, some of them contradicting the notion of “draining the swamp”.

Gingrich has been mentioned for Secretary of State, but this is not apparently what he wants. Another name is mentioned to head the key position of head of the State Department, and it is unfortunately the Bush crew man John Bolton.

Bolton, besides being tainted for his role in the Bush administration, has a short fuse, which is not really the best quality for the top diplomat of a country. Robert Corker is also considered for Secretary of State.

In my opinion, If Trump wants to depart from US aggressive hegemony foreign policy, and ease the tensions with Russia and China, he should seriously consider Ron Paul for the job.

It is likely that former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani will become Attorney General, and he is certainly more than qualified for the job.

Unfortunately, Trump is considering his friend Steven Mnuchin, formerly at Goldman Sachs, for Secretary of the Treasury.

Jeff Sessions is the likely choice for Secretary of Defence. I think that Chuck Hagel should also be considered in some capacity, as well as Paul Craig Roberts who served in the Reagan administration.

David Clarke is on top of the list to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Perhaps the most disastrous name mentioned, at least for people concerned by climate change, are the names considered for Energy Secretary, Interior Secretary, and EPA: for Energy Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who made his fortune in fracking is a shoe-in; Forrest Lucas from Lucas Oil, might become Interior Secretary; and perhaps the most controversial choice of all would be the one of on record climate change denier Myron Ebell to head the EPA.

For the sake of bipartisanship and inclusiveness, it might be a good idea to consider someone like Bernie Sanders for either Secretary of Labor or Education. This type of idea would go a long way to unite a divided country.

Last but not least, President-Elect Trump should consider putting pressure on Sweden’s government to drop the manufactured charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, considering that without the release of  Podesta’s emails, Hillary Clinton would have likely been elected. All Americans and the world citizenry should want the Trump administration to be successful. Our common future depends on it.

Gilbert Mercier is the Editor-in-Chief of News Junkie Post and the author of The Orwellian Empire.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Putin Keeps Cool and Averts WWIII as Israeli-French Gamble in Syria Backfires Spectacularly

Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.

On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.

What happened next is already well established: a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued.

Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn’t make much sense when the consequence of such “protective measures” could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III. That would have been an unacceptable price to achieve such a limited objective, which could have been better accomplished with the assistance of Russia, as opposed to NATO-member France, for example. In any case, there is a so-called “de-confliction system” in place between Israel and Russia designed to prevent exactly this sort of episode from occurring.

And then there is the matter of the timing of the French-Israeli incursion.

Just hours before Israeli jets pounded the suspect Syrian ammunition storehouse, Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan were in Sochi hammering out the details on a plan to reduce civilian casualties as Russian and Syrian forces plan to retake Idlib province, the last remaining terrorist stronghold in the country. The plan envisioned the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone between government and rebel forces, with observatory units to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is designed to prevent exactly what Western observers have been fretting about, and that is unnecessary ‘collateral damage.’

So what do France and Israel do after a relative peace is declared, and an effective measure for reducing casualties? The cynically attack Syria, thus exposing those same Syrian civilians to the dangers of military conflict that Western capitals proclaim to be worried about.

Israel moves to ‘damage control’

Although Israel has taken the rare move of acknowledging its involvement in the Syrian attack, even expressing “sorrow” for the loss of Russian life, it insists that Damascus should be held responsible for the tragedy. That is a highly debatable argument.

By virtue of the fact that the French and Israeli forces were teaming up to attack the territory of a sovereign nation, thus forcing Syria to respond in self-defense, it is rather obvious where ultimate blame for the downed Russian plane lies.

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. “The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, took admirable efforts to prevent the blame game from reaching the boiling point, telling reporters that the downing of the Russian aircraft was the result of “a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn’t shoot down our jet.”

Nevertheless, following this extremely tempered and reserved remark, Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Now there is much consternation in Israel that the IDF will soon find its freedom to conduct operations against targets in Syria greatly impaired. That’s because Russia, having just suffered a ‘friendly-fire’ incident from its own antiquated S-200 system, may now be more open to the idea of providing Syria with the more advanced S-300 air-defense system.

Earlier this year, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement that prevented those advanced defensive weapons from being employed in the Syrian theater. That deal is now in serious jeopardy. In addition to other defensive measures, Russia could effectively create the conditions for a veritable no-fly zone across Western Syria in that it would simply become too risky for foreign aircraft to venture into the zone.

The entire situation, which certainly did not go off as planned, has forced Israel into damage control as they attempt to prevent their Russian counterparts from effectively shutting down Syria’s western border.

On Thursday, Israeli Major-General Amikam Norkin and Brigadier General Erez Maisel, as well as officers of the Intelligence and Operations directorates of the Israeli air force will pay an official visit to Moscow where they are expected to repeat their concerns of “continuous Iranian attempts to transfer strategic weapons to the Hezbollah terror organization and to establish an Iranian military presence in Syria.”

Moscow will certainly be asking their Israeli partners if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests. It remains to be seen if the two sides can find, through the fog of war, an honest method for bringing an end to the Syria conflict, which would go far at relieving Israel’s concerns of Iranian influence in the region.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

This Man’s Incredible Story Proves Why Due Process Matters In The Kavanaugh Case

Accused of rape by a fellow student, Brian Banks accepted a plea deal and went to prison on his 18th birthday. Years later he was exonerated.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by James Miller of The Political Insider:


Somewhere between the creation of the Magna Carta and now, leftists have forgotten why due process matters; and in some cases, such as that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they choose to outright ignore the judicial and civil rights put in place by the U.S. Constitution.

In this age of social media justice mobs, the accused are often convicted in the court of (liberal) public opinion long before any substantial evidence emerges to warrant an investigation or trial. This is certainly true for Kavanaugh. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, cannot recall the date of the alleged assault and has no supporting witnesses, yet law professors are ready to ruin his entire life and career. Not because they genuinely believe he’s guilty, but because he’s a pro-life Trump nominee for the Supreme Court.

It goes without saying: to “sink Kavanaugh even if” Ford’s allegation is untrue is unethical, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. He has a right to due process, and before liberals sharpen their pitchforks any further they would do well to remember what happened to Brian Banks.

In the summer of 2002, Banks was a highly recruited 16-year-old linebacker at Polytechnic High School in California with plans to play football on a full scholarship to the University of Southern California. However, those plans were destroyed when Banks’s classmate, Wanetta Gibson, claimed that Banks had dragged her into a stairway at their high school and raped her.

Gibson’s claim was false, but it was Banks’s word against hers. Banks had two options: go to trial and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years probation, and registering as a sex offender. Banks accepted the plea deal under the counsel of his lawyer, who told him that he stood no chance at trial because the all-white jury would “automatically assume” he was guilty because he was a “big, black teenager.”

Gibson and her mother subsequently sued the Long Beach Unified School District and won a $1.5 million settlement. It wasn’t until nearly a decade later, long after Banks’s promising football career had already been tanked, that Gibson admitted she’d fabricated the entire story.

Following Gibson’s confession, Banks was exonerated with the help of the California Innocence Project. Hopeful to get his life back on track, he played for Las Vegas Locomotives of the now-defunct United Football League in 2012 and signed with the Atlanta Falcons in 2013. But while Banks finally received justice, he will never get back the years or the prospective pro football career that Gibson selfishly stole from him.

Banks’ story is timely, and it serves as a powerful warning to anyone too eager to condemn those accused of sexual assault. In fact, a film about Banks’s ordeal, Brian Banks, is set to premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival next week.

Perhaps all the #MeToo Hollywood elites and their liberal friends should attend the screening – and keep Kavanaugh in their minds as they watch.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending