By Daniela Walls, National Chair of the Tax Wall Street Party –
Washington DC, May 5, 2016
I would like to speak to you this morning about the political contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I hope to show you why you should turn away from Ms. Clinton and instead critically support Bernie Sanders – “hold your nose and vote for Bernie” as my party has expressed it.
I speak to you as a lifelong, committed feminist who has always striven to advance the position of women. In my view, feminism is humanism. It is the essence of humanism. Feminism is the leading edge of the struggle to uplift all of humanity, worldwide. Since women comprise more than half of humanity, whatever is done to women is done to our entire species. If women are excluded, discriminated against, underpaid, degraded, humiliated, mutilated, or killed, then this is a high crime against the totality of human progress. Every man has a mother, a sister, a daughter or a wife so whatever is done to them will damage him as well.
In my mind, feminism is not just another pressure group or identity politics constituency among others, but rather the cause of humanity we must all fight for. Feminism, properly understood, embraces and subsumes all the other issues, without exception. The status of women is the surest barometer of civilization.
In this briefing I have addressed issues like the scandal of websites offering arrangements with “sugar daddies,” in effect forcing American middle class girls into prostitution, often as their only way to afford a college degree or a place to live. In her complacency, Ms. Clinton has never to my knowledge engaged with this hideous economic reality, which reveals the utter bankruptcy of the current system in which she is so thoroughly at home.
Hillary Clinton has captured the attention of many women with her promise of becoming the first female president of the United States. I regard a woman president as an historical necessity, surely in our lifetime, and the sooner the better. The glass ceiling must be shattered. The United States needs the talents and the service of all of our people, bar none.
At the same time, I am convinced that Ms. Clinton cannot and must not be the vehicle getting this job done.
The objections to Ms. Clinton as president are fundamentally two. First, she is a creature and servant of the predatory and sociopathic Wall Street banks from whom she has taken speaking fees, campaign contributions, and payola for the Clinton Foundation, from which she benefits personally.
Hillary wants to share in the credit for the economic decisions made during her husband’s presidency 20 years ago. One of these was the free trade sellout of American workers’ interests known as NAFTA – The North American Free Trade Association. This has turned out to be the giant sucking sound as unscrupulous employers sent their factories and American jobs overseas. Millions of jobs were destroyed, tens of thousands of factories closed, and the living standards of working women disproportionately driven down. Women working on assembly lines. The wives of factory workers.
The Clinton administration also supported the repeal of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, a key part of Franklin D Roosevelt’s landmark Social Security Act of 1935. This was a surrender to the reactionary Newt Gingrich Republicans. It was a cruel and cynical gambit by Bill Clinton to get reelected in 1996. A top official at Health and Human Services resigned, and progressive opinion concluded that this was the worst thing that Clinton had ever done. It was also unnecessary, since Clinton was not seriously threatened by the elderly Bob Dole in 1996. Bill Clinton was preparing more bipartisan sellouts, including savage cuts in Social Security and Medicare when he was overtaken by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and could not seal his pact with the Republicans.
And who were the victims? They were largely women and children. AFDC often translated into aid to mothers with dependent children. These were black women, Latina women, poor white women, women in the inner-city, women in rural America, unemployed women, battered women. It was a case study in the sacrifice of women’s interests, and women’s lives to the lust for power shared by the Clintons.
The Bill Clinton administration also legalized interstate banking, abolished of the Glass-Steagall firewall between commercial banks and investment houses, and worst of all totally deregulated derivatives with a bill signed into law by Bill Clinton in 2000. These toxic derivatives are the main factor in the worldwide economic depression, which started in 2008, and which continues down to this day. We can rest assured that more than half of the victims of this depression – people who lost their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings, their hopes for a college education for their children – were, as usual, women and their families.
Ms. Clinton is a notorious warmonger and hawk in foreign policy, whose tenure as Secretary of State has caused a qualitative degeneration in the world situation, bringing the specter of general war much closer, while failing to advance any fundamental interest of the United States. As an aggressive neocon in foreign affairs, Ms. Clinton cares little for the female soldiers, as well as the wives, mothers, and daughters of the US military forces she will be eager to put at risk.
During these primary debates, Ms. Clinton formally and categorically refused to rule out sending US ground forces into a new catastrophic military adventure in the Middle East. I call on Democratic primary voters to remember the epic struggles about war and peace which were so prominent in the decade after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ms. Clinton would like us to forget that entire agonizing phase. We must not do so.
Ms. Clinton’s troubled and dangerous relation to the concepts of retaliation and the use of military force derives from her mistaken concept of feminism. She wants to be president, a job that requires the highest level of political judgment along with an outlook of prudence not distorted by personal compulsions or complexes. Ms. Clinton wants to be considered as a strong woman. It is good to be strong, but we must also ask, strong in the service of what? Strong in the cause of human progress is a good thing, but strong in the service of a discredited imperialism is unacceptable to the women will pay so much of the price.
Throughout her career, Hillary has feared nothing so much as the perception that she is a weak woman. To compensate for that all-consuming fear, she feels that she must be the most extreme hawk and the most aggressive warmonger. She blusters about the need to retaliate promptly in all instances. This can mean national suicide. Her demand must be rejected.
Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on May 12, 1996 told Leslie Stahl of the CBS program Sixty Minutes that the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq caused by US sanctions on food and medicine were “worth it.” Secretary Albright reportedly owed her place in the cabinet to lobbying by the feminist Hillary. In any case, Ms. Clinton did not speak out against this monstrous idea. This episode tells us far more about Hillary’s moral compass than her job at the Children’s Defense Fund.
True to her syndrome, Hillary voted in favor of the 2002 resolution which she and everyone else in Congress knew at the time would be used by Bush and Cheney to launch aggressive war against Iraq. In 2008, despite the obvious catastrophic consequences, she was defeated by the less trigger-happy Obama. She says she has finally admitted her 2002 mistake. But she has learned nothing, as shown by her unconscionable boast that she played the role of high priestess of aggression in the attack on Libya in 2011, and her refusal to rule out a new adventure.
Hillary still has the gall to boast of her Arab spring destabilizations of five years ago as one of the supposed achievements in her catalog of experience. This is simply outrageous.
The so-called Arab spring, as observed in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and in Syria, was not a popular grassroots uprising, but rather a typical CIA destabilization. In each of these countries, many economic, social, and religious rights of women were better secured under the pre-2011 order. Hillary helped to direct these destabilizations, often working closely with her close associate Huma Abedeen, who apparently served as her liaison with the Muslim Brotherhood, that Anglo-American intelligence asset at the heart of this entire operation. In Egypt, the result was a brutal dictatorship of the Moslem brotherhood.
In the case of Libya, Hillary – joining Susan Rice and Samantha Power – became the most strident advocate for a NATO bombing campaign, which eventually led to the destruction of the Libyan state, and the descent of the entire country into the chaos and anarchy of a failed state dominated by sectarian militias. In every part of Libya, the most backward, benighted, and barbarian jihadis and fanatics took over. Many were on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies.
Ms. Clinton celebrated this tragedy with her statement: “We came, we saw, he died.” In reality, this was a violation of international law which Americans will be paying for far into the future. Calls for an invasion of Libya are already being heard.
Later, Ms. Clinton superintended the transfer of the armed jihadis and fanatics to Syria by way of Turkey, a policy which underlies the tragic events in Benghazi, Libya. Syria had been the most ethnically diverse and religiously tolerant country in the entire region – but it is now gripped by war.
The ultimate result of Ms. Clinton’s Middle East policy, including the destruction of Libya and Syria, and building on the Bush administration’s wrecking of Iraq, is quite simply ISIS. Call it ISIL, the Islamic State, Daesh, or the Caliphate, this is the inevitable result of her refusal to work with existing governments.
In this entire tragic narrative, women have been the victims. Arab women have been the victims. Many of them are modern, secular, westernized, women – very much like ourselves. Women dressed in clothes designed in Paris, Milan, or New York. Some were Christian women. They were delivered into the hands of dark ages fanatics by Ms. Clinton’s cynical policies. Such women were stripped at gunpoint of the civil rights, political rights, and social rights they had fought for over decades in undemocratic but at least secular Arab states. Women lost their jobs. Women were forced to stay at home. Women were coerced into covering their bodies in burqas – a custom which is rooted not in the Koran, but rather in the most backward traditions of patriarchy. Women were raped, mutilated and molested.
Do these actions deserve a vote of confidence in the primary? Surely not.
Finally, we come to the most dangerous case of all – Ms. Clinton’s interference in Ukraine. She had promised the world a reset in relations between the United States and Russia. But then – true to form – Hillary insisted on creating frictions and crises where no identifiable American interest was at stake. It was Ms. Clinton who appointed the neocon Victoria Nuland as Assistant Secretary Of State for European Affairs. Nuland and her neocon husband Robert Kagan were known as two of the most prominent hawks in Washington.
It was Nuland who announced that the United States had spent $5 billion on what amounts to a fascist movement, with strong anti-Russian pro-Nazi overtones, in Ukraine. This is the so-called Euromaidan, and the stage was set by Hillary. The result was a rapid deterioration in US-Russian relations. If ever a general war between a NATO and Russia starts in Ukraine, honest historians will inevitably assign much of the war guilt to Hillary Clinton. She has put the lives of all Americans at risk in the service of her own hollow ambition and psychological weakness. Enough is enough. Our number one policy requirement is good relations with Russia.
The Clintons call themselves New Democrats in order to stress their break with FDR, JFK, and LBJ. It is time to start bringing the Democratic Party back to its New Deal and pro-labor roots. My party stands ready to act as a catalyst, including in our role of pushing Bernie Sanders towards more radical and more coherent reform proposals and a more aggressive approach to Hillary.
I therefore call on primary voters to support Bernie Sanders in the remaining states. Decent Republicans should of course be horrified by the choices they are offered on the GOP ballot, and should therefore cross over to the Democratic side and also vote for Bernie. This does not imply that Bernie is qualified for the presidency or that he has the requisite requirements of political courage. We also have profound disagreements with his foreign policy. Hillary is anxious to end the contested primaries, to cut off debate, and to stifle democratic expression. The only alternative is to keep the primary process going, by denying Hillary the preemptive victory she wants. So Bernie is the only available vehicle to keep the primaries and the convention open, including allowing new candidates to enter the race should the first convention ballot prove not to be decisive.
Please stay in touch with the Tax Wall Street Party through our website twsp.us, social media, daily briefings and broadcasts so you can evaluate our ideas on how to get the best possible result out of this primary season.
Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech delivered last week has been widely exposed as a tissue of lies, but unfortunately normally sagacious foreign observers have made the blunder of believing some of the promises made by the fascist billionaire. In part, this is understandable, since it has been many decades since a liar of the caliber of Trump has played a central role on the international scene.
