Connect with us

Americas

Similarities By And Between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump

Avatar photo

Published

on

Aside from the obviously glaring physical similarities between one of the last, true-blue, and greatest US Presidents in American history, Andrew Jackson, such as both of their honest, forthright, direct, and straightforward verbal delivery styles as well as their flaming red fiery hair and piercing blue eyes, there are other, more subtle, but essential similarities as well:

(1) both are dedicated “America firsters,” and care more about the welfare and condition of the United States and its citizenry, than with stupid foreign wars and foreign entanglements designed to weaken and exploit America’s money, troops, and good will;

(2) both are “pro-morality,” grounded in Christian foundations and beliefs, rather than the “Luciferian” doctrines of progressivism which seek to challenge and ridicule fundamental and common sense American value systems, now apparently being defended today by only one other leader in the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin;

(3) both are being viciously attacked by international deep state bankers, wherein Andrew Jackson’s greatest achievement and victory according to himself, was when he said “I killed the banks” – referring to his monumental accomplishment of not renewing in 1833 the Second Bank of the United States, the country’s national bank, fore-runner of the Federal Reserve established in 1913 by the same evil forces – Jackson used his executive power to remove all federal funds from the bank, in the final salvo of what is referred to as the “Bank War” – today Donald Trump is under seige and attack by these very same international bankers, who desperately want to keep him out of office for fear that he will repudiate or renegotiate their usurious and inflated 23 Trillion Dollar Debt;

(4) Andrew Jackson, the epitome of the frontiersman, objected to the bank’s unusual political and economic power, and to the lack of congressional oversight over its business dealings, and this is the same power structure that Donald Trump is railing against;

(5) Andrew Jackson, known as “obstinate and brutish” but a “man of the common people,” called for an investigation into the bank’s policies and political agenda as soon as he settled into the White House in March 1829 – to Jackson, the bank symbolized how a privileged class of businessmen oppressed the will of the common people of America, and he made clear that he planned to challenge the constitutionality of the bank, much to the horror of its supporters – in response, the director of the bank, Nicholas Biddle, flexed his own political power, turning to members of Congress, including the powerful Kentucky Senator Henry Clay and leading businessmen sympathetic to the bank, to fight Jackson – today, the bankers employ the mainstream media and “useful idiot protected classes,” such as organized and mafia-like extremist feminists, extremist black lives matters groups, extremist minority groups, and extremist homosexual groups to blaspheme, attack, defame, slander, libel, entrap, intimidate, threaten and harass Donald Trump, instead of the bankers using their previously bought off congressmen and senators (and presidents) to do their dirty work;

(6) Both were victims of attempted assassination (Andrew Jackson with the physical attempt by a stupid ineffective gunman on the steps of the US Capitol) and Donald Trump both physically as well as by the political character assassination in today’s Mainstream Media, using the false and hollow allegations that Donald Trump is somehow a racist, homophobe, anti-semite, or anti-feminist misogynist, with all of these false attacks coming from, originating with, paid for, and funded by the very same, elitist, hypocritical, deep state international bankers;

(7) both defended the honor of their wives after they were attacked – In 1806, Andrew Jackson killed a man in a duel over a matter of honor regarding his wife Rachel when they called her a “bigamist,” while Donald Trump aggressively defended the honor of his wife Melania when she was defamed, slandered, and libeled in the press as an “illegal immigrant, a “prostitute” or whatever other character assassination they tried to use against her – Andrew Jackson said that he could forgive those who insulted him, but that he would never forgive the ones who attacked his wife;

(8) both Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump enjoyed plurality in both electoral and popular votes against all major candidates, but both were undermined and attacked by the mainstream media and members of the Congressional House of Representatives and the Senate, owned by the international central bankers;

(9) both were heavily involved in purchasing land and making real estate deals – In 1794, Jackson formed a business with lawyer and planter John Overton “for the purpose of purchasing lands as well as those lands without as within military bounds” – Donald Trump is arguably the most famous and well respected real estate developer and land purchaser the world has ever known – and Andrew Jackson was one of the three original investors who founded the entire city of Memphis, Tennessee, in 1819;

(10) in the midst of the rampant institutionalized racism and discrimination of his times, Andrew Jackson was actually considered a “trailblazer” in race relations and actually went against the grain to treat minorities with greater respect and freedom than his contemporaries, while Trump also treats minorities very well within his Trump Organization as well, in stark contrast to the nonsensical and false attacks he receives on a daily basis by the Mainstream Media that he is somehow a “racist;”

(11) Andrew Jackson is associated with “Jacksonian Democracy,” or the spread of democracy by passing political power from established elites to ordinary voters, and “The Age of Jackson” shaped the national agenda and American politics like Thomas Jefferson, such as “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none” – which further typifies Donald Trump’s desires to work with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other nations to destroy ISIS, rather than provoking them into World War 3, also wishing to work with other nations to make America liked, and the world, a better place for all of earth’s people;

(12) Jackson advocated Republican values held by the Revolutionary War generation, and his presidency held a high moralistic tone with a limited view of states rights and the federal government – Jackson feared that monied and business interests would corrupt republican values, and Donald Trump echoes these same exact sentiments in all of his speeches;

(13) Jackson believed that the president’s authority was derived from the people, and his choice of Cabinet Members, instead of choosing party favorites or establishment types, instead selected “plain businessmen,” while Trump also favors businessmen over career politicians and establishment figures;

(14) Andrew Jackson was plagued by horrifically false and defamatory rumors that he was somehow misogynistic and “against womens’ virtues” in such ridiculous scandals as the “Petticoat Affair,” or “Eaton affair,” – and the organized extreme feminist conspiracy (owned and controlled by international bankers) attacking Trump is based on the same false and hollow types of character assassinations, designed to discredit both him and his candidacy;

(15) Donald Trump famously has been declaring for nearly 30 years that “foreign nations need to pay their dues to the United States” for such things as military protection, as well as calling for them to honor better trade deals – in 1834, the non-payment of reparations by the French government drew Andrew Jackson’s ire and he became impatient, and in his December 1834 State of the Union address, Jackson sternly reprimanded the French government for non-payment, stating that the US federal government was “wholly disappointed” by the French, and demanded that Congress authorize trade reprisals against France;

(16) Foreign nations were also routinely chagrined by Andrew Jackson’s “America-first” policies and willingness to disparage and antagonize foreign countries “taking advantage of America,” and feeling insulted by Jackson’s words, the French people demanded an apology – in his December 1835 State of the Union Address, Jackson refused to apologize, just like Master Deal-Maker Donald Trump when irritating foreign nations such as the United Kingdom and Mexico with his “America-first” words, with Andrew Jackson stating that he had a “good opinion of the French people and his intentions were peaceful,” but that he believed that the French government was purposely stalling payment – the French government accepted Jackson’s statements as sincere and in February 1836, American reparations were finally paid;

(17) Both Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump have been viciously and falsely accused of having a quick temper – of Andrew Jackson a famous historian named Brands said: “His audacity on behalf of the people earned him enemies who slandered him and defamed even his wife, Rachel…he dueled in her defense and his own, suffering grievous wounds that left him with bullet fragments lodged about his body” – however, other historians such as Remini stated that Jackson was in control of his rage, and used it (and his fearsome reputation) as a tool to get what he wanted in his public and private affairs – Brands also noted that Andrew Jackson’s opponents were terrified of his temper: “Observers likened him to a volcano, and only the most intrepid or recklessly curious cared to see it erupt…his close associates all had stories of his blood-curling oaths, his summoning of the Almighty to loose His wrath upon some miscreant, typically followed by his own vow to hang the villain or blow him to perdition…given his record – in duels, brawls, mutiny trials, and summary hearings – listeners had to take his vows seriously” – all of this could honestly have been written about Donald Trump himself;

(18) As was said above, both cut dashingly tall and large figures, and both sported a shock of bright, unruly, and fiery red hair and deep blue piercing eyes – Andrew Jackson was an imposing figure, standing at 6 feet, 1 inch (1.85 m) tall (very tall for that time period), and weighing between 130 and 140 pounds (64 kg) on average – Trump is virtually his twin.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Friction Between United States & Iran: The Tension and Its Impact

Avatar photo

Published

on

Background Study

The relationship between the United States (US) and Iran has a long and complex history. In the early 20th century, the United States (US) played a key role in the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government and the installation of a pro-Western monarchy under the rule of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. This led to a deep mistrust of the United States by many Iranians. In the 1970s, the Shah’s regime was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The new Islamic Republic of Iran was deeply anti-American and took 52 American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran. The hostage crisis lasted for 444 days and severely damaged US-Iran relations. In the following decades, the US has had a policy of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation towards Iran, citing its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran has also been known to support groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are designated as terrorist groups by the US.

In recent years, there have been some attempts at improving relations between the two countries. The Obama Administration negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, which lifted some sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program. However, the Trump Administration withdrew from the deal in 2018 and re-imposed sanctions on Iran. Currently, the US and Iran are in a situation of high tension, with both sides engaging in a series of hostile actions against each other, such as the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad by a US drone in 2020. The US has continued to put sanctions on Iran and labelled several Iranian organisations as terrorist organisations. In summary, the relationship between the United States and Iran has been characterized by a long history of mistrust, hostility and mutual accusations, with both sides engaging in actions that have escalated the tensions between them.

The Tension:

There are several accusations and actions that have contributed to the high tension conflict between the United States and Iran.

From the perspective of the United States, the main accusations against Iran include:

Supporting terrorism: The US government has long accused Iran of providing financial and military support to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, which the US has designated as terrorist organizations.

Pursuit of nuclear weapons: The US has accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, despite Iran’s claim that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Human rights abuses: The US has also accused Iran of widespread human rights abuses, including the repression of political dissidents and minorities, and the use of torture and execution.

Threat to regional stability: The US has accused Iran of destabilizing the Middle East through its support for groups like the Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Assad regime in Syria.

From the perspective of Iran, the main accusations against the United States include: –

Interference in Iranian internal affairs: Iran has long accused the United States of attempting to overthrow its government and interfere in its internal affairs.

Supporting Iran’s enemies: Iran has accused the United States of supporting its regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, and of providing military and financial support to groups that seek to overthrow the Iranian government.

Violation of human rights: Iran has also accused the US of violating human rights, pointing to actions such as the use of drone strikes and the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Economic sanctions: Iran has accused the US of imposing economic sanctions on Iran, which it claims have caused significant harm to its economy and people.

In terms of actions that have escalated tensions, from the US side:

  • The killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad by a US drone in 2020.
  • The US has continued to put sanctions on Iran and labelled several Iranian organisations as terrorist organisations.
  • Increasing military presence in the Gulf region.

From the Iranian side:

  • Continuing to develop its nuclear program, in spite of the US sanctions.
  • Seizing of foreign oil tankers and ships.
  • Attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia that were blamed on Iran.
  • Shooting down of a US drone in 2019

It’s worth noting that the situation is complex and multifaceted and both sides have taken actions that have escalated the tensions between them.

Its Impact.

The tension between the United States and Iran has had a significant impact on the international community. It has led to increased instability and uncertainty in the Middle East, with both sides engaging in actions that have the potential to escalate into a larger conflict. This can disrupt the oil supplies and lead to an economic crisis. The tension has also had an impact on the security of other countries in the region, as many of them are allied with the United States or Iran and could be caught in the middle of any potential conflict. This has also affected global oil prices due to the potential disruption of supplies from the Middle East. This has also had an impact on the ongoing negotiations and agreements between other countries and Iran, such as the Nuclear Deal. The US withdrawal from the deal and imposition of sanctions has affected other countries’ ability to do business with Iran and has also affected the ongoing negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Moreover, many countries have had to navigate the delicate balance between maintaining good relations with both the United States and Iran, as both countries are major powers with significant economic and military influence. This has led to some countries, particularly those in the Middle East, to align more closely with one side or the other, potentially damaging their relationships with the other. Secondly, the tension between the US and Iran has also affected the ability of countries to engage in business and trade with Iran, as the US has imposed economic sanctions on Iran. This has led to some countries to scale back their trade and investment with Iran, or to find ways to circumvent the sanctions. Thirdly, the tension has also affected the efforts of countries to mediate and resolve the conflict. Many countries have tried to act as intermediaries to de-escalate the tensions and find a peaceful resolution, but the deep mistrust and hostility between the US and Iran have made this a difficult task. Fourthly, the tension has also affected the security of other countries in the region, as many of them are allied with the United States or Iran, and they could be caught in the middle of any potential conflict.

Overall, the tension between the United States and Iran has had a significant impact on the formulation of foreign policies in the international borders, as many countries have had to navigate the delicate balance between maintaining good relations with both countries, while also addressing the economic stability and security implications of the tension.

Conclusion.

The tension between the United States and Iran is a complex and longstanding issue, and there is no easy solution to melting down the tension. However, some steps that could potentially help to alleviate the tension include:

Diplomatic negotiations: Direct talks between the United States and Iran could be an important step in resolving the tension, provided that both sides are willing to come to the table with open minds and a willingness to compromise.

Support from the international community: Other countries could play a role in mediating talks between the United States and Iran and in putting pressure on both sides to de-escalate the tension. The support of other countries in the region would be particularly important.

Lifting of economic sanctions: The lifting of economic sanctions on Iran could help to improve the country’s economy and reduce the impact of the sanctions on the Iranian people, which may reduce some of the hostility towards the United States.

Addressing mutual concerns: The United States and Iran have many concerns about each other’s actions, such as human rights abuses, support for terrorism, and destabilizing activities in the Middle East. Addressing these concerns in a direct and honest way could help to build trust between the two countries.

De-escalation of military activities: Both sides should avoid any action that could escalate the situation into a military conflict.

Evidently, these steps would likely be difficult to achieve, but they could help to reduce the tension between the United States and Iran, and provide some relief to the international community.

Continue Reading

Americas

The World is Entering A Period of Transformation: Can the West lose?

Avatar photo

Published

on

The world is witnessing a complex mix of escalating tensions, in the context of which some see that the US’s grip is beginning to loosen, and its hegemony and influence over the international system has begun to disintegrate. The shifting world order is giving way to a diverse mix of protectionist nationalism, spheres of influence and regional projects of the major powers. It cannot be denied that there is a deeper crisis, linked to liberal internationalism itself, and to get rid of the deeply dysfunctional characteristics of the global economic and social system, policy makers and those in control of the fate of the planet need to rediscover the principles and practices of statecraft, and collective action against the tendency towards chaos and the destruction of human structures. Likewise, the multilateral global institutions of the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund and below need to be reformed to reflect this new global reality.

With one of the permanent members of the Security Council violating international law, and the principle of not changing borders by force, which is the case that the US and its allies have been doing for decades as well, the United Nations with all its structures remains mostly marginalized. Meanwhile, dealing with Ukraine as part of the East-West confrontation would spoil for decades any prospect of bringing Russia and the West in general, and Russia and Europe in particular, into a cooperative international order. And if Ukraine is to live and prosper, it should not be the outpost of either side, east or west, against the other, but should, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger estimated, act as a bridge between them. Russia must accept that trying to force Ukraine into dependence, and thus move Russia’s borders once again, would condemn Moscow to repeating its history of self-driving cycles of mutual pressure with Europe and the US. The West must also realize that for Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign state. A geopolitical dynamic, in the context of which the Biden administration seems keen to restore the reputation of the US, and restore its image, after four years spent under the rule of former US President Donald Trump. It wants to clearly distinguish between the behavior and values of the US on the one hand, and the behavior and values of its opponents such as China and Russia on the other.

In the process, Washington wants to re-establish itself as the linchpin of a rules-based international order, but the it, torn internally, will become less willing and able to lead the international stage. It will be difficult to restore its image in the Middle East, especially. For a long time, unquestioned the US support for Israel has allowed it to pursue policies that have repeatedly backfired and put its long-term future in even greater doubt. At the forefront of these policies is the settlement project itself, and the absolutely undisguised desire to create a “Greater Israel” that includes the West Bank, confining the Palestinians to an archipelago of enclaves isolated from each other, the familiar clichés related to the two-state solution, and “Israel’s right to defend itself.” It loses its magical incantatory power with the rise to power of the fascist far right. The US, which considers itself a mediator in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is still offering the Palestinians empty rhetoric about their right to live in freedom and security, while supporting the two-state solution. It’s claim to a morally superior position seems blunt, tinged with hypocrisy in Stephen Walt’s words. And if the US had normal relations with Israel, the latter would receive the attention it deserved, nothing more.

Chomsky, who seems keen to criticize neoliberal democracy, and wants to rid democracy of the power of money and class inequalities, which cause the success of populism. He sees that there are people who are angry, and dissatisfied with the existing institutions, which constitutes, for the demagogues, a fertile ground for inciting people’s anger towards the scapegoats, who are usually from the weak groups, such as European Muslim immigrants or African Americans and others, but at the same time, it leads to a kind of popular reaction that seeks to overcome these crises. There are many uprisings against oppressive regimes, and most of them are due to the impact of neoliberal programs over the last generation. Almost everywhere, in the US and Europe, for example, the rate of concentration of wealth, which has stagnated so great for the majority, has undermined democratic forms, just as elsewhere the structural adjustment programs in Latin America, which has produced decades of backwardness. The negative effects of globalization on the lower and middle social classes, coupled with national resentment against immigration, and a sense of loss of control over sovereignty fueled violent populist reactions against the principles and practices of the liberal order. With the intensification of the crisis due to the Russian-Ukrainian war, as well as the Iranian nuclear file and its faltering paths, Europe appears between a rock and a hard place, although in reality it does not like acts of hatred and imposing sanctions against Moscow, or against Tehran, due to the intertwining of its economic interests, but they must follow the US. As described by Chomsky. Whoever does not comply with it will be expelled from the international financial and economic system. This is not a law of nature, but rather Europe’s decision to remain subservient to the “master tutor” in Washington. The Europe and many other states do not even have a choice, and although some peoples and states have benefited from hyperglobalization, the latter has ultimately caused major economic and political problems within liberal democracies. Here Mearsheimer agrees with Chomsky that it has seriously eroded support for the liberal international order. At the same time, the economic dynamism that came with excessive globalization helped China quickly transform into a superpower, as it rearranged itself in a way close to or superior to other major powers, and this shift in the global balance of power put an end to unipolarity, which it is a precondition for a rules-based liberal world order.

When Mikhail Gorbachev presented his vision for managing the post-Cold War era, he proposed what was then called the Common House of Europe. This was one of the options for a unified Europe and Asia region extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok without any military alliances. Today, the world is witnessing a revival of some of the worst aspects of traditional geopolitics. The wars of the major powers in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region, with the increase in Israel’s extremist and racist policies, and the possibility of Iran causing instability in the Middle East, have combined to produce the most dangerous moment since World War II. As great power competition, imperial ambitions, and conflicts over resources intensify, the stakes are how to manage the collision of old geopolitics and new challenges. It is inconceivable that there is a state that represents the backyard of any other state, and this applies to Europe as much as it applies to US, Asia and every other region in the world.

Continue Reading

Americas

Brief Review of Wilson’s Study of Administration

Published

on

Public Administration is an action part of the government responsible for policy formulation and implementation. It can be defined broadly as a part of government activity and academic discipline. This field emerged from the mother discipline, Political Science. 

The root of public administration emerged from The Study of Administration, an article by Woodrow Wilson that appeared in Political Science Quarterly in 1887 and is credited with establishing the foundation of public administration. This is the beginning of public administration. This first paradigm is known as the Public-Administration Dichotomy with many facets. Political-administrative dichotomy, which serves as the theoretical foundation of public administration, has a profound historical basis but continues to spark heated debates and disputes.

Administration, according to Wilson, falls outside the proper realm of politics. Frank J. Goodnow asserts that although the administration “has to do with carrying out these policies,” politics “has to do with the manifestation of the national will.” Shortly said, Goodnow advanced the Wilsonian theme with more daring and passion and proposed the politics-administration dichotomy.

Wilson’s article is primarily concerned with the United States of America, although its arguments can be applied wherever in the world. He discusses three broad subjects in this essay, all of which relate to public administration as a science that must be examined. To begin, a brief history of the study of public administration is provided. Second, there is the subject matter, or, more precisely, what really is public administration. Finally, he strives to determine the most effective strategies for developing public administration as a science and helpful tool within the framework of the United States of America’s democracy.

The science of administration is the ultimate fruit of the study of politics that began around 2200 years ago. The administration is the executive, functional, and most noticeable side of government and is as old as the government itself. Wilson says, until the twentieth century, no one wrote about administration as a science of governance. Administering a constitution is getting tougher than formulating one. He compares the old and contemporary public administration. Nations like Prussia (Germany) and France, who set an example of first regarding themselves as servants of the people and then creating a constitution with organized government offices, easily incorporated administrative science in their administration. Wilson claims that democracy is more difficult to govern than monarchy. Monarchies ruled by a few men made decisions easy. But in a democracy, the people decide. A monarchy may easily reform, but not a democracy. 

For instance, to amend a constitutional mandate in Bangladesh, It is necessary to have the backing of a majority equal to or greater than two-thirds of the total number of parliament members. Ziaur Rahman, the president of Bangladesh, declared in 1978 that a referendum was necessary in addition to 2/3 of the vote in order to modify certain articles. By contrast, it is difficult and time-consuming to amend the constitution USA. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can be adopted by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Wilson distinguishes administration from politics in his article, despite its ideas being integrally linked to politics. Unlike earlier reformers, Wilson believes that administration should be separate from politics and should not be manipulated. Public Administration is a detailed and systematic way of public law, and every application of general law as an act of administration, in his view. He contends that public opinion holds officials for being accountable, which is a part of the modern philosophy of Democracy.  Compelling technical education and rigorous civil service examinations are required to qualify officials for the responsibility challenges. 

Wilson discusses the development methods of the study. The government must find measures to reduce the enormous administrative burden. A comparative administration distinguishes democratic values from non-democratic ones. For example, in Syria, Bashar Al Assad practised autocracy for a long time which is different from democracy in the USA. A strong political system is essential to run the government. The method’s application While the American administration has a European legacy, Wilson contends that it must establish its own path via comparative research. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending