In China, Toilets Have Trump’s Name Without His Permission
 
Zhong Jiye, the founder, said he had not heard of Donald J. Trump when he registered the English name of his company, Shenzhen Trump Industrial Company Limited, as a trademark in 2002. In Chinese, the company name means “innovate universally,” he said, highlighting how the toilet seats warm and wash the user’s backside. That Chinese name, he explained, also sounds a little like “trump.”
 
“We really didn’t know of this person called Trump,” Mr. Zhong said in a telephone interview from the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen. “It was entirely a coincidence.”
 
Mr. Zhong, of the toilet maker Shenzhen Trump, said he had not received a challenge from Mr. Trump or his company. Still, he said, he “will never” give up his trademark easily, if Mr. Trump decides to sue.
 
“Litigating is his right,” Mr. Zhong said. “But we will let the government make its judgment. We believe the country’s laws will protect businesses like us.”
 
Mr. Zhong said he approved of Mr. Trump’s “courageous style and spirit of reform.” He also liked Mr. Trump’s “innovative ideas.”
 
When asked about the criticism directed toward Mr. Trump in the United States, Mr. Zhong said, “Democratic countries are like that. I think a transformation is not bad at all.”
 

The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a geopolitical book by Alexander Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites[1] and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military.[1]

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[1]
 
Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[1]
 
The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".[1]
 
In Europe:
 

• Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]
• France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]
• United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]
• Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]
• Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]
• Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]
• Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]
• Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]
• Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "“Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:
 

• The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".

Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]

• Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]
• Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]
• Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
• Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]

The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).[1]
 
In Asia:
 

• China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet-Xinjiang-Mongolia-Manchuria as a security belt.[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensatation.[1]
• Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
• Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]
• The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:
 

• Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[1]
 

“Quant à la Russie, malgré sa puissance nucléaire elle subit un recul catastrophique. Les États-Unis s’emploient à détacher de l’empire russe ce qu’on dénomme aujourd’hui à Moscou « l’étranger proche », c’est-à-dire les États qui autour de la Fédération de Russie constituaient l’Union soviétique.
 
A cet égard, l’effort américain porte vers trois régions clefs : l’Ukraine, essentielle avec ses cinquante-deux millions d’habi­tants et dont le renforcement de l’indépendance rejette la Russie à l’extrême est de l’Europe et la condamne à n’être plus, dans l’avenir, qu’une puissance régionale.
 
[…] L’indépendance de l’Ukraine modifie la nature même de l’État russe. De ce seul fait, cette nouvelle case importante sur l’échiquier eurasien devient un pivot géopolitique. Sans l’Ukraine, la Russie cesse d’être un empire en Eurasie. Et quand bien même elle s’efforcerait de recouvrer un tel statut, le centre de gravité en serait alors déplacé, et cet empire pour l’essentiel asiatique serait voué à la faiblesse, entraîné dans des conflits permanents avec ses vassaux agités d’Asie centrale.
[…] Pour Moscou, en revanche, rétablir le contrôle sur l’Ukraine – un pays de cinquante-deux millions d’habitants doté de res­sources nombreuses et d’un accès à la mer Noire-, c’est s’assurer les moyens de redevenir un Etat impérial puissant, s’étendant sur l’Europe et l’Asie. La fin de l’indépendance ukrainienne aurait des conséquences immédiates pour l’Europe centrale. La Pologne deviendrait alors le pivot géopolitique sur la bordure orientale de l’Europe unie.
[…] Le sort de l’Azerbaïdjan et de l’Asie centrale, à l’égal de celui de l’Ukraine, dictera ce que sera ou ne sera pas la Russie à l’avenir.
[…]3. Indépendamment l’une de l’autre, la France et l’Alle­magne ne sont assez fortes ni pour construire l’Europe selon leurs vues propres, ni pour lever les ambiguïtés inhérentes à la définition des limites de l’Europe, cause de tensions avec la Russie. Cela exige une implication énergique et déterminée de l’Amérique pour aider à la définition de ces limites, en parti­culier avec les Allemands, et pour régler des problèmes sen­sibles, surtout pour la Russie, tels que le statut souhaitable dans le système européen des républiques baltes et de l’Ukraine.  
[…] Dans le meilleur des cas, les candidats de l’Europe centrale ne devraient pas intégrer l’Union européenne avant l’année 2002. Néanmoins, dès que l’adhésion à l’Union euro­péenne des trois nouveaux membres de l’OTAN sera effective, il sera temps pour les deux organisations de se pencher sur le cas des nouveaux aspirants : républiques baltes, Slovénie, Rou­manie, Bulgarie, Slovaquie et peut-être aussi Ukraine.
[…] 4. Au cours de la période suivante (soit de 2005 à 2010), l’Ukraine pourrait à son tour être en situation d’entamer des négociations en vue de rejoindre l’UE et I’otan. Cela exige des progrès dans les réformes et, à l’extérieur, une meilleure per­ception de son identité centro-européenne.
[…] Quant à l’émancipation de l’Ukraine, elle a privé la Russie de sa mission la plus symbolique, d’une vocation confinant au droit divin : son rôle de champion de l’identité panslave.  
[…] C’est la perte de l’Ukraine qui a soulevé les questions les plus épineuses. L’apparition d’un Etat ukrainien indépendant constitue une régression géopolitique radicale qui a contraint les Russes à s’interroger sur les fondements de leur identité politique et ethnique. En tirant leur révérence de manière abrupte, les Ukrainiens ont mis un terme à plus de trois cents ans d’histoire impériale. Ils ont dépossédé leurs voisins d’une économie à fort potentiel, riche de son industrie, de son agri­culture et d’une population de cinquante-deux millions d’ha­bitants, dont les origines, la civilisation et la tradition reli­gieuse étaient si proches de celles des Russes, que les liens impériaux ont toujours, pour ces derniers, relevé de l’évi­dence. Par ailleurs, l’indépendance ukrainienne a privé la Russie de sa position dominante sur la mer Noire, alors qu’Odessa servait traditionnellement de point de passage pour tous les échanges commerciaux russes avec le monde médi­terranéen et au-delà.

The piece does not include a disclosure that Flynn Intel Group, the consulting firm that Flynn founded in Oct. 2014, just after leaving DIA, was recently hired to lobby Congress by a Dutch company called Inovo BV that was founded by a Turkish businessman who holds a top position on Turkey’s Foreign Economic Relations Board.

A review of Dutch records shows that the company was founded by Ekim Alptekin, an ally of Erdogan’s who is director of the Turkey-U.S. Business Council, a non-profit arm of Turkey’s Foreign Economic Relations Board. Members of the Foreign Economic Relations Board are chosen by Turkey’s general assembly and its minister of economy. In the role, Alptekin helped coordinate Erdogan’s visit to the U.S. earlier this year.

A lobbying disclosure report filed with Congress lists Inovo BV’s address but not the name of anyone affiliated with the company. There is also little information about the firm online. But The Daily Caller tracked down Dutch business registration records which show Alptekin founded the company in 2005. The financial consulting firm, which Alptekin does not acknowledge on his bio, also has an affiliate, Inovo Turkije.

The lobbying disclosure does not say how much Inovo BV is paying Flynn’s firm. It lists former congressional aide Robert Kelley as the lobbyist who is handling the contract and says that he is working on “organizational consulting” for Inovo BV.

Flynn’s recent op-ed appears to be at odds with some of his past comments about Turkey and its role in the war against ISIS. In the op-ed he refers to the Islamic nation, which is a member of NATO, is “vital to U.S. interests” and is the U.S.’s “strongest ally” against ISIS.

The Democratic Coalition has filed an FBI complaint against Trump Campaign Chairman Steven Bannon, which alleging that he violated a federal campaign finance law coordinating Super PAC activities with the Trump campaign, and receiving payments from it after becoming officially part of the Republican campaign.
Bannon’s recent appointment as a Senior White House Advisor has caused shock waves throughout American media for his alt-right connections and headlines from his Breitbart News outlet.
Bannon’s production company Glittering Steel LLC made “Clinton Cash” as an electioneering communication.
The Make America Number 1 PAC sent payments to Glittering Steel LLC in the amount of $950,090 during the 2016 primary and general election cycle until this September.
This spreadsheet contains lists all payments, with links to the corresponding public records.

Le président américain, Barack Obama, a souligné mercredi 16 novembre à Athènes que les inégalités étaient « l’un des plus grands défis de nos économies et de nos démocraties », appelant de ses vœux un « changement de cap » dans la mondialisation.

Selon lui, la démocratie est souvent « imparfaite », peut « être lente, frustrante, désordonnée », et que si le monde « ne s’est jamais collectivement mieux porté […] d’énormes perturbations » sont visibles, notamment lorsque l’on « voit les élites mondiales paraître vivre selon des règles différentes », « ne pas payer d’impôts, accumuler les richesses lorsque [d’autres] ont du mal à joindre les deux bouts ».

« Il y a à la fois plus d’inégalités et une plus grande conscience des inégalités », « voilà pourquoi il est compréhensible de vouloir se retirer de la mondialisation », comme lors du vote sur le Brexit, a-t-il noté. Et de concéder : « Face à cette nouvelle réalité de chocs des cultures, il est naturel que certains cherchent à se réfugier dans le nationalisme. »

Donald Trump’s transition team appears to have deviated from its own ethics rule barring lobbyists whose work for Trump would overlap with any matters on which they lobbied in the previous year.
 
According to a copy of Trump for America Inc’s “Code of Ethical Conduct” obtained by POLITICO, members of the transition team must pledge to “disqualify myself from involvement in any particular transition matter if I have engaged in regulated lobbying activities with respect to such matter, as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, within the previous 12 months.”
 
But at least eight transition team members have done work that appears to flout that internal rule, Senate records show.
 

• Steve Hart, the chairman of Williams & Jensen who was tasked with the handoff of the Labor Department, lobbied on labor issues for Anthem, Brinks and Smithfield Foods as recently as September.
• Michael McKenna, who has been running the Energy Department transition, is a lobbyist at MWR Strategies for French utility Engie (formerly GDF Suez) and power provider Southern Company.
• Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's David Bernhardt, charged with the Department of Interior, lobbied that agency on behalf of Westlands Water District.
• Jim Carter, the in-house lobbyist for manufacturing company Emerson, has been in charge of tax reform even though he lobbied on taxation issues as recently as September.
• Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist at CGCN for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Hess, Encana, Noble Energy and Devon Energy, was made responsible for energy independence. Working with him was Mike Ference, a lobbyist at S-3 Group for Halliburton, Koch Industries and Marathon Oil.
• Martin Whitmer was charged with transportation and infrastructure even though he is a registered lobbyist at Whitmer & Worrall for the American Association of Railroads, the National Asphalt Pavement Association and the Utilities Technology Council.
• Michael Torrey was put in charge of the Department of Agriculture even though he lobbied the USDA as recently as September on behalf of Little Caesars, Dean Foods, the American Beverage Association and the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau.

These lobbyists and the Trump transition did not answer requests for comment.

“Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions,” Trump tweeted. “I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!”