Quote:RA Kris Millegan Trump didn't win, it was handed to him through black boxes and voter suppression, with full approval of the highest levels. It is about destroying our institutions. It is a sophisticated psychological warfare play. End Game: rule the world through China. MHO, Peace, K

Paul Rigby Wrote:Is Russia's Deep State In Civil War Just Like America's?

Exactly! The Kremlin is fully aware that the peace talks which they've been working on and preparing for a long time already are jeopardized, and this is because MID "diplomats" and "experts" convinced Lavrov that it was a "good idea" to invite so many new players such as the US and its terrorist pet Jaysh Islam. I would dare say that the Astana talks are probably doomed to fail before they even begin.

Quote:

Deep State vs. Donald Trump

January 28, 2017


President Trump has stepped onto a high-wire in defying America's Deep State, but can he withstand the powerful winds that will surely buffet him and what will President Putin do to help or hurt, asks ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.


By Alastair Crooke


Russian President Vladimir Putin has said it often: the door to co-operation (with the U.S.) "lies ajar." He has said it repeatedly: that it was not Moscow in the first place that had withered and then severed the lines of communication with Washington. And Mr. Putin has been consistent in periodically easing the path to "Moscow" for President Trump.

Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Fountain Park in Fountain Hills, Arizona. March 19, 2016. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

(The Americans had hinted recently that they might appreciate "a gesture" from the Russians and they got one: Russia invited the incoming U.S. administration to the Syria talks, at Astana. Moscow made this gesture even at the cost of almost losing their Iranian ally's support at the talks.)


Perhaps it is this "door ajar" stance by Mr. Putin that has given rise to the idea, in much of the press, that détente between the two leaders is somehow a "slam dunk" bet that Trump and Putin are cut from similar cloth, and will somehow end up bashing Islamic radicals together. If that is the consensus, then it is perhaps premature, and possibly wrong.


The door is indeed "open," and it is possible that the two leaders may indeed conjure up a détente. But it is no "slam dunk" (certainty). And Moscow certainly does not regard it to be "slam dunk" at all. On the contrary, they are aware that whereas there are areas of common approach, there are also areas of obvious difference and possible disagreement between the new U.S. administration and Moscow. The hope for détente ultimately may prove to lie just beyond reach. We shall have to see.
We do not know what President Trump's foreign policy in practice will be. It is not at all clear (intentionally so, in part. But, also because the details have not yet been thrashed out within the team, who are busy with managing a complex transition). Nonetheless we can tease out, perhaps, a few solid pointers in the wake of the new U.S. President's inaugural speech:


Mr. Trump has witnessed America's political and economic decline over the years (he made plain previously his concerns about America's deteriorating situation in his 2000 campaign publication).


He sincerely believes the U.S. to be in crisis and that without radical, urgent and comprehensive reform, America (qua "America") will be in peril. He is, as it were, someone who has looked upon decay and corruption, and been transfigured by that which he saw: Yes, there was a Cromwellian "New Model Army" whiff to his inauguration speech. He said that he intends to purge and then to remake America, no less.


He has arrayed against him the still intact power of the Deep State, yet he chooses mainly to taunt them. His inaugural speech told the Deep State flatly to prepare for its own disempowerment. He has thereby "burnt his bridges" in respect to any subsequent Faustian sale of his soul. He can only succeed, or dramatically fail.


For all the pomp of an orderly transfer of power on Jan. 20th, the reality behind the trappings is one of a "state of war" between the U.S. President and the still-present Deep State elites (but not necessarily the Deep State's foot soldiers, many of whom, it appears, voted for Trump).


Political Tactics


Artemis Capital presciently describes Trump's likely political tactics: "Trump knows that if you can't win [as matters stand], then you change the rules of the game this is what he has already done with American politics and what he is about to do to the entire Post-Bretton Woods World Order. If you really want to know a person, watch what they do, and not what they say … or what they tweet … the rants and twitter storms are part of a strategy of media control and distraction.

Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a hangar at Mesa Gateway Airport in Mesa, Arizona. Dec. 16, 2015. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

"Trump's business career was largely comprised of three core strategies 1) Leverage 2) Restructure 3) Brand … in that order. Throughout the late 1970s and 1980s Trump rode a generational decline in interest rates and debt binge to purchase a range of high profile real estate projects including the Grand Hyatt (1978), Trump Tower (1983), the Plaza Hotel (1988) and the Taj Mahal (1988). In the 1990s he went through a total of 6 bankruptcies due to over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York. In the 2000s he pivoted to move away from debt-driven property investments to building a global brand through the Apprentice' TV show.
"Trump will run the country as he ran his businesses …. He will lever, and lever, and lever, and lever … and lever … and then restructure his way to success, or whatever success is defined as, by the broadest measure of popularity at any given time. Trumponomics, if it delivers, will be a supply-side free for all: massive tax cuts, deficit spending to create jobs, financial and energy deregulation, business creation, and trade protectionism all driving inflation. More importantly, Trump sees bankruptcy as a tool and not an obligation and will have no problem pushing the US to the limits of debt expansion. I do play with bankruptcy laws, they're very good to me!' he once said."


The Destructor'


And this is what in broad outline we already see. Trump's tweets are "the destructor" element: Creating negotiating leverage through uncertainty. No one can be sure of Trump's final aims, or his "bottom line."

The run-down PIX Theatre sign reads "Vote Trump" on Main Street in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. July 15, 2016. (Photo by Tony Webster Flickr)

This is his strategy. The tweets are mini-grenades tossed into the mix, precisely to confuse, to distract, and to loosen up the existing "order" and to make it more susceptible to negotiation and to subsequent "re-structuring" should initial negotiations hit a brick wall.


Similarly, with leverage. Trump has leverage: Most significantly, the U.S. is the globe's biggest buyer of consumer goods; it possesses the world's reserve currency, and controls all the Bretton Woods financial institutions, with all the privileges which that implies. It has the Federal Reserve and can manipulate other states' currencies; the U.S. "owns" NATO, and the defense protection it does (or does not) choose to confer on other states; it has the biggest military; and is more or less energy independent. Not bad cards.


Trump may be expected to lever, and lever again, all these assets. He will pull out all the stops in the interest of putting America First, and returning jobs and manufacturing to America's marginalized white middle- and blue-collar classes. He will lever this aim financially (i.e. debt, border taxes and tax incentives) too, as well as politically strong-arm America's trading rivals.


Brand "America" will be advanced by all the tradecraft that Trump acquired though his "reality" TV show: distractions, surprises, and publicity stunts to create an aura of success for he is determined to succeed. It is almost as if he feels he can lift the "animal spirits" of Americans, as it were, by willpower, and pithy, one-liner tweets. To an extent, he already has to judge by polls on business confidence in the U.S.


A Method Behind Madness


The above account may imply that, with Trump, all policy will essentially be determined by the seat of his pants. But if that is what conveyed, it is only half the story. John Maudlin of Maudlin Economics provides this corrective:

Anti-Trump protesters at the presidential inauguration in Washington D.C. on Jan. 20. 2017. (Photo credit: Robert Parry)

"This is going to be a short letter summarizing my impressions from the last few days [in Washington talking with Trump's transition team]. I think it might be easiest to present them in the form of a list.


"If you listen to the media you might have the impression that the Trump transition team is in complete disarray. Talking with leaders of the transition team certainly didn't leave me with that impression. They have broken the transition process down into over 30 departments and have created a landing document' for each department. The analogy they are using is that this process is like planning an invasion, and they are going to hand the landing document off to the beachhead teams' who will then execute the plans.


"I was briefly allowed to look at (without actually being able to read) the plan for one cabinet-level department. It appeared to be about 100 pages plus of serious detail as to exactly what executive orders would need to be removed and added, what personnel would have to be replaced (both appointees and regular staff), what policies would need to be changed, and so forth.


"I was told that this level of planning was being done for every department. My impression is that there are a lot of people from various think tanks and others with experience in the presidential transition process who are involved in directing the plan for each department. That level of detailed planning doesn't happen in less than two months. My guess is that some of that thinking has been going on for years, and now it can be implemented.


"That being said, we know that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy; and it was instructive to sit with Bill Bennett, who talked about his experience in trying to reform the Department of Education under Reagan. They were still dealing with personnel and policy issues a year later, and this was when the department was much smaller than it is today. And that is just one department.
"When I asked a key person how much of the overall plan would likely come to fruition, I got a rueful smile and a shrug. If we even get half of this done in the first few years, that will be major reform'…


"Trump's management style is going to drive the media (and admittedly, much of the country and the world) nuts. One person who has worked closely with Trump during the transition says it is a lot like the HBO show Entourage and not at all like the British sitcom Yes, Minister. Trump will have people in his entourage competing to give him the pieces of information he needs. In his business organization, he sets the vision and then hires people to execute that vision; and then he goes back to doing what we have seen him do so well, which is to create the brand and image.


"He is bringing in people to execute his vision, and he's going to expect them to get it done. He will jump in when he thinks he's needed or when he can add something to the process, but he will mostly be paying attention to his team's performance.


"One assessment suggests that there is going to be more than the usual amount of personnel turnover in the first six months. The media will be writing about how Trump can't keep people and about all the chaos in the White House and other parts of government. But from Trump's perspective, and given his management style, that's not necessarily bad in terms of his longer-term goal of changing things.
"We have not had a president with this type of management style in my lifetime. Since it's not something that any of us are going to be familiar with, it is going to make some of us uncomfortable until we get used to it (and some people never will)."


Putin and Trump


Where does this put Russia? Is President Putin, then, cut from similar cloth, as many commentators suggest?

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

Superficially: Yes (but in other ways, no). President Putin too saw his nation in decline (the Yeltsin years). And yes, Putin also sincerely believed that Russia was in crisis when he assumed the Presidency.


President Putin did face Russian Deep State powers arrayed against him, but, unlike Trump, there was no public declaration of war against the Russian Deep State, but rather, the Russian President has made it his objective to try to "heal Russia," and to keep the opposing Russian political poles from splintering away from the main trunk. In this respect, President Putin is no populist: there has been no metaphorical rallying of blue-collar "pitchforks and torches" against the Elites. Putin has preferred to out-maneuver his enemies in more discreet, less public, ways.


So the "chemistry," if it transpires in the flesh, derives from something else. Steve Bannon, Trump's close confidant, in a 2014 interview, said simply enough: The "very, very, very intelligent" Putin just "gets it." He understands "us." He can see what our various Tea Party Movements are about (this interview was before Trump was a Candidate). Putin can tell that a "revolution" in America and Europe is brewing, Bannon implies, and notes that the Russian President has been quietly, (and "cleverly") positioning himself towards it, especially in Europe.


In other words, it is not so much the transactional possibilities that attracts Bannon to Putin, but a sense of dealing with someone who has an instinctive, almost telepathic, shared understanding of what Bannon and his Breitbart circle (now including Trump) are about, and how they view the world. This type of empathetic communication if borne out by experience does have a real potential to overcome otherwise difficult political differences.


Russia's Hot Buttons


And political differences, there are. Major potential hurdles: The "America First" policy, and that of aggressively re-building the home base, will not ruffle President Putin one jot. He feels the same about Russia. Ditto for the America First energy policy. Mr. Putin will have no problems with that (there can be fruitful exchanges with Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson, who is leaving his job as Exxon-Mobil's CEO, on this issue).

Exxon-Mobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson, President Donald Trump's choice to be Secretary of State.

However, three issues could be very problematic: The first is Trump's emphasis that the U.S. "military dominance must be unquestioned" since this directly touches on Russia's own national security. Moscow does not seek an absolute "balance," but a balance of esteem, and "strategic stability" with the U.S. Two, Team Trump says the president will not "allow other nations to surpass our [U.S.] military capability"; and (in a White House policy outline), "We [the U.S.] will also develop a state-of-the-art missile defense system to protect against missile-based attacks from states like Iran and North Korea."


Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has already warned that nuclear weapons, strategic stability and nuclear and strategic parity, will be the key issue in Russian-U.S. relations. And the third "hot" issue will be whether Trump is intent on driving a wedge into the strategic security architecture linking China, Russia and Iran. Again, any attempt to split the coalition, or to collapse the keystone of the Eurasian economic "arch" (One Belt, One Road), could sour any entente between Trump and Putin.


