Donald Trump had spent most of election night in his penthouse at Trump Tower while his team waited in a room on a floor below, which had become so messy during the final days of the campaign, it was known as the “crack den”.

Nobody knows the precise moment when he realized he would be president, but once it was clear he had pulled off a shock win in the 2016 election, his family, friends and aides were not sure how to congratulate a man who was about to take elected office for the first time.

So instead of congratulating Trump directly, most people high-fived and saluted “Mr Vice-President” Mike Pence, according to a detailed new account of the night that transformed the United States.

The journalist Joshua Green’s new book, Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and the Storming of the Presidency, opens with election night in Trump Tower before diving into revelations about the political strategist Steve Bannon’s influence on the president.

The campaign’s own internal polls tilted in favor of Trump’s election rival, Hillary Clinton, for months ahead of election day.

Bannon himself conveyed doubts to an aide after the infamous Access Hollywood tape was released that captured Trump saying in 2005 that he could use his fame to grope women without waiting for their consent.

But those predictions tumbled on the night of 8 November 2016, and surrounded by allies on the 14th floor campaign war room, Trump responded to the news with a “hidden forcefield around him that discouraged a direct approach”, Green wrote.

When Trump finally came down to the 14th floor’s campaign war room, he responded to every county election result by asking: “How did Obama do there in 2012?”

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/18/devils-bargain-joshua-gr...

Donald Trump’s ideological vacuum, the more he is isolated and attacked, is being filled by the Christian right. This Christianized fascism, with its network of megachurches, schools, universities and law schools and its vast radio and television empire, is a potent ally for a beleaguered White House. The Christian right has been organizing and preparing to take power for decades. If the nation suffers another economic collapse, which is probably inevitable, another catastrophic domestic terrorist attack or a new war, President Trump’s ability to force the Christian right’s agenda on the public and shut down dissent will be dramatically enhanced. In the presidential election, Trump had 81 percent of white evangelicals behind him.

Trump’s moves to restrict abortion, defund Planned Parenthood, permit discrimination against LGBT people in the name of “religious liberty” and allow churches to become active in politics by gutting the Johnson Amendment, along with his nominations of judges championed by the Federalist Society and his call for a ban on Muslim immigrants, have endeared him to the Christian right. He has rolled back civil rights legislation and business and environmental regulations. He has elevated several stalwarts of the Christian right into power—Mike Pence to the vice presidency, Jeff Sessions to the Justice Department, Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Betsy DeVos to the Department of Education, Tom Price to Health and Human Services and Ben Carson to Housing and Urban Development. He embraces the white supremacy, bigotry, American chauvinism, greed, religious intolerance, anger and racism that define the Christian right.

read more:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trump_and_the_christian_fascists_201...

It's odd for a clergyman to reject prayers for persons he believes are predators, since a primary purpose for prayer is changed hearts and redemption for the lost. Presumably Barber would not object to a similar prayer session for office holders whose policies are closer to his own. He led prayers at the Democratic National Convention last year. And prayers feature prominently in his regular "Moral Monday" protest demonstrations at North Carolina's state Capitol.

Responding to criticism like Barber's, a participant in the Oval Office prayer session explained: "Our mandate to pray for leadership is not dictated by who holds any particular office. We are called to simply pray for all people and all leadership."

read more:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/yes-pray-with-presidents-but-that-phot...

Early last year, in the midst of his primary campaign, Donald Trump hopped on a stage in Reno, Nev., to brag about his vast legal knowledge.

“Does anyone know more about litigation than Trump?” he bellowed. “Okay? I know a lot. I’m like a PhD in litigation.”

At the very least, in his long life of lawsuits and bankruptcies, deals and developments, Trump certainly has known a lot of lawyers. Now that he’s president and embroiled in scandal, he’s getting the opportunity to meet a bunch more.

The White House has its own counsel, of course, and now Trump has his own personal attorneys. So does the Trump Organization. There are lawyers for each member of the Trump family. And that’s not counting the layers of lawyers for everyone working in the administration. There are lawyers all the way down.

Follow the money, the adage says. But with so much of that money going to lawyers these days, it might just be easier to follow the lawyers. (Legal disclaimer: Don’t actually follow the lawyers.)

Trump promised to drain the unsavory elements out of politics, but long before the public ever loathed entrenched politicians, corrupt lobbyists or biased news media, they hated lawyers. Trump hated them, too, early on.

read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lawyers-upon-lawyers-upon...

President Trump still risks charges of "kleptocracy" and "profiting" from public office, says former US ethics chief Walter Shaub. He's told a UK newspaper that US governance has become an "embarrassment."

Read more:

http://www.dw.com/en/kleptocracy-charge-leveled-at-trump/a-39902132

-----------------

At this stage, it's hard to know which is the most embarrassing for the US. Its stupid kleptopresident or its rabid stupid kleptosenators? All we can hope is that the downfall of the USA will be swift and merciful. But it's most likely to be ugly despite everyone trying to cajole the patient that is getting more and more psychopathic. The US political system has gone to the dogs... It could have been rescued with Bernie Sanders. Now, soon, the whole of the country of George Washington is going to go full-loco loony-rabid (as if it had not been before with that liar G W Bush who the US media loved so much and now admire his Hitler-poor imitation paintings) and one can only REALLY hope that the US arsenal of Nukes has been locked away and the corporal in charge of the key has lost it...

If you believe in god (I don't), please pray to Satan on my behalf... At this point in time, Satan seems better than the USA...

I wake in the middle of the night, ruminating on what I read before I fell asleep. The U.S. President is arguing that arming school teachers will definitely prevent school massacres.

The sight of Donald Trump blustering about a reckless policy with no empirical support and declaring it the greatest solution that the world has ever seen is by now familiar.

As is that of a political leader solemnly adopting the position conspicuously purchased by a lobby group, annulling any distinction between representative democracy and kakistocracy (rule by the least qualified, and most unscrupulous).

And it has long been clear that the bizarre conflation of unrestricted gun ownership and freedom runs like blood through the identity of certain parts of U.S. public culture.

Yet the way in which these, and a myriad other absurd, cynical and irresponsible acts and words, are woven together to constitute what counts as political life increasingly makes me feel like I have become lost in a dystopian novel. Although it would not be a novel, because that medium has, historically, been deployed by artists who wish to flesh out the complexity and ambiguity of life. A dystopian tweet perhaps - in technicolour.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2018/02/23/4808092.htm

See toon at top...

Despite appearances, the procession of the heads of State and government, or Ministers for Foreign Affairs, at the General Assembly of the United Nation was not without purpose. It’s true that most of them, having little to say, addressed their interior public opinions by blaming UNO incompetence and calling for a respect for the law. But many of their interventions went straight to the heart of the matter – how to resolve the disputes between States and guarantee peace?

The first three days were marked by the speech by Donald Trump (United States) and the responses by Emmanuel Macron (France) and Hassan Rohani (Iran). But all these complications were shattered on the fourth day with the intervention by Sergueï Lavrov (Russia), when he presented the map of the post-Western world.

President Trump, whose speeches are usually extremely disorganised, had on this occasion prepared a finely structured text [1]. Distinguishing himself from his predecessors, he affirmed that he gave privilege to « independence and cooperation », rather than « governance, control and international domination » (in other words, his national interests rather than those of the « American Empire »). He followed by enumerating the readjustments of the system he had set in motion.

The USA has not declared commercial war on China, but is in the process of re-establishing its balance of payments. Simultaneously, the US is trying to restore an international market founded on free market competition, as demonstrated by their position in the energy sector. The US has become a major exporters of hydrocarbons, and would therefore benefit from high prices, but it opposes the existence of an intergovernmental cartel, the OPEC, and is calling for lower prices. 

It is opposed to the structures and treaties of globalisation (that is to say, from the point of view of the White House, transnational financial imperialism), notably the UN Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, and UNRWA. Of course, this is not a claim for torture (which was legitimised by George Bush Jr. in his day) nor crime, nor starving the Palestinians, but the destruction of the organisations which instrumentalise their object in order to achieve other goals. 

Concerning the migrations from Latin America to the United States, and also within the interior of the South American continent itself, the US intends to end them by treating the problem at its roots. For the White House, the problem results from the rules imposed by globalist Treaties, notably NAFTA. President Trump has therefore negotiated a new agreement with Mexico which links exports to respect for the social rights of Mexican workers. He intends to return to the original Monroe doctrine – meaning that the multinationals will no longer be able to interfere in the governing of the continent.

The reference to the Monroe doctrine merits an explanation, since the expression suggests US colonialism at the beginning of the 20th century. Donald Trump is an admirer of the foreign policies of two very controversial personalities, Presidents Andew Jackson (1829-1837) and Richard Nixon (1969-74). The Monroe doctrine (1823) was elaborated during the intervention of a man who at that time was no more than General Jackson in the Spanish colony of Florida. At that time, James Monroe wanted to protect the American continent from European imperialism. It was the « era of good feelings ». He therefore pledged that the United States would not intervene in Europe if Europe stopped intervening in the Americas. It was only three quarters of a century later, notably with Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), that the Monroe doctrine would be used as a screen to hide US imperialism in Latin America.

In a strange inversion of roles, French President Emmanuel Macron presented himself as the European Barack Obama facing up to the US Charles De Gaulle, as played by Donald Trump. Macron symbolically declared war, stating: « Let us sign no more commercial agreements with powers which do not respect the Paris Agreement » (which means no more agreements with the United States) – an odd way to defend multilateralism!

The French President began with Donald Trump’s implicit assessment – the crisis of the current « liberal Westphalian order » [2]. This means the crisis of nation-States who are badly shaken by economic globalisation. But this strategy was only intended to more efficiently oppose the solution proposed by the White House, which he qualified as the « law of the strongest ». He therefore described the French solution, « based around three principles - the first is the respect for sovereignty, the very foundation of our charter; the second is the reinforcement of our regional cooperation; and the third is the implementation of more robust international guarantees ».

