Under Current Arrangement, Income Over $118,500 Is Not Taxable, Thus Favoring Hillary’s Plutocratic Donors; Hillary Evades Question, Opening Door to Benefit Cuts; Bernie Mocks Hillary’s Hollow Claim She “Called Out” Wall Street, Again Demands to See Her Goldman Sachs Speeches; Hillary Thinks Bernie’s Botched Interview with Daily News Is the Equivalent of Her Vote for the Catastrophic Iraq War; Bernie Offers Reasoned Defense of Palestinian Rights
Photos in today’s edition show the Tax Wall Street Party participation in the anti-Trump protests near Grand Central Station on Thursday evening.
Welcome to #TaxWallStreetParty #Livetweet of #CNN #BernieSanders-#HillaryClinton #Brooklyn debate-#FeelTheBern-Will #Bernie seek #KnockOut?
#Bernie was pessimistic on winning & fearful of damaging #Hillary so he pulled punches on email #Server to dodge #FOIA and #Goldman speeches
This may be last debate, so #Bernie must use it for #Knockout #Punch that will expose #Hillary as #WallStreet puppet & #Warmonger #TWSP
Over Seven Centuries Ago: On December 23, 1310 Holy Roman Emperor Henry VII of Luxemburg Joined with Dante Alighieri in Milan to Start the Process Leading to the Modern State: Why Civil War Is More Inconvenient Than Paying Taxes to the IRS – Despite What the Neo-Feudal Oligarch Trump and the Anti-State Libertarians May Say
Henry VII of Luxemburg
At tax time each spring, libertarian and other reactionary demagogues are fond of pointing out the monetary costs of a full-service modern state. In times of economic breakdown, these costs, especially in the form of income taxes and other taxes, can loom large. In such moments, it makes sense to evaluate the alternative costs of a situation of feudalism, which was then and remains today the concrete alternative.
The late Middle Ages were a time of severe social breakdown, starting with the Black Plague in the mid-1300s. The Hundred Years’ War between France and England was a devastating blow to European civilization in general. In England, this was followed by a civil war between feudal-oligarchical factions called the Wars of the Roses.
Fortunately, a pilot project capable of leading humanity out of the late medieval breakdown crisis had been launched in Italy around 1310. This occurred thanks to the cooperation of the Holy Roman (German) Emperor Henry VII of Luxemburg and the poet Dante Alighieri in sponsoring the Visconti family as the new rulers of the key northern Italian city of Milan, then the richest city in western Europe. A little later, Francesco Petrarca, another famous poet, worked for the Visconti as a diplomat. The result of this work over several generations was ultimately the most important political innovation of the past 2,000 years: the modern state.
Neo-feudalism is the principle asserted by Trump and his fellow billionaires, like the Koch brothers, George Soros, the Mercer family who back Ted Cruz, Sheldon Adelson, and many others. They believe that a multi-billionaire and his retinue of political, economic, and military interests should be able to impose his will on the central government of modern nations. Trump expresses this idea in the most extreme form, advocating in practice that a multi-billionaire should control a private army of militias, security forces, KKK, white supremacists, survivalists, anti-government fanatics, and others. You can see this in Ukraine with the various oligarchs, and you can see it in the oligarch Trump.
But the problem with feudalism and neo-feudalism has always been the unavoidable tendency of these factions to engage in private war among each other. European feudalism broke down and collapsed most of all due to the incessant private warfare of medieval barons – people with mentalities similar to Trump’s.
Thanks to the Visconti dynasty, a political form beginning to resemble the modern state emerged in Milan in the years just before 1400 under Giangaleazzo Visconti.
Today, some Trump fanatics have raved that attempts to prevent a seizure of power by the fascist Trump will lead to civil war. But civil war in the service of a neo-feudal oligarch like Trump would be the worst possible outcome. Only the insane could advocate such an outcome, but unfortunately more than a few insane people are around today. Civilization and human progress must be defended against such people. One indispensable weapon is the Wall Street Sales Tax, which can shift the tax burden off the backs of the middle class and working class, and back onto the super-rich where it belongs.
Dante With Greyhound Above Florence, James Dromgole Linton,1899
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D. TARPLEY.net Originally posted on: December 23, 2010
Henry VII’s most vocal political supporter and advocate was the Florentine exile Dante Alighieri, by all odds the greatest man of the second millennium AD. Dante’s immediate goal was to end the fratricidal party strife between the Guelf (pro-papal) and Ghibelline (pro-imperial) factions by restoring imperial guidance to the northern Italian city states, which had been gripped by growing anarchy and incipient civil war since the death of Frederick II of Hohenstaufen and the end of his southern Italian kingdom 60 years earlier. One of the victims of this anarchy had been Dante himself, who was driven out of Florence in 1303 by the ascendant Black Guelf party, acting with the encouragement of the simonist pope, Boniface VIII.
Dante’s Divine Comedy, the first sustained poetic effort in Italian and the first masterpiece in a modern language, was written as an ideological handbook and justification for Henry VII’s Italian expedition and the restoration of a balance between pope and emperor in northern and central Italy. In Canto I of the Inferno, when Dante is lost in the dark wood of error, his guide Vergil foretells the coming of “il veltro” — a greyhound who will destroy the wolf of avarice, the source of all depraved desires, thought by some to represent the banking power, especially its Venetian aspect. The greyhound is a figure for Henry VII. The entire “Divine Comedy” is full of references and prophecies about Henry VII, too many to be enumerated here.
In Milan, Henry VII’s modest retinue of a few thousand troops were awaited by the hostile but politically decrepit Guelf regime of the Torriani family, who had driven the Ghibelline opposition out of the city. Henry VII’s general policy was that political exiles should be allowed to return to their homes, and in the case of Milan this included Matteo Visconti and his followers, who had originally come from the Pavia area, between Milan and the Po River. Before long, the Ghibelline Matteo Visconti had ousted the Torriani family from power and established one of the most important family regimes in all of European history.
After being crowned King of Lombardy in the church of St. Ambrose in Milan on January 6, 1310, Henry VII attempted to reconcile the factions of other northern Italian cities. Ghibelline cities like Verona, Pisa, Arezzo, Modena, and Mantua welcomed Henry, but the more numerous Guelf rulers soon formed a league to resist him, including by waging war. The prime mover of this rebellion was Guelf Florence, controlled by Dante’s mortal enemies, the Black Guelfs. Henry VII, despite his inadequate forces, responded by besieging Florence, albeit unsuccessfully.
In Cantos 8 and 9 of the Inferno, Dante and Vergil are for a time prevented from passing through the walls that surround the lower hell or City of Dis by the largest and most aggressive assembly of demons the two wayfarers ever encountered in the underworld. This is a pandemonium of pagan and other monsters, featuring Alecto, Tisiphone, and Megaera, the three furies of Greek lore, plus the severed head of the Gorgon Medusa, which these infernal guards intend to use to turn Dante into stone. The demonic resistance cannot be put down by human reason as represented by Vergil, who must wait for an angel or heavenly messenger to quell the rebellion against the divine will, which wants Dante to see the lower hell and tell the world what he has seen. This is followed by an admonition to the reader to look below the surface meaning to understand the allegorical message Dante sought to impart. According to Pietrobono and some of the better commentators, the walls of lower hell are to be understood as a metaphor for the walls of Florence during Henry’s siege of that city, with the Black Guelfs as recalcitrant demons. Hell is a city much like Florence under the Black Guelfs, says Dante.
In addition to devoting so much of the Divine Comedy to Henry VII, Dante also wrote about his hopes for the new emperor in three of his few extant Latin letters. Letter V, probably written in the fall of 1310, proclaims the coming of Henry VII as the new Moses and bridegroom of long-suffering Italy. Letter VI is an emphatic prophecy of ruin for Henry VII’s enemies, who will see their cities destroyed as punishment for their resistance, despite their contemptible fortifications (ridiculo cuiquam vallo). Letter VII exhorts Henry VII to stop wasting time with the rebellions fomented in Brescia and other cities, and to strike directly at the heart of the insurrection by launching a new attack on Florence, the stinking vixen of the Arno. Finally, Dante’s treatise on politics and government, De Monarchia, is a theoretical expression of the idea that the temporal rule of the emperor is superior to the political authority of the Roman pope, who needs to focus on spiritual matters.
Henry VII of Luxemburg died in August of 1313, just as he was preparing a new attack on Florence. He is likely to have been poisoned by political adversaries.
Dante’s detractors have never tired of deriding the failure of his attempt to restore civic peace in northern and central Italy with the help of a revivified Holy Roman Empire. But this ignores the two political powers that Henry VII helped to establish. One was Verona under the Scala family; Cangrande della Scala was one of Dante’s benefactors in exile, and for a time seemed likely to dominate northern Italy, perhaps including Venice. The other imperial vicars who became prominent were the Visconti.
By the end of 1313, the Visconti state controlled not just Milan, but also Lombard towns like Piacenza, Lodi, Bobbio, and Novara. In 1314, they added Como, Bergamo, and Tortona. In 1315, Pavia and Cremona were conquered, while Alessandria invited them in to escape the repressive rule of the French-backed Anjou overlords. In 1316, Parma and Vercelli joined the Visconti state. As the leading scholarly study of Henry VII by William M. Bowsky concludes, the Visconti power “owed its start, both militarily and legally, to Henry of Luxemburg.”
Giangaleazzo Visconti, c. 1400: Architect of the First Prototype of the Modern State
It was a somewhat later Milanese ruler of this line, Giangaleazzo Visconti, who in the years around 1400 created a large northern Italian state which must be considered as the first prototype of the modern state. Giangaleazzo’s state included most of northern Italy, with the key exceptions of Venice and Tuscany. He ruled Verona, Cremona, Brescia, Belluno, Pieve di Cadore, Feltre, Pavia, Novara, Como, Lodi, Vercelli, Alba, Asti, Pontremoli, Tortona, Alessandria, Valenza, Piacenza, Parma, Reggio Emilia, Vicenza, and Vigevano. Another year and Florence would have appeared on the list, and shortly thereafter, probably Venice, making the Kingdom of Italy a viable reality.
Milan was traditionally the richest city in western Europe, and its only serious competitor for first place in Europe as a whole was Constantinople. Giangaleazzo’s political method featured two aspects which have remained indispensable to the modern state. The first was an economic recovery program favoring the middle class: when Giangaleazzo seized control of Milan, he implemented a tax amnesty, cancelling the debts owed by citizens to the tax collector. This would be the modern equivalent of a debt moratorium or cancellation.
View of a canal section in Binasco, Italy, 9 miles southwest of Milan, originally dating back to the era of Giangaleazzo Visconti, precursor of the modern state.
Giangaleazzo’s other hallmark was the building of modern infrastructure. For Milan, that meant efforts to further develop the very advanced system of canals in and around Milan, and reaching down to the Po, Adda, and other rivers — the navigli, many of which still exist, covered over with more recent constructions. Some canals dated back to Roman times, while others had been built in the thirteenth century and later. These canals enabled Giangaleazzo to ship in and make rapid progress on the Milanese Duomo, the most ambitious late Gothic cathedral in Europe, and to build the striking Charterhouse of Pavia (Certosa di Pavia), a Carthusian monastery. Leonardo da Vinci later worked on these canals, which featured the first modern lock system in the world.
Giangaleazzo Visconti in 1386 started work on the Milan cathedral (Duomo).
Milan was also the European leader in key areas of advanced technology, especially in steel and other metallurgy. The Milanese arms and armor industry was in demand from both England and France, the antagonists in the Hundred Years War of 1337-1453.
By 1402 Giangaleazzo was thus well on his way to accomplishing the single most important thing needed to consolidate the gains of the Italian renaissance — unifying northern and central Italy into a powerful national state capable of preventing the country from becoming a battlefield between France and Spain, as happened in the years after 1494, with the most tragic consequences. But in 1402, just as Giangaleazzo was about to add Florence and Tuscany to his emerging nation, he died in September 1402 under mysterious circumstances, just like Henry VII in 1313 and Dante in 1321.
After 1402, Giangaleazzo’s new state quickly fell apart, but was largely re-assembled by his second oldest son, Filippo Maria Visconti. After Filippo Maria, the Milanese state passed under the control of Francesco Sforza, a military leader who had married Filippo Maria’s daughter. In this latter form it was closely studied and imitated by King Louis XI of France, who successfully created the world’s first modern state, no longer a prototype, during his reign of 1461-1483.
The importance and positive potential of the Visconti has been obscured for generations of readers by the profoundly misleading work of the late historian Hans Baron, who could only regard the Visconti as tyrants and precursors of Mussolini and Hitler — a total distortion. For Baron, the positive forces were the sleazy pols of the Florentine Guelf Party and their spokesmen, oligarchs who refused to write in Italian and reverted to Latin, lest the plebs gain insight into their statecraft and swindles. Francesco Petrarca, Dante’s successor in the effort of promote a renaissance out of the shipwreck of late medieval Europe, did not agree with the pedantic Baron: Petrarch thought highly enough of the Visconti to go to work for them as a diplomat for five years during the 1350s.
The Holy Roman Empire (Sacro Romano Impero, or Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation) was the direct descendant of the empire assembled by Charlemagne around 800 AD. It was an amalgam of much of central Europe, including Germany, Bohemia, Holland and the Low Countries, northern and central Italy, and some adjacent areas. Holy Roman Emperors like Henry VII were chosen by an electoral college of seven members, including the King of Bohemia, the archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, and Trier, plus the rulers of Saxony, the Palatinate along the Rhine, and Brandenburg-Prussia. The newly elected emperor was immediately declared King of the Romans, but he then was supposed to go to Italy to be crowned with the iron crown of Lombardy in Monza near Milan. He was then supposed to go on to Rome to be crowned as Holy Roman Emperor by the pope. This was the traditional itinerary which Henry VII was following, even as he tried to restore imperial authority south of the Alps. Matters were complicated by the fact that the pope in 1310 was the Gascon Clement V, a puppet of Philip the Fair of France (whom Dante called “the French disease”); Clement V lived in Avignon, and never came to Rome. Henry VII was crowned by a cardinal in St. John Lateran, which was controlled by the Ghibelline Colonna family, rather than in St. Peter’s, which was behind the lines of the Guelf Orsini clan.
From Thomas Carlyle and Francesco De Sanctis to the quackademics of today, modern oligarchs have mocked and reviled Dante’s efforts to restore legality to northern and central Italy with the help of Henry VII. The lesson of the story is that Dante failed in the narrow sense of restoring the empire, but succeeded in the larger project launching a process leading to the modern state, and with it modern civilization. Success does not always come in the form we expect, but we must welcome progress nevertheless.
Today, with the modern state under assault by nihilists, anarchists, fascists, and barbarians of the extreme left and the reactionary right, proponents of civilization and culture need to recommit themselves to the indispensable institution of the modern state, and to the world-historical geniuses and heroes, starting with Dante, who have worked to create it.
Trump Lost Colorado Fair and Square Based on Existing Rules; Preview of Buck-Passing, Scapegoating Presidency; Gestapo Tactics by Storm-Trumpers As Colorado GOP Chair Is Bombarded by Death Threats; CNN Imitates East German Television in Fawning Telecast with Trump Clan
President Harry Truman always claimed he took responsibility for adversity that occurred on his presidential watch. He expressed this with a sign reading “The Buck Stops Here,” which he kept on his desk in the oval office. Trump is the very opposite, always dodging responsibility, passing the buck, and scapegoating his hapless aides. Trump appointees should practice falling on their swords before reporting for work.
“The Buck Stops Here” – this was the famous saying on a plaque which President Harry Truman kept on his desk in the oval office. The point was that adverse events which occur on the watch of a US president are his ultimate responsibility. Truman, of course, was a disastrous president, but on this particular point he was at least verbally correct.
Trump knows about this principle in the abstract – he even cited it when he asserted that George W Bush did not keep America safe, because 9/11 happened on his watch, and was in that sense his responsibility.
The events of the last few days have shown, however, that a Trump presidency would be characterized by buckpassing, scapegoating, and the inability to accept executive responsibility. In practice, Trump is one of the most consummate buck passers of modern times, even before he has seized power.
Trump lost the Colorado delegate selection process fair and square, starting with the precinct caucuses on March 1, which were attended by 65,000 voters, but for which Trump neither campaigned nor attempted to turn out the vote.
Now, incredibly, having lawfully lost all the Colorado delegates and votes to Cruz, the fascist has launched into an epic temper tantrum (or Trumper Tantrum), claiming that the complicated Colorado delegate selection process amounted to a deliberate attempt to defraud him and deprive him of his rights as a candidate.
More and more first person accounts of Colorado caucus goers who did take the trouble to show up on the evening of March 1 when this entire process got going are coming to the fore, but this is of no consequence to Trump.
Trump is now orchestrating what is probably the most monumental Big Lie Campaign in American politics since Bush and Cheney set out to convince the gullible average American that Saddam Hussein of Iraq did indeed possess a formidable armory of Weapons of Mass Destruction. There claims, of course, have long been discredited, but it looks like a sucker is actually born every minute, and a lot of them are gravitating to Trump.
Rush Limbaugh has offered an intriguing theory of Trump’s strategy. According to Limbaugh, Trump realized many weeks ago that the outlook for his brand of politics was hopeless in a state like Colorado, so he ordered his henchmen and retainers to avoid the state and do nothing to prepare for the precinct caucuses, the county and congressional district caucuses, and for the state convention, which has now just occurred. In the wake of a lopsided defeat, Trump reasoned, he could claim foul play against his campaign, and gin up the turnout in his favor in the New York State and other Northeastern locations in the next two weeks, thus finally putting an end to the 10 state losing streak, which has severely tarnished his Myth of Invincibility and the Triumph of the Will.
This line is now being churned out by the sinister Trump media cartel, which seems to operate according to the theories of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. This group includes the Drudge Report, Breitbart, the Savage Nation, the National Enquirer, WorldNetDaily, and assorted libertarians backed up by a few mercenary conspiracy theorists.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt back here in the reality-based community living in the real world that a Colorado Republican caucus did indeed occur on the evening of March 1. Here is a first-person account of a pro-Cruz caucus goer:
I entered my precinct’s meeting place the evening of March 1 and was greeted by a neighbor of mine sitting at a registration table. In front of her was a list of all of the registered Republicans in our precinct. She verified I was on the list and gave me a sticker to wear as my credentials. The caucus was open to all registered Republicans in our precinct. When the precinct captain started the meeting, I scanned the room. To my knowledge, there were no Republican party operatives or elected officials, beside the precinct-level people running the meeting. There were about 25 people in the room….After some county level business, we got to the presidential delegate elections. The precinct captain said that because of Republican party rules there wasn’t going to be a straw poll of presidential preferences. However, since that was the main reason people were in attendance, we ended up having a showing of hands as to whom we preferred. The tally was about 19 for Rubio, around 4 for Cruz, a couple for Kasich and a couple for Trump. During the discussion, it became apparent the Rubio supporters felt he was the most electable, the Cruz supporters (including myself) liked his conservative values, the Kasich supporters liked his experience, and the Trump supporters were angry.