Trump is no threat to the US military industrial complex. Trump is not a threat to the WASP Establishment or any other establishment. Trump is not an outsider. Trump is a Wall Street insider who, already in 1991, was classified as Too Big to Fail and awarded a sweetheart bailout by the New York Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington. Trump has no systematic idea of US foreign policy whatsoever. He is not a realist; he is closer to being a neocon, especially concerning ISIS and the Middle East. Trump is not a friend of Russia. Trump is not a noninterventionist. Trump is a cynical liar, megalomaniac, and sadist. Trump has been on all sides of all issues over several decades. Anyone taking Trump’s promises seriously is a glutton for punishment.
Perhaps the best way of illustrating Trump’s lies is first to refer them back to our Daily Briefing of last week, and then to focus this evening on the lies told by the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler when he had just seized power in Germany, between 1933 and 1935.
There is no doubt that the methodology of the “Big Lie” used by Trump is precisely the one described by Hitler in his Mein Kampf, in which he aesthetically unveiled many elements of his technique. Concerning the art of lying, Hitler wrote:
‘All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.’1
This was then the method, which Hitler and the Nazis relentlessly practiced on the German people, and on foreign governments around the world. Few demagogues in recent history have been able to match the shameless cynicism of Hitler’s lies. So if we are to deal with Trump effectively, we must go back to the source and remind ourselves of the multifarious forms which lies can assume, especially in international affairs.
Hitler had condemned the Versailles Treaty of 1919, shortly after coming to power, but he did not openly and officially denounce the limitations imposed on Germany’s Army, Navy, and Air Force until the spring of 1935, more than two years after he had seized power.
On March 16, 1935, Hitler announced a new decree law which established universal military service to create a peacetime standing army of 12 corps and 36 divisions totaling about half a million soldiers. This was an open repudiation of the military restrictions placed on Germany in the Versailles Treaty of 1919. At this point, German military forces were minimal, and there was no way to defend the country against France, Britain, or Poland. Britain, France and Italy met several weeks later at Stresa in Switzerland. This Stresa front condemned Hitler’s proclamation of German rearmament and insisted on the independence of Austria and continued respect for the postwar Locarno Treaty.
‘It was time, [Hitler] decided to pull out the stops again on his love of peace and to see whether the new unity of the powers arrayed against him might not be undermined and breached after all. On the evening of May 21, 1935 he delivered another ‘peace’ speech to the Reichstag – perhaps the most eloquent and certainly one of the cleverest and most misleading of his Reichstag orations that this writer, who sat through most of them, had ever heard him make. Hitler was in a relaxed mood and excluded a spirit not only of confidence, but – to the surprise of his listeners – of tolerance and conciliation. There was no resentment or defiance toward the nations which had condemned his scrapping of the military closes at their side. Instead, they were assurances that all he wanted was peace and understanding based on justice for all. He rejected the very idea of war; it was senseless, it was useless, as well as a horror.’2
This moment may perhaps be compared to last week, when Trump decided to restrain his hooligan instincts for a few hours and read some banalities off the teleprompter for the edification of international leaders and experts.
On May 21, 1935, Hitler delivered what was perhaps his most famous “peace speech” to the German Reichstag. Notice the frequency with which the Nazi dictator pronounces the word “peace.” Compare his cynical promises to his later deeds. This is lying when it is developed into a consummate art. This is the idiom of Hitler then, and it is the idiom of Trump today.
‘None of our practical plans will be completed before ten or twenty years to come; none of our idealistic objects will come to fulfillment in fifty or perhaps a hundred years. We all shall only live to see the first beginnings of this vast revolutionary development. What could I wish but peace and quiet? If any one says this is only the wish of leadership, I can reply, “the people themselves have never wished for war.” Germany needs and wills peace? If [British Foreign Secretary] Eden says such assurances mean nothing and that a signature under collective treaties is the sole guarantee of sincerity, I beg him to reflect that in every case it is a matter of what is assurance. It is often far easier to put one’s signature under a treaty with mental reservations as to what action to take later than to champion a pacific policy before the whole nation, because that nation rejects war.
I could have signed ten treaties, but that would not have the weight of the declaration made to France at the time of the Saar plebiscite. If I, as Fuehrer, give my assurance that with the Saar problem settled we will make no further territorial demands on France, this assurance is a contribution to peace which is more important than many a signature under many a pact. I believe that with this solemn declaration a quarrel of long duration between two nations really ought to be ended….Peace was not to be one of the one-sided right, but a peace of general equality, thereby of general right. It was to be a peace of reconciliation, of disarmament of all and thereby of security for all. From it was to result, as its crowning glory, the idea of international collective, cooperative effort of all States and nations in the League of Nations. I must from this place once more state emphatically there was no people anywhere who more eagerly took up these ideas than the Germans.
Germany refuses to be regarded and treated for all time as a second-class or inferior nation. Our love of peace perhaps is greater than in the case of others, for we have suffered most from war. None of us wants to threaten anybody, but we all are determined to obtain the security and equality of our people….With equality, Germany will never refuse to do its share of every endeavor, which serves peace, progress and the general welfare. The German Reich, especially the present German Government, has no other wish except to live on terms of peace and friendship with all the neighboring States. Much as we ourselves love peace, it is not within our power to prevent the outbreak of conflicts between States, especially in the East.
The German Government is at all times ready to participate in collective cooperation for securing the peace of Europe, but it then considers it necessary to meet the law of eternal evolution by holding open the possibility of revision of treaties.
If people wish for peace it must be possible for governments to maintain it. We believe the restoration of the German defense force will contribute to this peace because of the simple fact that its existence removes a dangerous vacuum in Europe. We believe if the peoples of the world could agree to destroy all their gas and inflammable and explosive bombs this would be cheaper than using them to destroy one another. In saying this I am not speaking any longer as the representative of a defenseless State which could reap only advantages and no obligations from such action from others.
I cannot better conclude my speech to you, my fellow-figures and trustees of the nation, than by repeating our confession of faith in peace: Whoever lights the torch of war in Europe can wish for nothing but chaos. We, however, live in the firm conviction our times will see not the decline but the renaissance of the West. It is our proud hope and our unshakable belief Germany can make an imperishable contribution to this great work.’ 3
These siren promises were quickly followed by the unprecedented German rearmament, the reoccupation of the demilitarized Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, the Munich conference of September 1938, the complete absorption of what was left of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, and the Nazi demands on Poland later that year.
Then as now, the establishment media of the English-speaking world were eager to parrot Hitler’s lies, and Trump’s lies now. Indeed, Trump is a creation of the ruling class media who have given him more than $2 billion of free exposure, most often without any commentary, rebuttal, fact check, or other counterweight.
As a member of the Berlin press corps, William L. Shirer observed as the media betrayed civilization in conformity with their governments’ policies of whitewashing and appeasing Hitler:
‘Besides the Reichstag, Hitler had another means of communicating his peace propaganda to the outside world: the foreign press, whose correspondence, editors and publishers were constantly seeking interviews with him. There was Ward price, the monocled Englishman, and his newspaper, the London Daily Mail, who were always ready at the drop of a hint to accommodate the German dictator. So in August 1934, in another one of this series of interviews which would continue up to the eve of the war, Hitler told price – and his readers – that quote “war will not come again,” that Germany had “a more profound impression than any other of the evil that war causes,” that quote “Germany’s problems cannot be settled by war.” In the fall Hitler repeated these glowing sentiments to Jean Goy, a French war veterans’ leader and a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, who passed them on in an article in the Paris daily Le Matin.’4
Nor was Hitler’s practice of strategic deception limited to words and speeches alone. From the First World War, Hitler had drawn the strategic lesson that Germany was not in a position to attack and defeat all of its neighbors simultaneously. Rather, Hitler wanted to knock them off one by one. Despite traditional hostility between Poles and Germans, Hitler upon seizing power immediately offered Poland a nonaggression pact, which was quickly accepted by the Polish dictator Pilsudski.
The first major international treaty entered into by Nazi Germany was, surprisingly enough, a friendship and nonaggression pact with Poland:
‘The German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact (German: Deutsch-polnischer Nichtangriffspakt; Polish: Polsko-niemiecki pakt o nieagresji ) was an international treaty between Nazi Germany and the Second Polish Republic signed on January 26, 1934. According to the Pact, both countries pledged to resolve their problems through bilateral negotiations and to forgo armed conflict for a period of ten years. It effectively normalized relations between Poland and Germany, which were previously strained by border disputes arising from the territorial settlement in the Treaty of Versailles. As a consequence of the treaty, Germany effectively recognized Poland’s borders and moved to end an economically damaging customs war which existed between the two countries during the previous decade….The 1934 Polish-German non-aggression pact, soon followed by a trade agreement with Germany, is said to have granted Germany a settled eastern border and allowed Hitler time for rearmament; five years later, he went on to successfully invade Poland.’5
German ambassador, Hans-Adolf von Moltke, Polish leader Józef Pilsudski, German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbelsand Józef Beck, Polish Foreign minister meeting in Warsaw on June 15, 1934, five months after signing the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact.
Pilsudski realized that he had become a prime target for aggression as soon as Hitler had seized power in January 1933. Pilsudski’s goal had been to gain time by seeking to ensure that he would not be the first of the Nazi targets. As it turned out, he was not the first, but rather the last before the outbreak of World War II just five years later in 1939.
The other peaceful overture accomplished during the early phase of Hitler’s power was the Anglo German Naval Agreement of June 1935, which established the pattern of appeasement or indirect support given to the Nazis by Britain and France. This agreement encouraged Germany to rearm well above the limits included in the Versailles Treaty:
‘The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935, was a naval agreement between Britain and Germany regulating the size of the Kriegsmarine in relation to the Royal Navy. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement fixed a ratio whereby the total tonnage of the Kriegsmarine was to be 35% of the total tonnage of the Royal Navy on a permanent basis. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on July 12, 1935. The agreement was renounced by Adolf Hitler on April 28, 1939.’ 6
Lord Halifax with Hermann Göring at Schorfheide, Germany, 20 November 1937
In retrospect, all these peace overtures, peace, speeches, and charm offensives were revealed to be nothing more than stepping stones towards the next world war. The politicians and statesmen who put any credence in Hitler’s fakery were later reviled as sellouts and appeasers, and with good reason.
After Munich, Hitler said: “I have no further territorial demands in Europe.” But of course he did – he wanted the rest of Bohemia and Moravia, and then he wanted parts of Poland.
If we look at Trump’s foreign policy speech of last week, we see a similar tissue of lies. Experienced international observers must now see the fact that fascism has returned in grand style to the world stage after a 70-year absence, and that political leaders must unite to oppose the threat of a new fascist era which not everyone is morally and intellectually capable of understanding with the necessary speed.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
- William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1960), p. 285.
- Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, May 21, 1935.
- Shirer, pp. 280-281.