But then his speech zoomed off into the stratosphere to end in a lyrical exaltation, during which Emmanuel Macron allowed himself a moment of juvenile hypocrisy reaching to the limits of schizophrenia.

As an example of « the respect for sovereignty », he called for a refusal to « substitute oneself for the Syrian people » when we decide who will become their leader… while at the same time forbidding President el-Assad to present himself for election by his compatriots.

Concerning the « reinforcement of regional cooperation », he mentioned the support offered by the African Union to the French anti-terrorist operation in the Sahel. But this operation was in reality only the land-based wing of a larger plan directed by AfriCom, for which the US army supplied the airborne wing. The African Union itself has no real army as such, and acts only to legalise a colonial operation. Similarly, the sums invested for the development of the Sahel - which the French President quoted not in Euros, but in dollars - mixes true African projects with foreign aid for development. The impotence of this endeavour has long been clear to all.

Concerning « the implementation of more robust international guarantees », he announced the struggle against inequalities which should be addressed by the G7 summit in Biarritz. This was simply a way of affirming, once again, Western leadership over the rest of the world, Russia and China included. He claimed that « the time when a club of rich countries could alone define the balance of the world is long over », and promised to … present a report of the decisions taken by the major Western powers before the next General Assembly. Again, he proclaimed that the « G7 should be the motor » of the struggle against inequality undertaken by the UNO.

Speaking in his turn, Iranian President Cheikh Hassan Rohani described in detail the way in which the White House is destroying, one by one, the principles of international Law [3].

He reminded us that the 5+1 agreement (JCPoA) had been validated by the Security Council, which had called upon numerous institutions for their support (resolution 2231), and that Donald Trump’s USA had withdrawn from the agreement, negating the signature of his predecessor and the principle of the continuity of state. He emphasised that, as attested by twelve consecutive AIEA reports, Iran has conformed and is still conforming to its obligations. He expressed his indignation at President Trump’s call to disobey the UNO resolution and the threat he has addressed against those who respect it.

He finished by recalling a few facts - Iran fought Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Daesh before the United States (which was at that time supporting them) - one way of emphasising the fact that for a long time, the about-faces by the USA do not correspond to the logic of Law, but to the logic of its own hidden interests.

This debate, not for or against the United States, but for or against Donald Trump, was organised around two main arguments: 

The White House is destroying the system which has so well benefited the international financial elites (Macron). 

The White House is no longer even pretending to respect international Law (Rohani).

For the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, this debate hides a problem which goes even deeper. « On one hand, we see the reinforcement of the polycentric principles of the world order , (…) the aspiration of the people to preserve their sovereignty and work with models of development which are compatible with their national, cultural and religious identities. On the other, we see the desire of several Western states to preserve their self-proclaimed status as "world leaders" and to hinder the objective and irreversible process of the establishment of multipolarity », he stated [4].

From that point, it is no longer pertinent for Moscow to argue with President Trump, nor even the United States, but with the Westerners in general. Sergueï Lavrov went as far as drawing a parallel with the Munich Agreements of 1938. At that time, France and the United Kingdom signed an alliance with Germany and Italy. It’s true that this event is remembered today in Western Europe as an act of cowardice on the part of France and Britain faced with the demands of the Nazis, but it remains engraved in Russian memory as the decisive step which triggered the Second World War. While Western historians seek to decide who took this decision and who followed the movement, Russian historians note only one thing – that none of the Western Europeans assumed their responsibilities.

Extending his study, Sergueï Lavrov no longer denounced the infringements to the Law, but to international structures. He observed that the Westerners attempt to force the people to enter into military alliances against their will, and threaten certain States who wish to chose their partners themselves. Alluding to the Jeffrey Feltman affair [5], he denounced the attempts to control the administration of the UNO, and force it to assume the role which should be played by the member-States, and finally, to use the General Secretariat to manipulate them.

He noted the desperate nature of these attempts, observing, for example, the inefficiency of fifty years of the US blockade of Cuba. He stigmatised the British desire to judge and condemn without trial by using their rhetoric of « highly probable ».

Sergueï Lavrov concluded by emphasising that all this Western disorder did not prevent the rest of the world from cooperating and developing. He recalled the « Greater Eurasian Partnership », mentioned at the Valdaï Forum in 2016 by President Putin to complete President Xi’s « Belt and Road Initiative ». This vast initiative, which was at first given a chilly reception by China, is now supported by the Collective Security Treaty, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Counter-propositions by Australia, Japan and the European Union were still-born.

While Western representatives have the habit of announcing their projects in advance, and discussing them, Russian diplomats only speak of them when they are already under way and are sure to succeed.

To sum up, the strategy of the containment of Russia and China, dreamed up by British deputy Halford J. Mackinder [6] and clarified by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński [7], has failed. The world’s centre of gravity is being displaced to the East, not against the Westerners, but by their fault [8].

Drawing the first practical conclusions from these analyses, Syrian Vice-Prime Minister, Walid al-Moallem, demanded on the following day at the tribune of the General Assembly the immediate withdrawal of the occupying troops of the United States, France and Turkey [9].

Translation 
Pete Kimberley

Read More:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article203234.html