President Trump & the Establishment (Part 4): Renovating the ‘Swamp’
https://www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7663
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=176549#176549
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2017/11/24/president-trump-the-establishment-part-4-renovating-the-swamp/
by Terry Melanson · November 24, 2017
By Will Banyan (21 November 2017)
“I am self funding and will hire the best people, not the biggest donors!”
Donald J. Trump, Facebook Post, April 3, 2016.
“[Trump] does not want a globalist, he does not
want someone who belongs to the Council on
Foreign Relations, he does not want someone who
is part of the Washington-New York elite.”
‘Former’ Trump Advisor Roger Stone, WIOD Radio, July 14, 2016
“My father values talent. He recognizes real
knowledge and skill when he finds it… He hires
the best person for the job, period.”
Ivanka Trump, Speech at GOP National Convention, July 21, 2016
“I think one thing my father will do — it’s going
to be a different regime. It’s going to be
different people…These aren’t going to be the
Washington insiders who have been there for a
hundred years and are the very reason why the
system in Washington is very broken”
Eric Trump, ‘The Cats Roundtable’ Radio Program, July 30, 2016
During the 2016 presidential campaign Donald
Trump claimed he was “fighting for real change”
against the “powerful”; he also pledged that he
would “drain the swamp” and, critically, “give
new voices a chance to go into government
service.” This messaging clearly worked with an
exit poll on Election Day reporting that 83 per
cent of voters believed that Trump would “bring
needed change”, compared to just 14 per cent for
Hillary Clinton. Interviews by the Los Angeles
Times with Trump voters across the country soon
after the election revealed that most saw him as
“an outsider unbeholden to a corrupt and rotten
political system.” “People voted for Trump
because they felt they have not had
representation in Washington for a long time”,
argued one Trump voter (LA Times, Nov. 13, 2016).
During the transition process, however, it
quickly became apparent that “draining the swamp”
and excluding the “Washington insiders” was no
longer a priority. As CNN (Dec. 10, 2016)
reported, Trump’s selection process did not seem
to follow any blueprint or plan, instead the
President-elect appeared to be “relying on
instincts and personal relationships.” In fact:
?
His campaign pledge to “drain the swamp” — or
keep the familiar Washington, DC, insiders
outside the halls of federal power — has gone
largely unfulfilled as wealthy, connected donors
and bankers grab up influential positions in the new administration.
Not only was his transition team “staffed with
long-time Washington experts and lobbyists from K
Street, think tanks and political offices” (CNN)
he had previously attacked, but for Trump
“loyalty was the golden ticket” (New York
Magazine) into his administration; demonstrated
fealty to him was something he clearly
“prized…above all else” (Washington Post). The
result was a strange cabinet, populated by a mix
of “wealthy Washington outsiders, Republican
insiders and former military officers who have
been critical of the Obama administration” (New York Times, Dec. 15, 2016).
To many commentators it has been obvious that
Trump has seriously failed to live up to his
pledge. Jesse Heitz, an opinion contributor for
The Hill (Feb. 20, 2017), accused Trump of making
“swamp-dwelling a matter of course” in his presidency. In fact:
?
Trump had emphatically sold his supporters on the
need to overthrow the tenured elites, yet the
upper-echelon of his administration is loaded
with individuals long plugged into the Washington
political and economic machine.
Mainstream commentator Michael Cooper described
Trump’s presidency as a “reality TV show of betrayal”:
?
Instead of draining the swamp, Trump surrounded
himself with Goldman Sachs and Anthony Scaramucci
and he put his son-in-law in charge of the opioid
crisis and bringing peace to the Middle East (US
News & World Report, Aug. 3, 2017).
In May, New York Times conservative columnist
Ross Douthat complained that despite his
anti-elitist rhetoric “Trump is not actually
governing as a populist or revolutionary”; indeed
his “promised war with the establishment has been
fizzling almost from day one” because he is “too
lazy to figure out what policies he should
champion and too incompetent and self-absorbed to
fight for them.” Conor Friersdorf in The Atlantic
(Sep. 21, 2017) listed 16 instances where Trump
“flagrantly” “violated the letter of his promise”
to “drain the swamp”, including numerous
conflicts of interest involving the Trump
Organization, the appointment of lobbyists,
profiting from government agencies using his
properties, and Cabinet members using government
jets for private purposes. Ryan Bourne from the
libertarian Cato Institute, found “little
momentum behind [Trump’s] pledge to overhaul the
relationship between big vested interests and the
US government.” Indeed, Trump’s “arbitrary
conduct risks exacerbating crony capitalism in
future” (CapX, Aug 3, 2017). In commentary
marking a year since Trump’s election victory,
Senator Bernie Sanders accused Trump of having
“repeatedly reneged on his promises by supporting
the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the
expense of working families” (Los Angeles Times, Nov. 5, 2017).
A more immediate concern for Trump’s myriad
supporters was that make-up of his administration
was threatening his “America First” agenda.
Pro-Trump gadfly Mike Cernovich, for instance,
noted with alarm that when it came to
appointments, “Never Trumper’s and GOP
Establishment have been favored over [Trump’s]
base…” James Corbett, of The Corbett Report (Feb.
04, 2017), also expressed concern that Trump had
“filled his swamp” with more “swamp-dwellers”:
?
With promises to “drain the swamp!” still ringing
in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint
nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges,
neocon war hawks and police state zealots to head his cabinet.
These fears seemed to have been progressively
realized starting with firing of National
Security Adviser General Michael Flynn in
February, the purge of “America First” advocates
from the National Security Council (NSC), and
then the departure in August of Trump’s Chief
Strategist, Stephen Bannon, and presidential
adviser Sebastian Gorka, both of whom had been
repeatedly pilloried in the mainstream media as
supporters of the racist “alt-right”. Bannon and
Gorka both portrayed their exits as a sign that
Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda
had been undermined and abandoned. In his
resignation letter Gorka complained that MAGA
opponents were “for now—ascendant within the
White House” while MAGA supporters had been
“internally countered, systematically removed, or
undermined in recent months.” In his comments to
the neo-conservative Weekly Standard (Aug. 18,
2017), Bannon was just as pessimistic:
?
“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and
won, is over. We still have a huge movement, and
we will make something of this Trump presidency.
But that presidency is over. It’ll be something
else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and
there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”
Bannon’s explusion from the NSC in April had
already prompted jubilant claims that the
“globalists” were in the ascendency. Not
surprisingly Bannon’s total ejection from the
White House was seen as evidence the “globalists”
had finally triumphed (Figure 1). The Gateway
Pundit, for instance, lamented that with Bannon
gone, “President Trump has surrounded himself
with globalists…”; Bannon’s expulsion was a
“clear win for the globalists” observed The
Guardian’s Washington correspondent; Bannon’s
“downfall” also meant that his “crusade against
globalism is on the verge of total failure”,
argued Zack Beauchamp in Vox; and it would most
likely “[t]ip the trade policy scales in favor of
the Trump administration’s ‘globalist’ faction…” claimed Reuters.
Figure 1: The Fall of Steve Bannon and the Triumph of the Globalists
While the excitement about the ascendency of the
“globalists” may have been premature, Trump’s
failure to live up to his basic promise of
excluding entrenched interests, whether from the
ill-defined “swamp”, industry lobbyists, Wall
Street interests or the Establishment is
indisputable. Not only has Trump appointed nearly
100 former corporate lobbyists to key positions
in various agencies—including energy lobbyists to
the Environmental Protection Agency; defense
industry lobbyists to the Pentagon; and
nominating Alex Azar, who spent 10 years working
in senior roles in the US division of
pharmaceutical manufacturer Elli Lilly and was
involved in lobbying for “Big Pharma”, as the
next Secretary for Health and Human Services—but
he has also appointed numerous people with strong
Establishment qualifications. Despite its
populist nationalist façade, the Trump
Administration is increasingly dominated by the
elitist globalist power centres it was supposed to exclude.
The Enemy Within
Trump’s indifference to the Establishment
affiliations has been obvious since the
transition period, when he considered nominees
involved with the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group
and other think-tanks and secret fraternities
considered as synonymous with the “Deep State”.
The reaction from pro-Trump observers was mixed.
Concerns were raised about a few of the early
proposed appointments. In December, for example,
Trump briefly considered appointing CFR Director
Richard N. Haass as Deputy Secretary of State,
prompting a rebuke from Breitbart warning that
the “economic-nationalist wing of the Trump
base…do not like the thought of seeing anyone
from the [CFR] assuming a high-profile job in the
Trump administration, much less its longtime
president.”[*] Alex Newman, writing in The New
American (Dec. 08, 2016), had also expressed
concern over some of the names Trump was
considering for Secretary of State as most of
them were “well-known establishment globalists…”
This had apparently “sparked confusion and even
outrage among many of his closest and fiercest supporters…”
But at least initially, many anti-globalists were
optimistic about Trump’s emerging administration.
An effusive Trump confidante Roger Stone, for
example, told Alex Jones the appointments of Jeff
Sessions as Attorney General and Michael Flynn as
National Security Adviser signalled the
“beginnings of a team of nationalists…A team of
men and women who will put America, not the
globalist agenda, first.” In January, Israeli
analyst Baruch Kogan, argued the presence of only
two CFR members in Trump’s Cabinet – Elaine Chao
(Secretary of Transportation) and Robert
Lighthizer (US Trade Representative) – was
evidence of a “quiet revolution against the
American Deep State” (Medium, Jan. 13, 2017).
A month later, however, following the firing of
Flynn, some analysts at the John Birch Society’s
The New American, were troubled by additional
appointments of former CFR members Lt. Gen.
Herbert R. McMaster as his replacement, and the
nomination of Judge Neil Gorusch to the Supreme
Court. McMaster’ CFR membership was a “disturbing
indication that he is very much at home among
internationalists”, wrote Warren Mass. That
McMaster was endorsed by “interventionist,
neoconservative member” Senator John McCain
should also “raise suspicion” (The New American,
Feb. 21, 2017). The appointments of McMaster and
Gorusch seemed to suggest that Trump’s “winning
spree against the powerful forces that opposed
him”, wrote Alex Newman, “appears to be slowing down.”
These four appointments alone, however, did not
tell the full story. A closer look at the rest of
Trump’s White House and other senior appointments
reveal a more persistent pattern where
“Washington insider”, Wall Street or
“Establishment” affiliations have proved to be
absolutely no obstacle to being selected. For
example, Trump’s Secretary of Defense retired
General (and former Hoover Institution Fellow)
James Mattis was a participant at the 2015
Bilderberg Meeting in Telfs-Buchen, Austria.
Secretary of Energy, former Texas Governor Rick
Perry was a participant at the 2007 Bilderberg
Meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, which later earned
him the calculated smear “Bilderberg-approved” from the now pro-Trump Infowars.
Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin – who has
“long been a member of the financial elite” and
the first hedge fund manager to head Treasury
according to the New York Times (Dec. 19, 2016) –
was “tapped into Skull and Bones”, a secret
fraternity at Yale that has long been the subject
of conspiratorial speculation. Mnuchin has also
had professional associations with billionaire
investor George Soros, a constant target of the
alt-right (though not of Trump) because of his
financial support for the Democrats. From 2003 to
2004 Mnuchin was chief executive of SFM Capital
Management, a firm that was reportedly backed by
Soros, and he also worked as an Investment
Professional at Soros Fund Management LLC.
Finally, “billionaire”[†] Secretary of Commerce
Wilbur Ross, who had worked for Rothschild Inc.
in the US from 1976 to 2000 before setting up his
own company, had a number of interesting
Establishment qualifications. Before joining
Trump he had been Chairman of the Japan Society
(a New York-based organization, founded in 1907
and devoted to improving US-Japan relations, that
had been revived by John D. Rockefeller III in
the 1950s) since 2010 and member of its Board of
Directors since 2005. He was elected to the Board
of Trustees of the Brookings Institution in 2013.
And in 2012 Ross was identified as the leader or
“Grand Swipe” of the Wall Street “secret society”
Kappa Beta Phi, which holds an annual private
dinner where “around 200 of the biggest names in
finance carry on like fraternity kids…”
On May 1, 2015, Ross was a signatory to a letter
from the Partnership for New York City (which has
its origins in David Rockefeller’s 1979 creation
of the New York City Partnership) to members of
the New York State Congressional Delegation,
urging them to support the Bipartisan
Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability
Act of 2015 so as to “allow negotiation of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade
agreement to move forward.” The letter cited the
view of “Trade experts and economists” that the
TPP would be “a catalyst for creating new jobs in
the United States, attracting more foreign
investment to this country, and benefitting
American workers in a broad range of industries.”
Ross was an Executive Committee member of the Partnership.
Moreover, Trump seriously considered appointing
four-time Bilderberg participant (2013, 2014,
2015 and 2016) and former CIA Director David
Petraeus as Secretary of State. Trump eventually
chose Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson after his name was
put to Pence by former Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates and former national security adviser
Stephen Hadley (CNN, Dec. 13, 2016) –
(incidentally Rice, Gates and Hadley ran a
consulting firm that had Exxon as a client).
Though not a CFR member, Tillerson had addressed
the Council about energy issues in 2007 and again
in 2012. In his 2007 speech Tillerson said he
“felt at home” at the CFR because it was “founded
on a number of beliefs I share…and that is the
belief in the promise of international engagement
and in the potential of global approaches to meeting this nation’s challenges.”
The Establishment was also well-represented among
the NSC staff. In addition to Trump’s new
National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, being a
CFR member, the following senior NSC staff
members also have Establishment credentials:
Dina Powell – Assistant to the President and
Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy – CFR member.
Nadia Schadlow – Deputy National Security Advisor
for Strategy – senior program officer at Smith
Richardson Foundation and CFR member – reportedly
with “impeccable neocon credentials” and author of a book on nation building.
Tom Bossert – Assistant to the President and
Homeland Security Advisor – Zurich Cyber Risk Fellow with the Atlantic Council.
Christopher Ashley Ford – Senior Director for
Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Issues (recently
nominated as Assistant Secretary of State,
International Security and Non-Proliferation) – a
former Rhodes Scholar and member of the CFR.
Joel Rayburn – Senior Director for Iran, Iraq,
Syria and the Gulf States – CFR member and member
of Atlantic Council Task Force on Iraq.
Matthew Pottinger – Senior Director for Asia – former CFR fellow.
Also with an interesting resume is Kenneth
Juster, up until recently Deputy National
Security Advisor for Strategic International
Economic Affairs and Deputy Director of the
National Economic Council (NEC), and now slated
to be the US Ambassador to India. Besides being a
member of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission,
Juster was also a Partner with the global
investment firm Warburg Pincus. His
“reassignment” to India from the NSC and NEC
marked him out as a casualty in the battles
between “globalist” and “nationalist” factions;
though CFR President Haass praised Juster’s new
appointment as “inspired”. Perhaps the only CFR
member clearly in the “America First” camp was
Kathleen T. McFarland, Deputy National Security
Advisor and confidante to the short-lived Flynn,
but she was later cashiered from the NSC and
geographically sidelined as the nominee for US
Ambassador to Singapore as part of the purge of the populists.
The strong Establishment affiliations of former
Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, were also seemingly
no obstacle to his appointment as Ambassador to
Russia. A former member of the CFR, Huntsman was
also recently the Chairman of the pro-NATO
policy-planning group, the Atlantic Council, and
had openly supported the TPP. Similarly, Robert
Wood Johnson IV, newly appointed US Ambassador to
the United Kingdom, had no trouble being
appointed, despite his prior membership of
President George H.W. Bush’s pro-NAFTA Export
Council or the fact he had been a member of the
CFR since 1993. The Financial Times (Apr. 29,
2017) had praised Johnson’s “globalist
sympathies” and “internationalist instincts”,
also noting he was “steeped in traditional
Republican Party thinking” and had earned “a
reputation for working behind the scenes.”
Other appointees and nominees with Establishment connections of note include:
Mira Radielovic Ricardel appointed as Under
Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration – CFR member.
Robert P. Kadlec appointed as Assistant Secretary
for Preparedness and Response – CFR member.
Jeffrey Kessler nominee for Assistant Secretary
of Commerce, Enforcement and Compliance – CFR term member.
Randall G. Schriver nominee for Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Affairs –
founding partner of consulting firm Armitage
International LLC (founded by former Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and member
of the Board of Advisors for the “bipartisan”
security think-tank the Center for a New American Security.
Brian Hook Senior Policy Adviser and Director of
Policy Planning at the State Department –
co-founder of the so-called “John Hay Initiative”
(JHI) established in 2013 to keep Mitt Romney’s
foreign policy team together, but also to counter
“neo-isolationist” thinking while promoting
“conservative internationalism.” Hook co-authored
a chapter in the JHI book Choosing to Lead,
arguing that a “strong United States is essential
to the maintenance of the open global order”;
this “international order” was based on a
commitment to “free trade” and a strong alliance system, including NATO.
And just this month the White House announced the
appointment of Federal Reserve Governor Jerome H.
Powell to replace Janet Yellen as Chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Powell’s
appointment was celebrated in the financial press
as “wise decision” that would bring “continuity
and predictability” (Bloomberg) and represented
“a rejection of calls for radical change among
conservative Republicans in favour of stability
at the US central bank” (Financial Times). Not
mentioned in the official announcement was
Powell’s role as a partner in the controversial
Carlyle Group from 1997 to 2005; his $20-55
million fortune making him “one of the wealthiest
people to ever lead the Fed” (Forbes); and his
membership of the Council on Foreign Relations.
More noteworthy is that such contacts have not
been terminated with their ascension to the Trump
Administration. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, for
example, was a speaker at the Trilateral
Commission’s 2017 Plenary Meeting, held earlier
this year in Washington DC (Figure 2). While four
Trump Administration officials – Commerce
Secretary Wilbur Ross, National Security Advisor
McMaster, Deputy National Security Advisor Nadia
Schadlow and Assistant to the President and
Director of Strategic Initiatives Christopher
Liddell (the New Zealand-born businessman is also
a CFR member) – were all participants at this
year’s Bilderberg meeting, held in Chantilly, Virginia.
Figure 2: Treasury Secretary Mnuchin listed as a
speaker at the Trilateral Commission’s 2017 Plenary Meeting
Mnuchin’s Trilateral Commission performance seems
to have been ignored by the pro-Trump alt-media,
but the Bilderberg participation of Ross,
McMaster, Schadlow and Liddell generated some
tortured responses as Trump supporters tried to
reconcile the participation of these officials
with their belief in Trump’s anti-globalism.
Infowars (Jun. 01, 2017) opted for the more
charitable explanation that the “reason three
[sic] members of the Trump administration…have
been invited…is that Bilderberg thinks there is
still a chance to put pressure on Trump to force
him to back down on his America-first agenda.”
Infowars tried to encourage its readers to attend
what it billed as a “historic” rally at Chantilly
to support Trump and “show the globalists America
won’t back down”, although “only a couple dozen
Trump loyalists…bothered to show up.” Some of
those supporters then argued fruitlessly with
each other on the fringes of the meeting about
whether or not Trump could be trusted.
The Goldman Exception
Perhaps even more remarkable were the number of
Goldman Sachs alumni that had joined the Trump
Administration in many pivotal positions.
Remarkable because unlike the CFR, Bilderbergers,
Trilateral Commission, Atlantic Council or other
such Establishment outfits, who were never
mentioned by the GOP candidate,[‡] Trump had
repeatedly attacked Goldman Sachs by name
throughout his campaign. Trump had denounced both
Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton as puppets of
Goldman Sachs. “I know the guys at Goldman
Sachs.” Trump said in February last year, “They
have total, total control over [Ted Cruz]. Just
like they have total control over Hillary
Clinton.” He had even invoked the spectre of
Goldman Sachs when sniping at Bernie Sanders for endorsing Hillary (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Trump Snipes at Goldman Sachs
More controversially Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of
Goldman, was briefly shown in a Trump campaign ad
(Figure 4) that warned of “a global power
structure that is responsible for the economic
decisions that have robbed our working class,
stripped our country of its wealth and put that
money into the pockets of a handful of large
corporations and political entities.”