United States Just “One Terrorist Attack Away from President Trump”; Polls Show Fascist Billionaire Otherwise Doomed to Defeat; Theme of Pre-Election Terrorist Attack to Benefit Trump Raised One Month Ago by GOP Pollster Frank Luntz; Lindsay Graham Says Trump Means New 9/11, Fails to See It Will Come Before November Vote; Mercenary Conspiracy Theorists Betray Their Followers by Running Cover for Pro-Trump Terror
Donald Trump may take the Republican presidential nomination, but public opinion polls show that his chances to win the White House in November’s general election are practically nonexistent in the existing status quo. US intelligence community factions favorable to Trump may therefore be preparing a large-scale terrorist provocation designed to stampede the American people into voting for the fascist billionaire. These intelligence factions are most likely working with Muslim Brotherhood forces loyal to Turkish President Erdogan, who is widely recognized as the actual commander of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/Islamic State/Caliphate.
Erdogan has been widely reported in recent months as activating and mobilizing his terrorist assets in Europe and the United States in order to force the creation of a terrorist safe haven protected by a no-fly zone in northern Syria along the Turkish border. This demand has been opposed by President Obama.
In the wake of a large-scale terror attack, Trump would demand that all power be concentrated in his hands in a virtual state of siege – just like Hitler in late January 1933 – because he had been the only one to correctly forecast an imminent terrorist bloodbath. Trump could expect backing from those same media factions which have already given him more than $2 billion worth of free media for his primary campaign. The real estate demagogue might have a substantial chance of winning the Electoral College. As president, he could be expected to abuse the USA Patriot Act, the Espionage Act, and the full panoply of electronic eavesdropping. He has already promised to do much of this.
We are therefore looking at a classic October surprise, a terrorist event designed to interfere with the normal course of a presidential election. The original October surprise consisted of the machinations of the Reagan campaign to prevent the release of the Iranian hostages before the November, 1980 presidential election. Four years ago, in 2012, Republican forces attempted to humiliate the Obama administration and give Mitt Romney a ticket to the White House by using subversive CIA factions to carry out the Benghazi attack and prevent timely assistance from being rendered. In the modern era, due especially to early voting and absentee ballot voting, an effective October surprise needs to be front loaded to the first half of October at the latest.
On Sunday’s edition of Meet The Press, the American public witnessed the second high profile discussion of the terrorist scenario involved. The warning came from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who gave no specific source, but may well have become familiar with this new October surprise plan through his contacts in the rogue network of the ruling elite. Here is the exchange between Friedman and Chuck Todd of NBC News:
You know, I think one of the things that Obama has done right and a favor to Hillary Clinton on is saying in response to these acts of terrorism, we have to suck it up. It’s got to be like Israel, you know? “You blew up that bus. In three hours, the sidewalk is cleaned up, no one knows it happened.”
Because if we set this up the way we’re setting it up, if there is an act of terrorism in late October, early November, it’s going to rebound to Donald Trump’s favor in ways that are highly unpredictable. I saw that play in Israel. It elected Bibi Netanyahu over Shimon Peres after the Rabin assassination.
So you think we’re a terrorist attack away from President Trump?
Could be, Chuck.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times predicts that an October Surprise of terrorism could put Trump into the White House.
In this NBC News tape of the May 1 edition of Meet the Press, the key exchange occurs at about the 5:40 mark.
Thomas Friedman was reiterating observations from GOP pollster Frank Luntz which appeared in the Washington Post of March 30, 2016. This article dwelt on Trump’s status as the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of polling, but also pointed out that one outside event which could improve his prospects would be a large-scale terror attack, similar to those which had recently occurred in Paris and Brussels. Luntz commented:
‘Frank Luntz, an unaligned GOP pollster, said Trump could erase at least some of his deficit if he capitalizes on the fall debates and other events, noting that history is littered with examples of candidates doing just that. “The big moments cause people to change,” Luntz said. “And let’s face it, we may have a moment outside of conventions and debates that’s even bigger. If you have a Paris or a Brussels on American soil, that can completely change the dynamic.”’
ISIS had announced its intention of making 2016 into a banner year for terrorism in western countries five months ago. Turkish President Erdogan’s role as the principal terrorist controller in the Moslem Brotherhood and the immediate commander of ISIS has been widely discussed in the Turkish press, and also in the Arab nations. Out of many available articles illustrating this theme, we cite a Middle East expert quoted in the London Daily Express in early January of this year:
‘The Islamic terror group will activate hundreds of sleeper cells in “dozens of countries” in an unprecedented bid to destabilize Western governments and spark a huge military confrontation with the West and Arab nations in the Middle East…. Islamic State has carried out more than 50 attacks in 18 countries that have killed 1,100 people and injured 1,700 since it declared its caliphate in 2014. And  will see a huge increase in both the number and scale of major terror attacks, according to Dr. Theodore Karasik, a Gulf-based analyst of regional geopolitical affairs who has extensively studied ISIS’s behavior. He warned: “ISIS’s media operation is taunting its enemy to come to fight their Final Battle. “But first, it wants to show its global reach with zeal…from cells, to lone wolves, to bedroom jihadists – to target landmarks and crowds in dozens of countries across the world.” Dr. Karasik added: “There are close to 40 ISIS affiliates globally with millions of adherents and believers around the world…. “ISIS is an airborne disease and still remains robust as the movement enters into a new combative and aggressive phase. “The level of ISIS’s destructiveness, to force confrontations across the world, indicates that 2016 is likely to be more chaotic than 2015.”’
There is therefore a convergence of interests between Trump’s need to stampede the US elections in his favor, and Erdogan’s desire to extort the strategic concessions he needs most on his way to a new Ottoman Empire.
In one of his recent statements, the veteran South Carolina Republican politician Lindsey Graham has suggested that the Trump for President campaign foreshadows a new edition of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks 15 years after the fact. Graham stated in a recent interview:
“There’s a civil war going on in the Republican Party, obviously,” Graham said. “John [Boehner] and I are very close friends, but he’s embracing Donald Trump, and I am not. Why? Because I believe Donald Trump’s foreign policy is isolationism. It will lead to another 9/11.”
Sen. Graham is certainly right that the Trump campaign and a new 9/11 nightmare go together. But the senator needs to realize that a new terrorist conflagration is much more likely to come before the election. More terrorism is practically the pre-condition for any success by Trump.
Trump is not anti-establishment. Rather, Trump is a Wall Street insider. The darkest elements of the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence community are supporting Trump.
An October surprise in favor of Trump would of course represent an illegal and unconstitutional coup d’état in the United States. The only thing which can stop such an event is a mass mobilization of the American people. The only adequate answer to an attempted putsch of this type is an unlimited general strike of all working people in favor of democratic institutions and constitutional government. Persons of good will should begin right now to spread the word that any and all terrorist events between now and the November election must automatically be considered the handiwork of US intelligence community factions seeking to put Trump in power.
The Tax Wall Street Party urges loyal members of the armed forces, of the intelligence agencies, of police departments, plus government officials at all levels, the mass media, and private citizens in all walks of life to exercise the greatest possible vigilance to discover, denounce, and expose preparations for terror attacks of the type described here.
If these terror attacks should occur, all Americans should make pro-Trump renegade intelligence community factions the prime suspects. Overseas, we must keep Erdogan’s machinations under special surveillance.
Trump and his terrorists shall not pass.
- “ISIS plotting ‘to slaughter THOUSANDS’ in 2016 in bid to spark huge FINAL BATTLE with West: ISIS is planning to massacre thousands of civilians in public places around the world in 2016 as it desperately seeks to draw the west into a titanic “final battle,” Daily Express, Jan. 3. 2016. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/630316/ISIS-secret-plot-world-master…
Implied Endorsement of Lindbergh’s Pro-Nazi America First Committee Widely Condemned; In Burlingame and Costa Mesa California, Tax Wall Street Party Leads Breakthrough Against Media Coverup of Trump Fascism; Washington Post Prints TWSP’s Trump=Nazi Slogan for Second Time in Four Days; Spread the Word about Billionaire’s Sweetheart Bailout by New York Fed, Greenspan, and Treasury in 1991; Donald Exposed As Wall Street Insider
World Crisis Radio
April 30, 2016
The activists from the TWSP Bay Area Local joined hundreds of other protesters in Burlingame, California to warn the American public of a Nazi takeover.
The Washington Post reported:
‘Several protesters waved Mexican flags and held signs that accused Trump of bigotry. “Get your hate out of my state,” said one sign. Another compared Trump to Adolf Hitler, with the caption, “Trump = Nazi.”
Trump supporters angrily chastised protesters on the line, who accused people of attending the GOP convention of racism [and fascism].’ 1
While the pro-Trump media cartel would like to have the public believe that the anti-Trump protesters are mostly paid agents of George Soros, the Sanders campaign and other left-wing funded foundations, today even mainstream news had to admit that no specific group represented any majority, and in fact, the large crowd seemed to be made up of mostly concerned individuals and numerous diverse political groups. These courageous individuals are acting in the true spirit of American anti-fascism.
The media strained to create the illusion that today was a violent protest, but given the large size of the crowd, there were no injuries and no incidents of any noteworthy violence.
The Washington Post reported:
“The protests remained largely peaceful, even as eggs were thrown at the heads of authorities. A steady drumbeat and chanting persisted throughout the hours-long demonstration.” 1
One incident CNN and Fox made into the big story was that of a man dressed as Donald Trump, who aggressively inserted himself into the crowd, pushing and elbowing protesters.
“Earlier in the day, Chris Conway, a 51-year-old Trump supporter who was wearing the GOP front-runner’s famous “Make America Great Again” cap, claimed he was kicked, punched and spit on by Trump protesters….Police, apparently concerned for his safety, eventually pulled him over hedges outside the hotel and away from the crowd.” 2
This incident was immediately exposed in this Fox News news clip by TWSP’s Peter Suter. Suter alerted the public that this man dressed as Trump “was going through the crowd, pushing and elbowing people. This man was a Trump provocateur.”
During the primary season these relatively small protests led by a courageous group of first responders to the threat of fascism will be mocked and targeted by the Trump propaganda machine. However, as we enter the general election the whole American people are likely to be horrified by the crimes and excesses of the Trump gang. The mass movement emerging this week from Washington to San Francisco and Costa Mesa will send a message to the world that America will never succumb to fascism.
San Francisco Bay Area TWSP Activists Warn Californians of Trump Fascist Danger
Burlingame CA, April 29 – This city just south of San Francisco, was witness today to a large and militant protest against the fascist GOP presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump. The Tax Wall Street Party intervened with its classic TRUMP=NAZI poster, supplemented by leaflets and interviews to an assortment of media covering the protest.
Interviews were given to The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, and Sacramento Bee (The flagship newspaper of McClatchy Newsgroup).
TWSP members engaged protesters in a productive dialogue explaining the TWSP economic program.
TWSP members wore TRUMP=NAZI baseball caps that attracted additional press coverage, including Telesur English, CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, and NHK World of Japan. Members also carried the popular “Trump = Nazi” poster and posed for pictures with countless demonstrators. The poster also was shown on media including a 10 minute shot on CNN, MSNBC and the Fox Business Network.
The protestors shut down the entrance to the Hyatt Regency where Trump was to give a speech to the California GOP during their convention. To enter the convention, Trump was forced to exit his motorcade on the Bayshore Expressway, walk along a service road and along a concrete barrier, over a grassy median, and into the hotel. This will remain a classic scene in American political lore.
Once he reached the podium, Trump attempted a lame joke by adlibbing: “That was not the easiest entrance I ever made, we were walking over and under fences. I felt like I was crossing the border!” This wisecrack has generated heavy criticism on cable news because of its callous disregard for the plight of undocumented foreign workers, and also for the problems of California.
Jalal Sinjer of the TWSP San Diego Local exposes Trump at a Thursday evening rally in Costa Mesa, California.
All signs suggest Wall Street insider Donald Trump got a secret bailout from the US Treasury to ease his bankruptcy woes in 1991.
, who was Federal Reserve Chairman in 1990, when Trump’s main lender Citibank was silently seized by federal regulators. Did Greenspan have a hand in securing a 1991 sweetheart bankruptcy deal for Trump’s business interests, allowing The Donald to keep vast amounts of his ill-gotten property? Did Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady promote Wall Street insider Trump to Too Big To Fail status almost two decades before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy?
Around Thanksgiving 1990, federal regulators from the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve System seized control of Citibank, because it was insolvent and was threatening to trigger a nationwide and worldwide banking panic. Partly in order to avoid such a panic, the federal takeover of Citibank was done more or less in secret, with no public announcement of what was being done.
In the wake of the serious Wall Street stock market crash of October 1987, real estate values across much of the United States had begun to plummet. By January 1990, the Bank of New England was in serious trouble. During 1990, conditions continued to deteriorate, and by the end of November Citibank was silently put under de facto federal receivership.
The rapidly falling real estate prices which had triggered the banking crisis impacted almost all real estate speculators, and the Trump properties were of course no exceptions. Trump had stubbornly insisted on investing in the Taj Mahal casino operation in Atlantic City, New Jersey, just as real estate prices were declining.
Citibank was Trump’s best friend among all the Wall Street banking concerns. When Trump wanted to buy the former Eastern Airlines shuttle at LaGuardia Airport, he had convinced Citibank to lead the syndication that gave Trump the $365 million he needed for the transaction. Citibank then divided this debt burden among approximately 20 other banks. When, in January 1991, Trump’s business empire finally went bankrupt, control of the Trump Shuttle reverted to Citibank as the main lender.
It is certainly fair to say that the burden of Trump’s collapsing operations, starting in January 1991, but clearly foreshadowed several months earlier, in terms of stock prices and the like, contributed something important to the Citibank bankruptcy. As Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio writes:
“…in dollar terms, Donald Trump’s bonds represented a tiny fraction of the vast pool of junk-bond debt that frightened many investment experts, but he had made himself such a visible figure that reporters in variable through him into their stories about troubled companies…. Donald Trump saw a world inhabited by winners and losers, allies and enemies. When displeased, he would indulge in tirades spiced with expletives. Employees, rivals, critics, and Associates would become, in his words, “stupid,” “dumb,” “losers,” or “wimps.” (D’Antonio, Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success [New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 2015], p. 197)
Many Wall Street investors first became aware of the serious systemic problems in the Trump business empire in early June, 1990. D’Antonio documents that:
“On June 4, 1990, Neil Barsky of the Wall Street Journal published a stunning report on Trump’s debt problems, layoffs at the Taj Mahal and Trump shuttle, and his failed attempts to raise cash through the sale of properties or refinancing…. Barsky noted that much of the trouble stemmed from lenders’ having accepted Trump’s assertion that by adding his name to a casino, hotel, or airline he could raise its inherent value. This was not true for the shuttle, which had lost $85 million under the Trump name, and it wasn’t true of the Taj, which was also losing money.’ (D’Antonio, p. 198)
As Trump struggled to avoid bankruptcy, he also became the butt of ridicule and satire on the late evening shows: “Late Show host David Letterman made Trump the subject of his nightly, satirical Top 10 list, which was titled in “Top 10 Signs That Trump Is in Trouble.” (D’Antonio, p. 199) This was broadcast June 6, 1990:
Top 10 Signs that Trump Is in Trouble
10. Had the cable company disconnect Cinemax.
9. Trump Shuttle now used to haul lumber.
8. Attracting a lower class of bimbo.
7. Recently asked advisors how they thought a “Battling Billionaire” character would go over on the pro wrestling circuit.
6. Has been sucking up to [real estate rival] Merv [Griffin].
5. This morning, he had himself evicted.
4. Last week in 7-Eleven was heard saying, “I’m really thirsty” and yet suspiciously did not order a Big Gulp.
3. Now does tacky embarrassing things on a much smaller scale.
2. Just got a paper route.
1. He now takes my calls. 1
The most remarkable thing about Trump’s multifaceted bankruptcy was the very large amount of property which was somehow exempted from confiscation to satisfy the demands of the creditors. Trump was being given a sweetheart deal, which allowed him to retain a large number of his favorite playthings:
“The Taj Mahal went bankrupt in January 1991. Under an agreement with creditors Trump gave up a substantial portion of the casinos ownership, but he would be allowed to net a bit more than $1 million per year in exchange for leaving his name on the building. Soon he would give up control of the Trump shuttle to his lender, Citibank.” (D’Antonio, p. 200)
Trump celebrated these proceedings as a kind of personal victory, since he had escaped personal bankruptcy and come away with a large haul of his ill-gotten gains and loot. Trump especially relished the outcome as a public-relations triumph:
Others had used the peculiar dynamics of bankruptcy to similar effect, preserving substantial fortunes while escaping the stigma of personal bankruptcy, but few considered it a great accomplishment. Ever the showman, and an optimist, Trump saw in this outcome, a public-relations advantage. ‘If I had filed a personal bankruptcy, I don’t feel that my comeback story would have been nearly as good a story,” Trump said. It would have been always a tarnished story.” Spinning the tail like a gifted advertising man, Trump said that bankers “love me because I’m good and I’m honest….” (D’Antonio, p. 201)
D’Antonio is right in concluding that Trump was almost two decades ahead of his time, and had been a pioneer of the financial brinksmanship available only to wealthy insiders:
“In time, the phenomenon that spared Trump would be understood by the general public as ‘too big to fail.” However, many ordinary Americans would forever be puzzled when lenders gave troubled borrowers more money.” (D’Antonio, pp. 201-202)
But if Trump was given a sweetheart, insider bankruptcy for a too big to fail plutocrat, these decisions were unquestionably big enough and important enough to require approval from the US Treasury and the Fed. As Webster Tarpley wrote back in 1999:
The regulators cleared every major decision he [Citibank boss John Reed] made – which implicates them in the firings, in Citibank’s derivatives exposure, which was built up in those years, and in Citibank’s private banking and money laundering services that assisted the graft and embezzlement carried out by the family of then-Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.
Most important for the business at hand, “the regulators” were implicated in every decision regarding the bankruptcy of businesses belonging to one Donald J. Trump. And these regulators were none other than Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan and US Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady.
It must therefore be the working hypothesis of opposition research that Trump, already in 1990, was enough of a prominent insider to rate special kid gloves treatment when his business empire blew up in his face. To put the matter in context, we supply the following excerpts from Webster G. Tarpley, Surviving the Cataclysm (Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press, 1999-2009).
Autumn 1990: Bank of New England, Citibank and Chase Bankrupt
During the Great Depression between the two world wars, the collapse of 1929 had been followed by a US banking disintegration that reached critical mass during the fall and winter of 1932-33. About 3 to 4 years had separated the collapse phase from the banking panic. By a remarkable coincidence, the stock market and dollar crashes of 1987 were followed 3 to 4 years later by the threatened disintegration of the US banking system.
Federal Reserve officials were aware that they were presiding over a possible re-run of the banking panic of 1932-33. The Fed was filled with “continual conversations about this period and the 1930s”, especially when “all the main money supply indicators suddenly collapsed in autumn 1930.” [S. Solomon, 465] Eliot Janeway and others were warning in the press of a deflationary crisis in full swing.
Greenspan acknowledged the peril of banking panic on September 13, 1990, noting that there were “all too many problems in the banking system, problems that have been growing of late as many banks, including many larger banks, have been experiencing a deterioration in the quality of their loan portfolios…. “ [Financial Times, September 14, 1990] A student of this period sums up: “Just how close the US banking system came to collapsing in 1990-91 was necessarily conjectural, since it depended much on developments in the economy. But there was little doubt that the wildfire spread of market fear of major bank collapses nearly became a self-fulfilling disaster….” [S. Solomon, 464]
It was noticeable that the banks had stopped making loans. The reason was simply that these banks feared panic runs and, like their predecessors of 1932-33, thought that had to conserve their own cash to cover demand deposits. Bank bonds were downgraded by Moody’s and the other agencies until many had reached BB, which was hardly reassuring. Many customers found that they themselves were more credit-worthy and could borrow more cheaply than the banks they were unsuccessfully trying to borrow from. As Greenspan later admitted, bank “fragility…in fact was the cause of the credit crunch.” [S. Solomon, 463]
The Bush administration railed against this new credit crunch and even indirectly blamed the Fed. The Bushmen claimed that “overzealous bank regulators” were responsible for the halt in lending, having become too strict now after their anything goes attitude of the 1980s bubble. Bush even used his triumphalistic post-Gulf war State of the Union speech of January 29, 1991 to call on the Fed to lower interest rates and on the banks to make “more sound loans now.” Greenspan responded with a critique of the 1980s, primly remarking that “it is now clear that a significant fraction of the credit extended during those years should not have been extended.” [S. Solomon, 458]
In the waning days of the Reagan Administration, the White House still claimed to have presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion since the 1960s, or even in all of US history. By the end of 1988, the foreign debt of the United States, now the greatest debtor on the planet, had attained $500 billion, equal to 10% of GDP. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the US went into recession in July 1990 – just before Iraq took possession of Kuwait. Economic activity had been weaker under Bush than under any American president since Herbert Hoover in 1929-1933. The Bush recession in the US was accompanied by a deep economic downturn in western Europe, which for most countries was the worst since World War II. Against this background, the US banking system started to blow, starting in January 1990 with the Bank of New England.
The Bank of New England had been among the ten largest bank holding companies in the United States, with $30 billion in assets. But BNE had also built up $36 billion if off-balance sheet activity, mainly in derivatives. Then came the collapse of the Boston real estate market. The Boston Federal Reserve pumped $18 billion in loans into BNE to keep it alive between January 1990 and January 1991, when it was finally seized and shut down. The huge covert bailout by the Fed was designed to allow BNE to unwind the vast majority of its derivatives positions, thus avoiding a likely short-term worldwide derivatives panic during 1990. William Seidman, the chairman of the FDIC, estimated that BNE would cost his agency $2.3 billion, the second most costly bank failure in US history after First RepublicBank Corp. of Dallas. It took the best part of a year to unwind BNE’s derivative exposure. In early 1991 the buyout artists of KKR, now converted to bottom-fishing, trained their sights on the insolvent BNE. KKR was joined in this venture by Fleet/Norstar. This acquisition was approved by federal regulators in April 1991.
The Forbearance of the Regulators
By Bush’s second year in office, most US money center banks were technically bankrupt, and were being kept going by what federal regulators call “forbearance” – leaving those tottering banks alone, while lending them money under the table. This is a form of mercy that banks do not ordinarily extend to homeowners fighting foreclosure, but it was emphatically Bush’s policy. On December 7, 1990, the Bush White House convened an emergency meeting, with Baker present, to figure out what to do about the US banks. Before them the Bushmen saw six big, insolvent banks: Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, Manufacturers Hanover, Security Pacific, Chemical Bank, and the Bank of New England.
Most dramatic was the case of Citibank. While Bush was attempting to whip up hysteria and focus it on Saddam Hussein, a “silent, slow-motion, global wholesale money market flight from America’s largest bank” was taking place day by day. [S. Solomon, 464] In April 1990, IBCA Banking Analysis of London declared that Citicorp was “undercapitalized and under-reserved.” Standard and Poor’s and then Moody’s downgraded Citibank. In July 1990, bank analyst Dan Brumbaugh stated on the ABC network program Nightline that not only Citicorp, but also Chase Manhattan, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover and Bankers Trust were all already insolvent. During September 1990, there was a near electronic panic run on Citibank, while Chase Manhattan and other New York money center banks were also under increasing pressure.
Thanksgiving 1990: Citibank Silently Seized By Federal Regulators
For Citibank, the biggest US bank with an alleged $213 billion in assets, survival entailed a period of two and one half years during which mighty Citicorp was silently seized and put into receivership by federal regulators who began operating the bank using its nominal officers, like the incompetent John Reed, as ventriloquists’ dummies. Citicorp was now a secret ward of the Fed and the Comptroller of the Currency. [EIR, November 1, 1991] In October 1990, an auction of Citicorp money-market commercial paper attracted no buyers; it was saved only by purchases arranged by Goldman Sachs, and by a 13% interest rate. On the day before Thanksgiving, 1990, Citicorp Chairman John Reed and President Richard Braddock were summoned to the New York Federal Reserve on Wall Street. Awaiting Reed and Braddock were E. Gerald Corrigan, the President of the New York Federal Reserve, and William Taylor, the director of bank supervision for the Federal Reserve Board in Washington.
The Citibank crisis was a product of the collapse in US commercial real estate prices during 1989-1990. A shock wave of real estate collapse had wiped out 9 of the 10 largest banks in Texas over previous years, and that shock wave had now engulfed New York City. Reed, anxious to re-orient Citibank away from Walter Wriston’s Latin American loan racket, had loaded up with real estate loans in the northeast states. Citibank had thought that only 1% of these loans would turn out to be unsound. Corrigan and Taylor had now concluded that 20% or more of the $30 billion loan portfolio would not perform, and that Citibank had to brace itself for a minimum of $5 billion in losses. Corrigan and Taylor were worried that Citibank, which had one of the lowest capital-to-asset ratios among major banks, didn’t have sufficient capital to survive those losses.
Citibank had lent money to Campeau, Donald Trump, Olympia & York, John Portman, and Moutleigh and Randsworth Trust. When the New York department store Alexander’s failed, Citibank was the big loser. Citibank also had to liquidate its London subsidiary of Citicorp Scrimgeour Vickers. At the end of 1990, Citicorp announced an addition of $340 million to its loan loss provisions, but this was grossly inadequate window-dressing. During 1990, Citicorp’s non-performing real estate loans were up 120% to $2.6 billion, while the bank’s portfolio of foreclosed real estate was up 78% to $1.3 billion, and the market value of these properties had fallen by 55%.
The New York Fed was in effect seizing control of Citibank, and would retain that control for a reported two and one half years. A small army of 300 federal bank regulators occupied Citibank’s headquarters. Reed was obliged to cut Citicorp’s dividend and then suspend it entirely, More than 11,000 Citicorp employees were fired. From November 1990 on, Reed traveled every month to Washington to report to the Fed and to the Treasury’s Comptroller of the Currency… The regulators cleared every major decision he made – which implicates them in the firings, in Citibank’s derivatives exposure, which was built up in those years, and in Citibank’s private banking and money laundering services that assisted the graft and embezzlement carried out by the family of then-Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.
The Threat of Funding Crisis
According to a recent journalistic account, “The stakes for the regulators in this case were enormous. ‘We were running fire drills in case they had a problem that required government attention,’ one top former official recalled. A run on Citibank would have required intervention by the Federal Reserve and help from the central banks of other nations, another key insider said.” “What regulators feared most … was a ‘funding crisis’ like the one that took down Continental Illinois National Bank a decade ago. Much of Citi’s funds are big corporate deposits, many from overseas, that are not protected by federal deposit insurance. If those depositors got nervous and decided to withdraw their funds, even a healthy bank could not survive.” In other words, the issue was a Systemic meltdown.
The Citibank crisis remained acute all during 1991. In December 1991, Citibank was officially placed on the government’s secret watch list of banks in critical condition. In August 1992 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency required Citibank to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, a public reprimand whose exact terms remain secret. But Citibank was the biggest beneficiary ever of regulatory forbearance, the bending of the law. Some respite came in February 1991, when Saudi Prince Waleed bin Talal, already a 4.5% stockholder in Citibank, agreed to plough an additional $590 million back into the foundering concern. $600 million more soon flowed in from Middle East and domestic sources. Fidelity Investments also put some money into Citibank.
In the third quarter of 1991, Citibank posted a quarterly loss of $885 million, with non-performing loans at $6 billion and non-performing real estate loans at $3 billion. For the first time since 1813, no dividend was paid to the stockholders.
Citibank Technically Insolvent and Struggling to Survive
In August 1991, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) observed that Citicorp was “technically insolvent” and “struggling to survive.” This comment triggered panic runs on Citicorp in Hong Kong and Australia, where the FDIC does not operate. During that same week, the New York Fed lent out $3.4 billion, with almost all of it reportedly going to Citicorp. Perhaps this was the money needed to make up for the loss of deposit base in the Far East. Certainly Citicorp had to fear panic runs in the US as well. During the summer of 1992, the former Wall Street broker turned austerity candidate for the presidency, Ross Perot, announced in delphic language that he was selling Citibank stock short, because he expected it to crash soon. In Perot’s opinion, Citibank was insolvent.
Bankrupt banks were reorganized through mergers, which promised bigger bankrupt banks in the future. Chemical Bank took over Manufacturers Hanover, while the Bank of America absorbed Security Pacific. Citibank and Chase remained more or less in their original form. During these months there were significant bank failures in Norway and in Sweden.
On April 11, 1991, First Executive Life had been seized by California regulators; its $49 billion in liabilities made it the largest insurance failure in US history. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company of New Jersey was also bankrupt. 1991 also saw the demise of BCCI – the Banque de Credit et Commerce Internationale – allegedly because of a $1.2 billion fraud carried out by shipping tycoon Abbas Gokal. BCCI had been the owner of First American Bank, which employed former Defense Secretary and Truman controller Clark Clifford.
Greenspan’s Backdoor Bailout
The Fed funds rate peaked at 9 7/8% between February and June of 1989, when the Fed began lowering, reaching 8.25% by the end of 1989. Then there was an interlude of paralysis before rates started slowly down again, touching 7.75% on October 29, 1990. Making up for lost time, Greenspan brought the Fed funds rate and the discount rate to 4.5% by early December 1991. Afraid of a banking collapse, and attempting to help Bush get re-elected the following year, Greenspan lowered the discount rate from 4.5% to 3.5% on December 19, 1991. Greenspan then took the Fed funds rate to 3%, and kept it there during late 1992 and during all of 1993. The direction of these interest rate reductions would not be reversed until February 1994.
Greenspan was providing a massive public bailout to US commercial banks at taxpayers’ expense and without Congressional authority. It was a backdoor bailout. He helped the banks to steer away from short-term bankruptcy: by mid-1992 the Fed was keeping the overnight rate for federal funds in the neighborhood of 3%. At the same time, the thirty-year long bond was paying 7%. This meant that a Federal reserve member bank could borrow money at 3%, and use it to buy Treasury securities paying 7%, thus locking in a nearly four-point spread which represented pure risk-free profit to the bank. This was soon the biggest racket in town. Naturally, it would have been more convenient for US taxpayers if the Treasury had been able to borrow directly from the Fed at 3% rates, eliminating the banks as middlemen. That would have shrunk the debt-service burden imposed on the Federal budget much more effectively than the austerity nostrums proposed around this time by Perot and other demagogues. But Greenspan would have been horrified by such a proposal – for the Fed to have bought the Treasury issues at such low rates would have gone back to the bad old days before 1952 when the Fed was de facto forced to do the bidding of the elected government. It would have been a violation of the sacred laws of the free market!
Pyrrhus of Epirus
The Greek general Pyrrhus of Epirus was famous because his victories were won at such a heavy cost that they ended up being of no value to him and his cause. Trump seems to be winning victories, but his means of attaining success are destroying the value of the Republican nomination as 40% of the GOP voters vow to never to back him.
The Trump campaign is claiming that the fascist billionaire’s 60% wins in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island now make him the inevitable winner of the Republican presidential nomination in Cleveland in mid July. Of course, a large majority of the Pennsylvania delegates are unbound and can vote for whomever they like, which may not be Trump. But the larger reality is that, even if Trump does take the Republican nomination, this prize will be devalued by 40% or more when he takes it in his hands.
Just as the primary campaigns in the five Northeastern states were winding down, USA Today and Suffolk University published their poll to this effect:
‘While 60 percent of Republican primary and caucus voters will support the eventual Republican nominee if their candidate is not chosen, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today national poll of likely election voters, a majority of Donald Trump supporters said they would vote for the businessman if he were to lose the nomination and run as a third-party candidate. Forty percent of Republicans whose favored candidate is not nominated said they will vote for the Democratic nominee, seriously consider a third-party candidate, stay home on Election Day in November, or are undecided.’
Trump’s efforts to take the presidency may therefore turn out to be a labor of Sisyphus. Tonight, the fascist billionaire’s victory speech started off in a very subdued manner, suggesting that he had been truly chastened by the advice on conduct and deportment dispensed by the infamous “Torturers’ Lobby” principal Paul Manafort. But when the time came to make a genteel exit, Trump found himself hypnotized as usual by the television cameras, and proceeded to ramble on for forty minutes. Once again displaying his telltale megalomaniac streak, Trump returned, not once, not twice, but three times to the question of why he had failed to get more than 37% of the Republican primary vote until he reached New York last week, and the five other Northeast states tonight. The reason, explained Trump, was that in the earlier phases of the campaign he was dealing with 17 opponents, and therefore the sheer number of adversaries kept him below the 50% mark. Maybe Trump had been needled at the Time 100 Gala by some fellow plutocrat asking why he had a 40% ceiling for so much of the campaign. As it was, Trump returned about an hour late from the Time 100 Gala to give his victory speech at Trump Tower. He obviously preferred an extra hour of hobnobbing with the elite to thanking the dupes who volunteered and voted for him.
