Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2963

Re: Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Postby Daglord » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:25 pm

current political climate in the US.

George Soros this... George Soros that...

Sheldon who?

The Biggest Donor in All of US Politics Brings an Israel First Agenda to Washington


(MPN) — According to publicly available campaign finance data, Sheldon Adelson – the conservative, Zionist, casino billionaire –is now the biggest spender on federal elections in all of American politics. Adelson, who was the top donor to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Republican Party in 2016, has cemented his role as the top political donor in the country after giving $55 million in recent months to Republicans in an effort to help the party keep its majority in both houses of Congress.

Adelson’s willingness to help the GOP stay in power is likely born out of his desire to protect the massive investment he placed in the party last election cycle. In 2016, the Republican mega-donor gave heavily to the Trump campaign and Republicans, donating $35 million to the former and $55 million to the top two Republican Super PACs — the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund — during that election cycle.

Adelson’s decision to again donate tens of millions of dollars to Republican efforts to stay in power is a direct consequence of how successfully Adelson has been able to influence U.S. policy since Trump and the GOP rode to victory in the last election cycle.

A New York Times article on Adelson, titled “Sheldon Adelson Sees a Lot to Like in Trump’s Washington,” notes that Adelson “enjoys a direct line to the president.” Furthermore, Adelson and Trump regularly meet once a month “in private in-person meetings and phone conversations” that Adelson has used to push major changes to U.S. policy that Trump has made reality — such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and cutting aid to Palestinian refugees, among others.

Adelson’s new title as the top spender in all U.S. elections shows that he, along with his wife, is willing to spend big to keep that direct line open in the months and years ahead. Citing sources close to the Adelsons, the Times writes that the Adelsons’ massive expenditures in federal elections this cycle are being made because he and his wife believe that “Republican control of the House and the Senate is so vital to maintaining these [right-wing and pro-Zionist] policies” and their influence in Washington and at the White House.

“Pleased as Punch”

The fact that Adelson is “pleased-as-punch” with Trump’s performance as president should hardly come as a surprise, given that the president has fulfilled his campaign promises that were of prime importance to Adelson, while many of his other campaign promises – namely those that were populist or anti-war in nature – have rung hollow.

These Adelson-promoted policies include the moving of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Adelson had aggressively promoted and even helped to finance, as well as removing the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. Another recent policy move bearing Adelson’s fingerprints is the U.S. decision to withdraw its funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), as Adelson once infamously stated that “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian.”

As previously mentioned, The New York Times recently noted that the cutting of aid to Palestinians, the U.S.’ removal from JCPOA, and the Jerusalem embassy move all resulted from private in-person meetings and phone conversations between Adelson and Trump.

Adelson has also been successful in stocking the Trump administration with politicians he has long supported as well as his confidantes. Adelson-supported appointees include Nikki Haley, long-time recipient of Adelson campaign funds who now serves as U.S. ambassador to the UN; Mike Pompeo, former CIA director who has advocated for bombing Iran and now serves as secretary of state; and John Bolton, a close confidante of Adelson, who is now national security adviser.

Adelson was also instrumental in removing Pompeo and Bolton’s predecessors, Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster, from their respective posts, owing to their support for JCPOA and their alleged “anti-Israel” positions. Speculation has recently grown that Secretary of Defense James Mattis may share their fate for similarly opposing Adelson’s positions.

Yet, upon closer examination, these Adelson-driven personnel and policy moves enacted by Trump seem to merely be the foundation for the so-called “Adelson agenda,” a set of convergent goals that could potentially result in thousands of deaths in the Middle East and embroil the U.S. in yet another regime-change war.

To Show That “We Mean Business”

While Adelson’s top-donor status has allowed him unprecedented access to the Trump administration and has resulted in dramatic changes to U.S. policy, there is every indication that the worst is yet to come. This is because, while the Adelson’s past efforts to influence Trump administration policy have had undeniably negative effects, they have yet to embroil the U.S. in another regime-change war or lead to the destruction of entire nations.

Yet, the current path the administration is treading at Adelson’s behest — particularly regarding Iran, Syria and Palestine — has the potential to unleash havoc in the Middle East and beyond, in a way not yet seen during Trump’s young presidency.

Indeed, one need only look at Adelson’s past statements on Iran to understand just how dangerous this man’s influence is to any prospect of peace in the Middle East.

As an example, during the negotiations that eventually led to the Iran nuclear deal, Adelson publicly advocated for a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran without provocation, so the U.S. could “impose its demands [on Iran] from a position of strength.”

More specifically, Adelson’s “negotiation” plan involved the U.S. dropping a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert and then threatening to drop “the next one […] in the middle of Tehran” to show that “we mean business.” Tehran, Iran’s capital, is home to nearly 9 million people with 15 million more in its suburbs. Were Tehran to be attacked with nuclear weapons, an estimated 7 million would die within moments.

Furthermore, any sort of diplomatic engagement with Iran, according to Adelson, is “the worst negotiating tactic I could ever imagine.”

In other words, Adelson’s vision for engaging Iran considers the dropping of nuclear weapons on a country, including its heavily populated capital city — for no reason other than to show that the U.S. “means business” — a reasonable tactic.

With the Trump administration now applying “maximum pressure” to Iran, Adelson’s vision for engaging the Islamic Republic is of critical importance. For instance, if this “maximum pressure” campaign — currently a combination of draconian sanctions, bullying Iran’s trading partners, and covert CIA-driven regime-change operations — ultimately fails, Adelson is likely to push Trump towards more drastic “negotiation” tactics in order to force Iran into a “new treaty” designed by and for pro-Israel interests that seek to eliminate Iran as a regional player. Given that many entities– including Europe, China and Turkey — are rejecting U.S. calls to isolate Iran, this is a likely scenario that must be considered.

As his past statements make clear, Adelson — in such a case — is likely to pressure Trump to use military tactics, such as preemptive bombings, to force Iran to yield. Even though such a move would likely embroil Iran, the U.S. and potentially other important nations in a major war, Trump has shown that he has so far been willing to take Adelson’s “advice” regardless of consequences, including international backlash or even war.

Meet Your New Overlord: Adelson Driving Both US and Israeli Policy Behind the Scenes

Beyond the fact that Adelson’s unprecedented influence on U.S. politics is set to create much more instability than past policies he has promoted, lies another unsettling truth: for less than $150 million — pocket change for such a plutocrat — Adelson has effectively bought the presidency and Congress. His role as top political donor has given him a “direct line” to the president and unprecedented access to the Republican party, who are beholden to his desires and whims as their paymaster.

Indeed, crossing Adelson — as shown by the high-profile firings of McMaster and Tillerson — has its steep price, and obeying Adelson now seems to be the most essential step that Trump and other Republicans must follow to stay in power.

Furthermore, Adelson is also the primary driver behind Israeli policy, given his role as a key donor to and long-time backer of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his role as owner and funder of Israel’s most widely circulated Hebrew-language newspaper, Israel Hayom. Thus, when considering critiques of U.S. politics as unduly influenced by Israel, Adelson’s role is again clear as day. If Israel is driving the U.S.’s foreign policy, it is not only because Adelson wills it but because Adelson is personally driving the policies of both the U.S. and Israel.

In 2014, a Princeton University study demonstrated that — beyond any doubt — the U.S. is an oligarchy, beholden to the interests of the rich and the powerful, not the interests of the majority of its citizens. Though the presence and power of the oligarchy is nothing new, what is notable is that a massive chunk of it is now under the control of a single individual — a man who has repeatedly shown that he has no empathy or respect for human life and is entirely on board with totalitarianism. Indeed, Adelson has made it clear time and again that he is no fan of democracy.

Americans, meet your new, unelected overlord — Sheldon Adelson — because, as long as the U.S. political system is “hostage to his fortune,” he’s not going anywhere.

Prominent Canadian news broadcaster Wendy Mesley exposes the role of billionaire campaign donor Sheldon Adelson in getting the U.S. embassy moved to Jerusalem, Trump’s abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal, and both U.S. and Canadian politics in general.

Adelson, the tenth richest man in the world and the GOP's largest donor, is known to use his money to influence policies on behalf of Israel.

After trump tore up the Iran agreement, Adelson donated an additional $30 million to the Republican party, possibly the single largest single donation in U.S. history.

Adelson also influenced former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who endorsed Trump's embassy action and anti-Iran move.

Mesley interviews New York Times reporter Ken Vogel, who says that Adelson has private meetings at the White House with Trump, Vice President Pence, John Bolton, and others. Israel is at the heart of Adelson's donations, who has been influenced by his Israeli wife. Vogel explains that Adelson is "the enforcer" for Jewish American donors who give a lot of money to Republican politicians. People are afraid to cross him.