Figure 4: Two Seconds of Infamy for Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
And yet, for all his invective, Trump seemed
unperturbed by the number of his appointees with
Goldman Sachs in the resumes. Noting that Trump
had surrounded himself with a number of the
bank’s former employees, Politico (Nov. 30, 2016)
claimed that Goldman Sachs was “dominating the
early days of the incoming Trump administration”
in a “stunning reversal of fortune.” This
included his Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin,
who had “spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs” rising
to Partner and Chief Information Officer at
Goldman early in his banking career; his campaign
chair and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who had
worked at Goldman Sachs from 1985 to 1989; and
Andrew Scaramucci, a key fundraiser and economic
advisor to Trump during the campaign, a member of
executive committee of Trump’s transition team
and recently appointed Senior Vice President and
Chief Strategy Officer at the US Export-Import
Bank and for just ten eventful days White House
Communications Director, had worked at Goldman from 1989 to 1996.
The Director of the National Economic Council,
Gary Cohn, had been Chief Operating Officer and
President of Goldman Sachs before he resigned
last year to join the Trump Administration. Dina
Powell, originally appointed in January as
Assistant to the President and Senior Counsellor
for Economic Initiatives and subsequently
elevated to Deputy National Security Advisor for
Strategy, was President of the Goldman Sachs
Foundation and head of Goldman’s Impact
Investment business and Environmental Markets
Group. Despite fears there were “too many
‘Goldman Guys’” in Trump’s Administration, yet
more Goldman alumni have been added: in March it
was announced that Goldman Managing Director Jim
Donovan had been nominated to the position of
Deputy Treasury Secretary (he later withdrew from
the process); in April Politico reported that
Ivanka had hired as her chief of staff, Julie
Radford, a consultant for Goldman Sachs 10,000
Small Businesses initiative; and in June Trump
nominated as Under Secretary of State
(Management) Eric Ueland, a former vice-president
of the Duberstein Group which had lobbied for
Goldman Sachs and Owen West, a Managing Director
at Goldman Sachs, former Marine and CFR member,
as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.
In July The Intercept reported that Jay Clayton,
Trump’s pick as Chair of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, an attorney who had advised
Goldman Sachs “during the bailouts of 2008”, had
brought with him a team of “former Goldman Sachs
attorneys.” Then in August, Elizabeth Erin Walsh,
a CFR member and former Executive Director at
Goldman Sachs in the Asia Pacific, was sworn in
as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Global
Markets. Then in November, Goldman CEO Blankfein,
was reportedly the “only executive of a major
financial company” represented in the 29-strong
business delegation that accompanied Secretary
Ross during his visit to China, that coincided with Trump’s visit.
These Goldman Sachs appointments have been
greeted by Trump’s supporters with bewilderment
and dismay. In March long-time nationalist
provocateur, Patrick Buchanan, warned on the
Laura Ingraham radio show that it would be “fatal
for the Trump presidency” if he “abandons” the
economic nationalists in his administration and
takes the “Goldman Sachs route.” The Goldman
Sachs people, he observed, were “the Globalists”:
?
The Goldman Sachs people are interested in the
globe; these are the Davos people. These are the
folks that cost the Republican Party and cost the
country and destroyed manufacturing.
The John Birch Society’s William F. Jasper (TNA,
Mar. 16, 2017) complained that when it came to
the issue of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs
“Candidate Trump and President Trump appear to be
two very different individuals.” Noting that at
least seven people working close to Trump had
Goldman Sachs experience or ties, Jasper was
despondent: “the new Trump administration is
looking more and more like yet another replay of ‘Government Sachs’…”
Consulting with the “Kingpin”
Another manifestation of Trump’s
anti-Establishment hypocrisy has been his
eagerness to consult repeatedly with
Establishment stalwart, Secretary of State to
Presidents Nixon and Ford, Henry Kissinger. A
highly controversial figure in any case,
Kissinger has long been the bête noire of
anti-New World Order activists and researchers
due to his closeness to Nelson and David
Rockefeller and his long-time association with
and membership of the CFR, Bilderberg Group and
the Trilateral Commission. At the height of his
power in the 1970s Kissinger was denounced at
length by the late Gary Allen as a “wilful agent
of a conspiratorial apparatus working for a New
World Order” and an “outright Rockefeller agent”
(Gary Allen, Kissinger: The Secret Side of the
Secretary of State, 1976, pp.10 & 22). More
recent critics have described Kissinger as the:
“Bilderberg kingpin” (Infowars); “New World Order
kingpin” (Personal Liberty); “the quintessential
establishment insider” (The New American); and a
“globalist henchman” (We Are Change).
And yet, as Trump’s transition team announced
last year, the president-elect and Kissinger
“have known each other for years.” Their first
private meeting during the campaign was on May 18
last year at Kissinger’s home. That meeting had
followed “weeks of phone conversations between
Trump and Kissinger”, according to the Washington
Post (May 16, 2016). Details of these discussions
were not divulged, but Trump later boasted that
Kissinger had supported his unconventional
approach to foreign relations; a claim Kissinger
later disputed. But Kissinger, displaying his
lifelong talent for cultivating the powerful,
issued a statement with former Secretary of State
George Shultz that declined to endorse either
Clinton or Trump; instead they pledged to support
a “bipartisan foreign policy.”
This calculated fence-sitting soon paid off with
Kissinger summonsed to Trump Tower on November
17, where they “discussed China, Russia, Iran,
the EU and other events and issues around the
world”, according to a statement from the
transition team. Trump had also reaffirmed his
“tremendous respect for Dr. Kissinger” and
appreciation for “sharing his thoughts with me”
(The Hill, Nov. 17, 2016). In his assessment of
the meeting Kissinger argued that Trump should
not be held to his campaign promises. As he told
CNN: “One should not insist on nailing [Trump]
into positions that he had taken in the campaign.”
Trump and Kissinger had another meeting on
December 6, after Kissinger had dashed off to
China to reputedly sooth Chinese sensibilities
after the President-elect had accepted a phone
call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. There
was no public read-out from this third meeting,
but C. Mitchell Shaw from The New American (Dec.
07, 2016) was naturally suspicious and clearly
alarmed at Trump’s admiration for the wily “statesman”:
?
That Trump would either ask for or agree to a
sit-down to discuss foreign policy with a man who
has spent his life and built his career selling
America out to build the “New World Order” is
curious. That this is at least the third such
meeting is concerning. That Trump has “tremendous
respect for Dr. Kissinger” and “appreciates him
sharing his thoughts” on matters related to
“China, Russia, Iran, the EU and other events and
issues around the world” is disturbing.
During the transition period there were reports
that Kissinger was “positioning himself as a
potential intermediary” between Trump and Putin,
and had “chatted” with Trump “on multiple
occasions”, according to Politico (Dec. 12,
2016). The managing director of Kissinger
Associates Inc. (and a Senior Fellow at the Yale
Jackson Institute for Global Affairs), Thomas
Graham, was reportedly considered by Trump as a
potential Ambassador to Russia. Kissinger,
meanwhile, had praised Trump’s appointment of
Tillerson; “I think it’s a good appointment.”
Kissinger also reportedly acted as an unofficial
link between the Trump transition team and China;
helping to “connect Chinese politicians with the
US president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner” ahead of
Trump’s meeting with Chinese President. There
were also suspicions that Kissinger had performed a similar role with Russia.
On May 10, Trump had met privately with the
Russian Foreign Minister and Russia’s Ambassador
to the US. This was followed shortly thereafter
with an “unscheduled meeting” with Kissinger –
their fourth – to discuss “Russia and various
other matters.” Trump said it was “an honour” to
speak with Kissinger because “he’s been a friend
of mine for a long time” (see Figure 5). Then,
ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting at the G20
Summit in Hamburg, Kissinger had visited Moscow
for a “strictly private” meeting with Putin.
Figure 5: Hello Again – Henry Kissinger and
Donald Trump presser after their fourth private meeting, May 10, 2017
A fifth meeting occurred on October 10, where
Kissinger again appeared, slumped in a chair
beside Trump in the Oval Office after they had a
private discussion according to a White House
official, about North Korea and China. Trump
praised the cunning diplomat as a “man of
immense, talent, experience and knowledge” and boasted of his relationship:
?
“Henry Kissinger has been a friend of mine. I’ve
liked him. I’ve respected him. But we’ve been
friends for a long time, long before my emergence
into the world of politics, which has not been too long” (UPI, Oct 10, 2017)
Kissinger has also cultivated a relationship with
Trump’s son-in-law and now Assistant to the
President, Jared Kushner. In his statement to the
Congressional committees investigating the Trump
campaign’s link to Russia, for example, Kushner
casually name-dropped “Dr. Henry Kissinger” as an
example of those “people with deep experience” he
had called on for policy advice when engaging
with foreign representatives. And yet,
Kissinger’s two paragraph profile extolling
Kushner for Time magazine’s 100 most influential
people issue, was widely interpreted as having
damned the would-be-dauphin with the faintest of
praise. Kissinger admitted to having
“sporadically exchanged views” with Kushner, but
struggled to find merit in someone who owed his
position solely to his marriage to Ivanka Trump,
who had a “broad education” but no relevant
foreign policy experience or qualifications, but
who was sure to find “success” in his “daunting
role of flying close to the sun.”
Unremarked by some of Trump’s supporters, alarmed
at his continuing contacts with Kissinger, is
that his much-maligned predecessor had never
sought the private counsel of this “self-avowed
globalist”. As Kissinger’s slavish biographer
Professor Niall Ferguson had noted with some
dismay in the pages of Foreign Affairs (Sep/Oct
2015): “…Barack Obama is unusual. He is the first
U.S. president since Dwight Eisenhower not to
seek Kissinger’s advice.” With five private
meetings to date Trump appears to be making up for this oversight.
To be concluded in Part Five
[*] In April Trump finally nominated lawyer and
former Deputy Secretary of Commerce John J.
Sullivan, who has no Establishment affiliations
or diplomatic experience, to the position.
[†] After examining his financial disclosure
forms and other data, Forbes (Nov. 7, 2017)
recently found that Wilbur Ross is not
billionaire, as he had previously claimed, but
worth a more modest US$700 million. The reason
for the discrepancy: Ross had been counting money
from investors in his firm as though it was part
of his personal fortune. Forbes quoted two former
Ross associates who observed that he “doesn’t
have an issue with bending the truth” and had “lied to a lot of people.”
[‡] One is reminded of John. F. McManus’
criticism of Jimmy Carter, that during the 1976
presidential campaign he had “played up to this
resentment” against the “insiders” but at same
had “carefully avoided naming any names or
discussing any of the organizational ties of
identifiable Insiders” (McManus, The Insiders:
Architects of the New World Order, 2004 edition, pp.4-5).
--
+44 (0)7786 952037
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/650822/Letter-WW3-200-year-old-islam-final-battle
Twitter: @TonyGosling http://twitter.com/tonygosling
http://rt.com/op-edge/authors/tony-gosling/
http://groups.google.com/group/uk-911-truth
http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Diggers350/
http://cryptome.org/2014/06/video-report-axed-2.htm
http://www.reinvestigate911.org/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
http://groups.google.com/group/uk-911-truth
uk-911-truth+subscr...@googlegroups.com
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.globalresearch.ca
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1407615751783.2051663.1274106225&l=90330c0ba5&type=1
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered
that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that
shall not be made known. What I tell you in
darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye
hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27
Die Pride and Envie; Flesh, take the poor's advice.
Covetousnesse be gon: Come, Truth and Love arise.
Patience take the Crown; throw Anger out of dores:
Cast out Hypocrisie and Lust, which follows whores:
Then England sit in rest; Thy sorrows will have end;
Thy Sons will live in peace, and each will be a friend.
http://tinyurl.com/6ct7zh6
--
--
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield?
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes.
To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.