Xi state dinner is a family affair

Published by carolyn on Sat, 2017-04-08 15:27

By Carolyn Yeager

LOOK WHO'S SEATED NEXT TO THE CHINESE FIRST LADY at the Mar-a-Lago state dinner Thursday night. The Jewish son-in-law/advisor Jared Kushner, who never seems to be far from the President in any meeting or social gathering. Right next to him is wife Ivanka

I do not know what modern exceptions to traditional protocol might have been made, but I have always seen the First Lady next to the male guest/leader and the President next to the honored guest's wife. So you would have FLOTUS, President Xi, Mrs. Xi, POTUS. Instead, here we have the two leaders seated in the center next to one another so they can talk, while the two wives are on the outside next to their husbands, not as easily included in the conversation of the two men.

Mrs. Xi has the young Jared Kushner as a dinner partner, with Ivanka no doubt a part of their conversation as well. Melania, on the other side, appears to be left out. In the above picture, it looks like a Chinese man wearing glasses is on Melania's left. I assume he speaks English so that she has someone to interact with while her husband ignores her during dinner. I've seen it too often.

It occurs to me that the dinner had to be scheduled for Thursday because on Friday night, being the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, the orthodox First Daughter and husband would not have been able to attend.

It may be that Trump prefers entertaining at his Mar-a-Lago estate over the White House because he can control things like this. The menu too - it's reported that his favorite dry-aged steak and whipped potatoes were being offered. 

I'm becoming somewhat irked at our president, not because of his need to be the center of attention at all times or even because of his order to bomb Syria (although those things do chafe), but because he is not moving on immigration as he should. Why hasn't he ended the "Dreamer" program? He's gotten rid of all kinds of Obama executive orders but not that one. Is he listening to advice from the liberal wing of his administration, which certainly includes his daughter and son-in-law (who definitely want to see him re-elected and don't think the radical right benefit that goal at all). But oh, if only Kris Kobach had the face time with Trump that Kushner does.

Every candidate who runs for office comes with some amount of baggage, and Trump's is far less than that of every other choice we would have. But I think it's time to start pushing him to keep his immigration promises. That is the most useful thing we, and he, can do.


Donald Trump carried out Syria missile strike ‘after being convinced by daughter Ivanka’


Even Breitbart thinks Ivanka had something to do with attack on Syria.
This attack has thoroughly disillusioned me about the President.  

Breitbart is not "thinking" but only repeating the UK Express report. They even say:

President Trump had already indicated — on Tuesday, before Ivanka’s tweet — that he had altered his position toward military action in Syria and would respond to Assad militarily, saying, “It is now my responsibility.”

The Express report is all speculation. But we do know that Ivanka Trump has inordinate influence on her father. That's obvious.

I don't read Breitbart anymore - they don't seem to have anything really interesting to say. Axios keeps coming out with stories that Trump is moving more toward the center. But I don't know anything about them. However, it feels true.

Trump's letter to the House Speaker and Senate President: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/white-house-releases-letter-potus-congress-syria-u-s-will-take-additional-action-necessary/

I hear you when you say Breitbart was not thinking.  Neither was I, apparently.  I found one article (among many) that echoed words in your article and I just ran with it.  You, being the wonderful journalist you are, read with acumen the fine print, so to speak.  Yes, it's obvious, like you say, that Ivanka Trump has a big influence on President Trump.  I found so many articles online that say just this while looking for an answer to your earlier question.  This is another reason why nepotism should be barred in Washington, but it isn't.  There's always a loophole to wiggle through over there.

Dear Carolyn, I've written an article on the subject of Syria and the Sarin gas attack for you, Hadding and any other Revisionists interested in it. 
We need to be very careful not to be serving the Russian and Iranian agenda. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

You're right David. Putin is pursuing his Eurasian agenda of uniting all the Asian, Islamic countries - including the Arabs- against the West.
Russian genocidal imperialism is old stuff; suffices to say that the four most revered historical figures in Russia are Gengis Khan, Alexander Nevsky (a mongol too), Lenin and Stalin.
Russia with its deadly nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest threat to the West.

I read David's Wehrmacht Candy article re Assad and Hitler with interest, and while I might agree with the point of view expressed in the article, nowwhere did I read any  citation of evidential proof that Assad caused the chemical attacks in Syria. There was merely the assertion or supposition that he did.  Why would Assad attack his own people when he was winning against the terrorists, as best I understand the circumstances? That's a big hole in the donut!  
The spin continues . . . though I approve of the overall message in the writing:  support neither A nor B, neither Putin nor Assad.  But why attack Syria?  That's not the U.S. of A.'s business IMHO.

Assad's people are his tribe. Ask all the other Syrian tribes what they think of Assad. It's the Syrian Free Army which is supported by most Syrians who fled from Assad's bloodthitsty tyranny. 

Yes, Joey, that's the main point that we as revisionists should keep top-most ... we demand evidence that the crime occurred, and by whom. I have seen the image of little dots representing [Syrian air force] planes over the crime scene at the time of the attack. Is this enough? Plenty of responsible people seem to think the jury is still out on that. I am certainly not convinced.

Media reporting is haphazard. I also don't believe any of the conspiracy theories that were immediately thrown out there. But overall, I wish Donald Trump had not done this - I don't think it improved his situation, rather created new problems. I suspect too much of the justification for it was to send a message to other trouble spots that the US means business under Trump, so don't try to push us around.

Trump loves his generals, and I believe it's true that professional military people always choose war. That's what they and their arsenals exist for, after all. That's the reasoning for civilian oversight. So I think this was a bad decision and has put us on a different, non-America First course; it was NOT necessary for our national security, that's a lie.

I have read that Bannon argued against it on those grounds, and the fact that Trump went ahead with it shows that he's not firmly entrenched in those ideas. He can be moved. That's the worry.

Thanks, Carolyn, for your warm and thoughtful response.  I find Trump's "action" in Syria (if it is his) a real worry, too, and Richard Spencer, who admits he owes his own rise to fame because of Trump rise to the Presidency, is worried too.

I watched Spencer's video (and another one from the day before too); I have had all those same thoughts and ideas myself over the last few days. But ... I hold off because it may still turn out that Trump has some kind of master plan here that will yet be revealed. Of course, he wants China to deal with North Korea. (China is so capitalistic-acting it's hard to remember it's still run by the Communist Party, and is thus politically-aligned with N.K. which could make that more difficult.)

Thus it makes sense he wants Russia to deal with Assad somehow. It doesn't seem that the missle attack did all that much damage - today it was said Syria's forces were operating out of that airfield again.

Nikki Haley, our UN ambassador is awful. Today she said:

President Trump isn't going to condone chemical weapons, ever.


Assad is not the leader that Syria can have. This is something the entire international community agrees on.

She is extremely confident and animated. Why?

She also said: "Our allies are relieved the US is leading on this." Of course, it means we're paying. I hope all this is not lost on Trump. Remember --

I am not running for President of the World … I am running for President of the United States.

The United States is 20 Trillion in debt. We wasted a trillion dollars in a regime-change war in Iraq under George W Bush. We can't afford that again.

We have to fix our nation's infrastructure.

I also read recently that Kushner wants Trump to move more toward the center on immigration. So there really is a deep split between the people Trump surrounds himself with. Is he really strong enough to handle that? I doubt it at age 70. As Spencer said, the two people Trump will never fire are Ivanka and Jared. This may turn out to be a Greek tragedy in that they will be his downfall.

What great writing and analysis!  Touching, poignant.  So well said!  We're now the Greek chorus looking out at the play on the world stage; that's all we can do right now.