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 2341
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 1803

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Sat Nov 03, 2018 4:53 am

This Peterson seems like a sensible fella.

He agrees with me :)

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 2341
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 1803

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:55 am

Welcome to the world of President Rand Paul

ttps:// ... 12/27/0f91

By Josh Rogin

December 27, 2018

President’s Trump’s foreign policy follows no firm ideology but is often a combination of his long-held personal views and the influence of whoever currently has his ear. These days, Trump is listening more than ever to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is quietly steering U.S. foreign policy in a new direction.

After Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria — against the advice of his entire national security team — a stunned Washington establishment rushed to blame Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who reportedly asked Trump to leave Syria during a Dec. 14 phone call. But Erdogan has made that request for years. What’s changed recently is whom Trump is listening to back home.

Several U.S. officials and people who have spoken directly to Trump since his Syria decision tell me they believe that Paul’s frequent phone conversations with Trump, wholly outside the policy process, are having an outsize influence on the president’s recent foreign policy decisions. The two golf buddies certainly are sounding a lot alike recently.

Paul told CNN on Dec. 23 that he had talked to Trump about Syria and was “very proud of the president.” That night on Twitter, Trump quoted Paul as saying, “It should not be the job of America to replace regimes around the world… The generals still don’t get the mistake.”

[Robert S. Ford: Trump’s Syria decision was essentially correct. Here’s how he can make the most of it.]

Speaking to U.S. troops on Wednesday in Iraq, Trump preached noninterventionism and bragged about denying his own generals six more months to fight the Islamic State inside Syria before withdrawing. “America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on Earth [and] not being reimbursed,” Trump said. “We’re no longer the suckers, folks.”

Criticizing past U.S. policy at a campaign rally is one thing. The commander in chief telling U.S. soldiers in a war zone that he has lost faith in their generals, and is therefore changing their mission, is another. Trump’s Iraq trip moved U.S. foreign policy one big step in Paul’s direction.

Officials told me that, throughout the national security bureaucracy, everyone is aware that Paul’s voice is one to which the president is paying increasing attention. The existing concern over Paul’s influence on Russia policy has now boiled over with respect to Syria.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with a senator advising the president on foreign policy. Hawks such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) do it all the time. But the Trump-Paul bromance is troubling because Trump may be taking Paul’s word over that of his own advisers. Moreover, Paul has a history of pushing false claims and theories, especially with regard to the Middle East.

Paul regularly says the GOP hawks “created” the Islamic State. In 2015, he apologized for repeating a debunked claim that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had met with Islamic State members inside Syria. Paul has said the United States could become the “air force for al-Qaeda” in Syria, misrepresenting the cooperation between U.S. and local Syrian forces against the Islamic State. He doubts U.S. intelligence assessments that Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people.

To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Paul is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts. If a senator the president trusts is feeding him bad information, that’s a huge problem.

Fans of the president’s Syria policy will argue that Trump and Paul are simply responding to the American people’s war weariness after two decades of failed U.S. interventions in the Middle East. But the implications of Trump following Paul on foreign policy extend beyond Syria.

Trump has already decided to slash the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, which Paul has long pushed. Is South Korea next? Trump often says he wants to bring U.S. troops there home, too. Paul’s idea is to swap out U.S. soldiers with Chinese troops, which would be a huge blow to U.S. leadership in Asia

Walter Russell Mead wrote this week that Trump is choosing a Jeffersonian foreign policy (Paul) over a Jacksonian foreign policy (Cotton). But that ascribes too much consistency to Trump’s decision-making. The foreign policy Trump touted during his campaign contained elements of both isolationism and internationalism, and he has shown he is capable of both.

In the run-up to 2020, Trump should realize that most Republicans — and most Americans — favor a robust U.S. foreign policy. Most voters recognize that worldwide threats to our country are growing and believe now is a time for American leadership, not American retreat.

In his resignation letter, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis suggested that Trump doesn’t believe in traditional American foreign policy values and therefore should surround himself with advisers who share that view. In fact, Trump has often sought out a diversity of opinions. What he needs are experienced professionals with good information whom he actually trusts.

Trump’s worldview is not predetermined. He’s not a neocon or a hawk or a realist. Right now, he is listening to Paul because Paul is telling him what he wants to hear.

Ideally, Trump will soon realize that adopting Paul’s vision for the future of U.S. foreign policy is not only dangerous for our national security but bad politics as well

Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests