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
Tax Wall Street Party Chair Daniela Walls Urges Bernie Sanders to Fight All the Way to Democratic Convention and Be Ready to Step in if Hillary Is Felled by Scandals; Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver Says Bernie Has No Plans to Drop Out; Trump Wins in New York
During the last several days, Hillary Clinton has voiced her hope that the New York primary will give her a decisive victory and allow her to “wrap up the nomination” of the Democratic Party. What Hillary is expressing is her great desire to shut down the Democratic primary process, put an end to debates, silence her opponent, and begin the cynical political maneuver she has long been preparing.
Hillary’s emerging posture is that of a sharp right turn designed to pick up shards of the Republican Party, in particular white suburban Republicans living close to large cities who are recoiling from such figures as Trump and Cruz. These are relatively more affluent and better educated than the classic Trump petty bourgeois fanatics. Hillary’s calculation is that these center-right Republicans can be a huge windfall for her, and can more than compensate her for the possible loss of a great many Bernie Sanders voters. At the same time, the black voters Hillary relied on to win her the primaries in the southern states back at the time of Super Tuesday are being pushed into the background, since their presence might disturb the white centrist Republicans Hillary and Bill are now busy courting.
TWSP Chairwoman Daniela Walls has issued the following statement:
‘The Tax Wall Street Party urges Bernie Sanders to continue his campaign all the way to the Democratic National Convention in July. If he quits, he will be dragged along in the wake of Hillary’s imminent right turn, which will reverse every verbal concession she has made to his issues over the entire campaign thus far. The Democratic presidential debates must go on, so as to do justice to specific western issues of interest to voters in California, Oregon, and Washington. Unpredictable political events are always possible. Hillary has always been vulnerable to scandals, and her indictment is always possible on issues of her illegal email server and her illegal conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation. Maybe a second installment of the Panama Papers will bring her down, since her campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother have already been revealed as illegal unregistered lobbyists for Sperbank of Russia. Bernie has to stay in the field and keep fighting.’
Sanders considered it important to drag Hillary to the left on a number of economic issues. But the promises of an incorrigible cynic like Hillary are written in water. Hillary’s breathtaking right turn will cancel every concession to Bernie’s program.
Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver told Steve Kornacki of MSNBC tonight that Sanders will go all the way to the Philadelphia convention and attempt to convince superdelegates to vote for Bernie.
Hillary’s battle in New York has been complicated by the mistrust and suspicion with which many voters view her, even in a state where she was twice elected to the US Senate. Bernie’s rallies were much bigger and more enthusiastic:
“There’s this perception that the people want Sanders but the party wants Clinton,” said David Birdsell, dean of the Baruch College School of Public Affairs in Manhattan.’
Early reports showed Kasich and Cruz leading in at least one Congressional district each in Manhattan, showing a danger for Trump: unless he gets over 50% in each Congressional district, he loses delegates in those districts. This has become a decisive issue, since Cruz and Kasich have both given up hope of winning on the first ballot of the Republican convention and are mounting a second ballot (or subsequent ballot) strategy. They want to block Trump on the first ballot, and then watch his delegates fall apart in an orgy of revulsion, resentment, and buyer’s remorse. As for Trump, his weakness as a candidate forces him to seek a first ballot victory at all costs.
Even a few delegates can be decisive, as Trump has learned to his sorrow in recent weeks. Even a sweeping victory is flawed if he does not attain 50% in every congressional district. Cruz is expected to lose the Acela corridor states next Tuesday, but hopes to retain many unbound Pennsylvania and Indiana delegates. According to Politico:
‘Trump, with the GOP primary now a war of attrition with Ted Cruz for every single delegate, is hoping to take no fewer than 85 of the 95 delegates at play. If he comes close to that, Cruz will likely be mathematically eliminated from being able to clinch the nomination outright. But because Trump must take 50 percent of the vote in every congressional district in order to sweep the three delegates that are up for grabs in each, he, too, has little margin for error as he fights to reach the 1,237-delegate threshold to deliver him the nomination on the first ballot. Trump has spent much of the week leading up to Tuesday’s primary attempting to harden his support in the few regions where it is relatively soft, namely in central New York around Syracuse, where he rallied supporters Saturday.
… Sam Nunberg, who worked as Trump’s political director until last summer, when he was fired, and now supports Cruz [says]: “I have the utmost respect for Paul Manafort, but it’s too little, too late. The Titanic isn’t sinking, it’s already sunk.”’
Manafort, who now has the upper hand among the contending cliques at Trump’s court, replied:
‘“This whole discussion of how many delegates Donald Trump has is without value. If we get 1,090 or 1,150 or whatever by the end of this, we’re going to find the other 100 or 150 [delegates] we need,” said a strategist inside Trump’s operation. “We’ll go pickpocket them. At the end of all of this, Donald Trump is going to come into Cleveland with 1,237 and the party is just going to have to deal with it.”’
Voters will be very interested to see how Trump, Manafort, & Co. will attempt to “pickpocket” delegates in Cleveland.
Tax Wall Street Party intervening against Trump in Buffalo, NY (top) and in San Diego, CA (below)
Don’t believe #Trump’s big talk about #trade #protectionism when his favorite daughter gets rich w/ #runawayshop
Pure contempt for US jobs and workers from #Predatory #Trump family-#Ivanka has sweated labor in #RunawayShops!!
On the eve of the important New York State primary, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a nationwide statistical tie, 50% to 48%. Bernie supporters should draw encouragement from this result, and KEEP FIGHTING. Bernie’s prospects in New York and some other states may be uncertain, but the series of Western states which will hold their primaries and caucuses during the month of May could prove very difficult terrain for Hillary.
Above all, people of good will need to keep exposing the fascism of Trump, and are invited to make use of the excellent posters the Tax Wall Street Party has produced for this purpose. You can download the printer ready protest package including posters and leaflets on the home page here: http://twsp.us. Please send us pictures of yourselves at the protests and we will make sure that your efforts get the publicity they deserve.
Paul Revere’s ride
April 18 and April 19 at mark the anniversary of Paul Revere’s ride, and of the battles of Lexington and Concord. The unsavory Borders-Language-Culture gang now supporting Trump is showing very little interest in the great patriotic moments of American history, probably because their outlook is so deeply anti-American. If you want to honor the American Revolution, the way to do so is to Stop Trump.
“Battle of Lexington”
– British troops fire on colonists, who had gathered at Lexington to stop them from going on to Concord to destroy a colonial supply depot. Major Pitcairn, the British officer on horseback, had ordered the colonists to disarm and disperse. As they began to do so, a single shot was fired, which led to an exchange of fire between a British platoon and the colonial militia. Eight militiamen were killed and ten wounded before Pitcairn regained control of his troops. Thus the American Revolution started, with “the shot heard round the world.”
In the historical long view, the most likely legacy of the Trump agitation is a fractured and broken Republican Party, so thoroughly crippled as to be unable to mount future attempts to seize power in Washington. This will be good for the United States, since the Republican Party has been a deadly albatross around the neck of the nation for many years. The extinction of the Republican Party as a national party remains the number one agenda item when it comes to implementing programs for national recovery and national economic reconstruction.
An interesting scenario for the demise of the GOP comes from Adam Clymer, the former Washington correspondent of the New York Times. Clymer’s topic:
‘Does about the Republican Party have a future? Or is the Party founded in 1856 no longer Grand, just Old, falling apart, on its way to dissolution?’
Clymer’s analysis considers three alternative outcomes for the Republican Cleveland convention: the Republicans could nominate Trump, or they might reject Trump and choose another candidate, such as Cruz, or they might reject both Trump and Cruz, installing a figure such as Speaker Paul Ryan, Governor Mitt Romney, for some other politician who had not been a candidate so far in 2016.
Naturally, we are always reading these scenarios with a view to determining how the greatest possible institutional destruction might be inflicted on the GOP.
If Trump gets the nomination, Clymer imagines the following outcomes:
‘The upside is avoiding the Cleveland “riot” Trump cheerfully predicted. Nominating him might entice some of his supporters into lasting loyalty to the Republican Party, if there is one. Focusing party resources and Koch Brothers money on other races just might save the Senate majority. But remember, embattled candidates like Ohio’s Senator Rob Portman have to decide whether endorsing Trump or staying silent will cost them more of the votes they don’t have to spare. The downside starts with a 2016 defeat of Goldwater/McGovern dimensions. Nominating the man who opened his campaign by labeling Mexican immigrants as “rapists” would etch in stone the party’s current image as anti-Latino, scorning the fastest growing demographic in the electorate. Trump’s misogyny would intensify the party’s long-standing problems with women voters. With some polls suggesting that a third of Republicans would not vote for him, the stay-at-home contingent will defeat Governors, Senators and Representatives. The damage would be worst in swing states or districts where office-holders don’t always regard “compromise” as a profanity. But this could well be a “wave” election (like 1994).’
A wave election in the swing states and battleground states could of course put an end to the current Republican majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It had usually been calculated that the House of Representatives would be hopelessly under the Republican yoke until some future redistricting could reverse the excesses of gerrymandering carried out at the beginning of the present decade. But, thanks to Trump, there is now a real chance for the Republican wacko birds to be ousted from the majority.
In addition, governors will be elected in 2016 in Delaware, Indiana, Missouri Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Republican governors in several of those states are doubtless already running scared.
Under the Trump as Republican nominee scenario, every Republican candidate down to the level of dogcatcher can expect to spend September and October being confronted by the news media with the latest piece of rhetorical insanity from Trump.
The second possibility considered by Clymer is the defeat of Trump, followed by the nomination of Cruz. But Cruz is merely a fascist of a slightly different color, with policy positions which are sometimes about as horrifying as Trump’s. Clymer comments:
‘… choice two does have disadvantages. The first risk is the “riot” at the convention that Trump has cheerfully predicted/threatened (and which he might be unable to prevent if he wanted). This happens if Trump is denied for anyone. Cruz would almost certainly suffer a defeat about as bad as Trump’s, with equivalent collateral damage across the party as thousands of moderates and Trump loyalists stayed home. The depth of Cruz’ potential defeat is not yet obvious because he and his views are not as well-known as Trump’s. But they will be. Either Democrat would exploit that record. Shutting down the government is not widely considered a qualification to run it, and hard right policy on issues like abortion and same sex marriage has no relation to twenty-first century national opinion.’
The third choice discussed by Clymer is the joint downfall of both Trump and Cruz at the Cleveland convention, with the Republicans turning to a new champion or white knight. Clymer thinks this approach might avoid or at least diminish GOP losses in the down-ballot:
‘The pros of choice three: Rejecting two implausible presidents. Maybe, just maybe, avoid a landslide that sweeps many other Republicans to defeat, too.’
But here also the negative outcomes are also massive, and include a greater danger of convention chaos than the two previous options:
‘The cons: The risk of landslide defeat remains still very strong. Trouble at the convention would likely be even worse since Cruz backers could join Trump’s in resentment at being cheated. Then what would get them to vote in November? If they don’t, down-ballot losses would be devastating. Trump would surely make things worse by attacking threatened Republican candidates whom he considered part of the conspiracy that chose Galahad. This approach would also fix on the Republican brand an indelible label of backroom deals that infuriates backers of Trump (and of Bernie Sanders, too). If it does not win the White House, and perhaps even if somehow it does, this maneuver would drive the final wedge between the establishment and the hard right.
The most remarkable thing about these three scenario options is that they all converge on the destruction of the Republican Party as a national political force over the short to medium-term ahead. We hope this proves to be accurate.
Clymer tells us that he has been discussing GOP collapse scenarios with leading figures of that party over the recent time. He suggests that the various modes of GOP collapse have been subjected to a robust debate among these prominent figures:
‘Few prominent Republicans want to talk, for quotation or without, about a formal split of the party into two or more. But it is on their minds and they discuss it among each other.’
The Tax Wall Street Party regards the Republican Party as a toxic liability, a crushing burden of backwardness, sabotage and misrule which the United States can no longer afford to bear if this nation is to survive the 21st century. We call on all persons of good will to do everything possible to secure the political extinction of this noxious entity. In Tuesday’s primary election in New York State, this includes voting in favor of Bernie Sanders, while doing everything possible to Stop Trump.
Momentum of Recent Weeks Is All with Vermont Senator, with Thursday’s Debate His Best Effort Yet; Clinton Cartel in Sharp Right Turn Seeking White Suburban Republican Voters Repelled by Trump and Cruz; Elderly Shocked by Hillary’s Cynical Refusal to Secure Solvency of Social Security by Making High Earners Pay Up; Trump Still in Delirium Over His Own Colorado Fumbles; Tax Wall Street Party Urges New York Voters to Support Bernie, Stop Trump
World Crisis Radio
April 16, 2016