A few people threw their names into the ring to become delegates to the subsequent conventions. For the delegate candidates who could eventually become National Convention Delegates (if elected as such at the District Convention), they each expressed their candidate preferences. Interestingly, they each expressed support for either Rubio or Cruz and noted that they could support the other if their first choice didn’t pan out. They also made it clear that they did not support Trump. One caucus attendee said he’d rather chop off his right arm than vote for Trump. In the end, we elected two delegates who expressed support for Rubio and one who was for Cruz.
I walked out of the caucus that night with mixed emotions. I was saddened that my candidate, Ted Cruz, was a distant second to Marco Rubio (who would drop out of the race two weeks later), but I was buoyed by the discovery that so many of my neighbors shared my disdain for Trump.
Given my caucus experience and the fact that Rubio had dropped out of the race prior to my District’s April 2 convention, it was no surprise when all three of my district’s delegates went to Ted Cruz. It was also no surprise when all 13 of the delegates selected at the Colorado State Republican Convention were for Cruz.
Through a lack of engagement, Mr. Trump essentially made the choice not to be involved in the Colorado process. Indeed, it is apparent from his lack of complaints prior to delegate selection that he was completely unaware of how Colorado would select delegates. To now complain that the system is somehow unfair because it didn’t magically grant him delegates despite his lack of exertion is disingenuous and reeks of desperation.’
Here is an account by writer John Daly, who attended the Colorado state convention:
‘When I showed up at the state convention last Saturday in Colorado Springs, I was surprised by the lack of identifiable support for Trump. Every now and then, I’d see someone walk by wearing one of those red “Make America Great Again” trucker hats, but the overwhelming majority of attendees were proudly displaying “Ted Cruz” stickers on their shirts. From the conversations I had with a number of other delegates that day (from different parts of the state), I began to understand why the GOP front-runner was fairing so poorly. Each of them relayed the same story: Last month, shockingly few Trump supporters showed up on caucus night to vote for district delegates. And of those who did show up, hardly any of them offered to run as delegates to make their voices count at the state convention. They just weren’t interested in the job. Cruz and Rubio supporters, on the other hand, were very engaged. Taking that into account with Trump’s embarrassingly disorganized (and seemingly clueless) ground-game in the state, a big Cruz victory made perfect sense. It almost seemed as if Trump were less interested in winning Colorado than his supporters were. Instead of that being the big story, however, charges of “corruption” and “crookedness” in my state are what is being discussed on the cable news channels this morning. Once again, Trumpspeak proves to be an excellent media distraction from questions of the GOP front-runner’s competency and judgment.’
The Storm-Trumpers are so inept and chaotic that they are currently announcing their big Colorado delegate protest demo for two separate days – Thursday and Friday of this week. Far be it from us to interfere. They are also too doltish to schedule their rally for Saturday. Whom will they blame when their turnout falls short?
CNN Brings Back Pre-1991 Communist Bloc Broadcast Practices with Trump Family Hour
What follows is the Tax Wall Street Party Live Tweet of CNN’s Trump Family Program broadcast this evening, which represented a new low in American television journalism. The studio audience was apparently almost exclusively composed of supporters of Trump, or of those leaning in his direction. CNN seemed to find it edifying that a number of those present converted to Trumpism on the spot. Not even the British Royal family gets such laudatory introductions and softball questions. In order to find a parallel to this broadcast, one would have to go back to the days of Soviet television under Brezhnev, or perhaps to East German television under Erich Honecker. When we think of the absurd scene of Trump’s children all attributing their own achievements and everything positive in their lives to the wonderful influence of Trump, we may be forced all the way back to a comparison with the Romanian television under the dictatorship of Nikolai Ceausescu. The important thing here is that Ceausescu was able to preserve a high-powered personality cult long after such systems of adulation had died out in the USSR and in the satellites as well. Romanian television was full of programs showing exemplary workers and farmers who had managed to far exceed their production quotas. When they were asked how they had managed to accomplish such feats, the answer was always that they had been inspired by Ceausescu’s luminous example. Maoist China could undoubtedly furnish useful comparisons as well.
Under Trump, the United States could easily be reduced to similar degradation.
Trump Had Never Campaigned in Colorado, and His Staffers Showed Up Last Week, When It Was Too Late; Son and Daughter Also Forgot to Register for New York GOP Primary; Trump’s Delegate Magician Manafort Nowhere to Be Found; Bungling on an Epic Scale
Complainer Donald Trump could have learned a great deal about delegate recruitment and retention by reading Norman Mailer’s account of how Richard Nixon built his machine for the 1968 Republican convention in Miami. This story can be found in Mailer’s Miami and the Siege of Chicago (1968).
In Adolf Hitler’s early years, one of his favorite demagogic themes was the “Stab in the Back.” This was his claim that the World War I Imperial German Army had not been defeated in the field by the Allies in October-November 1918, but had rather been betrayed by forces inside Germany. Among these, Hitler habitually accused Jews, Communists, Social Democrats, Liberals and Communists in Berlin. This Stab in the Back then opened the door to Hitler’s agitation against the Versailles Treaty of 1919 with its War Guilt Clause, which pinned 100% of the responsibility of the war on Germany and her allies as a prelude to imposing a crushing burden of reparations on the vanquished nation. Nazis required a grievance to build on, and this was it. They wanted to Make Germany Great Again.
But the Stab in the Back was a lie. German Field Marshal von Hindenburg, the supreme commander, admitted to American journalist George Seldes right after the war that the German forces had been militarily defeated, specifically by the efforts of the US forces under General MacArthur at the Meuse-Argonne. Only later did von Hindenburg align with the Stab in the Back theory.
Mussolini, the first fascist prime minister anywhere in the world, had his own grievance. This was his claim of a mutilated victory, meaning that Italy had entered World War I in exchange for promises of territorial compensation, but this compensation had not been forthcoming at Versailles. Mussolini demanded to make Italy Great Again by getting these territorial concessions from the British and French.
Now it is the turn of one Donald J. Trump. When Trump entered the presidential contest last June, he chose to rely primarily on charisma, demagogy, momentum, bullying, insults, and shock and awe to intimate, paralyze, and crush his opponents. He chose to devote little of his precious lucre and energy to the detailed logistics of political campaigning, including the meticulous cultivation of delegates with the attention and perks required to win their loyalty. Trump seldom engaged in the congressional district and party conventions where the actual persons are chosen who will fill the slots and seats that are won in the party primaries and caucuses.
Now that Trump’s Blitzkrieg machine has bogged down, his slovenly organizational practices are coming to the fore. As his close adviser Roger Stone said last week, Trump has virtually no infrastructure in the states. That is due to his own negligence and false economies. But he wants nevertheless to whine and complain that this is somebody else’s fault. This argument goes parallel in many ways to the Stab in the Back legend – blameless Trump has obviously been betrayed by corrupt state party officials who resent his charismatic gifts.
Trump’s immediate deployment of the Stab in the Back argument is extremely ominous for his possible presidency. If scapegoating the allegedly disloyal for his own incompetence and his own defeats is to be his default posture, notions like the presumption of innocence and due process may not survive very long.
Trump never campaigned in Colorado and never even visited the state. The Colorado GOP caucus was on March 1, and that was the chance to vote. Delegates after that were chosen based on that first round of results. Colorado once had a straw poll or beauty contest primary, but it was junked after the RNC ruled it was not party policy, and the state party and state government declined to pay for it. Trump operatives showed up in Colorado last week, only about six months too late.
Trump’s son and daughter, it transpires, also forgot to register to vote in New York State. Trump himself has not voted in a primary for the last six 4-year cycles. Trump is a terrible manager. He blew it.
But Trump is determined to whine and complain, tweeting:
“‘I win a state in votes and then get non-representative delegates because they are offered all sorts of goodies by Cruz campaign. Bad system!’”
Some background on Trump’s debacle, from the classic reactionary National Review website:
‘This time around, the Republican National Committee told the state parties they could no longer have “beauty pageant” competitions — i.e., purely symbolic contests that are not actually tied to the results. That’s what the “straw poll” represented, so the Colorado GOP canceled it. On March 1, Colorado Republicans gathered at 2,917 precinct caucuses to select delegates to the county assemblies and district conventions. If you’re a Coloradan with a view on the Republican primary, this is when you got to vote. At the county assemblies, those delegates elect delegates to the congressional-district and state conventions. (Colorado Republicans pick three delegates and three alternates from each of the seven congressional districts, and then another 13 to represent statewide.) Once again, this is all laid out in the party rules. This isn’t hidden somewhere. It’s not written in code.’
Trump had been recently warned by RNC boss Reince Priebus to get in there and fight for delegates if he wanted them:
‘“It’s been easy to scoff at this description of Trump’s meeting with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus… When Mr. Priebus explained that each campaign needed to be prepared to fight for delegates at each state’s convention, Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do, the people briefed on the meeting said. But the evidence is mounting that yes, indeed, Trump really is being poorly served by his staff, as his campaign seems to get blindsided by existing rules week after week: Trump’s campaign didn’t put a visible paid staffer on the ground in Colorado until last week, when it hired Patrick Davis, a Colorado Springs political consultant, to organize national delegate candidates at the 7th Congressional District convention in Arvada. By then, Cruz had won the first six delegates. Even then, the energy behind Trump’s campaign didn’t materialize in support. He managed to win only seven alternate delegates. The Trump campaign’s list of preferred national delegates distributed at the state convention on Saturday was riddled with errors and misspellings that only further hurt its chances.’
We should also recall that Trump’s standard response to defeat and failure is the blame his adversaries and allege foul play. After his defeat in Iowa, for example, he conceded defeat but was soon issuing charges of vote fraud and other chicanery:
‘Donald Trump’s moment of humility didn’t last long. The billionaire businessman, still licking his wounds after a decisive loss in Iowa on Monday, is now crying foul, accusing Ted Cruz of stealing the election and calling for a do-over. After congratulating Cruz during his concession speech on Monday night, Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to make the case for why his loss was a crock.“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any [sic] why he got more votes than anticipated. Bad!” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning. The tweet disappeared within minutes of posting and was replaced by another that no longer included the word “illegally.” He followed up with an ultimatum: “Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified,” he tweeted. Trump said later Wednesday that he’ll likely sue. “I probably will… what he did is unthinkable,” he said during an interview with Boston Herald Radio.’ But Trump has not sued.
Trump despises retail politics of the classic Iowa-New Hampshire type. His preferred public appearance is modeled on the Roman Triumph. His speeches often look like Mussolini on the balcony in Rome, or one of Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies in an immense stadium. He reportedly gets annoyed when told he should meet with smaller, potentially interactive groups.
When it comes to unbound delegates, Trump’s Imperial arrogance just will not work. Unbound delegates, like those in Colorado now and Pennsylvania, want to be rewarded for their support. (Think of the way Lincoln and Seward procured votes for the Thirteenth Amendment’s abolition of slavery, as seen in the recent movie.) But Trump, the great populist and man of the people, cannot be bothered with such patient work.
Trump’s nonchalance contrasts sharply with the approaches of recent presidents and candidates. Richard Nixon is known to have spent literally years between about 1964 and 1968 laboring as a Republican after dinner speaker at a myriad of humble events in remote locations – something he did precisely to get to know local GOP leaders and win them over so they would support him in the future if they were delegates to the 1968 convention in Miami. In an effective piece of writing, Norman Mailer describes a reception held by Nixon in Miami where Dick and Pat greeted the delegates. Mailer realized that Nixon was personally acquainted with a very large proportion of the delegates.
This, Mailer thought, was due in large part to all those personal conversations that had seen Nixon spending
“half an hour here, an hour there, in conversations which must have wandered so far as the burial specifications of Aunt Mattie in her will, and the story of the family stock… [Nixon] had worked among the despised nuts and bolts of the delegates’ hearts, and it showed up here in the skill and the pleasure with which he greeted each separate delegate.”
And all of this had surely helped Nixon to fend off the challenges coming from Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, and others. But Trump is not having any of this pedestrian work. His aim is the Triumph of the Will.
Jimmy Carter was also famous for cultivating voters and delegates, with a careful attention that Trump rejects:
‘Jimmy Carter was also famous for his tactic of feigning interest in each voter as a discrete individual, rather than a member of the masses. As Jules Witcover pointed out: “Carter dealt on an intensely personal level that was a big part of his effectiveness: he would listen long, no matter who was talking to him, important politician or crackpot on the street… Carter’s opponents in Iowa soon found out that the Good Shepherd was going to be no pushover… He would call on a farmer in the morning, talk for a while, stay for lunch, then come by again a few weeks later. If the farmer wasn’t home, he would leave a handwritten note pinned to the front door that said: ‘Just dropped by to say hello. Jimmy.’ Many such visits were followed by telephone calls or notes of thanks… Carter and his wife and children pursued this retail campaigning…. From the beginning, in Iowa, his campaign was oriented to the individual voter; the premise was that if he could ignite a spark with the people, the press would have to come around. Supporters once made remained supporters, because they were not simply supporters made, but friends made. And not only Carter engaged in this Good Shepherd exercise; his wife, Rosalynn, his sons, and his sister, Ruth Stapleton, a sexy blonde mother who was also a professional evangelist, all worked Iowa like some foreign mission whose natives had not found salvation, but only needed to hear the word.’
So if some Trump fanatic raves that the fascist billionaire is being robbed of his delegates, just ask why Trump didn’t have even one staff member in Colorado for the district and state conventions. And whatever happened to the alleged magical powers of Manafort that Roger Stone was talking about?
In a related development, the GOP tectonic shift that split the staff at Breitbart has now started splintering the “Eagle Forum,” the reactionary women’s group founded by Phyllis Schlafly to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment over 40 years ago. Showing the great promise of the ongoing GOP breakup, battleaxe Schlafly – who has endorsed Trump – may soon be ousted from her “Eagle Forum” by disgruntled board members who have endorsed clerical fascist Cruz. Hopefully this entire organization will soon be shattered to smithereens. When evil fights evil, the good may benefit.
Trump Clique, with Ground Game in Chaos, Escalates Threats vs. GOP Cleveland Convention; No Sane Person Should Go to Cleveland for “Days of Rage”; There Is No “Big Steal”: Many Now Objecting to Cruz Delegate Recruitment Were Doing the Same Thing for Ron Paul Four Years Ago; All Roads Lead to GOP Party Suicide; Pro-Trump Media Cartel Spreads Its Tentacles; Tax Wall Street Party Almost Six Months Ahead of New York Times in Exposing Bernie’s Defeatism; Meet Trump’s Friend Roger Stone, Who Claims He Twice Helped George W. Bush Take White House; Trump Goes from Triumph of the Will to Twilight of the Gods: If You Are in the Minority, Start a Riot
World Crisis Radio
April 9, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us1nzgEhP74 — [download video]
If you think that the adversaries of Donald Trump are not playing fair when it comes to picking off convention delegates, take a look at this May 2012 Fox News report that shows Ron Paul doing exactly the same thing to Romney. Many of the Libertarian hypocrites who are screaming bloody murder about Trump’s delegate losses were cheering four years ago for what they thought was a great victory of the freedom movement. Ron Paul then was picking off delegates in exactly the same way that Ted Cruz is today.
As this 2012 Fox News report reminds us, at this time four years ago supporters of Ron Paul were busy supporting and celebrating Ron Paul’s effort to peel off Romney delegates. This includes many of the libertarians now whining about a “Big Steal” as rival candidates pick off Trump delegates whose loyalty the billionaire has not deigned to cultivate. What Cruz is going to Trump now is about the same thing that Ron Paul was doing to Romney. A neutral online source recalls that:
‘The Paul campaign pursued a strategy of gathering support from state delegates as opposed to outright winning states. For example, Paul had a strong showing in Romney’s home state, Massachusetts, with supporters getting the majority of delegates there (though they are compelled to vote for Romney in the first round), causing a battle between the Paul delegates, the Massachusetts Republican Party, and the Republican National Convention Committee. A similar situation played out in Louisiana, with the Paul campaign initially winning 17 of 30 available delegates before procedural and legal challenges changed the allocation. Paul also managed a delegate win in Nevada, with 88% of delegates supporting him. Paul won 21 of 25 delegates in Iowa. Leading up to the convention, Ron Paul won bound-pluralities of the official delegations from the states of Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and Oregon (but not the Virgin Islands—despite winning the popular vote there). During the credentials committee meetings the week prior to the official opening of the convention, the Ron Paul members of the delegations from Louisiana, Maine, and Oregon were disputed (as well as the Ron Paul delegates from Massachusetts), and many of the Ron Paul delegates from those states were unseated…. In the end, Ron Paul had bound-pluralities from Iowa, Minnesota, and Nevada; however, he additionally had nomination-from-the-floor-pluralities in the states of Oregon and Alaska, plus the territory of the Virgin Islands. Under the 2012 rules, this total of 6 from-the-floor pluralities was sufficient to earn a fifteen-minute speech on national television; the rules were changed at the last minute to require 8 from-the-floor pluralities, and thus Ron Paul did not speak at the convention.’
Of course, Ron Paul’s goal in 2012 was to get enough delegate votes that he could block Romney from getting the nomination on his own power and thus extort the vice-presidential nomination for his mediocre, racist son Rand. This nepotistic project, which very few of Paul’s dupes ever understood, failed because Romney won enough of his own delegates to make it on his own. By this point in 2012, Romney was averaging about 70% of the primary votes, thanks to his accumulated momentum. Trump, by contrast, remains below 40%. Trump is by comparison a very weak candidate who is losing momentum rather than gaining it. This is the reality.
The pro-Paul libertarians, since the collapse of Rand Paul’s campaign, have joined the Trump camp in significant numbers. But many of them have been afflicted with amnesia about how energetically they were trying to convert Romney delegates to Paul’s version of libertarianism just four years ago. What they then celebrated as the victorious freedom movement on the march has now become an outrage they want to protest in the streets.
Part of the change may have something to do with the bungling managerial ineptitude of the Trump campaign when it comes to fighting for these delegates. Maybe Trump should put his current campaign into Chapter Seven bankruptcy liquidation, notching the fifth bankruptcy in his ramshackle business congeries. But it is unlikely that Trump will acknowledge that he is an abysmal manager who could never direct the US federal government.
The biggest victim of the so-called Panama Papers scandal, that mass of 11 million documents referring to 215,000 offshore entities created by the Panamanian law firm of Mossack Fonseca, may turn out to be Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the most immediately relevant fact to emerge out of this mass of files, which have been transmitted by person or persons unknown to the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich, is that Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is currently serving as an unregistered lobbyist for the Russian bank Sberbank, even as Hillary Clinton and other unscrupulous Democratic Party politicians engage in totally unprincipled Russophobia attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Now we will not need to wait for the details of Hillary Clinton’s $225,000 speeches before the top honchos of Goldman Sachs to see to what degree Mrs. Clinton has been corrupted by her Wall Street connections. Extremely damning conclusions can be drawn based on the documents that have flowed into the SDZ over the past months. The Tax Wall Street Party demands an immediate congressional committee to thoroughly investigate Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Podesta, and Tony Podesta for this shady activity. We cannot wait until after the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton’s corruption could be revealed, demolishing her chances to win the White House and leaving Democratic voters at the mercy of Donald Trump and other Republican demagogues.
The Panama Papers in toto need not overly concern us here. This limited hangout document dump has all the classic earmarks of an Anglo-American destabilization of targeted interests using carefully selected revelations against foreign figures. This modus operandi goes back to Lockheed scandal of 1975. It also borrows much from the fake Pentagon Papers hoax of 1971, and from the later shenanigans of Assange, Snowden, and others. The Lockheed scandals alleged that many foreign politicians had demanded kickbacks on their governments’ purchase of Hercules C-130 aircraft. Many of these governments fell, and many careers were cut short. Some of the politicians involved had code names. The president of the Italian Republic was thought to be the payee code named Antelope Cobbler. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was also implicated, along with many more.
Many of the targets of the Panama Papers are drawn directly from the CIA hit list. Among those targeted, we find members of the Assad family of Syria, the Icelandic Prime Minister, the Ukrainian NATO puppet dictator Poroshenko, and the various Arab Gulf royals. There is also the Argentinean soccer star Lionel Messi. As usual, no United States or Israeli politicians seem to be among the prime targets, although some embarrassing revelations pertaining to the family of British Prime Minister David Cameron seem to be included. The circles of Russian President Vladimir Putin are heavily targeted, as are the extended family members of Chinese President Xi.
The general model for the revelations would appear to be the recent Anglo-American destabilization of Brazilian President Dilma Roussef. The methodology appears to be the one tested out by the US Department of Justice in recent years as part of the US attack on international soccer (FIFA).
The explosive revelations regarding the Podesta brothers have not yet been fully understood inside the United States, but they soon will be. The Washington Examiner was understandably focused on the Podesta group as one vital center of gravity for the Clintonista faction:
‘The head of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is linked to a Russian bank involved with an emerging international scandal, according to documents reported on Tuesday. Registration forms indicate that the Podesta Group signed up to lobby for the Sberbank of Russia in Washington about a month ago, in early March. The bank has been implicated in a scheme unearthed on Sunday in which leaders worldwide illegally stashed their assets overseas. The Podesta Group was founded by John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for president and a chief of staff to former president Bill Clinton. His brother, Anthony Podesta, is listed as a lobbyist for the account on the March filing.’
The London Observer stressed the devastating implications of the Panama
Papers revelations for Hillary Clinton’s quest for the presidency:
‘Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Though hardly a household name, this firm is well known inside the Beltway, not least because its CEO is Tony Podesta, one of the best-connected Democratic machers in the country. He founded the firm in 1998 with his brother John, formerly chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, then counselor to President Barack Obama, Mr. Podesta is the very definition of a Democratic insider. Outsiders engage the Podestas and their well-connected lobbying firm to improve their image and get access to Democratic bigwigs. Which is exactly what Sberbank, Russia’s biggest financial institution, did this spring. As reported at the end of March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for Sberbank, as required by law, naming three Podesta Group staffers: Tony Podesta plus Stephen Rademaker and David Adams, the last two former assistant secretaries of state. It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November….Since the brothers Podesta are presumably destined for very high-level White House jobs next January if the Democrats triumph in November at the polls, their relationship with Sberbank is something they—and Hillary Clinton—need to explain to the public.’
Showing more presence of mind than usual, Hillary Clinton’s rival Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont quickly pointed out that the kind of corruption revealed by the Panama Papers would not have been possible without the nefarious provisions of the US-Panama free trade sellout accord, which he is now promising to repeal and abrogate:
‘Bernie Sanders on Tuesday vowed to end the Panama Free Trade Agreement, tying Hillary Clinton to the same policies that he claimed fostered the practice. “The Panama Free Trade Agreement put a stamp of approval on Panama, a world leader when it comes to allowing the wealthy and the powerful to avoid taxes,” the Vermont senator said in a statement released through his campaign, adding that he has been opposed to it “from day one.” Vowing to use his authority as president to “terminate the Panama Free Trade Agreement within six months,” Sanders said his administration would “conduct an immediate investigation into U.S. banks, corporations and wealthy individuals who have been stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes.” “If any of them have violated U.S. law, my administration will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,” he said.’
Those attempting to accredit the Panama Papers as legitimate sources of information are of course confronted with the fact that, as per usual with limited hangouts, few Americans or none at all have been exposed in their tax evasion and related activities. Politico carried out a valiant but failed attempt to maintain the credibility of the Panama Papers by alleging that the Panama tax evasion system was now considered obsolete by wealthy US parasites seeking to avoid taxation. With the Panama method now belonging to the past, this article argued, US tax evaders are choosing other areas with more modern methods and technologies, leaving Panama to the relatively backward European tax evaders. Here is a sample:
‘“Within the [high-net worth] world, there is a national taste as in anything else,” said Edward Kleinbard, a professor of law and business at the University of Southern California, “and I think Panama is a disfavored country among U.S. advisers because it is viewed as an outlier relative to world norms.” If the Panama Papers had come out in the early 1980s, the scandal [might] have implicated far more Americans. Back then, experts say, Panama was a popular spot for parking money offshore for its lax bank secrecy laws and currency controls. But in 1989, under then President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. invaded Panama and deposed the military dictator, Manuel Noriega, and wealthy Americans have largely avoided the country since.’
This is of course the most transparent nonsense. Both the Russian government and the Chinese government have condemned the Panama Papers as transparent attempts to destabilize their respective governments and countries. We should not forget that more than $2 trillion in profits of United States companies are now being stashed in various tax havens around the world. The companies are whining that they cannot bring this money home until a tax windfall for them is arranged. In reality, these corporate predators ought to be coerced into immediately repatriating their money, under the threat of large-scale confiscatory taxation should they refuse to do so. Among the presidential candidates most concerned with protecting the tax evasion by these corporate malefactors, we find Donald J. Trump, who has been demanding special treatment for these tax evaders for the last several months.
Trump Proxy Roger Stone Threatens GOP Convention Delegates with Harassment in Cleveland; Leading the Charge Is Former Nixon Dirty Tricks Operative Who Directed Brooks Brothers Riot of 2000 in Florida, Stopping Vote Recount: Thank Roger Stone for Giving White House to George W. Bush, Author of the Iraq War; From 2000 to Today, Stone’s Method Is to Impose Minority’s Will by Way of Riots; Do You Want this Gang Running the White House?
Although his claim is disputed, Roger Stone says he commanded the infamous Brooks Brothers riot of November 22, 2000 which stopped the Florida vote recount and helped give George W. Bush victory in the Presidential election, despite a majority vote against him. Today, Stone is using the same method of threatening riots to ram through an unpopular presidential candidate – Trump. Below are the Republican Congressional staffers who banged on doors, screamed and generally intimidated the government workers who were carrying out the recount. Stone is planning something very similar for the Cleveland GOP convention in July.
Tom Pyle, office of House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Texas)
Garry Malphrus, Majority Chief Counsel
Rory Cooper, staff member, National Republican Congressional Committee
Kevin Smith, former House Republican Conference Analyst
Steven Brody, Former Aide to Senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tennessee)
Matt Schlapp, Bush Campaign Staff, Austin
Roger Morse, Aide to Representative Van Hilleary (R-Tennessee)
Duane Gibson, Aide to Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska)
Chuck Royal, Assistant to Representative Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)
Layna McConkey, former legislative assistant to former Representative Jim Ross Lightfoot (R-Iowa)
In the wake of Trump’s decisive defeat in yesterday’s Wisconsin primary, indications are multiplying that a classic Strategy of Tension scenario may now be ongoing with the intent of facilitating Trump’s seizure of the White House in November. The original Strategy of Tension, we recall, was the name applied to a NATO bombing campaign inflicted on Italy in the autumn of 1969, for the purpose of maintaining Wall Street control over that country.
Last week, a well-known Fox News contributor volunteered the idea that terrorist attacks on the scale of Paris or Brussels, if carried out in the United States, might be able to rehabilitate the Trump campaign and make it appear viable. This commentator seemed to be thinking of Trump as the Lord Protector, New Caesar, or man on horseback who could ride to power on a wave of serious terrorist incidents:
‘Frank Luntz, an unaligned GOP pollster, said Trump could erase at least some 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.”’
Now that Trump has suffered a humiliating defeat in the Wisconsin primary, falling to Senator Cruz by 13 points, the question of a Strategy of Tension with Trump as the principal beneficiary appears more urgent than ever.
In order to understand how terrorist actions could be translated into renewed momentum for a failing Trump campaign, we need to examine certain key changes in the US media landscape which have occurred in the last few years.
The Trump campaign can now rely on the services of a right-wing media cartel, which stretches from traditional extremists all the way to the anti-government right wing anarchist fringe. The flagship of this effort would appear to be the Matt Drudge Report, which aggregates stories appearing on the other websites involved. Drudge has conducted telephone poles of dubious validity in the wake of Republican debates, always purporting to show that Trump was the People’s choice.
A second element is represented by the Michael Savage radio program, the “Savage Nation.” Savage has one of the top 10 reactionary talk shows, and Trump regularly gives interviews on this program. Savage’s Youtube channel is also the leading aggregate of videos of Trump’s speeches.
A third component is the Breitbart news site, the role of which has been highlighted as its reporter Michelle Fields was allegedly the object of assault by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Several other Breitbart employees then departed the scene. Andrew Breitbart is no longer with us, having succumbed to a narcotics overdose some years ago. Breitbart.com is known as the Pravda, or better yet the Völkischer Beobachter equivalent for the Trump campaign.
In the print media, there is the National Enquirer, which has published unsourced adultery charges against Cruz. This article quotes Roger Stone which suggests that he was part of getting the salacious material published.
Trump has also acquired a following inside the so-called libertarian community. Many of these libertarians had been supporting Rand Paul, but the collapse of his candidacy freed them up, and they have gravitated rapidly into the orbit of Trump. Some of these libertarian websites have also brought with them certain right wing conspiracy theorists left over from the 9/11 truth movement. These right wing conspiracy theorists have gone from libertarian to totalitarian in the twinkling of an eye. This means that certain writers and researchers who in the past might have offered some resistance or at least negative publicity for false flag terrorist attacks and associated power grabs can now be counted on to be purblind to intelligence community shenanigans favorable to Trump. Since intelligence community factions wanting to promote Trump are probably the most likely source of illegal interventions into the presidential campaign, this becomes a dangerous situation. The veteran conspiracy theorists who are going along with this trend must now be considered sources of disinformation.
One conspiracy theorist has accused Cruz of dressing up as a woman to sneak into the women’s sorority houses at Princeton. The problem with this is that there are no sorority houses at Princeton, which has a residential college system supplemented by undergraduate eating clubs.
Trump is running primarily on his status as an outsider who has not sold out to the system. This is absurd. Trump is not an outsider. It is much more likely that he is the favorite of a shadow government faction who control him. This group wants to use him for strikebreaking, for international confrontations, the enforcement of austerity, and the imposition of an expanded police state.
It is troubled times, we need to pay special attention to elected officials who make public statements about the likelihood, probability, or imminence of large-scale terror attacks. When Dick Cheney talked about the threat of nuclear terrorism, many intelligent observers understood enough to construe that as a threat. Today, those who make such threats, especially if their comments are given prominence by the Trump media cartel described above, deserve heightened scrutiny. Patriotic Americans need to be on red alert. In 1933, Hitler did not ride to power on the basis of election success. To the contrary – the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, was enabled by an organized coup d’état which came in the wake of an election they had convincingly lost in November 1932.
We therefore pay special attention to an interview given by Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson to Wolf Blitzer of CNN a few days ago. Johnson, a beneficiary of the Tea Party hysteria of 2010, is considered to be in deep trouble as he seeks reelection against former Senator Russ Feingold. We also note that Johnson’s remarks were given special prominence on the Breitbart website. Senator Johnson was obviously playing the fear card:
‘My concern would be those Islamic terrorist operatives moving through Africa into Central or South America and then coming up through our completely porous border,” Johnson said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Monday evening. He noted that Europe is currently “more vulnerable” to Islamic terrorism due to its proximity to Syria and its large influx of migrants but stressed that America is also at risk. “You could have someone with a completely clean record, who’s been self-radicalized in Europe, using the Visa Waiver Program as well,” he said. “I think it’s more likely though that you move those individuals through our porous southern border.” “We’ve actually got a category at Homeland Security called SIAs, special interest aliens,” Johnson added. “These individuals are being picked up in Central America — from Yemen and Somalia and Syria and from Pakistan. That’s where I think our greatest danger is.”’
The earlier Republican presidential debates were of course obsessed with ISIS and Middle East terrorism. But these issues had died down as the field was winnowed, and as the center of attention became the conflict between Trump and his rivals. Now, Senator Johnson is going back to that well, and returning with buckets of fear porn.
Then there is the question of civil disturbances fomented directly by the Trump campaign and its well-known allies. Here, Trump has personally led the way, talking about the potential for “riots” if he were to be deprived of the nomination, which he already feels belongs to him. Trump’s old friend Roger Stone had been an employee of the Trump campaign until about eight months ago, when he publicly ceased to be part of the billionaire’s staff. But knowledgeable observers regard this as a deception maneuver designed to create plausible deniability for Trump in relation to the dubious activities obviously being planned by Roger Stone, who played a role in the coup d’état carried out by George W. Bush in 2000.
Right now, Roger Stone (whose nickname is “The Dirty Trickster”) is focused on threats and harassment against Republican delegates at the July Cleveland convention, trying to intimidate them and prevent them from defecting from the Trump lockstep:
‘Longtime Donald Trump ally Roger Stone is threatening to make public the hotel room numbers of Republican National Convention delegates who switch from Trump to another candidate. “We’re going to have protests, demonstrations. We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday in a discussion with Stefan Molyneux on Freedomain Radio, as he alleged that Trump’s opponents planned to deny the democratic will of Republican primary voters. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said.”’
Stone had already threatened “Days of Rage” in Cleveland if his master Trump were not to receive the nomination. This was apparently a reference to the violent riots carried out by the SDS Weatherman faction in Chicago in November 1969. Watergate figure Roger Stone was once a colleague of the notorious Donald Segretti in the service of the Nixon Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP).
Roger Stone’s political method boils down to classic Nixonian cultural populism, expressed especially as hatred of the established elites in the form of hot button social wedge issues which can be used to make duped voters act on the basis of hatred in violation of their own interests. Figures like Roger Stone do not deny the existence of the working class, but rather pretend to speak in its name. Stone is a product of the same unsavory social milieu around the 21 Club in Manhattan which was frequented by McCarthyite lawyer Roy Cohn, whose protégé Trump also was.
Roger Stone’s reputation as a political operative shows him to be the lowest of the low:
‘Ed Rollins, who served as President Reagan’s first political director, said, “Roger was a fringe player around town. He always had this reputation of being a guy who exaggerated things, who pretended he did things. Roger was never on Nixon’s staff, was never on the White House staff. I don’t think you’ll find anyone in the business who trusts him. Roger was always a little rat.”
Stone preferred to call himself a “libertarian and libertine.”
Today, Roger Stone talks about the Republican nomination as a valuable property, which Trump has already acquired, and which could be only taken away from him by theft or some other felony. But, virtually on the same day, Stone is also forced to concede that Trump’s presidential campaign is deeply flawed, poorly organized, and insufficiently staffed.
As we have seen during the primary season so far, Trump has provided insufficient logistics and insufficient numbers of paid staff to get out the vote, especially in caucus states. Like Hitler invading the Soviet Union, Trump has relied on his own genius and charisma, while providing insufficient ground forces to actually carry out his plans.
“The campaign has no infrastructure in the states. The woman who ran Wisconsin for Trump previously ran Oklahoma for Trump. Trump lost. Prior to that, she had never run any political campaign, so there was no depth of experience. This is something I see again and again, particularly at the ground roots level. Now, I salute these people for their enthusiasm, but this is a science. This is not something we guess about. And now you move to a serious [sic] of states like Colorado, Wyoming, and Arizona [which] should be watched very carefully. And those become hand-to-hand combat at state conventions or state committee meetings, where once again the Trump people have built no infrastructure.”
So, what Stone is actually admitting in the quote above is that Trump is losing fair and square because of his weak ground game, but Stone’s plan is to extort the nomination by riots anyway. Stone claims to have played a decisive role in the scandal which enveloped former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer when he was linked to prostitutes. Stone also claims that he helped discredit the 2004 story developed by CBS News, according to which George W. Bush had improperly evaded military service.
The most interesting of Stone’s claims is his portrayal of himself as the mastermind of the so-called Brooks Brothers riot, which occurred in Florida on November 22, 2000. This came in the midst of a laborious recount of votes cast in the presidential election of that year. Had this recount been allowed, there is good reason to think that Vice President Gore would have been awarded the electoral votes of Florida, and would therefore have taken the White House. In a profile of Stone by Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker we read of Stone’s claims to have mobilized a group of young GOP Congressional staff, plus various anti-Castro Cubans from the Miami area, to intimidate Florida officials carrying out the vote recount that stood a good chance of giving Gore, and not George W. Bush, the White House in 2000. But other GOP operatives dispute Stone’s account, objecting that he is magnifying his own role out of all proportion.
This artificial riot can be regarded as part of a creeping coup or cold coup to frustrate the will of the American people and impose a minority president. In his work for Trump, Stone is using a similar approach: if the minority cannot seize power, then the minority must prevail through riots and intimidation. If Roger Stone’s account is true, he may share significant responsibility for disasters like the Iraq War.
This action by Stone and his associates may have run afoul of H.R. 45, the statute that was used to arrest the Bundy gang of land grabbers earlier this year in Oregon. As the Portland Oregonian wrote:
‘House Resolution 45 made it a crime to try to destroy the United States government, to impede the execution of any U.S. law or to take U.S. property by force. The bill included broad protections for federal officers who would enforce those prohibitions, forbidding people from impeding their work.’
If there are federal laws guaranteeing accurate vote counts in federal elections above and beyond what is provided for in state law, then the Brooks Brothers riot may qualify as a flagrant violation of those laws.
Roger Stone’s method is clear: he knows he represents a minority, be it George W. Bush in 2000 or Trump today. His reaction is to organize a riot to impose the minority’s will. Trump will be a minority at the Republican convention in Cleveland. True to his method, Stone is preparing a riot to stampede the convention and impose Trump’s Triumph of the Will.
All these factors mandate enhanced vigilance on the part of the American people as the desperation of the clique around Trump increases.
The Wisconsin primary has ended in defeat for Donald Trump, who is finishing more than 20 points behind Cruz. Hillary Clinton is trailing Bernie Sanders by almost about 8 points. This is a stunning reversal for both Trump and Hillary. The loudmouth Trump, usually long on braggadocio, could not muster the courage to deliver a concession speech, or indeed a speech of any kind. Reports have surfaced on NBC News about bitter factional clashes in the Trump camp between his thuggish campaign manager Corey Lewandowski (who advocates the “Let Trump be Trump” or “Anything Goes” strategy) on the one hand, and Trump family members (presumably daughter Ivanka), who want the candidate to attempt presidential gravitas and decorum, on the other. All reports say that Trump is refusing to behave.
This result sets up a dramatic contest between Bernie and Hillary in New York State, where both are at home in one way or another. If Hillary loses there, the implications would be most devastating. Trump will need to win by a very large margin, and that has become far less likely due to tonight’s events.
Tax Wall Street Party Chairwoman Daniela Walls has issued the following statement: “I congratulate Wisconsin voters for their intelligence and sense of civic responsibility in defeating the two most dangerous contestants in their state primary. I hope that subsequent primary states will be able to replicate this level of performance.”
To understand what may happen at the GOP convention in Cleveland in July, it is useful to review conventions that have split in the course of American history. The Daily Briefing is beginning a series that will examine some of the split conventions and party extinctions of US history.
The 1860 Democratic National Convention met in Charleston, South Carolina and soon split the party in two. This was the immediate prelude to the American Civil War.
In the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, Douglas won the Senate seat from Illinois, but Lincoln had better arguments on how to deal with the scourge of slavery.
In 1860, there were three Democratic National Conventions. As a result, the Democratic Party broke into northern anti-slavery and southern pro-slavery factions. Secession followed before the end of the year.
The first of the 1860 Democratic National Conventions met at South Carolina Institute Hall in Charleston, South Carolina starting on April 23, 1860. The leading candidate was considered to be Senator Stephen Douglas, who had defeated Abraham Lincoln for the US Senate in Illinois, despite Lincoln’s moral and intellectual dominance of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Douglas was one of the main backers of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which had rewarded the slaveholding states by allowing slavery to penetrate south of the Missouri Compromise line of demarcation.
Douglas was also a supporter of popular sovereignty or squatter sovereignty, which allowed the settlers in any given territory to decide whether it would come into the Union as a slave state or a free state. This had created a virtual civil war in Kansas, with John Brown and other violent abolitionists clashing with pro-slavery gangs in a conflagration which foreshadowed the nationwide civil war that was about to begin.
Another part of the Kansas Nebraska Compromise was the Fugitive Slave Act, which forced the police and courts of free states to hunt down escaped slaves and return them to those who claim to be their owners. Northern opinion was incensed by these requirements, and many free states enacted personal liberty laws which prohibited state officials from doing anything to hunt down escaped slaves.
The southern slaveocrats argued that they were merely asserting the states’ rights of each state against an overzealous and overreaching federal government. Of course, the only states right mentioned in most of the declarations of secession or proceedings from secession conventions turned out to be the right to slavery.
On the other side of the coin, the slaveocrats were outraged by the northern personal liberty laws, which they declared to be outrageous abuses, although they certainly qualified as expressions of the states’ rights of the free northern states.
Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts, spokesman for the Boston Brahmin oligarchy and chairman of the 1860 split convention of the Democratic Party, which set the stage for secessionism and Civil War.
Much of the mischief that occurred in Charleston would have been impossible without the presence of an active wrecker in the convention chairman’s position. This was Caleb Cushing, a figure who ranks with Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, and Jefferson Davis in the Ninth Circle of the Inferno, the home of the traitors.
Caleb Cushing was the political spokesman for the Boston Brahmins, a group of financiers who had backed New England secessionism at the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812. Caleb Cushing represented a group that included the Lowells, the Peabodies, the Forbes, the Perkins and the Cushings. Many of these families had been cut into the lucrative China opium trade by the British East India Company, and their loyalty lay outside the United States. Cushing did whatever he could to make secession inevitable.
Charleston Split Started in the Platform Committee
The 1860 conventions of all parties stood in the shadow of the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision by the slaveocrat Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney. This travesty of justice argued that black people had no rights, and that slavery was guaranteed in all US states and territories. The slaveocrats wanted that opinion codified into statute law in the form of a nationwide federal slave code, and the platform committee was ready to give the pro-slavery forces what they wanted. But the northern Democrats warned that this kind of platform would guarantee defeat in every northern free state. The convention as a whole voted to reject the extreme proslavery planks.
At this point, the convention split, as marked by the theatrical walkout of 50 delegates, including the representatives of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas delegations, plus three of four Arkansas delegates and one of three Delaware delegates. Convention chairman Caleb Cushing appears to have encouraged this walkout.
This breakaway group set up shop in nearby St. Andrews Hall on Broad Street and declared itself the real convention. However, the main body proceeded towards nominations and balloting.
The original convention rules called for a two thirds majority to get the nomination. If this had been interpreted to mean two thirds of those present and voting, Douglas could have been nominated.
But the chairman of the convention was Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts, the sinister spokesman of the subversive Boston Brahmin oligarchy, which favored southern secessionism. Cushing was a Doughface in politics, meaning that he was a northern man who worked for the slaveocrats. Cushing declared that the required number was two thirds of the total number of delegates originally seated at the beginning of the convention. Since 50 pro-slavery southern delegates were no longer present, this meant that their absence effectively paralyzed the convention. This is the outcome that Caleb Cushing had intended.
The rump Charleston Democratic convention went to 57 ballots. Douglas led on every ballot, but he could not get to the two thirds majority, if only because the 50 pro-slavery southern delegates refused to return.
After 10 days of balloting, the convention declared itself deadlocked and adjourned with the commitment to reconvene in Baltimore, Maryland two months later.
Baltimore Split Started in the Credentials Committee
On June 18, 1860, the Democrats re-convened in the Front Street Theater in Baltimore. This gathering had to decide whether it should re-admit the delegates who had walked out of the Charleston gathering. The majority of the credentials committee recommended re-admitting all the splitters except the Louisiana and Alabama delegations. But the minority of the credentials committee wanted to seat some of the Louisiana and Alabama splitters as well.
The pro-Douglas forces had prepared replacement delegates for these two states, and wanted them seated. The majority of the convention voted to replace the Louisiana and Alabama delegates who had walked out with the new hand-picked Douglas delegates. At this point, most southern delegates walked out of the Front Street Theater and took up residence in the Maryland Institute in Baltimore. Here they proceeded to nominate on the first ballot John C. Breckenridge for president and Sen. Joseph Lane of Oregon for vice president.
With that, the Democratic Party split into regional or sectional factions. This proved to be a terrible blow to US national unity, especially since the Democratic Party, rotten though it was, was the last national political institution that embraced both north and south. With the Democratic Party gone, there were no important national mass-based institutions left. (The Whig Party had been a national party, but it had died out in the mid-1850s. When the Knownothing, Free Soil, and Republican Parties had appeared, they could gain little traction in the southern states.)
Back at the main gathering, Douglas got 173.5 delegate votes on the first ballot. On the second ballot, Douglas received 181.5 delegate votes, meaning that he had gotten two thirds of the votes cast in the hall.
At this point, the delegates moved to override the absurd ruling by saboteur Caleb Cushing that two thirds of all delegates, whether present and voting or not, would be required to get the nomination. The delegates declared by unanimous voice vote that Douglas was the nominee. This action amounted to nomination by acclamation, something that Trump is demanding on the first ballot even if he has merely a relative majority or plurality, and not the absolute majority that is required today.
Now the nominee, Douglas tried to balance his ticket with a southerner. The convention gave the veep nod to Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama. But, as sectional tensions escalated, Fitzpatrick repudiated the vice presidential nomination. Douglas then turned to Georgia Governor Herschel Vespasian Johnson, who accepted it. Johnson’s middle name recalled the Roman Emperor who invented the pay toilet, arguing that the money he got out of this service did not stink (“Pecunia non olet.”)
By the time of the 1860 presidential election, there were four candidates: Douglas for the northern Democrats, Breckenridge (who later served as Confederate Secretary of War and surrendered rebel forces in North Carolina to Sherman on April 18, 1865) for the southern Democrats, Bell for the border state Constitutional Democrats, and Lincoln for the Republicans. Lincoln won the Electoral College, and South Carolina seceded in December. The slaveholders were accustomed to controlling the presidency and went into an hysterical flight forward into secession.
Some important points:
If you want to split a party convention, you need to have a suitable venue where they can gather after they have walked out. Has Trump already rented a hall in Cleveland?
Splits can start in the convention committees, especially the credentials committee which decides who is entitled to be a delegate, and the platform committee, which issues the key political statement for the party. Any split in the Cleveland convention is likely to start in this way, with each side seeking a test of strength.
Conventions can sometimes be stampeded to suspend their own rules and act by acclamation. This is a tactic likely to be used by the demagogue Trump.
The chairman of the convention can sometimes play a decisive role. In 1860, that was the crypto-secessionist Caleb Cushing, who set the party up for a split. In Cleveland, it may be Paul Ryan, the Koch candidate for president, who – consumed by ill-concealed ambition – may turn Trump into the big loser.
Convention events of major parties can impact national security, so public opinion must be vigilant and punish irresponsible behavior. The 1860 Democratic Party’s north-south split was the immediate prelude to secessionism and civil war. The 2016 GOP convention may cause riots or perhaps even localized armed insurrections.
Fascism and Nazism represent the illegal, violent and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital (in the United States today, Wall Street, the masters of Trump). The dictatorship is established with the help of armed militias (like the KKK, the white supremacists, security goons, and the Cliven Bundy anti-government types, all supporters of Trump). Fascism starts by pretending to be an anti-establishment, anti-politician, anti-banker, an anti-democratic mass movement. Fascism starts as violent struggle in the streets. Its task is to wreck existing mass organizations and leave the target population totally atomized. An atomized population cannot resist the austerity demands of the bankers. It cannot mobilize in a general strike to stop a war or a coup d’etat. An atomized population confronting an organized fascist movement is defenseless.
Fascism Masquerades As Radical Anti-Establishment Protest
Bankers turn to fascism when they can no longer get their austerity, anti-union, tax cut, rearmament, corporate welfare, and anti-worker demands passed into law by existing political parties.
The art of being a fascist demagogue comes down to this: you must be able to present yourself as a radical alternative to the existing political and financial system controlled by Wall Street, while at the same time avoiding any serious commitment to reform measures which would cause sacrifice or even inconvenience for the Wall Street finance oligarchs.
One way to do this is to engage in violent and scurrilous insults. These may be uncomfortable for the banker or politician being targeted, but generally speaking, they do not threaten central banks, Wall Street, or other key features of financier power.
Donald Trump says that the existing Republican Party bosses are stupid, low energy, weak, basket cases. This is similar to the Italian fascists before 1922, who attacked the Italian ruling class as degenerate, timid, humiliated, clumsy, rotten, and corrupt. Hitler personally attacked the German ruling class as notoriously cowardly, senile, intellectually rotten cretins. Trump’s catalogue of insults includes all of these.
Most accounts of fascism and its more extreme variant of Nazism regard them as top-down police state dictatorships. That is what fascism looks like retrospectively, from our post-1945 point of view. Looking back, we see the final phase of fascism, when the dictatorship has been consolidated, and when the militias, strikebreakers, and goons have been replaced by the strictly disciplined secret police.
But that is not what fascism and Nazism look like in their infancy, before they have taken power, and while they still have to contend with other political forces. They look like Trump today.
Fascism Appears Radically Anti-Establishment
It is vital to understand that fascism in its early phases takes on the aspect of a very radical rejection of bourgeois politicians and members of Parliament, and also – at least verbally – of bankers. In order to be worth anything to the bankers who rule society, fascism must be widely seen as the radical negation of financier power. Fascism in its beginnings must have radical, anti-establishment, and even ultra-left cover. Mussolini had been a very prominent and radical socialist (praised by Lenin), and Hitler called his party National Socialist German Workers (Nazi).
Trump does not want to be seen as a creature of Wall Street. In his interview with Woodward and Costa, he stressed that he knows Wall Street well and did not need them. This is pure demagogy. He is a puppet of Wall Street.
Fascism fights for power by sweeping aside broad-based non-elite groups like trade unions, political parties, and organizations of all sorts, from sports clubs to book clubs. Fascism wants to weaken and atomize them all.
If it is successful, the fascist mass movement will take power and then transform itself into a totalitarian and dictatorial regime, often liquidating its own plebeian and populist tendencies in the process. As the fascist regime consolidates and solidifies, it gradually comes to resemble an old-style, top-down dictatorship or bureaucratic-authoritarian regime, but the point is that, without the destruction of opposition institutions by the fascist mass movement, the top-down dictatorship could never have emerged. Fascism does not occur when an authoritarian government simply becomes more and more oppressive, until it can be called fascist. This is completely anti-historical, and fails to explain why a new term of fascism had to be coined just after World War I to describe the kind of dictatorship that had not been seen before.
Fascism Based on Lies
When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he talked of MAKING GERMANY GREAT AGAIN. He suggested that he could restore national pride and dignity and tear up the treaty of Versailles without war. At the beginning, Hitler sealed a friendship treaty with Poland in 1934 and a treaty on naval armaments with Great Britain in 1935. He seemed to some to be on the path of peace – as Trump claims to be today.
After Hitler had rearmed the 1935, occupied the Rhineland in 1936, intervened in the Spanish Civil War in 1937, and seized Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938, many Germans were surprised when his attack on Poland in 1939 actually unleashed the Second World War. The promises of a fascist dictator are worth nothing.
Trump claims to be opposed to the military adventurism which has embroiled the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, but his Middle East advisor, Waleed Fares, is an Islamophobe neocon closely linked to figures like John Bolton and Pamela Geller. Given his infantile mentality, Trump would be very easy to provoke into large-scale catastrophic military actions.
Many Americans have been disoriented by Trump’s demagogic statements of friendship for Russian President Putin. These statements are simply lies. In any case, Trump is already started demonizing Putin in some of his television ads. Today, the stakes of war and peace are far greater than they were 80 years ago. No one in their right mind wants to allow Donald Trump’s psychotic finger anywhere near the thermonuclear button.
September/October Surprise Plausible; Intelligence Community Factions Supporting Trump Are Prime Suspects in Any Terror Attacks Between Now and November Election; After Unhinged Comments on Use of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East and Europe, Voters Are Increasingly Terrified by Specter of Trump’s Erratic Finger on Thermonuclear Button; Trump Mocked As “Zombie Candidate” and “Kardashian Candidate”; New Poll Shows Billionaire Disliked by 67% of Americans, Including 80% of Millennials, 80% of Women, 85% of Hispanics; GOP Could Lose White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court; Cruz Leads Trump by 10% in April 5 Wisconsin Primary; Tax Wall Street Party Calls for Hillary to Debate Bernie in New York; In Wisconsin, Hold Your Nose and Vote for Bernie; #StopTrump!
World Crisis Radio
April 2, 2016
GOP pollster Frank Luntz thinks that terror attacks on the scale of Paris or Brussels could rescue the Donald Trump ticket from defeat in November.
In the two weeks following the Brussels terror attacks, an important sea-change has occurred in American politics, to the detriment of the demagogic candidacy of Donald Trump. Those overseas events gave the Queens billionaire the opportunity to pose as a statesman and de facto Lord Protector of the American people, in much the same way that Oliver Cromwell posed as the protector of England in the seventeenth century. Trump wasted his opportunity to win over the Republican oligarchs and elite donor class, instead choosing to roll in the mud of attacks on rivals’ wives, the cad Lewandowsky, and police state measures to suppress abortions.
Recent polling highlights the pervasive unpopularity of Trump outside of the crazed and narrow confines of the GOP. It is therefore of compelling interest when a Republican consultant like the sophist Frank Luntz is quoted in the press speaking of how an outside event of terrorism could suddenly turn the tide in favor of Trump as dictator later this year:
‘Frank Luntz, an unaligned GOP pollster, said Trump could erase at least some his deficit if he capitalizes on the fall debates and other events, noting that history is littered with examples of candidates doing just that.3 “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.”’
Americans need to go on RED ALERT to prevent this from happening!
Frank Luntz should be invited to tell exactly what he knows.
Elsewhere in the press, we read that GOP insiders view Trump as a possible “zombie candidate,” too maimed to win, but too strong to stop on his way to the nomination:
‘Republicans who once worried that Mr. Trump might gain overwhelming momentum in the primaries are now becoming preoccupied with a different grim prospect: that Mr. Trump might become a kind of zombie candidate — damaged beyond the point of repair, but too late for any of his rivals to stop him. Should Mr. Trump lurch into the convention so fatally compromised with general election voters and a sizable faction of Republicans, it could make it easier for the party to wrest the nomination away from him. But it would also make the consequences of failing to defeat him all the more ruinous if the specter of choosing a seemingly unelectable nominee does not deter Mr. Trump’s supporters.’
After Trump’s unstable performance of the past week, there is increasing concern about putting the nuclear launch codes into the hands of a person whose invariant trait has been shown to be extreme cruelty towards the weak and the defenseless:
‘“He needs to start acting more like the commander in chief,” [A Republican consultant] said. “At some point folks ask themselves, ‘Am I comfortable in terms of wanting to give this person the nuclear codes?’”’
The answer is that no serious and intelligent person could rest easy with the power of war and peace, life and death, in the hands of such a wreck as Trump.