There is however another major consideration for Russia: Can he do it? And, should he fail, what would be the implications for Russia? Might Trump's term in office be curtailed? Might the U.S. President be removed, and replaced by an administration that would pursue vindictive retribution against Russia, for having allegedly "sided with" Trump?


Trump is determined to pull out all the stops: to succeed, but it will not be easy. The headwinds are strong. Growth is proving elusive globally for a range of complex factors. It is not Trump's fault. It's just how it is.


Economic Challenges


And a Damocles' sword hangs over his economic program: Yes, he will try to lever, lever and lever again, as it he did in his business career (infrastructure projects, tax breaks and higher spending). For sure it is going to be inflationary and interest rates already are rising. What happens when 10-year U.S. Treasuries hit 3 percent or more? Will it be war with a "tightening" Federal Reserve? Will debt markets generally, enter crisis?


But really, this program can, and almost certainly will, spice up life (and equity prices), for some U.S. corporations, but can it reach down, in the only sense that ultimately matters for Mr. Trump to the level of bringing home the jobs to middle-class and blue-collar America? Who will work these newly returned plants? Robots? Americans on $15 an hour, or Americans on $45 an hour (a well-paid hourly job)?
And if the latter, who is going to purchase the expensive products which these well-paid workers will manufacture? Fellow Americans presumably, but it will take many millions of consumers, themselves on $45 an hour, to afford these high price goods. But if it is Americans on $15 per hour, from whence will come the revived consumer "animal spirits" and free spending? And if it is bots…?


And is "tough on China" really viable? Modern industrial supply lines are long, transnational and complex. If America plays tough with end-product locus of manufacture, Asia can hit back in the supply lines. A whole supply line is much harder to pick up and put down elsewhere than is one single plant.


More salient is the question: does China in fact have the economic "fat" to afford to part with some of it, to please America? Parts of America have been suffering from the effects of globalization, but now China has begun to be globalization's latest victim, too. China may not have any "fat" to negotiate away. And China certainly does have "cards" of its own.

We have entered upon a bold experiment. Is it fully thought through, though? The Russians must be wondering, too.

David Guyatt Wrote:I always find former MI6 spook, Alaistair Crooke's articles thoughtful and well worth reading. In the one below article he conveys the picture that the policies Trump intends to bring to his administration have been laid over many months, if not years.

For me this suggests the possibility that Trump may have gained the backing of the CFR in return for carrying out their long-term goal of reversing America's decline and bringing it back to the fore via his America First strategy. What is clear, however, is that Trump is wholeheartedly supported by the Council for National Policy, regarded as a conservative version of the CFR. Interestingly, several members of the CFR have cross-over membership of the CNP which led one writer (HERE) to ask the question whether the CFR has already been "influenced" by the CNP.

Crooke also conveys the idea that Trump is not entirely the buffoon we all see him to be; that this is an image he purposely projects in order to destabilise opponents in upcoming negotiations.

Be that as it may, it is reasonably clear, I think, that there is a major realignment taking place; this is made clear by the fact that Trump won the election, and to do that I suspect he had to have the backing of a majority of the elite who rule the US.

One of the key three planks of Trump's presidency, according to Crooke, is to drive a wedge between Russia and China's "Eurasian economic arch" (the Kissinger doctrine), which looks set to be a failure from the get go. In this respect, Crooke suggests that Russia will already have considered that Trump's presidency may be curtailed by the prevailing Deep State and will, presumably, be developing plans to counter the onslaught of "vindictive retribution... for having allegedly 'sided with Trump'".

Lastly, Crooke indicates that the development of Russia's S400 and especially the new S500 has been a game changer that has left America as the runner-up in a deployable new missile systems (see Trump's statement that "we (America) will also develop a state-of-the-art missile defence system to protect against against missile-based attacks from states like Iran and North Korea").

Quote:

Deep State vs. Donald Trump

January 28, 2017


President Trump has stepped onto a high-wire in defying America's Deep State, but can he withstand the powerful winds that will surely buffet him and what will President Putin do to help or hurt, asks ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.


By Alastair Crooke

Quote:David Horowitz: the Democrats' agenda is creating "a US Government in exile"


VOLTAIRE NETWORK | 25 JANUARY 2017


According to the writer David Horowitz, who has just published Big Agenda : President Trump's Plan to Save America, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were preparing the ground for a «US Government in exile».


David Horowitz was one of the most important figures of the US Left. It is noteworthy that he ran the journal, "Ramparts" that shed light on the CIA's role. He gradually distanced himself from the Left when someone very close to him was assassinated by the Black Panthers. [One of his career highlights] is the publication of The Shadow Party : How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. Today he runs Front Page Magazine and has become close to President Trump.

David Guyatt Wrote:Then there is this too -ming-boggling as it is. As I said on FB it raises the rather silly picture of "Ici Radio Etats Unis" - except it only shows that these latter day zealots won't die with dignity.

Quote:David Horowitz: the Democrats' agenda is creating "a US Government in exile"


VOLTAIRE NETWORK | 25 JANUARY 2017


According to the writer David Horowitz, who has just published Big Agenda : President Trump's Plan to Save America, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were preparing the ground for a «US Government in exile».


David Horowitz was one of the most important figures of the US Left. It is noteworthy that he ran the journal, "Ramparts" that shed light on the CIA's role. He gradually distanced himself from the Left when someone very close to him was assassinated by the Black Panthers. [One of his career highlights] is the publication of The Shadow Party : How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. Today he runs Front Page Magazine and has become close to President Trump.

Source

Quote:Representative Tulsi Gabbard is traveling to Syria and Lebanon for what her office called a fact-finding tripher latest controversial move that will likely frustrate her fellow Democrats.

A statement from her office declined to comment on who Gabbard will specifically meet in Syria, citing security concerns, but noted she would meet with "a number of individuals and groups including religious leaders, humanitarian workers, refugees and government and community leaders." It's unclear if those government officials include Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who will likely welcome the prospect of meeting an elected American lawmaker as he tightens his grip on power. News of her trip was first reported by Foreign Policy.

The Obama administration and its Western allies have called for Assad's ouster, and have backed some rebels groups opposed to him in the more than five-year civil war that has spawned a humanitarian disaster. President-elect Trump says the U.S. should focus on the real enemy: ISIS, which is one of many groups fighting Assad. Gabbard holds that view, as well. She recently introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, which would make it unlawful for the U.S. government to support groups allied with and supporting terrorist organizations, some of which are fighting Assad. Still, her visit to Syria, in theory, may constitute a violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized individuals from contacting a foreign government that's engaged in a dispute with the U.S. It's worth pointing out, however, that no one has ever been prosecuted for alleged violations of the act.

Gabbard is an Iraq War veteran and two-term Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii. She supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, was born in American Samoa, and is the first Hindu to be elected to the Congress. She was mentioned as Trump's likely choice for U.S. ambassador to the UNthe job ultimately went to South Carolina Governor Nikki Haleyand even met with him after the November election.

In a statement after their meeting, she said said the two discussed foreign policy, and criticized what she called "interventionist, regime change warfare."

Gabbard's worldview aligns closely with Trump's stated foreign-policy positions: For instance, she says she believes Assad should remain in power while the U.S. targets ISIS (as does Trump). She has praised Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the Egyptian strongman, who has cracked down on Islamist groups in his own country after a military-backed coup ousted the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood-inspired president (Trump called him "a fantastic guy.") She has also lauded Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister whose political party draws inspiration from Hindu nationalism and some of whose members have been linked to anti-Muslim violence (Trump called Modi a "great man.") And, much like Trump and his supporters, she has criticized President Obama over his reluctance to call ISIS an "Islamic" group, saying the president "is completely missing the point of this radical Islamic ideology that's fueling these people."

It is for such positions that The Washington Post dubbed Gabbard "The Democrat that Republicans love and the DNC can't control." Gabbard is reportedly a favorite of Steve Bannon, the former CEO of Breitbart News who now is the president-elect's chief strategist. Bannon, who has described Breitbart as a "platform" for alt-right views, which combine white nationalism and economic populism, has praised Gabbard's views on gunsshe supports some gun restrictions, but not others; her alignment with Republican senators on Syrian refugees coming to the U.S.; and, of course, Islamist terrorism. Indeed, Gabbard's name was not among the 169 Democratic lawmakers who wrote to Trump criticizing his hiring of Bannon.

Gabbard's family background is no less interesting. Her father, Mike Gabbard, is a Hawaii state senator, who is perhaps best known for his vocal opposition to same-sex marriage, a position his daughter shared until, she said, she went to Iraq and experienced "what happens when a government basically attempts to act as a moral arbiter." The elder Gabbard, a Republican turned Democrat, is a practicing Roman Catholic, but has been tied to an extreme form of Hinduism that has been called a cult. Her mother, Carol, is a practicing Hindu, and Gabbard converted to the religion while in her teens. The congresswoman has been a vocal advocate against the persecution of Hindus, especially in Muslim-majority countries, but denies she supports Hindu nationalists groups in India. Gabbard also denies her religion has shaped her opinion of Islam, telling Quartz that her views were shaped by "serving in the Middle East."

Before she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Gabbard served in the Hawaii House of Representatives from 2002 to 2004. She was 21 at the time of her election. She joined the National Guard during her term, deployed to Iraq in 2004 as part of a field medical unit, attended Officer Candidate School, and returned to Iraq in 2009. Between the two deployments, she worked as a legislative aide to Daniel Akaka, the longtime U.S. senator from Hawaii. In 2010, she was elected to the Honolulu City Council. Two years later, she was elected to Congress, where she served on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, and was spoken of as a future governor of Hawaii or U.S. senator. With her visit to Syria, Gabbard is likely to remain in the foreign-policy conversation for some time.

Quote:I'm having a fun time watching President Trump flood the news cycle with so many stories and outrages that no one can keep up. Here's how the math of persuasion works in this situation:

1 outrage out of 3 headlines in a week: Bad Persuasion

25 outrages out of 25 headlines in a week: Excellent Persuasion

At the moment there are so many outrages, executive orders, protests, and controversies that none of them can get enough oxygen in our brains. I can't obsess about problem X because the rest of the alphabet is coming at me at the same time.

When you encounter a situation that is working great except for one identifiable problem, you can focus on the problem and try to fix it. But if you have a dozen complaints at the same time, none of them looks special. The whole situation just looks confusing, and you don't know where to start. So you wait and see what happens. Humans need contrast in order to make solid decisions that turn into action. Trump removed all of your contrast by providing multiple outrages of similar energy.

You're probably seeing the best persuasion you will ever see from a new president. Instead of dribbling out one headline at a time, so the vultures and critics can focus their fire, Trump has flooded the playing field. You don't know where to aim your outrage. He's creating so many opportunities for disagreement that it's mentally exhausting. Literally. He's wearing down the critics, replacing their specific complaints with entire encyclopedias of complaints. And when Trump has created a hundred reasons to complain, do you know what impression will be left with the public?

He sure got a lot done.

Even if you don't like it.

In only a few days, Trump has made us question what-the-hell every other president was doing during their first weeks in office. Were they even trying?

For a fun party trick, ask your most liberal friends if they think the Federal government should have a say in whether a woman gets an abortion or not. When they say the Federal government should stay out of that decision, inform them that President Trump shares their opinion. He doesn't want the Federal government to be in the business of making health care choices for women. He prefers leaving that decision to the woman, her doctor, and state laws.

Many of you have thought of different uses for WhenHub because those situations keep popping up in your life. It's hard to avoid them.

Quote:President Donald Trump granted controversial adviser Steve Bannon a regular seat at meetings of the National Security Council on Saturday, in a presidential memorandum that brought the former Breitbart publisher into some of the most sensitive meetings at the highest levels of government.

The president named Bannon to the council in a reorganization of the NSC. He also said his chief-of-staff Reince Priebus would have a seat in the meetings.

Trump also said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence, two of the most senior defense chiefs, will attend meetings only when discussions are related to their "responsibilities and expertise". Barack Obama and George W Bush both gave the men in those roles regular seats on the council.

In an interview with the New York Times this week, Bannon called the press "the opposition party" and said it should "keep its mouth shut". He has previously described himself as "a Leninist" and an "economic nationalist".

Before he caught the ear of Trump while the businessman was a candidate, Bannon oversaw Breitbart news, a website that has featured racist and sexist articles. Like Trump, he entered government with no experience in public service.

Also on Saturday, Trump ordered a lifetime ban on administration officials lobbying for foreign governments and a five-year ban for domestic lobbying, in an executive order signed on Saturday.

The US president also signed executive memorandums on the reorganisation of the National Security Council and the formation of a new plan to defeat the Islamic State.

During his presidential campaign, Trump promised to "drain the swamp" of Washington, which he depicted as a city rife with unscrupulous lobbyists and corrupt career politicians.

Since election day he has drawn criticism, however, by relying on lobbyists to advise his transition team, by stocking the government with potential conflicts of interest, and by refusing to divest or publicly account for his own ethics risks.

"So this is a five-year lobbying ban, and this is all of the people most of the people standing behind me will not be able to go to work," Trump said after signing the order.

"It's a two-year ban now and it's got full of loopholes and this is a five-year ban. So you have one last chance to get out."

When no one around his desk in the Oval Office said anything, Trump added: "Good, I had a feeling you were going to say that."

The order prescribes a nine-part "pledge" that among other promises commits officials to five years without lobbying after they leave the government; to reject gifts from registered lobbyists and lobbying organizations; and to never lobby on behalf of a foreign government or political party.

The executive order has a provision that allows the president or "his designee" to grant a waiver to the ethics pledge.

The order stipulates that officials who violate the pledge can be debarred from their post and future lobbying, and possibly sued in civil court.

Trump has said he wants government officials to concentrate on their duties, rather than influence they may gain by dint of their position. Before his inauguration, he ordered a similar ban on lobbying for transition officials, but lobbyists have said that the order did nothing to close loopholes or stop undisclosed "shadow lobbying" or "strategic consulting".

Former officials can skip registration, for instance, by making sure to spend less than 20% of their time lobbying for a single client or in meetings with sitting officials.

In 2009, Barack Obama ordered a similar ban, for instance barring recent lobbyists from government posts and forbidding ex-officials from contact with their former agency for two years.

The rule allowed for exceptions, however, and advisers such as John Podesta, Robert Holleyman and Jim Hock all worked in his White House despite histories with influential Washington thinktanks and firms.

Trump also directed that the National Security Council be restructured, an action typical of a new administration, and requested strategies to defeat Isis. Trump ordered

"This is the plan to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, in other words Isis," the president said. "I think it's going to be very successful.

"That's big stuff."

Quote:As of this writing (Saturday, January 28th, 2017) President Donald Trump has announced a number of executive orders authorizing:

BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (the construction of a wall at the Mexican border)
Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (removable of aliens who did not emigrate to the US through official channels.)
Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects (including oil pipelines)
Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal (Repealing OBAMACARE)
President Trump has also put forward memoranda advancing the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, as well as one announcing the country's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The newly minted Commander-in-Chief has also committed to "a great rebuilding of the armed services," including ""new planes, new ships, new resources" and "state of the art" missile defense systems." [2]

Notoriously, however, President Trump has been involved in high profile fights with the CIA. These include CIA assertions of Russian involvement in the US elections, and insinuations that Russia could blackmail the President with video footage of him involved in sexual escapades in a high end Moscow hotel. One day into his Presidency he angered Agency personnel with a speech that raged against media coverage of him, all while in front of a wall honoring operatives killed in the line of duty.

Having survived attempts to have him removed from power, where does the Trump presidency, and America, go from here?

On this week's Global Research News Hour we will showcase a feature interview with Professor Rodrique Tremblay. Professor (Emeritus) at the University of Montreal, and the author of two books: The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles (2010) and The New American Empire (2004). He also authors the blog The New American Empire. In this conversation with Global Research News Hour contributor Colin Hamlin, Tremblay examines Trump's tax and trade and puts them in a global context. He also opines on why Trump was able to beat Clinton in the recent election.

Following that discussion, we hear once again from fellow broadcaster and award winning investigative journalist Stephen Lendman. Lendman, who blogs at sjlendman.blogspot.com, assesses Trump's initial actions while in power, his rivalry with the CIA, and the role he sees Trump serving in the context of a dominant and divided deep state.