TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An American political analyst said “pro-Israeli forces within the United States have for years exercised considerable pressure on the US to take action against Syria”, stressing that the recent attack on the Arab country seeks to serve the interests of Israel in the region.
“There is also evidence that the pro-Israeli forces within the United States have for years exercised considerable pressure on the United States to take action against Syria, and Trump has always had a very enthusiastically capitulating attitude towards the Israeli interests,” Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of attackthesystem.com, told the Tasnim news agency.
The following is the full text of the interview.
Tasnim: As you know,dozens of people were killed in a chemical attack in the Syrian town of Khan Shaykhun in the northwestern province of Idlib on Tuesday. The United States and its allies were quick to accuse Syrian government forces of carrying out the attack. The Syrian army said, however, that “it has never used them (chemical weapons), anytime, anywhere, and will not do so in the future.” Later, Washington warned that it will take unilateral action against the Arab country. On Friday morning, the US military, without UN mandate, launched about 60 Tomahawk missiles against several targets on al-Shayrat air base in Homs province in western Syria.“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” US President Donald Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. What’s your take on this?
The Stark Truth. Listen here.
The gas “attack” in syria and how it’s being used as propaganda to draw us into war
Anatoly Karlin’s article This Fishy Smell of Sarin, or Was it Chlorine?
Regardless of what happened the conflict is none of our business
How the AltRight is totally united in not wanting to go to war in Syria and disillusioned with Trump
Richard Spencer: Will Trump Gas His Presidency Over Syria?
Hillary Clinton and the Neocon/Never-Trumpers praising Trump’s decision to invade Syria
The hubris in thinking we should decide who the the leaders should be in other countries, and how the US never learns it’s lessons
Trump’s use of liberal humanitarian rhetoric to justify intervention
The Trump admin being taken over by neocons and Trump himself making dumb statements
Steve Bannon’s removal from the National Security Council
How gullible US politicians and media are, and how easily manipulated emotionally people are by imagery
How the North Korea situation is none of our business either, and how it is a self created threat
Other examples of Trump betraying his base including Signing Measure to Let ISPs Sell Your Data Without Consent, Healthcare, and Free Trade
Bay Area Guy’s article Healthcare and The Donald about the demise of the Republican healthcare bill, and its implications for Trumpian nationalism
How America’s healthcare system is a vile abomination, and the passage of Ryancare/Trumpcare would have compounded the problem
Richard Spencer’s article Why Trump Must Champion National Healthcare
How Obamacare itself wasn’t really “socialism” but rather an insurance scheme
How like debt deflation, our current healthcare albatross renders Americans meek and servile
Donald Trump Praised Socialized Healthcare in the past
Why Trump owning universal healthcare would force both neoliberals and “cucks” into a corner
Why whoever passes single-payer will alter the political landscape for generations
Gaining ground by championing certain progressive causes(universal healthcare, a stronger safety net, and a higher minimum wage), ignored by the corporatized left
Corporate suppression of free speech, and how the threat of loss of healthcare shuts down political dissidents
Tony Soprano Versus the Health Insurance Mafia
Why insurance companies should be public utilities, and the need for price controls on prescriptions drugs
Bay Area Guy’s experience working at an insurance brokerage firm
Globalization and Designated Shitting Streets
UCSF’s decision to outsource 49 of its IT jobs to India
Steve Sailer’s article Malibu, America’s Least Welcoming Town, Declares Itself a Sanctuary City
Wahhabism and Globalism
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces the Stop Arming Terrorists Act
Refugees and White South Africans
Press TV. Listen here.
US President Donald Trump’s explosive allegation that then-president Barack Obama wiretapped him during the 2016 election campaign is “plausible” since it has taken place during previous US administrations, an American political analyst in Virginia says.
“It’s entirely credible and entirely possible and believable that the Obama administration, or at least the deep state elements that are part of the national security apparatus like the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, it could be that those organizations, the intelligence services were monitoring Donald Trump throughout the campaign,” said Keith Preston, director of attackthesystem.org.
“No evidence has been presented that that actually happened, but it’s certainly plausible, it’s certainly possible,” Preston told Press TV on Saturday.
“Certainly, there has been examples of that happening previously in American politics,” he added.
On Saturday, Trump accused his predecessor of intercepting his communications at his offices in Trump Tower in New York City before the presidential election last year.
Trump offered no evidence to support his accusations, which were made during a Saturday morning tweet.
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”
Trump did not provide any information to back up his claim, but went on to say, “I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”
The president has also linked his predecessor to a major scandal, which has engulfed his administration regarding alleged contacts with Russian officials
An Obama spokesman rejected Trump’s claims as “simply false.”.
Experts say electronic surveillance of a US citizen by American intelligence agencies would require a warrant approved by a FISA court judge. Presidents do not have the authority to order such wiretaps and would not even be aware of them as a routine matter.
If the president were involved in the process, it would be “scandalous and unheard of,” said Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director. Hosko called the allegations “unprecedented“ and “unlikely to have occurred in the very broad way” that Trump described.
PressTV. Listen here.
Donald Trump’s immigration policies have proven that the US president acts without thinking first, an analyst in Virginia says.
Keith Preston, director of attackthesysten.com, made the remarks while discussing a slew of directives by Trump that have plunged the country’s immigration system into chaos.
In late January, Trump introduced a travel ban against people from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia Iraq and Libya. All refugee admissions, except for Syrian refugees who were banned indefinitely, were halted for three months under the executive order, which has been halted upon a federal judge’s order.
Trump has also signed a directive to begin the construction of a controversial wall on the border with Mexico, while hiring thousands of new enforcement agents to carry out more deportation raids.
Preston said the refugee crisis south of the American borders took place in the 1980s, when people tried to flee US-backed wars in Central America, including Guatemala and El Salvador.
The crisis deepened “in the 1990s, when NAFTA—the North American Free trade Agreement—was imposed,” he argued. “That had the impact of destroying Mexican agriculture and then that created mass unemployment among Mexican agriculture workers, so they started migrating north to the United States.”
Preston said Trump was more focused on the issue of crimes committed by immigrants rather than the economic impact of immigration on the US economy.
“There is a question of practicality,” he said. “One real issue that the Trump administration has demonstrated is that they often act before they think.”
“We saw that with the seven [Muslim] nation travel ban. That was an executive order that was issued very hastily, very rapidly, and was not crafted in such a way as to address serious problems that would come up naturally when trying to impose something like that,” he explained.
“There is also the question of who is actually going to be impacted by this? Is it only going to be convicted criminals, or is it going to be their families?”
The human resources required to arrest immigrants and the due process during their detention were some of the other matters that Trump had not taken into consideration, according to Preston.
“I suspect that the more the Trump administration tries to ratchet up these kinds of actions the more political conflict there is going to be,” the analyst concluded.
PressTV. Listen here.
The administration of US President Donald Trump is in conflict with intelligence agencies over deploying American troops to Syria to fight the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group, an American political analyst in Virginia says.
“Right now there’s a great deal of conflict within the American government itself; the Trump administration and what we call the ‘deep state’ or a lot of conventional intelligence services are heavily in conflict with one another,” said Keith Preston, chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.
Some political scientists, writers and journalists in the United States have for decades expressed concerns about the existence of a so-called “deep state” or state within a state, which they argue exerts control and influence over public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country’s democratic institutions.
Under the Trump administration, the term deep state has been used by some news organizations to refer to intelligence officials and executive branch bureaucrats guiding policy through leaking or other means of internal dissent.
“We saw that [conflict between Trump and the ‘deep state’] this week with the resignation of the national security advisor, General Michael Flynn; so there’s a great deal of turmoil within the foreign policy apparatus of the United States,” Preston told Press TV on Thursday.
The resignation of Flynn on Monday and the continuing turmoil inside the White House have deeply rattled the Washington establishment.
Preston said there seems to be a conflict between the Trump administration and the deep state over the goal of the Western military intervention in Syria. Trump seeks to eliminate ISIL and keep President Bashar al-Assad in power, whereas some intelligence and military officials are pursuing the opposite goal.
CNN reported on Wednesday that the US Defense Department may recommend that the United States deploy regular combat troops to Syria to fight Daesh terrorists.
“It’s possible that you may see conventional forces hit the ground in Syria for some period of time,” CNN quoted a Pentagon official.
During the presidential campaign, Trump had openly supported deploying a large contingent of US troops to Syria.
The US has already sent several hundred of its special operations forces to Syria. However, their operations have been limited to what the Pentagon describes as training and assisting Kurdish fighters in their battle against Daesh (ISIL) and other terrorist groups.
When authorizing the limited deployments, then-US President Barack Obama had stressed that conventional ground troops were not an option.
The US and its allies have been carrying out airstrikes against alleged Daesh positions in Syria and neighboring Iraq since 2014.
An interesting discussion of Strauss and Howe’s “fourth turning” theory as it applies to Trumpism.
I seem to be one of the few people associated with the alt-right (at least peripherally) that’s not particularly enthusiastic about Trump, though I generally had a more favorable view of him than Hillary. The more I watch Trump and the people around him, the more I lean towards the view that he represents a ruling class faction that recognizes that the neocons have led the US towards foreign policy ruin, and that neoliberal economics are seriously destabilizing the US domestically. So they want to try to reverse some of that so that the plutocracy can actually have a functional society to rule over in the future. The liberal-left opposition coalition is opposed to this for ideological reasons, and the Deep State is opposed because their bread and butter might be threatened.
Right now, it appears there is a war going on within the state between the Deep State and the Trumpian nationalists. The Republican Party has become largely Trumpized with the neocons and moderate Republicans either having been pushed to the margins, or having fallen in line behind Trump. The best possible outcome that has any probability of happening would be one where the system continues to fracture and fragment, and where the Deep State, Trumpians, Republicans, Democrats, Alt-Rights, and SJWs all function as counterbalances to one another, where no one is able to gain a monopoly on power.
By David Kaiser
During the 1990s, two amateur historians, Neil Howe and the late William Strauss, developed a new theory of American history in two books, Generations: the History of America’s Future (1991), and The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy (1997). They identified an 80-year cycle in American history, punctuated by great crises that destroyed an old order and created a new one.
Though their theory is not widely taught in colleges or discussed in the media, Strauss and Howe may well play a major role in Donald Trump’s administration. Stephen Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News who has been appointed Trump’s chief strategist in the White House, is very familiar with Strauss and Howe’s theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while. I know this because Bannon interviewed both Neil Howe and myself in 2009 while he was making a documentary film about the ongoing financial crisis. The film, called Generation Zero, discussed those ideas in some detail.
Bannon focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or “fourth turning,” that destroyed an old order and created a new one: The great crises identified by Strauss and Howe included the era of the American Revolution and the Constitution (1774-1794); the Civil War and its immediate aftermath (1860-68); and the Depression and the Second World War (1929-45). Doing the math, they predicted another great crisis sometime in the first 15 years of the 21st century.
Press TV. Listen here.
US President Donald Trump’s plans to reduce Washington’s foreign interventionism and focus on issues like immigration are part of a foreign policy plan that seeks to separate Russia from China and Iran, says an American analyst.
Keith Preston, director of attackthesystem.org, made the remarks while discussing Trump’s directives to curb immigration.
On Wednesday, the new president signed executive orders to begin the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico and to crack down on states that harbor immigrants.
Following his campaign pledge to ban Muslims from entering America, Trump is also expected to sign another executive order which blocks the entry of Syrian refugees and suspends the entry of any immigrants from Syria and other Muslim countries like Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yemen.
“He is apparently going to follow through with many things he said he was going to do on the campaign trail and I think primarily what he is aiming to do right now is to establish his own credibility,” Preston told Press TV on Wednesday..
The best analysis of the Trumpian approach to foreign policy I have seen to date.
By Pete Escobar
South China Morning Press
China, Russia and Iran are the three key players in what promises to be the Eurasian Century.
Donald Trump may be The Joker; The Fool; The Ace of Spades; the ultimate trickster. What nobody can tell for sure is how this shifty chameleon will seduce, cajole, divide and threaten these three countries in his bid to “Make America Great Again”.
Considering the composition of his cabinet, as well as his motormouth twittering, the world according to Trump sees radical Islam as the No 1 threat, followed by Iran, China and Russia.
The strategy of Henry Kissinger, Trump’s unofficial foreign policy guru, is a mix of “balance of power” and “divide and rule”. It will consist of seducing Russia away from its strategic partner China; keeping China constantly on a sort of red alert; and targeting Islamic State while continuing to harass Iran.
All this has the potential to backfire splendidly. Even a real “reset” with Russia, of the non-Hillary Clinton kind, is not exactly assured.
Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, may in fact be a cipher, a privileged ExxonMobil dealmaker, or a Trojan Horse for Kissinger’s views. Tillerson is a trustee of the hardline Centre for Strategic and International Studies think tank, along with Kissinger.
An interesting interview with leftist anti-fascist Matthew Lyons who argues that Trump may represent a ruling class faction that seeks a new direction beyond neoliberalism. Listen here.
With #DisruptJ20 actions taking place in only a few days, many are wondering both what far-Right forces will do in response to massive protests that are planned in Washington DC and across the country, and how will the insurgent far-Right continue to maneuver now that Trump is in office. Wanting to think critically about these questions as well as how to place Trump politically, we caught up with long time anti-fascist author, Matthew Lyons who writes for Three Way Fight, which offers analysis on a wide variety of far-Right forces and anti-fascist struggle.
We discuss several topics, including why fighting the far-Right is important, why the Alt-Right has gotten so much media attention the last year, looking critically at the far-Right concept of ‘globalism,’ and also a discussion on Trump and fascism which revolves around this essay from CrimethInc. Lyons does a good job of addressing that within the ruling class there is not always unity and that often there are competing ideas of how to organize capitalism and govern the State. What remains to be seen with Trump is if he only represents only a slightly different face to neoliberalism or if he will try and create something much different along Nationalist and military lines, which Lyons argues is possible.
By Glenn Greenwald
Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
Press TV. Listen here.
The American intelligence community is seeking to cause “friction” between the United States and Russia as President-elect Donald Trump has signaled willingness to improve relations with Moscow, says a political analyst.
Keith Preston, the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com, made the remarks on Wednesday in an interview with Press TV when asked about new legislation introduced in the Senate to impose sweeping new sanctions on Russia.
Five Democrats and five Republicans unveiled the new punishments on Tuesday after the intelligence community concluded in a report that the Russian government had sought to influence the outcome of the November election through cyberhacking and a smear campaign, a claim that Trump and Moscow have both rejected.
“It’s extraordinarily foolish for the American Congress to try to impose any kind of sanctions on Russia on the grounds that Russia has supposedly interfered in the American election, that has not been proven,” Preston said.
“The intelligence services are trying to create a greater degree of friction between the United States and Russia, and the Democratic Party is going along with this, in part because they want to blame the Russians for their loss in the election,” he added.
The proposed legislation would solidify many of the sanctions President Barack Obama’s outgoing administration has imposed against Russia and limit Trump’s ability to improve relations with Moscow.
Preston said, “the intelligence services and the political establishment are trying to undermine (Trump)’s efforts to bring the United States closer to Russia,” adding, “they have allies in Congress, particularly in the Democratic Party” to help them achieve their goal.
He said one reason they do not want better ties with Russia is that “the military industrial complex wants to expand NATO right up the Russia’s border and they also want to circle Russia with military bases in Central Asia.”
An assessment of Trump by libertarian-decentralist-populist Bill Kauffman, whose take on Trump pretty much mirrors my own.
By Bill Kauffman
The American Conservative
Gore Vidal once said that the three saddest words in the English language were Joyce Carol Oates. “President Hillary Clinton” would have dislodged the exophthalmic novelist from that epigram, but as for “President Donald Trump”… the jury is not only still out, the crime hasn’t even been committed yet, despite the drama queens caterwauling on the campuses.
(For 13 years college snots sat on their lazy asses while the U.S. government waged immoral and unconstitutional wars, but now they take to the streets because the candidate of the proles defeated the candidate of the 1 percent? Gimme a break!)
This presentation by Trevor Noah comparing Trump to African heads of states is considerably more plausible than the “Trump=Hitler” hysteria coming from the reactionary Left.
The administration of US President Barack Obama is trying to muddy the waters with Russia before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, says an American political analyst.
Keith Preston, the director of the attackthesystem.com made the remarks with regards to Obama’s reported plans to introduce new sanctions against Russia.
Washington is set to announce measures designed to retaliate against what it considers Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to allegedly help Trump with his victory, CNN reported Wednesday, citing government officials.
“Well, what this seems to be is a case of domestic partisan politics in the United States intruding into American foreign policy and international relations,” Preston told Press TV on Thursday.
Preston said the presidential race between Trump and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as “one of the most contentious” votes in the US history and the political fallout was inevitable.
“Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote, Donald Trump was elected by to the electoral votes,” he said, noting that the Democratic Party was looking for a scapegoat.
Pointing to the Obama administration’s “unsubstantiated” claims that Moscow interfered in the vote, Preston predicted that the allegations would continue until Trump takes office on January 20.
“Given that the Democratic Party is till the ruling party for the time being… it appears that the Democratic Party is trying to retaliate against Russia, on the belief that Russia cost them the election,” the analyst explained.
“There are a lot of foreign policy hawks in the Obama administration with a very negative view of Russia,” he added.
Unlike the current administration, however, Trump and his incoming administration have taken a reconciliatory line with Moscow.
“So it maybe that various elements in the American government are trying to retaliate or act against Russia before Trump takes office,” Preston argued.
Economic sanctions against Moscow were originally introduced in March 2014, after the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea joined Russia following a referendum.
The new sanctions are going to be a “token gesture” more than anything else, Preston said.
According to Obama, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies are in possession of evidence that shows Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised the hacks, which targeted the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and John Podesta, a top aide to Clinton.
Putin has categorically denied Washington’s hacking claims, calling on Obama and his administration to either provide evidence or stop their accusations.
Press TV. Listen Here.
The United States has protected Israel from UN action and international criticism for decades, despite Tel Aviv’s violation of a broad range of international laws, and President-elect Donald Trump will maintain that cynical policy, an American political analyst in Virginia says.
“The United States has always been unremittingly aligned with Israel and when comes to the United Nations, rarely has the United States ever broken with Israel on any issues in the region, certainly when it comes to the Palestinian issue,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.
“Donald Trump will be continuing what previous presidents have done,” Preston told Press TV on Thursday.
“It was predicted, even during the campaign, that Donald Trump will have a very pro-Israel position and he seems to be following up on that,” he added.
On Thursday, Trump urged the outgoing Obama administration to veto a UN Security Council draft resolution that calls for an immediate halt to illegal settlement building on the occupied Palestinian land.
“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed,” the incoming Republican president said in a statement.
“As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations,” he said.
The UN resolution calls for “the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-state solution,” stating that the activities are dangerously imperiling” and threatening the viability of any future Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank.
Last week, Trump nominated David Friedman, a hardline Zionist, as US ambassador to Israel, likely paving the way toward a controversial decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem al-Quds.
Over half a million Israelis live in more than 230 illegal settlements built since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem al-Quds.
All Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Tel Aviv has defied international calls to stop the settlements expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories.
There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and its “deep state” are in a state of near panic and their actions indicate they are truly terrified.
The home front
One the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White House: they have
- organized riots and demonstrations (some paid by Soros money)
- encouraged the supporters of Hillary to reject the outcome of the elections (“not my President”)
- tried to threaten the Electors and make them either cast a vote for Hillary or not vote at all
- tried to convince Congress to refuse the decision of the Electoral College and
- they are now trying to get the elections annulled on the suspicion that the (apparently almighty) Russian hackers have compromised the election outcome (apparently even in states were paper ballots were used) and stolen it in favor of Trump.
By Keith Preston
It increasingly looks to me like the Deep State, with the assent of the ruling class generally, is trying to pull a coup against Trump similar to the Chilean coup of 1974, with Trump assuming the role of Salvador Allende and Hillary perhaps ironically assuming the role of Augusto Pinochet.
I always thought something like that would probably happen if a maverick candidate was ever elected President. Trump is not nearly as maverick as some other figures might be (for example, if someone from like Ron Paul, Jill Stein, Eugene Puryear, Kshama Sawant, Darrell Castle, Louis Farrakhan or David Duke were elected), but, like a mafia godfather, the imperialist overlords apparently tolerate not even a smidgen of real dissent or disobedience.
Given that I consider Trump to have been, all things considered, the more progressive of the two major candidates, the Pinochet-Allende analogy fits well there as well. The current efforts to undermine Trump’s election are a CIA-sponsored right-wing coup engineered on behalf of the American ruling class against a comparably liberal nationalist who is being accused of serving as a tool of the Russians. Just like Allende, Arbenz, Mossadegh, Sukarno, and so many others. Only this time it’s a domestic rather than foreign coup.
Trump is a “liberal” only when compared to the normal Republicans and the Hilllaryites. As I have said in other posts, the regular Republicans are ultra-hawks comparable to Israel’s Likud Party on foreign policy, and hold reactionary plutocratic views on economics similar to what you would find among the right-wing parties in El Salvador and Honduras. Trump strikes me as an old-fashioned Nixon-Rockefeller moderate Republican, with some old fashioned Mondale-Gephardt labor protectionist ideas on trade. While he uses George Wallace like popuilst rhetoric at times (which Nixon also appropriated), Trump is clearly a social liberal who has no problem with gay marriage and transgender bathrooms.
He is “liberal” in the sense of at least giving lip service to the idea of reducing poverty and unemployment as opposed to the “Let them eat cake” attitude of the normal Republicans and the Hillaryites. He is liberal in the sense of apparently favoring a Nixon-like detente relationship with Russia and China, as opposed to the neocon and Hillaryite idea of encircling Russia with NATO and military bases in Central Asia, antagonizing China in the South China seas, and overthrowing Middle Eastern governments that reject the Washington Consensus.
Ironically, it was the Nixon administration that was behind the Chilean coup in 1974. Now the Deep State wants a coup against Trump because another Nixon would be too liberal for their tastes. That shows how far things have fallen in recent decades. The US has gone from being a centrist liberal democracy to being a right-wing oligarchy.
Press TV. Listen here.
Nepotism in US politics is not new and the decision by President-elect Donald Trump to bring his family into his inner circle is not unprecedented and has occurred in previous US administrations, a political analyst in Virginia says.
“If we look at the specific [nepotism] complaints that have been made against Trump, we see no fundamental departure from what previous administrations have done,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.
Former US President Bill Clinton gave his wife, Hillary Clinton, a formal role to carry out healthcare reform during his administration in the 1990s, Preston told Press TV on Wednesday.
Hillary Clinton, who lost the 2016 US presidential election to Trump, was appointed by Bill Clinton as the chair of a federal task force devising the healthcare plan, although her efforts failed and she suffered enormous political fallout after the project.
The Bush family, one of the most successful political dynasties in American history, has also relied on family ties to exercise important political roles, Preston noted.
Trump’s decision to bring his children into his inner circle, alongside several highly controversial cabinet appointments, has provoked concerns about nepotism, ethics and national security, and experts worry he will go unchecked in office, despite federal nepotism laws.
A law enacted in the 1960s bars presidents from employing relatives. The law was passed after former US President John F. Kennedy made his brother, Robert, the head of the US Justice Department.
But as long as Trump’s Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his children are not federal employees, whether paid or unpaid, they may dance around the law, one ethics expert said.
The expert, who asked to remain anonymous because of current representation for government figures, said that if Trump’s family members continued talking to him without giving any administration staffers instructions, then it would be difficult to find a law that they had violated.
US diplomats are also worried that if Trump allows his children and other relatives to work as informal ambassadors, they could undermine the carefully structured efforts of the Foreign Service.
“It makes us look like we’re some sort of banana republic,” one State Department official told POLITICO in a report published on Tuesday. “This is not the way that grown-up nations do things.”