UPDATED (5/3): What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets

Business, Celebrity, Democrats, Donald Trump, Feminism, Gender, Labor

“What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets” is the current column, now on The American Thinker. An excerpt:

“Donald Trump must get those kids out of the White House,” a blunt South African observer of our politics barked at me, weeks back. “You’re looking more and more like us.” She was alluding to the nepotism on display in the Trump White House.

Since the president started strafing Syria, it has become evident that Trump’s favorite offspring needs to be booted from the People’s House. The British press, more irreverent than ours, seconded the broad consensus that Ivanka had nagged daddy into doing it. For The Kids: The First Daughter was, purportedly, devastated by the (unauthenticated) images of a suspected gas attack in Syria.

Brother Eric Trump confirmed it: “Sure, Ivanka influenced the Syria strike decision.” White House spokesman Sean Spicer didn’t deny it.

Eric had headed back to the Trump Organization, as he promised during the campaign. Ivanka just wouldn’t go.

Who could fail to notice that the first daughter, a cloistered, somewhat provincial American princess, has been elevated inappropriately in the White House, while first lady Melania, a cosmopolitan steel magnolia, has been marginalized?

That Ivanka, now her father’s West Wing adviser, drove the offensive in Syria is but a logical deduction.

Ivanka promises that she and her poodle, Jared Kushner, are in compliance with the law. Clever lawyers told her so. Legalistic assurances pertaining to the 1967 Anti-Nepotism Statute mean nothing. Law is hardly the ultimate adjudicator of right and wrong.

Donald’s daughter has no place in the White House, no matter how cutely she “argues” for her ambitions:

“I want to be a force for good.” (Who defines “good,” Ivanka? Limited and delimited government means that it’s not you.)

“I want to pursue my passions.” (Your passions, Ivanka, are not necessarily the people’s passions—or even within the purview of their government.)

Whether she’s tweeting about the accomplishment that is the war on Syria or about inflicting her kids on China’s first couple, Ivanka’s tweets have the insipid emptiness of a contestant in a beauty pageant.

“Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity.”

“Proud of Arabella and Joseph for their performance in honor of President Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan’s official visit to the US.”

Such provincialism and solipsism were certainly part of the Obamas’ international persona. Barack and Michelle gave the queen of England an iPod, customized with images and audio from Mr. Obama’s inaugural and DNC addresses.

Wily Arabs are hip to White House dynamics. They know who’s running the White House and whom to flatter. For doing their bidding, Syrian rebels—”we don’t know who they are,” cautioned the Old Donald—have even given President Trump an honorific:

Abu Ivanka al-Amriki: father of Ivanka the American.

I don’t think President Donald Trump’s dispiriting deviation of policy on Syria signaled a lack of core beliefs. What the folly of bombing Syria signals, very plainly, is that what Ivanka wants, Ivanka gets. Republicans and Democrats likely know it but won’t say it. The former because Ivanka is a woman. Republicans dare not wage war on a woman, much less if she wages war on Syria. The latter because Ivanka is a Democrat by any other name. …”

… READ THE “DISPIRITING” REST. “What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets” is now on The American Thinker.

UPDATE (5/3):

World-Class Idiot Nikki Haley On How To Make Syria Great Again

Democracy, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, UN, War

Nikki Haley is no longer a provincial idiot, but a world-class idiot who speaks for Donald Trump when she pontificates on how to make Syria great again:

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, STATE OF THE UNION: Is regime change in Syria now the official policy of the United States?

NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: So, there’s multiple priorities. It’s — getting Assad is not the only priority. So, what we are trying to do is, obviously, defeat ISIS. Secondly, we don’t see a peaceful Syria with Assad in there. Thirdly, get the Iranian influence out. And then, finally, move towards a political solution because at the end of the day, this is a complicated situation. There are no easy answers and a political solution is going to have to happen.

But we know that it is not going to be — there is not any sort of option where political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime. It just — if you look at his actions, if you look at the situations, it’s going to be hard to see a government that’s peaceful and stable with Assad.

TAPPER: Well, of course, it’s hard to. Is it the position of the Trump administration that he cannot be ruler of Syria any more? Regime change is the policy?

HALEY: Well, regime change is something that we think is going to happen because all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria.

Haley also told CNN last week the — rather last week the strike could be followed by more action if necessary.

HALEY: He won’t stop here. If he needs to do more, he will do more. So, really, now, what happens depends on how everyone responds to what happened in Syria and make sure that we start moving towards a political solution and we start finding peace in that area.

UPDATE (4/9): What Does President Donald Trump’s 180 Degree Change On Syria Signal?

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, History, Iraq, Middle East, War

I don’t believe President Donald Trump’s 180 degree change on Syria signals a lack of core beliefs. David Frum believes this. He writes:

Some have described this reverse as “hypocritical.” This description is not accurate. A hypocrite says one thing while inwardly believing another. The situation with Donald Trump is much more alarming. On October 26, 2016, he surely meant what he said. It’s just that what he meant and said that day was no guide to what he would mean or say on October 27, 2016—much less April 6, 2017.

I don’t usually psychologize, but I have a strong hunch that Ivanka has been elevated excessively in the president’s home and inappropriately in the White House. President Trump treats his daughter like the First Lady. Melania and her son don’t get the respect due to them. Melania is the European version of a steel magnolia. Ivanka is a spoiled, cloistered, provincial American princess.

Ivanka, liberal know-it-all that she is, has inveigled her way into the People’s House. She pushed her husband along too. Look at Jared Kushner. He’s a weak man, bossed about by this lovely looking woman. No doubt, Ivanka is a charmer. Jared’s past, moreover, suggest he’s driven by the need for respectability. (See “What’s Jared Kushner Up To?”)

When it comes to his daughter Ivanka, Donald Trump can’t say no. Ivanka is a celebrity, a trendy youngster, taken with being a “force for good.” She and Jared won’t gain access to celebrity infested world forums like Davos with Donald’s America First agenda. Time for a change.

So what does President Donald Trump’s 180 degree change on Syria signal? Simply that what Ivanka wants, Ivanka gets.

TWEETS:

UPDATE (4/9):

My Ivanka assessment above confirmed. Fire the Kushners.:

4/8:

As Bannon goes, so goes the promise of America First.

How stupid are Americans? Ask Da Rebels.

The Kushner brats.

Rebels give Trump an honorific:

Kushner front and center.

Infiltration:

The Sunni powers are pleased with POTUS. Ivanka happy. Hobnobbing opportunities.

Do we miss Saddam? Yes! Will we miss Assad? Yes. Has the US learned anything? No.

Almost forgot: We’ve gained another enemy.

Today, Tomi Lahren would be the one sexing up war:

Secede from politics?

Neocons rejoice:

‘War, War And War Some More’ For Some Time

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, War

Do we have a president “whose words and actions are untethered to principle,” as Andrew J. Bacevich contends?

Consider the range of issues where President Trump has backed away from actions that as a candidate he had vowed to take, more often than not on ‘day one’ of his presidency. The US remains fully committed to the Nato alliance that Trump previously denounced as ‘obsolete’. The ‘One China’ policy of previous administrations remains intact, as does the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by his predecessor. That Trump will abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement appears about as likely as Mexico paying for any ‘wall’ along the American border. The US embassy in Israel has not moved to Jerusalem and is unlikely to do so any time soon. Trump’s ‘secret plan’ to defeat Isis differs little from Obama’s plan, apart from more bombs and a handful of additional US troops. And Trump’s longed-for friendship with Vladimir Putin has yet to bloom. The Trump administration neither acknowledges nor provides any rationale for these shifts. Over the course of a single news cycle, positions once said to represent the President’s considered view simply become inoperative. Without explanation, the gunboat sent to Agadir weighs anchor and goes home, leaving behind bewilderment and relief.
In other circumstances, we might chalk up the disparity between what a president says while a candidate and then does on the job to mere politics. Or see it as evidence of an individual sobered by responsibility and ‘growing’ in office. Yet such explanations do not apply here. …
Like Wilhelm II, Trump is given to bluster and to striking poses. His compulsion to look tough is apparent. So too is his need to command attention and his affinity for military pomp. He loves generals.

We know of Syria, because the offensive there was launched, today, to great fanfare. But, says a Spectator writer, there’s been “War, war and war some more” for some time. This reality has been concealed by the Russia parallel reality created by Fake News media.

It’s often said that the Trump administration is ‘isolationist’. This is not true. In fact, we are now witnessing a dramatic escalation in the militarisation of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. This has not been announced but it is happening, and much of it without consultation with Nato or other key allies, or any debate in Congress or the media.
A few weeks ago, US aircraft carried out over 30 air strikes against Islamic militants in Yemen — almost the same as the number carried out there all last year. In Iraq and Syria there have been many reports of civilian casualties in US raids. As many as 200 are thought to have been killed in air strikes on Mosul, although Iraqi authorities dispute that.
Meanwhile, some 400 US troops are going to Syria to set up an artillery base to retake Raqqa. Another 1,000 may soon be sent to Kuwait as a reserve force. Another 400 have gone to Iraq and some 8,000 will go to Afghanistan.
Quite an active policy, for someone with no interest in it. A closer look at Trump’s senior aides helps to explain — they’re often from the military. The State Department may be downgraded but the military has never had a stronger influence on a president. …