Trump made a number of references to foreign policy questions, which he has obviously been cramming for with a view to his long-awaited serious foreign policy address, which he will give tomorrow here in Washington. Trump had originally scheduled the speech for a small room in the National Press Club, but the event has now been moved to the noon hour at the Mayflower Hotel, where a bigger crowd can be accommodated.
The Tax Wall Street Party calls on all persons of good will who can be present starting at 11AM to join our protest against Trump at the Mayflower, which is located on Connecticut Avenue just north of the Farragut North Metro stop.
On the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton easily won Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. The race in Connecticut was much closer, and Bernie Sanders won in Rhode Island. Bernie was damaged by a report appearing in the New York Times claiming that, in case Tuesday’s results were bad, the campaign would “re-assess” the entire effort. This was the kind of the innuendo designed to reduce Bernie’s followers to despair, and to increase the chances that they would not vote at all. This calculated article was not invented out of thin air, but derived from remarks made by Sanders campaign official Tad Devine in an interview. As readers of this Daily Briefing know, Tad Devine is a defeatist in the tradition of Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry, who has more than once tried to influence Sanders towards passivity and quietism. Sanders should fire Tad Devine immediately to prevent defeatist thinking from taking over his entire campaign.
Bernie’s wife Jane Sanders vehemently denied any suggestion that such a reassessment was planned, or that it could lead to capitulation to the outrageous behind the scenes demands of Hillary Clinton that Sanders either drop out of the race entirely, or run a totally bland and anodyne campaign along the lines of Thomas E. Dewey in 1948. Bernie has also repeated his pledge that he will keep fighting all the way through California, and Washington DC in early June.
Here is the tendentious piece from the New York Times:
Updated 4:00 p.m. | PHILADELPHIA — Senator Bernie Sanders and his campaign advisers plan to reassess where his candidacy stands after five states vote on Tuesday, though he is adamant that he will remain in the race until the Democratic convention this summer. As Mr. Sanders spent the morning happily greeting voters across Philadelphia, his senior campaign strategist said the senator understood the challenges ahead and would talk with his staff on Wednesday to decide how his bid will continue. Polls show Mr. Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton in at least four of the five states voting on Tuesday — Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Still, Mr. Sanders, who visited those states and the fifth state, Delaware, is not preparing to drop out of the race but will look into how to adjust how he talks about his prospects. “If we are sitting here and there’s no sort of mathematical way to do it, we will be upfront about that,” Tad Devine, Mr. Sanders’s senior strategist, said in an interview. “If we have a really good day, we are going to continue to talk about winning most of the pledged delegates because we will be on a path toward it. If we don’t get enough today to make it clear that we can do it by the end, it’s going to be hard to talk about it. That’s not going to be a credible path. Instead, we will talk about what we intend to do between now and the end and how we can get there.”’
Bernie must keep fighting.
In addition to his reality TV appearances, his books, and now his political campaign, Donald Trump has also appeared as a clinical specimen in the pages of textbooks in the field of psychology, and abnormal psychology at that. Among these are Abnormal Behavior in the 21st Century and Personality Disorders and Older Adults: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment. Psychological professionals have labeled Trump as a narcissist, and also a sadist.
Just as these personality disorders are acted out by Trump in the cultural matrix and idiom of north Queens. Trump’s internalized audience often appears to be the fictional character Archie Bunker of the sitcom series “All In the Family,” which was broadcast on CBS between 1971 and 1983. In this series, Bunker is a philistine and a bigot from Flushing, just north of Trump’s home neighborhood in Jamaica.
As biographer Michael D’Antonio notes:
‘With the exception of his frequent references to his own Ivy League education, Trump “almost always favored a stubbornly anti-intellectual type of common sense that played to the grievances of the kind of white men represented by the TV character Archie Bunker, who, like Trump, came from Queens and offered his opinions with chin-jutting pride.’
Trump stands out for his well-documented and often-proclaimed inability to look inside himself and examine his own behavior and his own motives. Indeed, his unending stream of consciousness monologue, mixed with endless insults and ranting, seems to represent a psychological defense mechanism to allow him not to face the tormented inner child who was neglected by his parents and then shipped off to military school.
Trump has often boasted of his exploits in the psychological manipulation of people around him – and these now include millions of voters. Trump speaks of this process as if it were akin to hypnotism, and often boasts of “the aura of knowledge” which has allowed him to dupe so many.
Otto Friedrich of Time Magazine recalled ‘Trump as he confessed that he possessed something like a con man’s talent for persuasion. “I can sit down with the most sophisticated people in the arts in New York and get along fabulously with them. If I want to, I can convince them that I know as much about something as they do, and I don’t.” Asked how he managed this trick, Trump said, “It’s a feeling, an aura that you create.” In another bit of reflection Trump revealed himself to be defended, even against self-evaluation: “When you start studying yourself too deeply, you start seeing things that maybe you don’t want to see. And if there’s a rhyme and reason, people can figure you out, and once they can figure you out, you’re in big trouble.”’
Some Americans are finally figuring him out. The others should ask themselves if Trump is using his talent as a con man on them.
When asked about introspection and self-awareness by a biographer, Trump replied vehemently that he wanted no part of it:
“No, I don’t want to think about it! I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see. I don’t like to analyze myself. I don’t like to think too much about the past – other than to learn. The only thing I like about the past is to learn from it, because if you make a mistake, you want to learn from it. Now, I’d much rather learn from other people making mistakes. I read a lot. I read a lot of stories about success and failure, because it’s much cheaper to learn from other people’s mistakes than your own. I can tell you of many, many mistakes that people made, and that’s much better than if I make those mistakes. So the thing I like about the past is you can learn from people’s mistakes and also learn from people’s triumphs.’
After completing a substantial biography of Trump, author Michael D’Antonio summed up his experience in these words:
“A linguist or psychologist could write at length on Trump’s conversational style. After the briefest reflection, he slams the door on introspection and turns immediately to consider other people and their failures. The mention of books leads him to discuss his own book and its sales and then the corresponding success of his TV show.’
Trump can be regarded as the leading edge of “an epidemic of narcissism and its component parts, which include grandiosity and self-loathing. Taken together, these feelings produce both the insatiable desire to be seen as a winner and dread of being regarded as a loser.’
Trump does qualifies as a broken soul who feels compelled to defend himself at all points against insults or challenges through massive retaliation and in infinite conflict. Any foreign power or non-state actor which has grasped the psychological problems which are indicated here would have a good chance of manipulating Trump into a desired behavior, especially if that were a flight forward into aggression. The preliminary diagnosis would have to be that Trump is mentally far too weak and labile to ever occupy the presidency. Control over the thermonuclear button is an awesome responsibility, one which far exceeds the capacity of Trump’s limited cognitive powers and impaired emotional intelligence.
- Michael D’Antonio, Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success (New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 2015), p. 336.
- D’Antonio, p. 193.
- D”Antonio, p. 152.
- D’Antonio, p. 340.
- D’Antonio, p. 340-341.
- D’Antonio, p. 340-341.
Trump = Nazi Poster Makes Big Splash at Cesar Chavez Parade in San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – April 23, 2016 This day marked the twenty-third anniversary of the death of Cesar Chavez. The Tax Wall Street Party paid homage to the famous National Farm Workers Association (later United Farm Workers) founder, labor leader, and civil rights activist by participating in the annual parade held in San Francisco’s Mission District neighborhood.
The “Trump = Nazi” poster was an instant hit and very popular with parade onlookers. Many photos were taken of the poster. A local performer, Bobby The Clown, displayed the poster in a parade automobile. The TWSP members passed out hundreds of leaflets containing TWSP’s economic program. The TWSP members in the San Francisco Bay Area also look forward to leading efforts in a major protest against Trump at the upcoming California GOP Statewide Convention, where Trump is expected to speak. Members will be joined by approximately three thousand anti-Trump protesters at the convention.
Tax Wall Street Party activists also intervened at a presidential town hall given by GOP candidate John Kasich in Rockville, Maryland.
Trump’s Insults and Hooliganism Are Rooted in His Troubled Psyche, Making His Ability to Pivot to Serious Candidacy Doubtful; Cynical Etch-A-Sketch Moment Invites Comparison to Romney’s Failed 2012 Effort; Trump Voters Thought They Were Voting Against Lobbyists, but Trump Has Hired the Worst from the Black, Manafort, Stone, Kelly, and Atwater “Torturers’ Lobby”; Astor’s Puppet Andrew Jackson Beloved of Libertarians Because He Carried Out Their Perennial Program of Deflationary Depression, Bank Privatization, Dismantling Government, and Paying Off National Debt; Jackson’s Catastrophic Presidency a Key Cause of Civil War (1861-1865); Erdogan of Turkey Activating Terror Assets in West and Inciting Violence; Will Turkish Dictator Deliver October Surprise on Scale of Paris and Brussels for Trump?
World Crisis Radio
With a Report from Thierry Meyssan in Damascus, Syria
April 23, 2016
President Mobutu Sese Seko, the bloody handed, CIA-backed dictator of Zaire meets with President Nixon in 1973. US support for Mobutu over several decades was maintained with the help of the Black, Manafort, Stone, Kelly, and Atwater lobbying firm, otherwise known as the “Torturers’ Lobby.” This network has now taken over the Trump campaign.
Old Hickory’s Destruction of the Second Bank of the United States Sabotaged US Economic Growth and Opened the Door to the Financial Panics of 1837 and 1857, Putting the United States on a Path to Sectionalism and Civil War; Jackson’s Great Opponent Was Henry Clay of Kentucky, Supporter of the American System of Political Economy
Jackson was a monetarist and precious metals fetishist like many libertarians of the current age. This 1837 cartoon by E.W. Clay shows contemporary awareness that Jackson’s Specie Circular, which specified that all payments to the federal government for public lands had to be in gold or silver, had popped the land bubble but had also caused the worst depression in the history of the young country. Like Jackson, libertarians generally advocate a deflationary crash as the best policy under any circumstances, because they think it will make their money worth more.
The Tax Wall Street Party welcomes the decisions by the US Treasury to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill, to keep Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, and to feature Harriet Tubman on the $20 note. We hope to provide more historical context for these figures now and in the weeks ahead, and today we will focus on the highly destructive economic policies of Jackson.
Not surprisingly Donald Trump has protested the removal of Jackson. “Andrew Jackson had a great history. I think it’s very rough when you take someone off the bill,” said Trump. Jackson is an exponent of the same demagogic cultural populism which Trump practices today.
Another group protesting are the Austrian School libertarians. Their hero is Andrew Jackson, whose hare-brained meddling caused the devastating Panic of 1837 and shut down US economic development, putting the country firmly on course for the Civil War two decades later.
Jackson started as a protégé of arch-traitor Aaron Burr, and took part in Burr’s abortive Western Conspiracy to set up an anti-American kingdom in the Mississippi basin. As president, Jackson was a tool of the British and Swiss banks, whether he knew it or not. His right-hand man Martin Van Buren of New York knew it.
To understand the crimes of Jackson, it is necessary to see his actions in the context of the economic and financial policy fights of the 1820s and 1830s. The following are excerpts from Webster G. Tarpley, Surviving the Cataclysm (Joshua Tree CA: Progressive Press, 1999-2009).
Before Jackson: John Marshall and Henry Clay Launch a Time of National Progress Based on the American System
The War of 1812 ushered in a period of resurgent nationalism, marked also by the first landmark decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall of the Supreme Court. The most prominent of the War Hawks was Henry Clay, from the western state of Kentucky, the best available spokesman and political operative of a group of American System supporters which included Mathew Carey, the Philadelphia economist and publicist. Clay was also acquainted with Friedrich List, whom he met in Washington in 1825 when the latter was visiting there with the Marquis Gilbert de Lafayette. Clay’s program; as laid out for example in his unsuccessful Presidential campaign of 1824, he called the “American System,” a phrase borrowed from Alexander Hamilton. The American System was Clay’s programmatic platform in the election contest. The adversary of the American System he referred to as “the foreign policy.”
Andrew Jackson’s Great Adversary: Henry Clay’s American System
Clay’s program was designed to become the platform of a new political party that would be national in scope and nationalist in character. This party turned out to be the Whig party, which achieved only limited success in its mission of nation-building. Clay was determined to fight sectionalism by re-establishing the pre-eminence of the national economic interest, also in order to build the country’s military strength. This meant the institution of a strongly protective tariff, of the type that Hamilton had recommended but been unable to obtain. “There is a remedy,” said Clay, “and that remedy consists in modifying our foreign policy and in adopting a genuine American system. We must naturalize the arts in our country, and we must naturalize them by the only means which the wisdom of nations has yet discovered to be effectual – by adequate protection against the overwhelming influence of foreigners.”
Clay also demanded a vigorous policy of new road and canal building to link up regional markets and reduce the costs of transportation of goods. As he knew as a congressman from Kentucky, the frontier had now advanced to the trans-Appalachian west, beyond the mountains, and transportation was an urgent issue, although it had been neglected by Jefferson and Madison. Clay favored the creation of an inter-American development block, joining with the newly independent republics of former Spanish and Portuguese America. In this, he strongly supported the Monroe Doctrine, and agitated for the immediate recognition of the new states as they acquired their independence. As the Secretary of State under John Quincy Adams, Clay intended to use a conference of Latin American states held in Panama in 1826 as a vehicle for these plans, but this was not successful, and he was later disappointed by Bolivar’s lust for power at any price. Clay exhorted his fellow citizens to support the revolt against colonialism in Ibero-America: “Let us break these commercial and political fetters; let us no longer watch the nod of any European politician; let us become the real and true Americans, and place ourselves at the head of the American system.” Clay at one time proposed the building of a Pan-American highway, a road that would link all the Americas in defiance of British sea power.
Clay, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, was later instrumental in obtaining the approval of the bill re-creating the Bank of the United States. Here he was aided by John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, a War Hawk who later degenerated and turned pro-states’ rights over the slavery issue. The second BUS was set up in 1816, with a twenty year charter. This time the capital of the bank was made 35 million dollars, which made it the largest corporation in the world, with one fifth of the stock being bought by the government. The Bank survived an initial round of British financial warfare and went on to become even more successful than the first BUS.
The BUS did a number of things which may seem elementary today, but which were absolutely indispensable and often uncertain. The lack of a relatively stable form of cash money in adequate supply and acceptable all over the country was a necessity, but often very little cash money was available. The only alternative to the BUS were the state banks, which were often totally unstable and corrupt. Import-export financing for trade with Europe was also provided by the BUS. Of tremendous importance was the ability of the BUS to stand as a shield or buffer between the US banks on the one hand, and the Bank of England and other European institutions on the other. If the British had the ability to suck all the liquid cash out of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, the US economy could be collapsed in a few weeks, resulting in a colossal depression. This is what happened in 1837. But as long as the BUS existed, this form of British economic-strategic warfare had little chance of being effective.
The Constitutionality of the Second BUS was affirmed by Chief Justice Marshall in the 1819 opinion in the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland. Clay was also a partisan of a standing army and a powerful navy. His main points were a national bank, a protective tariff and internal improvements, meaning infrastructure. As he told the House after returning from a trip abroad, the lessons of his trip “were lessons that satisfied me that national independence was only to be maintained by national resistance against foreign encroachments, by cherishing the interests of the people, and giving the whole physical power of the country an interest in the preservation of the nation.” He urged the House to “commence the great work, too long delayed, of internal improvement.” He desired to see a “chain of turnpike roads and canals from Passamoquoddy to New Orleans; and other similar roads intersecting the mountains, to facilitate intercourse between all parts of the country, and to bind and connect us together.” He spoke out for the protection of domestic manufacturing, “not so much for the sake of the manufacturers themselves, as for the general interest.” “We should thus have our wants supplied when foreign resources are cut off; and we should also lay the basis of a system of taxation, to be resorted to when the revenue from imports is stopped by war,” argued Clay.
The Whig program was summed up by Pennsylvania Senator Andrew Stewart: “The true policy of this country… was to make New England instead of Old England, the great theatre of our manufactures. They had the capital and their population had become sufficiently dense to justify its employment in this way. We will thus create in our own country an ample market for the consumption of the cotton and the sugar of the south, and the wool and flour of the middle and western states, which no longer found a market abroad. It will make the great sections of our confederacy mutually dependent on each other. It will bind and unite them together by the strong ties of interest and intercourse, combining all the elements of national prosperity – agriculture, manufactures, commerce. These, with a good system of internal communications, would render our prosperity perfect, and our Union indissoluble.” This constituted what was properly and emphatically called the ‘American system of policy.’“
The Protective Tariff
Support for these views was strong enough to permit the passage, in the aftermath of the war of 1812, of the first truly protective tariff, the tariff of 1816. This inaugurated a tendency for further protectionism that lasted until 1833, in the midst of the Jackson years. 1816 thus emerges as a watershed year, with the Second BUS and a protective tariff levy going through in the same year. The twenty years after 1816 were accordingly ones of unprecedented growth. This was the case also because of the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, a strong pro-development dirigist who defeated Clay for the Presidency in the contested election of 1824. Clay, as we have seen, became Quincy Adams’ Secretary of State. In Adams’ inaugural address, he stunned the crabbed Jeffersonian states’ rights exegetes of the Constitution by announcing that “the great object of the institution of civil government is the improvement of those who are parties to the social compact”, and enumerated the impressive powers that the Constitution afforded to do just that, going on to say that “if these powers may be effectually brought into action by laws promoting the improvement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, the cultivation of the mechanic and the elegant arts, the advancement of literature, and the progress of the sciences, ornamental and profound, than to refrain from exercising them for the benefit of the people themselves would be to hide in the earth the talent committed to our charge – would be treachery to the most sacred of trusts.” Adams recommended a national university, astronomical observatories, and a whole array of scientific enterprises. He ridiculed the narrow-minded sectionalism of most opportunist politicians, asking if they were “palsied by the will of their constituents.” Adams here was out far in advance of Clay, who did not have the same personal authority of independent intellectual accomplishments.
Adams pressed hard for internal improvements, instructing the army engineers to survey prospective transportation routes. Under Adam’s leadership the Congress regularly voted substantial financial aid to interstate roads and canals. The prime improvement carried out by the federal government itself was the Cumberland Road, or National Road, from Cumberland, Maryland to Jefferson City, Missouri, although only Vandalia, Illinois had been reached when the project collapsed in the panic of 1837. This turned out to be the only wholly-owned federal project of this type in the pre-Jackson period. Adams’ term in office was the height of the canal-building epoch, highlighted by the 1825 Erie Canal from the Hudson River in New York State to Lake Erie, which radically cut the time and cost for shipments to the west, since the Great Lakes were linked up with the Atlantic. The Erie was later supplemented by the Pennsylvania Canal, and other canals.
Another Target for Jackson: Friedrich List and His American Political Economy
It was during the term of Adams that the newly naturalized American Friedrich List published his 1827 Outlines of American Political Economy in Philadelphia, addressing the book to Charles Ingersoll, vice president of the Pennsylvania Society. List was against those who wished to limit the role of the central government: “… it is questioned whether government has the right to restrict individual industry in order to bring to harmony the three component parts of national industry and, secondly, it is questioned whether government does well or has it in its power to produce this harmony by laws and restrictions. Government, sir, not only has the right, but it is its duty, to promote every thing which may increase the wealth and power of the nation, if this object cannot be effected by individuals. So it is its duty to guard commerce by a navy, because merchants cannot protect themselves; so it is its duty to protect the carrying trade by navigation laws, because carrying trade supports naval power, as naval power protects carrying trade; so the shipping interest and commerce must be supported by breakwaters – agriculture and every other industry by turnpikes, bridges, canals and railroads – inventions by patent laws – so manufactures must be raised by protective duties, if foreign capital and skill prevent individuals from undertaking them.” Some pages on, List draws up his celebrated contrast of the British system with the American system: Continue reading Good Riddance, Andrew Jackson! – The Expunging of this Catastrophic President from All US Currency Is Long Overdue »
Trump’s Campaign Controller Manafort Was Lobbyist for US Front Group of Pakistan’s ISI Which Federal Prosecutors Called a “False Flag” “Scam”; Among the Clients Were Saudi Princes, Ukrainian Oligarchs, Mobutu of Zaire, and Savimbi of Angola; “Anti-Establishment” Manafort in Current Job for Second Time, After McCain Fired Him As Manager of 2008 GOP Convention; Is Manafort the Great Negotiator Trump Promises to Bring in to Get Great Trade Deals?; Will Trump’s Lobbyists Make America Great Again?
In the history of National Socialism, the events of June-July 1934 are often referred to as the Night of the Long Knives, or Operation Hummingbird. Having seized power, Hitler was anxious to eliminate the more radical and uncontrollable elements in his Nazi movement, especially those who were demanding a second revolution which would put storm troopers and guttersnipes not just in the parliament, but in the boardrooms of corporations and banks, and in the upper echelons of the military. Hitler’s SS and Gestapo security forces simply machine-gunned and otherwise assassinated significant numbers of the radicals, and also of reformist bourgeois politicians. Hitler was seeking to make his movement more acceptable and palatable to the existing ruling circles.
Something not so different has been happening in the Trump campaign. Here the clique around Corey Lewandowsky and Stuart Jolly, often consisting of individuals connected to the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity tea party operation, had led the way in Trump’s early victories operating under the slogan “Let Trump be Trump.” But, with various powerbrokers demanding that Trump cease his raving and obscene rhetoric, and act more like a plausible president, Trump has chosen to dump his original clique of advisors, while bringing in the sinister Paul Manafort, who has been associated with the wormy underside of many Republican campaigns over the years.
Since the corrupt Washington lobbyist Manafort has seized power inside the Trump campaign, the explosive internal contradictions of Trumpism have come more and more clearly into focus. The entire demagogy of the Trump presidential campaign focuses on a violent polemic against Washington lobbyists, the influence they buy among elected officials, and the predatory foreign interests which they serve. But, with Manafort now obviously exercising great power – including over the fascist billionaire and the style of his speeches – we can see that the Trump campaign is dominated by precisely the kind of person Trump is supposed to be fighting. Obviously, the stupidity and gullibility of Trump’s duped followers are of gigantic proportions, but this does not mean that they are infinite. Somewhere, somehow, a day of reckoning is approaching for the colossal fraud which is Trump. After all, as Lincoln said: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
The Trump campaign is now dominated on the inside by Paul Manafort, an unsavory type who looks like he just stepped out of one of the less successful Godfather movies. Manafort’s television persona sets him apart as one of the most impudent liars of our time. His professional background centers on the Washington lobbying firm of Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly, which flourished between 1980 and 1994, when it is said to have been acquired by another firm. The principals were Charles R. Black Jr., Paul J. Manafort, Roger J. Stone, Peter G. Kelly, plus George H.W. Bush’s election adviser Lee Atwater, who came from the brutally racist tradition of racist-Dixiecrat Senator Strom Thurmond, whom Atwater had served. Atwater, like Roger Stone, had been a protégé of Watergate felon Donald Segretti of Nixon’s infamous 1972 Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), where Karl Rove, the election guru of George W Bush, also worked.
Trump’s campaign is thus the Night of the Living Dead on K Street in Washington, as half a century of dirty Republican insiders come out of their power alley offices and demand an infusion of the economic blood of the nation.
Manafort runs the Trump campaign from the inside. An equally integral part of the Trump effort, but operating at arm’s length distance with a claim of plausible deniability is the veteran provocateur Roger Stone, who handles relations with the scurrilous media cartel Trump is assembling around the Drudge Report, The Savage Nation, Breitbart, the National Enquirer, and WorldNetDaily, plus assorted libertarian fear porn and conspiracy theory operations.
Roger Stone poses today as an opponent of the “Establishment,” but in 1996, he was enough of an insider to be given the job of top adviser to the Dole for President Campaign. He was forced to quit when Dole concluded that Stone and his wife had placed a lurid ad in a publication targeting extramarital swingers.
Manafort is also the former business partner of Rick Davis, who ran the McCain for president campaign in 2008. Manafort was already such a radical outsider that he was scheduled to manage the 2008 GOP convention for McCain – the same job that Manafort has for Trump today! But Manafort was fired from this job by McCain, who was concerned about Manafort’s business as lobbyist for the corrupt circles of Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovich, the oligarch ousted by the CIA in February 2014.
As for Charles Black, this veteran GOP hack was McCain’s main advisor in 2008, and is currently running the Kasich campaign.
Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain, Kasich, Saudi princes, Ukrainian oligarchs, K Street lobbyists – somehow the notion of anti-Establishment insurgent does not fit into this resume for any of the Manafort-Stone gang. If we recall Roger Stone’s claim that he organized the Brooks Brothers riot which stopped the Florida vote recount on November 22, 2000 and thus kept George W. Bush’s presidential hopes alive, it looks like the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly is as Establishment as it gets for Republicans. So a group of aging hacks tries to seize power on the coattails of a fascist demagogue who conjures up a following of crazed but enthusiastic dupes.
But it gets worse and worse.
Manafort has been described in published accounts as the kingpin of the “torturers’ lobby,” meaning that he operated as a public-relations flank and lobbyist for some of the world’s most infamous human rights violators of recent decades. Among his clients were the CIA’s Angolan butcher Jonas Savimbi, the Saudi dark ages monarchy, plus corrupt French and Ukrainian politicians. Just the kind of people who are anxious to Make America Great Again! As The Daily Beast writes:
‘Over the course of a long lobbying career in D.C., top Trump aide Paul Manafort and his firm made a fortune fronting for a group of clients once referred to as the “torturers’ lobby.” So when Manafort accused opponent Ted Cruz of using “Gestapo tactics” to court Republican delegates on Meet the Press this past Sunday — it’s something he may have quite a bit of experience with firsthand. But over the years, they made millions by representing a rogue’s gallery of clients far away from D.C.’s genteel corridors of power: dictators, guerilla groups, and despots with no regard for human rights—including one man responsible for mass amputations, and another who oversaw state-sanctioned rape. One such client was Jonas Savimbi, who led a guerilla army trying to wrest control of the Angolan government from Marxists during the country’s brutal civil war. Savimbi hired Manafort’s lobbying firm to help him get financial support from the U.S. government for his guerilla army, UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola). Spy Magazine reported that his firm received $600,000 one year as compensation for his work for Angolan rebel leader, Jonas Savimbi. The Daily Beast reported that Manafort’s work for the Saudis netted him $250,000 for six months of work in 1984. A Justice Department form filed in 2008 from a subcontractor to Manafort’s firm said the PR work alone on behalf of Ukraine’s government was paid at $35,000 a month. In 2013, Manafort surfaced in a French influence-peddling scandal involving Edouard Balladur, who was prime minister in the mid-1990s. Manafort acknowledged in a Virginia court that he was paid by an adviser to the Saudi royal court more than $200,000 for advice he provided on security issues. That adviser in turn funneled the profits of an arms sale back into Balladur’s political campaign.’
Manafort is not just any lobbyist. He specialized in foreign clients who were willing to pay $250,000 or more to retain his services. Some of his prominent clients were foreign dictators, often backed by the CIA, whose human rights atrocities had generated problems with US and Western public opinion. One of Manafort’s assignments was to burnish the public image of Pakistan and in particular of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), one of the key players in the Great Game of international terrorism. In the process, Manafort and the firm became implicated in operations which, according to court papers, a federal prosecutor described as a “false flag operation” and a “scam”:
‘The Kashmiri American Council was a “scam” that amounted to a “false flag operation that Mr. Fai was operating on behalf of the ISI,” Gordon D. Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, said in March 2012 at Fai’s sentencing hearing in federal court. While posing as a U.S.-based nonprofit funded by American donors sympathetic to the plight of Kashmiris, it was actually bankrolled by the ISI in order to deflect public attention “away from the involvement of Pakistan in sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere,” Kromberg said. Fai, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax fraud charges, was then sentenced to two years in federal prison.
Lobbying records filed with the secretary of the Senate show that Manafort’s lobbying firm, Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, was paid $700,000 by the Kashmiri American Council between 1990 and 1995. This was among more than $4 million that federal prosecutors alleged came from the ISI; Fai collected the money over 20 years from “straw” American donors who were being reimbursed from secret accounts in Pakistan. (The funds were in some cases delivered to Fai in brown paper bags stuffed with cash — and then the donors reimbursed with wire transfers from ISI operatives, according to an FBI affidavit.)
Manafort, who handled the Kashmiri account for his firm, was never charged in the case and Kromberg told Yahoo News that what knowledge, if any, he had of the secret source of money from his client was not part of the Justice Department’s investigation. (While registering with Congress as a domestic lobbyist for the Kashmiri American Council, Manafort never registered with the U.S. Justice Department as a foreign agent of Pakistan, as he would have been required to do if he was aware of the ISI funding of his client.)
But a former senior Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified, told Yahoo News that there was never any doubt on Pakistan’s part that Manafort knew of his government’s role in backing the Kashmiri council. The former official said that during a trip from Islamabad in 1994 he met with Manafort and Fai in Manafort’s office in Alexandria, Va., “to review strategy and plans” for the council. Manafort, at the meeting, presented plans to influence members of Congress to back Pakistan’s case for a plebiscite for Kashmir (the largest portion of which has been part of India since 1947), he said. (Internal budget documents later obtained by the FBI show plans by the council to spend $80,000 to $100,000 a year on campaign contributions to members of Congress.) “There is no way Manafort didn’t know that Pakistan was involved with” the council, the former official said, although he added: “Some things are not explicitly stated.”’
Will Trump’s gullible and duped supporters rally round Manafort, whose friend Roger Stone is already a darling of the post-Paul libertarians who have gone over to Trump?
‘Manafort, for his part, appears to have expanded his business connections in Pakistan. In 2013 he acknowledged to French investigators that, in 1994, he had received $86,000 from two arms dealers involved in the sale of French attack submarines to Pakistan’s navy. The payments were part of an arrangement to compensate Manafort for political advice and polling he provided to French presidential candidate Édouard Balladur….’
Bloomberg adds an example of Manafort’s domestic corruption:
‘In 1989, Manafort was hauled before Congress for a classic example of Washington double-dealing. His firm received a $326,000 fee for securing for a client a $43 million Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidy for a block of low-income apartments in Seabrook, New Jersey. Manafort then purchased a 20 percent stake in the Seabrook subdivision that was to receive the federal subsidy for which he lobbied. When a Republican congressman remarked that the whole deal was sleazy, Manafort replied: “We worked the system as it existed. I don’t think we did anything illegal or improper.” [Trump’s own favorite excuse for corruption.] Documents uncovered in 2014 from a lawsuit brought about by former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko show that Manafort attempted to set up a real-estate partnership with Dmitry Firtash, a notorious Ukrainian businessman who financed the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and who is wanted by the FBI on bribery and corruption charges.’
Many of these activities reek of CIA operations and influence. Trump needs to tell his backers whether he has turned his campaign over to a bunch of predatory spooks. Saudi Arabia has long been a great focus of agency interests. Mobutu and Savimbi were clients, assets, and pawns of the CIA for many years:
‘Savimbi’s U.S.-based supporters ultimately proved successful in convincing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to channel covert weapons and recruit guerrillas for Savimbi’s war against Angola’s Marxist government, which greatly intensified and prolonged the conflict. During a visit to Washington, D.C. in 1986, Reagan invited Savimbi to meet with him at the White House. Following the meeting, Reagan spoke of UNITA winning “a victory that electrifies the world.”’
Trump’s horrible fascination with the more extreme forms of torture has long appeared puzzling to some, but we can now see that’s Trump’s social milieu has one of its economic pillars in the defense of torture and torturers.
Many are wondering whether the invincible international trade negotiator Trump has promised to appoint to re-negotiate all trade deals is in fact Manafort. Manafort might well show up as Trump’s US Trade Representative, or else as Secretary of Commerce – a job which in recent years has increasingly been used to reward party hacks. Manafort’s conflicts of interest may be the greatest in recent memory.
- “Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined “Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,” reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card.” See http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster