A Home-Grown Dictator

The over-the-top tackiness of Caesars Palace has come to the Trump White House with the emphasis on Caesar.

The gaudy, gold ornaments that embellish walls, ceiling mantles, tables,  coasters, and frankly anything that can be gilded are a garish display never seen before in the Oval Office. It is one more likely to be seen in the Tsar’s palace, which made it the perfect backdrop to introduce authoritarianism into our country.

 The gold embellishments are a stand-in for Trump’s over-the-top remarks and grandiosity, are as repulsive as the man who insists on having them there.

The gold was blinding, and maybe that was the point- to distract from the evil words being exchanged among Trump and his cronies – the destruction of our constitution, our democracy, and the rule of law. 

Detail from collage  “The Golden Age of America Not so Golden For Our Golden Years.” Sally Edelstein

The perfect backdrop for a reality star dictator.

Our own home-grown dictator, Donald Trump.

 The President of the US is now openly committing crimes and ignoring court orders every day. The president of the United States urged El Salvador’s President Bukele to build more concentration camps and stated his intention unvarnished to send US citizens there -Home Grown criminals.

We are all targeted.

There is no loyalty to the Constitution left.

The Bill of Rights is shredded.

The oaths to the Constitution they all swore by have as much worth as a two-dollar bill.

We are not on the edge of authoritarianism. We are there.

No amount of gold can hide how morally bankrupt our country has become.

5 comments

  1. Jeff Cann's avatar

    Whenever I see pictures of oval office meetings, everyone looks so uncomfortable. I think trump chose his furniture to be unusable so everyone would just agree with him so they can get the hell out of there.

    When I was just out of college, I went to a halloween party where I met a guy with a carved potato sticking out of his fly. When I told him I didn’t understand his costume he told me he was a dick-tater. Maybe you can hold onto that image in your brain and reserve it for trump.

    The likelihood of trump starting to target dissenting citizens is beginning to make me question my digital footprint. I find myself getting nervous when I see people reading certain posts. I’d hate to change my behavior based on this, but what’s going on is utterly shocking.

    Like

    • sallyedelstein's avatar

      That is a very funny image of the “dick’tater.”
      Like you, I too am getting concerned about my digital footprint and I find it hard to process that we are at that point.I cant imagine censuring myself, and not using my voice, yet….It is alarming and it is real. Our voices are important. But so is our safety. Im sure you have seen the editorial cartoon by Jesse Duquette that shows the stream of people going into the concentration camp prisons and one line is “criticized Trump on social media.”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. jmartin18rdb's avatar

    Great post, Sally. I encourage readers to Google “Biden Oval Office decor” to fully appreciate how the new Auric Goldfinger-designed space defiles what has always been so stately and dignified.

    Like

  3. mosckerr's avatar

    Britain proves itself a faithless whore once again. Like as its White Paper betrayal of the 1917 Balfour Declaration upon which the League of Nations awarded to Britain the Palestine Mandate of 1922.

    Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. The British and French betrayal of Israel in this UN vote would have meant that those countries would have committed to going to war, like as happened following the Chapter VII UN ultimatum issued to North Korea in the early 50’s.

    Should Israel abandon its partnership with the UN European voting block and request to join the American voting block of nations? Currently Israel has a special relationship with the EU and participates in various EU programs and agreements. It is part of the European Neighbourhood Policy and has signed agreements that allow for cooperation in areas such as trade, research, and cultural exchange. The EU member states typically coordinate their positions and voting strategies within the UN framework as part of this broader Western bloc. Clearly, in this latest UN Chapter VII ultimatum which demanded that Israel immediately surrender to Hamas or the UN would invade Israel like it did North Korea, this betrayal by Britain and France places them within the Russian Chinese UN voting block of nations.

    Aligning more closely with the U.S. voting block could strengthen Israel’s ties with the United States, which has historically been one of its strongest allies. This could lead to increased political and military support. Abandoning the EU partnership could limit Israel’s diplomatic options and reduce its influence in Europe, a 3rd rate power among the community of nations today. The geopolitical landscape is constantly changing, and Israel may need to navigate its relationships with both the EU and the U.S. carefully to maintain its interests. Ultimately, the decision to shift alliances or voting blocks would depend on a variety of factors, including Israel’s strategic goals, the current geopolitical climate, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a move. It would require careful consideration of both immediate and long-term implications for Israel’s security and diplomatic standing.

    The EU is one of Israel’s largest trading partners. A shift away from the EU could have economic repercussions, impacting trade relations and access to European markets. As global power dynamics shift, Israel’s foreign policy may need to adapt to new realities, including emerging alliances and changing attitudes within the international community. Israel’s decision-making regarding its alliances and voting blocks will likely involve weighing immediate benefits against long-term strategic goals. The interplay between its relationships with the U.S. and the EU will be crucial in shaping its future diplomatic and security landscape. Careful consideration of both current geopolitical trends and historical ties will be essential for Israel to navigate this complex environment effectively.

    As countries like China and India gain influence, Israel may need to consider how these shifts affect its relationships with both the U.S. and the EU. Engaging with these emerging powers could open new avenues for trade and diplomacy. Israel’s relationships with neighboring countries and regional powers are also evolving. The Abraham Accords, for example, have opened new diplomatic channels with Arab states, which could influence Israel’s strategic calculations. Israel’s leadership will need to articulate a clear long-term vision for its foreign policy that considers both immediate security concerns and broader economic and diplomatic goals.

    The normalization agreements with several Arab states have significantly altered the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. These accords not only enhance Israel’s security but also create opportunities for economic collaboration and cultural exchange. But the critical Plate tectonics earthquake of the Abraham Accords it destroyed the British French UN 242 two-state solution as the only viable option for peace in the Middle East.

    The Abraham Accords have shifted the focus away from the Palestinian issue as a central concern for many Arab states, which may complicate efforts to revive the two-state solution. The normalization agreements suggest that some Arab nations are willing to engage with Israel independently of progress on Palestinian statehood. The Oct 7th abomination has permanently changed the dynamics in the region. The archaic British and French chapter VI UN Ultimatum for a two-state solution, completely out dated and irrelevant.

    The changing realities on the ground, including shifting alliances and the evolving nature of conflicts, necessitate a reassessment of how peace can be achieved. As the dynamics change, there may be a need for innovative diplomatic strategies that address the complexities of the situation. Specifically, Arab Palestinian leadership has clearly proven itself as utterly bankrupt to merit becoming an independent nation among the community of nations in the UN Middle East voting block.

    Italy did not support the recent UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was vetoed by the United States. The resolution received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. casting the only vote against it. The draft resolution was co-sponsored by several countries, but Italy was not listed among those actively supporting the resolution in the context of the recent vote.

    These 14 countries Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Algeria (co-sponsor), Denmark (co-sponsor), Greece (co-sponsor), Guyana (co-sponsor), Pakistan (co-sponsor), Panama (co-sponsor), South Korea (co-sponsor), Sierra Leone (co-sponsor), Slovenia (co-sponsor), and Somalia (co-sponsor) voted to impose a UN Chapter VII dictate upon Israel. Of these countries Algeria and other scamp countries do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.

    Neither Iran nor Sudan, for example, have diplomatic relations with Israel. No different than Algeria. Algeria and Turkey have developed a military partnership and cooperation over the years, particularly in the areas of defense and security. This relationship has been strengthened through various agreements and joint military exercises. The relationship is part of a broader strategic partnership that includes economic and political cooperation, with both hostile countries to Israel sharing interests in regional stability and security.

    Those 14 countries have already repeatedly called for international condemnation of Israel, rabidly support Palestinian terrorism relabeled as “Palestinian rights”. They already engage in public relations propaganda campaigns hostile to Israel. They already support and initiate legal actions against Israel in international courts such as the ICC. These countries have escalated their rhetoric propaganda against Israel. Hamas could never have dug its complex tunnel system without international support. They already promote cultural and academic boycotts of Israel.

    These countries throw their support for the Palestinian cause, like whores on street corners sell their wares. They often use ‘stinky’, blood libel slander rhetoric, to condemn Israeli actions, framing them as oppressive or colonial. Such putrid rhetoric seeks to poison public opinion and mobilize support for Palestinian groups. Numerous solidarity movements around the world that advocate for Palestinian rights; they often align with groups like Hamas, viewing them as legitimate representatives of Palestinian resistance.

    Countries without diplomatic relations with Israel compare to corrupt judges that accepts bribes. This objection, seeks to raise critically important questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the recent Chapter VII UN ultimatum which demanded that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. While the analogy of a corrupt judge highlights concerns about bias and fairness, the international system, in point of fact, operates on principles of representation and sovereignty.

    The International system operates, so it appears, as something akin to a beauty contest. What defines beauty — not a rational logical concept. Israel demands a change to the International system. It could express its rebuke of the UN, by leaving the UN. The analogy of a corrupt judge suggests that countries without diplomatic relations with Israel, that they lack objective credibility to fairly judge the case heard before the court of international opinion.

    This perception of bias, Israel argues, undermines the legitimacy of all UN resolutions or demands made against Israel. Particularly since nations who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel obvious their anti-Israel hostility – politically motivated – rather than based on objective criteria. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the application of this chapter, like as in the Korean war, especially when it appears to favor one side over another in a conflict, historically expands the local conflict into a far larger international war. The call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, obviously viewed by both the US and Israel as an ultimatum that lacks balance and fairness. Just as China despised the UN Chapter VII ultimatum decreed against North Korea.

    The international UN system, indeed based on principles of state sovereignty and representation. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this system both the US and Israel have repeatedly warned and challenged. Especially when certain countries dominate decision-making processes or when resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than universal principles of justice.

    The idea that Israel should demand changes to the international UN system, this demand reflects the Israeli requirements for a more equitable and fair approach to international relations expressed through public UN diplomacy organs. Leaving the UN perhaps a radical step. But it raises questions about the effectiveness of the international UN system of public diplomacy among nation states in the world community of nations.

    Like

Leave a reply to mosckerr Cancel reply