(1) Obama won't bite the hand that feeds him - Jeffrey Blankfort (2) Trump & JBS, Trump & Roy Cohn; Henry 'Scoop' Jackson cf Joe McCarthy (3) Jewish Donors Shun Donald Trump — 95% of Contributions Go to Hillary Clinton (4) Jewish Republican donors staying away from funding Trump (5) Shmuley Boteach backs Trump, forgives his previous neutrality between Israel and Palestinians (6) Trump's anti-Globalism copied from the John Birch Society (7) Bankers, Media & the Establishment gang up against Trump - JBS mag (8) Roy Cohn - What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man  (1) Obama won't bite the hand that feeds him - Jeffrey Blankfort  Subject: Re: Obama to support a UNSC resolution on Palestine - the day after the election From: Jeffrey Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:33:42 -0700  Peter,  > Obama to support a UNSC resolution on > Palestine - the day after the election  I've seen this scenario before and while Trump does represent something different, Obama is not about to break with tradition and jeopardize his future job prospects by going against Israel in the UN. Hillary is owned by Haim Saban and will not do anything that jeopardizes her and Bill's relations with him or with the other big Jewish funders from Chicago that put Obama into the spotlight and into the White House.  I'll see if Las Vegas is making odds on such matters.  best,  Jeff  (2) Trump & JBS, Trump & Roy Cohn; Henry 'Scoop' Jackson cf Joe McCarthy, by Peter Myers, September 29, 2016  The John Birch Society is the American equivalent of the League of Rights (in Britain and Australia), but with one very important difference: the JBS insists that it is not anti-Jewish. It does not publish anti-Jewish literature.  Yet it opposes the Liberal Internationalism favoured by 95% of Jewish political donors (see item 3). And they, and 'Progressives' generally, oppose the JBS, deriding it as white supremecist (see item 6).  Trump's anti-Globalist line is similar to that of the JBS (see item 7). Bankers, Media & the entire Establishment have ganged up to stop him.  The same forces were recently trying to oust Corbyn in Britain; yet Corbyn is on the Left. So this is not a simple Left/Right phenomenon.  Trump has been endorsed by Eamonn Fingleton, a former editor at Euromoney, the Financial Times and Forbes, who has been waging a lonely battle against Globalization, Thatcherism and Reaganomics. He was one of the earliest critics of financialization, arguing that there is no substitute for advanced manufacturing industries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamonn_Fingleton  Trump's ideas on Trade also resonate with those of Raymond L. Richman, author of Trading Away Our Future. Richman is a Zionist Jew; he lives in New York.  The dangers of Free Trade and Globalization also figure in Sir James Goldsmith's book The Trap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith.  So, it's simplistic to attribute Trump's policies merely to the JBS. There's a wide range of opinion in that camp, some of it Jewish.  Trump's connection to Roy Cohn intrigues me. Cohn, 'the most feared lawyer in New York' (item 8), was part of Senator Joe McCarthy's team and helped convict Julius and Ethel Rosenberg of espionage. I believe that the judge at that trial was also Jewish, as if to emphasize that not ALL Jews were backers of the Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn  The Neocons are mostly Jews from the Trotskyist camp who joined Likudnik Zionism with the anti-Communist crusade of Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson.  Jackson's line on Communism seems, to me, very similar to that of Joe McCarthy. The Neocon administrations from Bill Clinton to Obama have picked off one Soviet ally after another, launching invasions of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Hillary Clinton has likened Putin to Hitler, and called for a No-Fly Zone in Syria, which is tantamount to war with Russia.  Yet Trump, linked to the JBS and Roy Cohn, is pals with Putin, and talks of dismantling NATO.  Surely this divergence between the McCarthy and Jackson camps is one of the great untold stories of our time. That's why I penned this little piece - I'm hoping that you, Reader, will be able to shed light on it.  (3) Jewish Donors Shun Donald Trump — 95% of Contributions Go to Hillary Clinton  http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/350531/jewish-donors-shun-donald-trump-95-of-contributions-go-to-hillary-clinton/  Nathan Guttman  September 22, 2016  It is an open secret in Jewish Republican circles: Donors are steering clear from Donald Trump, finding any excuses to channel their political contributions to congressional races and Super PACs supporting down-ballot candidates rather than writing a check for the controversial Republican standard bearer.  Now, the prediction and statistic analysis website 538 has put this trend into numbers — and the dramatic results confirm that Jewish donors are shunning the presidential candidate.  According to 538’s analysis, which was based on identifying Jewish donors by their names, place of residence and other factors, just 5% of contributions from Jewish donors went to Trump, compared to 29% for Mitt Romney in 2012.  The analysis found that of the $95 million given so far by Jewish donors to presidential candidates, 95% has gone to Hillary Clinton. In fact, at this point of the race Clinton has already gotten more campaign dollars from Jewish donors than Barack Obama received in the entire 2012 campaign.  A look at the share of Jewish donors on each side delivers further proof that Republican Jewish donors have turned their back on Trump. While Jewish contributors made up 7% of Romney’s donor base, they are only 3% of Trump’s.  Many Republican Jewish donors have been speaking openly about their difficulty in financially supporting their party’s presidential candidate this year. Most started off backing other candidates in the crowded GOP primary race and when left with Trump as the nominee, they chose to avoid giving to the presidential race altogether and focus their donations on supporting House and Senate races. Even mega donor Sheldon Adelson, the largest Jewish donor to speak out in favor of Trump, snubbed, the candidate by giving him only 5$ million after initially promising $100 million.  Trump’s finance operation is headed by Jewish Republicans, including national finance chair Steven Mnuchin and Lew Eisenberg who heads Trump Victory Fund.  Republican Jewish Group Endorses Donald Trump, Exacerbating FeudJosefin DolstenMay 4, 2016  Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com or on Twitter @nathanguttman  (4) Jewish Republican donors staying away from funding Trump  http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Donald-Trump/Jewish-Republican-donors-staying-away-from-funding-Trump-466125  By MICHAEL WILNER  08/26/2016 15:27  The 2016 race in its entirety is expected to cost roughly $5 billion.  WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton is storming through New York’s Hamptons this weekend, set to appear at nine big-ticket events to rake in millions of dollars in the tony seaside communities over the course of three days.  The Democratic presidential nominee’s continued fund-raising blitz – which builds on a 72-hour California swing last week that brought in $19 million for her campaign – is sure to widen the gap between her war chest and that of Donald Trump, currently half as full as hers.  The disparity is particularly glaring among a class of wealthy Jewish donors who, in recent elections, have evenly split across the political aisle. Not so this year, as several Jewish Republican bundlers are refusing to fund the GOP nominee’s flagging campaign.  While several Jewish hedge fund managers have donated significant sums – including investor Carl Icahn, Trump’s old friend, and Cerberus Capital Management CEO Stephen Feinberg – most major billionaire GOP donors have held out, including Elliott Management Corporation founder Paul Singer, Baupost Group founder and Times of Israel backer Seth Klarman, head of TRT Holdings Robert Rowling, mega Florida auto dealer and former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles Norman Braman and CAM Capital chairman Bruce Kovner.  Several of these men are instead focusing on competitive races that may tip the balance of power in the Senate.  One billionaire Jewish supporter of Trump is also a survivor of the Nazi regime: Martin Selig, a fellow real estate billionaire based in Seattle. Born in Germany, Selig fled for the US (via Poland, Russia, Korea and Japan) in 1939 after learning that he and his family had been labeled "undesirable" by the Nazi government.  Asked by The Seattle Weekly to explain why he supports Trump for president, Selig replied: "The fact that these are the two people who have been nominated for president, you have to live with that."  He rejected comparisons between the Trump campaign and fascist political movements that brought Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to power in Germany and Italy in the 1930s.  "That’s so poppycock," commented Selig, who will host a fund-raiser for Trump on Tuesday. "It’s just a lot of talking. I really don’t see the comparison."  Leading Trump’s fund-raising efforts is a Jewish man, Lewis Eisenberg, who himself has donated only a fraction of the near half a million dollars allowed by law for a single gift. Last month, the head of the Trump Victory Fund – a reliable donor to Republican candidates and causes – gave $11,000 to the effort.  Others in Trump’s corner include wealthy Florida developer and finance chairman for former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign Mel Sembler, former chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition Sam Fox of St. Louis, and venture capitalist Elliott Broidy of Los Angeles.  On the whole, RJC board members have given far less than the $12m. they offered Romney’s campaign in 2012. They reflect their skeptical membership, which has in turn been reflected in the RJC’s campaign strategy: Not once since May has the organization mentioned Trump’s name in its advertising material.  Perhaps the biggest question for Trump is whether Sheldon Adelson, the largest donor in the 2012 race, will follow through on his commitment to deliver major donations to his campaign.  As of now, Adelson has not donated a dime, despite publicly endorsing the nominee in May and pledging financial support. [...]  http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/340033/republican-jewish-group-endorses-donald-trump-exacerbating-feud/  Republican Jewish Group Endorses Donald Trump, Exacerbating Feud  Josefin Dolsten  May 4, 2016  The main Republican Jewish group has endorsed Donald Trump for president, driving a fresh wedge between politically conservative Jews whose conflict over the presumptive nominee played out online on Wednesday, the day after Trump won the Indiana Republican primary.  The Republican Jewish Coalition posted on Twitter a message from its national chairman, David Flaum, congratulating Trump on his presumptive nomination, and saying there was "unity" among Republicans in the belief that Hillary Clinton "the worst possible choice for a commander in chief."  But unity was hard to find as Republican Jews turned on each other, with some recoiling in horror at the idea of supporting a candidate they see as unprincipled, while others insisted that while Trump has his failings, he’s still a better choice than Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.  In response to an earlier endorsement of Trump by Ari Fleischer, who serves on the organization’s board, conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin wrote on Twitter that the organization would be "dead to me" if they followed Fleischer’s lead.  Noam Neusner, a former speechwriter for the White House and Mitt Romney, said Trump does not represent the values of the Republican party.  A vote for Trump was "completely wrong," tweeted Allen Ginzburg, who has written for conservative publication "Red Alert Politics" and is an avid user of the #NeverTrump hashtag.Fleischer, who served as White House press secretary under George W. Bush, exposed an emerging fault line that could split both the Republican party and Jewish conservatives, when he expressed his support for Trump on Tuesday evening.  Liberal Jews also condemned Fleischer’s Tweet. Peter Beinart, a political commentator and journalist who is an outspoken opponent of Israeli settlements, said Fleischer’s tweet was not unexpected.  Prominent journalist Julia Ioffe, who was the victim last week of anti-Semitic attacks by Trump supporters after writing a profile about the Republican candidates’s wife, pointed out that Fleischer had only hours earlier posted a link to an article that criticized the real estate mogul for lying about his support of the Iraq War.  These were tweeted by the same human, consecutively. pic.twitter.com/yPYB869IdC— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) May 4, 2016  To be sure, Fleischer’s tweet did not only receive negative reaction. It had been retweeted over 1,800 times and received over 3,600 likes by Wednesday late afternoon.  Trump was criticized for drawing on anti-Semitic stereotypes when he referred to Jews as deal "negotiators" and said they would not support him "because I don’t want your money" during a December meeting with the Republican Jewish Coalition. He was also booed by the crowd when refusing to declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel.  (5) Shmuley Boteach backs Trump, forgives his previous neutrality between Israel and Palestinians  http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/340109/as-endorsements-denunciations-of-trump-fly-jewish-conservative-solidarity-f/  As Endorsements, Denunciations of Trump Fly, Jewish Conservative Solidarity Frays  Josefin Dolsten  May 5, 2016  Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on Thursday came near to endorsing Donald Trump, calling the businessman a "phenomenal friend" to Israel, a sentiment shared by some Jewish conservatives and rejected by many as a divided Republican party began the process of taking sides for or against its presumptive presidential nominee.  The celebrity rabbi dismissed Trump’s previous statements about being neutral between Israel and Palestinians as irrelevant, and said that Trump’s speech at AIPAC’s policy conference in March, which drew enthusiastic applause and standing ovations from the crowd, was more representative of his views.  But even as backers like Boteach and the Republican Jewish Coalition put their support for Trump on the record, an assortment of conservative stalwarts resisted, criticizing their fellows for falling in line, and searched for alternatives.  The conflict in the Jewish community reflects a larger divide in the Republican party: Some are reluctantly expressing support for Trump, while others are staunchly opposed to him and are considering a vote for Clinton.  Senator John McCain, who ran for presidency in 2008, has said he will back the party’s nominee, no matter what. Former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, on the other hand, will not endorse any presidential candidate this year.  Boteach also said Trump should not be held accountable for anti-Semitic supporters, such as former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, who has sung Trump’s praises.  While the Republican candidate disavowed Duke on Thursday, he had previously failed to denounce him and other white supremacist groups.  Praise for Trump also came Thursday from the Zionist Organization of America, the country’s oldest pro-Israel group, which applauded his call to increase Israeli settlement building in the West Bank.  The organization’s president, Morton Klein, called Trump’s comments "refreshing" and said he was pleased to hear a "presidential candidate say that Israeli/Palestinian peace is not dependent upon Israel discriminating against Israeli Jews … by preventing them from building homes and communities in Judea/Samaria."  On Wednesday, the Republican Jewish Coalition endorsed Trump, with the group’s president "congratulating" the candidate in a statement that also slammed Hillary Clinton.  But not all Jewish Republicans are on board. An endorsement of Trump by Ari Fleischer, who served as White House press secretary under George W. Bush, raised ire among politically conservative Jews, some of whom used the hashtag #NeverTrump, to show their distaste for the candidate.  Prior to the endorsement by the Republican Jewish Coalition, conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin tweeted that if the group supported Trump they would be "dead to me."  The next day, Rubin cast about for a way out of an election between Trump and Hillary Clinton, tweeting that "the prospect of a breakaway conservative candidate or party remains alive."  Some Jewish conservatives have gone so far as to lean towards Clinton if Trump is the alternative.  Eliot Cohen, a State Department official under George W. Bush, has called Clinton "the lesser evil, by a large margin."  Other prominent Jewish conservatives have failed to endorse Trump or said they will support alternate candidates, including former diplomat Elliot Abrams, neoconservative commentator Bill Kristol, and editor of Commentary magazine John Podhoretz.  (6) Trump's anti-Globalism copied from the John Birch Society  http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-clears-path-return-john-birch-society  John Birch Society Ascendant in Trump’s Speech to Evangelical Christians  The segregationist group is finding new legitimacy in the Age of Trump.  By Adele M. Stan / AlterNet  September 9, 2016  They’re partying like it's 1964 at the Values Voter Summit. That was the year insurgent candidate Barry Goldwater snagged the Republican Party’s presidential nomination from the sweaty palms of New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, with a mighty assist from a rising faction of right-wing ideologues and the fear-mongering organizers of the John Birch Society. Today, after years of exile for its extremist teachings and opposition to civil rights legislation, John Birch Society is back in the fold, with an exhibit booth at the annual gathering of right-wing evangelicals and a speech delivered by Republican standard-bearer Donald J. Trump that echoed many of the society’s ideas.  Nearly the entire agenda of the first day of the conference—which is convened by the Family Research Council’s political arm, FRC Action—was devoted to rallying support for Trump or bashing his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. That is, except when speakers were pushing the idea that religious liberty is under attack because laws protecting individuals’ rights to legal goods and services require private establishments that serve the public to accommodate all who seek such goods and services. Since the right of same-sex couples to marry became the law of the land, religious-right outfits such as First Liberty Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom have made evangelical business-owners who refuse to provide services to same-sex couples something of a cause célèbre. Other iterations of so-called religious liberty assertions have involved pharmacists who refuse to dispense morning-after contraception to women who are eligible to receive it.  At the religious right-wing confab, the thrice-married, foul-mouthed reality TV star received an enthusiastic reception from the crowd gathered in the ballroom of Washington, D.C.’s Omni Shoreham Hotel. Trump spoke without a teleprompter, but remained disciplined in hitting points he knew would be appreciated by the audience, even if done in his characteristically staccato and truncated syntax. "[In] A Trump administration," he said, "our Christian heritage will be cherished, protected, defended, like you’ve never seen before…. You know it. And that includes religious liberty. Remember, remember."  The hitch with the right’s so-called religious liberty claims is that their exercise would require either rewriting or jettisoning Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—the part that bans discrimination by private enterprises defined as providing a "public accommodation" "on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The Birch Society famously opposed the 1964 CRA, ostensibly on the grounds that it was the work of communists who were purportedly infiltrating all aspects of American life, according to the paranoid views of JBS founder Robert Welch. The Society’s publications carried screeds against civil rights activist Rosa Parks and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., tarring them with the red brush.  The practical result of the Birch Society’s red-baiting was the Society's promotion of racial segregation, even if its leaders used their anti-communism as a cover. And JBS, which claims not to be affiliated with any religion, was always close to the Christian Reconstruction movement that formed many of the ideas around which the religious right later coalesced. Among the beliefs of Christian Reconstructionist theologian R.J. Rushdoony was a proscription on racial mixing.  As conservatives organized around a potential Goldwater nomination in 1962, William F. Buckley, National Review founder and the leading intellectual of what was then called the New Right, sought to purge the John Birch Society from the conservative movement and the Goldwater campaign, given its reputation for extremism, especially after its leader alleged that General Dwight D. Eisenhower was part of a communist conspiracy. JBS became anathema. Even Phyllis Schlafly, described by Welch as "one of our most loyal members," denied her involvement with the Society, according to the New York Times. Yet even amid the controversy, delegates to the 1964 Republican National Convention voted down a measure that would have repudiated JBS. (Update: The Southern Poverty Law Center has published a 1959 letter from Schlafly in which she says both she and her husband are members.)  However marginalized JBS remained as an entity, the ideas it promoted continued to replicate in the DNA of the religious right and the conservative movement. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Society shifted its aim from targeting alleged communists to raising an alarm on the purported horrors of internationalism. Deeply suspicious of any kind of globalism, JBS has led the right’s charge against the United Nations and fomented the conspiracy theory that embedded in the fine print of the North American Free Trade Agreement is a plan for a North American Union modeled on the European Union—a plan, Birchers say, for the end to the national sovereignty of the United States and for a single currency to be adopted by the U.S., Mexico and Canada.  Now, in the Age of Trump, the John Birch Society is finding new legitimacy in evangelical circles and in the broader conservative movement.  Among the JBS triumphs recounted by current President John McManus to Chad Bull, a JBS member and an activist with the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation, in an undated interview on Chalcedon’s website, are  "exposing and blocking the plans of the United Nations to steer American children away from their religious-based heritage with indoctrination leading to the worship of the earth goddess Gaia, the substitution of the blasphemous 'Ark of Hope,' and the adoption of the UN’s Earth Charter [and] successfully blocking ratification of the subversive Equal Rights Amendment."  The late Phyllis Schlafly, who died earlier this week, might take issue with McManus’ claim to that second point, having organized a ground army of fearful Christian women with her successful Stop ERA movement. She may have been a Bircher herself, but I doubt she’d let the men of JBS take full credit for her greatest victory.  In his speech, Trump delivered a paean to Schlafly, not for any of her accomplishments, but for her decision to endorse his presidential campaign. "She was so brave," Trump said of Schlafly. "She endorsed me, and that was not the thing to do at the time. People said, Trump? She said, He’s going to win, you don’t understand. He knows how to win, he’s going to win. They said, Phyllis, not going to be Trump. And we went boom, boom, boom."  In Trump, it seems, Schlafly thought she had found another Goldwater—but one who had a better shot at victory.  Other notes Trump hit in his speech echoed the John Birch Society (though not all). Trump’s opposition to trade agreements comes right from the FAQs on the JBS website, as does his tough-guy stance on undocumented immigrants. He now talks about reducing government regulation, another JBS bugaboo. He’s also promised to repeal "the Johnson amendment"—the tax code provision that forbids religious institutions claiming a tax exemption to endorse candidates or engage in electioneering. (There’s no position on the Johnson amendment listed on the JBS website.)  Trump’s rhetoric and positions have earned him the appreciation of Birch Society leaders. The current issue of its magazine, New American, features a cover story titled "Trump vs. the Establishment" that is highly appreciative of the candidate. If it has not offered Trump an endorsement, perhaps it is because it dare not call too much attention to its Trump-love for fear of tainting the candidate’s chances. (A reader informs us that, as a matter of policy, JBS does not endorse candidates.)  Toward the end of his speech, Trump noted that he would attend Phyllis Schlafly’s funeral on Saturday. There, he will find himself in the company of Schlafly’s fellow travelers, who bear the influence of the John Birch Society.  Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's senior Washington editor, and a weekly columnist for The American Prospect. Follow her on Twitter @addiestan.  (7) Bankers, Media & the Establishment gang up against Trump - JBS mag  http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23899-trump-vs-the-establishment  Tuesday, 23 August 2016  Trump vs. the Establishment  Written by William F. Jasper  Hedge fund billionaires, Wall Street mega-bankers, Hollywood movie moguls, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), ultra-Left "Progressive" Democrats, and Big Media journalistas have all ganged up on one man. Together with an AstroTurf army of neocon pundits, radical academics, student activists, and street agitators funded by the Big Foundations and Big Government, they have united to stop that one man: Donald J. Trump.  George Soros, David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg, Jeff Bezos, and a bevy of other uber-rich titans have teamed up with National Review, the Weekly Standard, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, et al., to ensure that "The Donald" never makes it into the White House. Some of these plutocrats — Soros, Buffett, and Spielberg — have taken the full "I’m With Her" Hillary Rodham Clinton loyalty pledge. Many of the anti-Trump "Republican" and "conservative" poseurs, on the other hand, have not formally taken the Hillary plunge, but their implacable "Never Trump" stance amounts to the same thing.  Not since 1964 has the political and financial establishment gone into such full-tilt mode against a presidential candidate. In fact, the establishment elites are shamelessly recycling the same vicious propaganda tactics against Donald Trump that they employed against Republican U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, then the rising star of the conservative/anti-communist movement.  Piling On the Propaganda  Goldwater, the establishment media choir relentlessly chimed, was an "extremist" and a "racist," and was responsible for the "climate of hate" that was somehow responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the race riots that were then rocking many American cities. Sound familiar? Moreover, voters were repeatedly told, the Arizona solon did not have the "temperament" to be the man with his finger on the nuclear trigger: His "extremism" and "warmongering" could lead to atomic war and global incineration. The anti-Goldwater character assassination campaign culminated with the infamous "daisy ad," the television commercial in which a winsome young girl counting daisy petals disappears in a mushroom cloud.  A remake of the "daisy ad" aimed at Trump is rumored to be in the offing. Back in May, Politico interviewed the admen who created "Daisy" and other notorious hit pieces for President Johnson’s venomous 1964 TV campaign that revolutionized political commercials.  In the Politico interview ("LBJ’s Ad Men: Here’s How Clinton Can Beat Trump"), two of the still-living members of Johnson’s ad team explained how the successful formula they used to smear Goldwater could be used to undermine Trump. Sid Myers, former art director at Doyle Dane Bernbach, the LBJ campaign’s advertising firm, and Lloyd Wright, the Democratic National Committee’s media coordinator at the time, detailed how some of their dirty tricks that were so effective in 1964 could also work well today.  Actually, some of those tricks were already under way against Trump before the Politico article appeared. One of the 1964 slime attacks employed the favorite libel of liberals, that conservatives and Republicans are racist KKKers. (The inconvenient reality is that, historically, it has been the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians that have been most closely associated with the Ku Klux Klan.) Myers and Wright led the team that filmed LBJ’s commercial featuring a KKK cross-burning with voice-over endorsements of Goldwater. Over the past several months, Big Media reporters and commentators have been churning and rechurning a contrived non-story: that Donald Trump received a KKK endorsement that he did not "immediately" disavow. Why is that a contrived non-story? Well, for several reasons. First of all, there’s good reason to believe that this is a "political stunt," which is to say that it is very likely that the whole "endorsement" was a set-up by Trump’s opposition to create precisely that slime effect it is having — or that they hope it is having.  The Myers-Wright LBJ hitmen parlayed the KKK smear into another infamous ad known as "Confessions of a Republican," a four-minute monologue in which actor William Bogert, posing as a lifelong Republican coming from a long family history of Republicans, worriedly explained that Goldwater "scares me." "When the head of the Ku Klux Klan, when all these weird groups, come out in favor of the candidate of my party — either they’re not Republicans, or I’m not," Bogert said.  Truth be told, Bogert was/is a Republican In Name Only (a RINO), as his most recent performances confirm. The 80-year-old actor has been trotted out by Team Hillary and her media allies over the past several months to reprise his anti-Goldwater "Confessions" against the current Republican presidential nominee. As the Republican National Convention was getting under way in Cleveland this past July, the Clinton campaign released a new ad featuring Bogert replaying his 1964 role and explaining why Trump "scares me." However, before the Clinton/Bogert spot was actually run as a commercial, Bogert was featured in friendly interviews with CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and in articles for Time, U.S. News & World Report, and other similar organs, where he has invariably been presented as a "moderate" Republican, the same as in 1964.  But how "moderate" is a Republican who can support left-wing "Progressive" Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and left-wing "Progressive" Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016? Rather, Bogert, like other (real or alleged) Republicans jumping on the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton bandwagon, may be best described as a "Rockefeller Republican." That was a much-used and well-understood political term in the 1960s and 1970s, and still is a very relevant label today describing the pro-Big Government, liberal-left, globalist, one-world GOP operatives that masquerade as "moderates." Specifically, it referred to the elitist wing of the GOP led by Nelson Rockefeller (governor of New York, 1959-1973, and vice president, 1974-1977). Nelson, the scion of the ultra-rich Rockefeller banking dynasty and a perennial presidential wannabe, was ignominiously defeated by Goldwater in the 1964 primaries. But for those in the know, "Rockefeller Republican" more accurately described (and still describes) the GOP leaders and agents associated with the "Eastern Establishment" presided over by Nelson’s brother David, then chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, as well as chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the "brain trust" of the Eastern Establishment.  The Rockefeller Republicans of the Eastern Establishment represented the moneyed Wall Street interests that were allied to the Big Government, internationalist agenda of the New Deal/New Frontier Democrats. Like the Democrats, they favored more government spending, more federal regulation and intervention, foreign aid, the United Nations, entangling treaties, judicial activism, abortion, etc. The Rockefeller Republicans were/are a mere echo of the Democrats, thus Goldwater’s pledge to offer "a choice, not an echo" to the American people.  But the idea of offering a real choice of political leaders to the American people is actually anathema to the establishment that has captured both the Democrat and Republican parties, and held them under tight control for decades. The reality of American politics was described this way in 1966 by the late Professor Carroll Quigley in his famous book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time: "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."  Quigley’s description above is important not because it represents his own views (although that may also be the case), but because, according to him, it represents the views and operational plans of the ruling elite, the Eastern Establishment, that, de facto, has usurped control over America’s financial and political system. Even more importantly, the results of one election cycle after another, over the past 50-60 years, have clearly demonstrated that the change of party does not bring "any profound or extensive shifts in policy."  Dominant Political Desires  Dr. Quigley, a professor of history at Princeton, Harvard, and Georgetown Universities, and a mentor of Bill Clinton, was one of the rare academics who was privileged to study the "secret records" of the Council on Foreign Relations and the "network of power" of which it is a key component.  "There does exist," wrote Quigley, "and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so." The chief Round Table Groups to which he refers are the CFR (in the United States) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, also known as Chatham House, in Britain). "I know of the operations of this network," Quigley explained, "because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records." "I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments," he continued. "I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."  Indeed, now more than ever, the role of this secretive power network "is significant enough to be known." But, unfortunately, far too few are courageous enough to truly "speak truth to power" and expose the increasing stranglehold it exercises over our entire nation, and much of the planet.  Hillary Rodham Clinton’s close ties to the globalist establishment, particularly as embodied in its chief operations arm, the CFR, explains why the world government lobby — both Republicans and Democrats — has rushed to her aid and is viciously attacking Trump. By both word and deed, she has proven herself to be a thoroughgoing internationalist, an anti-national sovereignty one-worlder. Although she is not herself a CFR member, her daughter, Chelsea, and husband, Bill, are both members. However, official membership is a mere formality that she, undoubtedly, is forgoing for the time being to avoid needless controversy. Like Bill, she is certain to become an official member when it is expedient. In the meantime, she has left no doubts as to where she stands, having infamously lauded the CFR for guiding the U.S. State Department in "what we should be doing and how we should think," and having referred to Pratt House, the CFR headquarters in New York City, as "the mother ship."  Those paeans of praise came from Hillary Clinton during a July 2009 speech she delivered at the CFR’s new Washington, D.C., headquarters, while she was still serving as President Obama’s secretary of state. She was introduced by her "good friend," CFR President Richard Haass, who leads the organization’s calls for "global governance" and regularly supports ceding U.S. national sovereignty to international bodies. (Naturally, he is also harshly critical of Trump.)  Following her introduction by Haass, Secretary Clinton made this remarkable admission:  Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.  As U.S. senator for New York and secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has reliably promoted the CFR "mother ship’s" agenda: the UN’s International Criminal Court, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty, the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty, the UN’s population control and sexual perversion agenda, the World Trade Organization, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and much more. She has also pushed many of these same (and related) programs through the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, while also enriching herself under the guise of philanthropy.  Clinton’s words and deeds more than confirm the severe critique of the organization by the late Admiral Chester Ward, who was himself a CFR member for nearly two decades. Admiral Ward, writing in 1977 on the powerful control the private and secretive CFR exercises over official U.S. policy, noted:  Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition. The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible. By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be. If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.  Admiral Ward, a former judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy and a CFR member from 1959-1977, became one of the organization’s chief critics. According to Ward, the goal of the CFR is the "submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." He charged that "this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership." The CFR elite and their allied globalists in the RIIA, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Brookings Institution , the Aspen Institute, the Ford Foundation, and other internationalist centers, have for decades referred to their world government plans as the New World Order.  The roadblock of national sovereignty, and specifically the U.S. Constitution with its structural checks and balances, is standing in the way of this grand scheme. This is why, Admiral Ward noted, "In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’"  Trying to Tame Trump  It was Goldwater’s "America First" philosophy that caused the CFR establishment to unleash the hellish hordes of Mordor against him, and it is Trump’s "America First" comments that have, likewise, sent the orchestrated waves of revulsion crashing upon him from the globalist chorus.  Let’s briefly examine the very carefully choreographed outpouring of outrage from the Rockefeller Republicans and the Clinton Democrats. Although scripted to appear spontaneous and uncoordinated, the critically time-released statements by high-profile politicians and the stories and op-eds by their media allies are about as spontaneous as a Super Bowl halftime show.  One of the most recent anti-Trump hit pieces by the CFR’s "Republocrats" came in the form of a letter to the New York Times (for nearly a century the CFR’s prime propaganda transmission belt) on August 8, from, as the Times put it, "Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials."  The letter, signed by former officials of the National Security Council and the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, accuses Donald Trump of lacking the "character, values, and experience" to be president, and charge that he would "put at risk our country’s national security and well-being."  "We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States," the letter states, and continues: "None of us will vote for Donald Trump." The letter by ostensible Republicans reads like a rip-and-read press statement from Team Hillary, utilizing all the Clintonian buzzwords about Trump’s "temperament" and "ignorance," and his "dangerous" and "reckless" tendencies. The list of signatories to the letter is a veritable Who’s Who of Rockefeller Republicans from the past several GOP administrations. Among the prominent CFR members who signed on are John B. Bellinger III, Robert Blackwill, Eliot A. Cohen, Richard Fontaine, Jendayi Frazer, Aaron Friedberg, Brian Gunderson, Michael Hayden, Carla A. Hills, John Negroponte, Nicholas Rostow, Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli, William H. Taft IV, Dov Zakheim, Philip Zelikow, and Robert Zoellick.  Trump responded to the attack, charging that the letter’s signers are "the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who to blame for making the world such a dangerous place." These supposedly important critics, he said, are "nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power." It is difficult to dispute Trump on this key point, which is why the CFR-aligned media focus instead on trumped up stories, such as the "crying baby fiasco," and his supposed "Second Amendment threat" against Hillary.  Another member of the "failed Washington elite," Maine Senator Susan M. Collins (CFR), penned a similar anti-Trump letter for the Washington Post (another longtime CFR transmission belt) on the same day, August 8, entitled "Why I Cannot Support Donald Trump." Senator Collins, who has an abysmal 40 percent rating on this magazine’s Freedom Index, says in her letter that she is "a lifelong Republican." "But Donald Trump," she insists, "does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country." Apparently, in Collins’ view, "historical Republican values" include supporting bigger government, more taxes, more debt, more regulation (except when it comes to auditing the unaccountable Federal Reserve, a common-sense proposal she opposes), more undeclared wars, and more surveillance-state measures, as well as support for the militant pro-abortion and LGBTQ agendas.  Also on August 8, much of the CFR-aligned blogosphere and Big Media universe celebrated the announcement by Republican Evan McMullin (CFR) that he is entering the presidential race as an "independent" #NeverTrump candidate. McMullin, who recently left his job as the chief policy director for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, claims to be a conservative, but is more likely a neoconservative of the Susan Collins/Paul Ryan/John McCain/Mitch McConnell stripe. Besides being a CFR member, he is ex-CIA (favorite intel-disinformation apparat of the CFR), and ex-Goldman Sachs (favorite Wall Street firm of Hillary).  A couple of weeks earlier, in a July 24 column for the left-wing Daily Beast, liberal-left Democrat "journalist" Eleanor Clift (the veteran commentator for PBS and MSNBC) reported, with apparent glee, "Some of the GOP’s best brains" are now going for Hillary. Among the supposed Republican brainiacs that are joining the Clinton camp, says Clift, are Robert Kagan (CFR), a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a co-founder of the all-war-all-the-time Project for the New American Century; Brent Scowcroft (CFR), an advisor to four GOP presidents; Henry Paulson, Jr. (CFR), former treasury secretary under President George W. Bush and former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs; Kori Schake (CFR), former George W. Bush National Security official; Max Boot, a CFR senior fellow and former advisor to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio; retired Army Colonel Peter Mansoor (CFR), former top aide to General David Petraeus (CFR); and Larry Pressler (CFR), former U.S. senator for South Dakota.  It’s easy to see why a "progressive" such as Eleanor Clift would consider these Rockefeller RINOs to be the GOP’s "best brains," but most thinking Republicans with any constitutional conviction would say "good riddance," and would urge these longtime globalists to stay in the party of Bernie, Barack, and Hillary, where they belong. There are too many like Larry Pressler posing as "moderate Republicans" as long as it is politically expedient. But this is not the first time he has jumped ship: He also voted and campaigned for Obama in 2012.  Many more of the CFR Republican elite can be expected to make highly public defections in the coming days and weeks. Maybe not all the way over to an endorsement of Hillary, but certainly condemning Trump and warning voters of the grave "dangers" he would pose if he occupied the White House. Between now and November 8, we can be sure there will be coordinated waves of RINO Rockefeller Republicans attacking Trump and embracing Clinton, all in a scripted effort to cripple and defeat the Republican nominee.  The Team Hillary message is, "See, Trump is so toxic and unpresidential that even all these famous Republicans are fleeing him." That message will work — and is working — with ill-informed voters. For truly informed voters, however, the RINO exodus is a good thing to cheer, and one of the best endorsements for Donald Trump. Yes, from a solid, constitutionalist perspective, he has many faults, warts, and deficiencies. However, it should be clear from the unprecedented magnitude and ferocity of the attacks leveled against him that Trump represents an existential threat to the CFR insiders’ grand schemes for a New World Order. And it should be equally clear that Hillary Clinton is viewed by these same globalists as the chosen one to further extend their subversive schemes. Whatever his faults, Trump is seen by the globalists as their adversary, because they see in him a nationalist, a patriot, who will stand athwart their schemes for global empire. Moreover, due to his independent wealth, he is uniquely positioned to challenge and monkey-wrench their schemes. And for these reasons, between now and election day, their attacks on him will be relentless and ever more vicious. *    *    *  Hillary’s Wall Street Fat Cats and Billionaire Boys’ Club  Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other Democrats lambasted Hillary Clinton for her scandalously enormous campaign donations from Wall Street’s biggest banks and hedge funds. Her response has been to double down and take still more campaign lucre, while feigning outrage that anyone would think that any amount of money, no matter how large, could ever corrupt a paragon of virtue such as herself. "Anybody who knows me, who thinks they can influence me, name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing," Clinton defiantly charged at a February 3, 2016, televised CNN forum in New Hampshire. "I’m out here every day saying, ‘I’m going to shut them down; I’m going after them.’" At an earlier campaign stop in Iowa on January 24, she declared, "I believe strongly that we need to make sure that Wall Street never wrecks Main Street again.... No bank is too big to fail, and no executive is too powerful to jail."  In an internal memo on August 8, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook crowed that the campaign had hauled in $90 million in July, and "we are very proud of the more than $469 million our campaign has raised so far." It is certain to hit well over a half billion dollars before Election Day. And here are some of the principal Lords of Mammon who are providing it: George Soros, hedge fund investor, $9 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; Alex Soros, son of George Soros, $1 million to pro-Clinton groups; Steven Spielberg, Hollywood producer/director, $1 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners hedge fund, $8.1 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; James Simons, Renaissance Technologies investment firm, $9.5 million to pro-Clinton groups; Bernard L. Schwartz, investment banker, $1 million to pro-Clinton groups; Herbert M. Sandler, banker, $3 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; Jay Robert and Mary Katherine Pritzker, investors, $6.5 million to pro-Clinton groups.  Additional "Billionaire Club" Hillary supporters include Warren Buffett, the world’s second-wealthiest billionaire (according to a July 2016 Forbes rating); Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com founder, owner of the Washington Post, the world’s third-wealthiest billionaire (Forbes); Michael Bloomberg, former New York City mayor, Bloomberg News CEO, gun control/global-warming activist; Elon Musk, tech magnate (PayPal, Tesla Motors, SpaceX); Oprah Winfrey, entertainer; Jeffrey Katzenberg, Hollywood movie mogul; Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO; Meg Whitman, Hewlett Packard CEO; Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO; Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks owner, reality TV show star; Mortimer Zuckerman, owner/publisher of the New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report; Tom Steyer, hedge fund manager/environmental activist; Barry Diller, media and entertainment mogul; and Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO.  (8) Roy Cohn - What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-roy-cohn.html?_r=0  What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man  By JONATHAN MAHLER and MATT FLEGENHEIMERJUNE 20, 2016  The future Mrs. Donald J. Trump was puzzled.  She had been summoned to a lunch meeting with her husband-to-be and his lawyer to review a prenuptial agreement. It required that, should the couple split, she return everything — cars, furs, rings — that Mr. Trump might give her during their marriage.  Sensing her sorrow, Mr. Trump apologized, Ivana Trump later testified in a divorce deposition. He said it was his lawyer’s idea.  "It is just one of those Roy Cohn numbers," Mr. Trump told her.  The year was 1977, and Mr. Cohn’s reputation was well established. He had been Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Red-baiting consigliere. He had helped send the Rosenbergs to the electric chair for spying and elect Richard M. Nixon president.  Then New York’s most feared lawyer, Mr. Cohn had a client list that ran the gamut from the disreputable to the quasi-reputable: Anthony (Fat Tony) Salerno, Claus von Bulow, George Steinbrenner.  But there was one client who occupied a special place in Roy Cohn’s famously cold heart: Donald J. Trump.  For Mr. Cohn, who died of AIDS in 1986, weeks after being disbarred for flagrant ethical violations, Mr. Trump was something of a final project. If Fred Trump got his son’s career started, bringing him into the family business of middle-class rentals in Brooklyn and Queens, Mr. Cohn ushered him across the river and into Manhattan, introducing him to the social and political elite while ferociously defending him against a growing list of enemies.  Decades later, Mr. Cohn’s influence on Mr. Trump is unmistakable. Mr. Trump’s wrecking ball of a presidential bid — the gleeful smearing of his opponents, the embracing of bluster as brand — has been a Roy Cohn number on a grand scale. Mr. Trump’s response to the Orlando massacre, with his ominous warnings of a terrorist attack that could wipe out the country and his conspiratorial suggestions of a Muslim fifth column in the United States, seemed to have been ripped straight out of the Cohn playbook.  "I hear Roy in the things he says quite clearly," said Peter Fraser, who as Mr. Cohn’s lover for the last two years of his life spent a great deal of time with Mr. Trump. "That bravado, and if you say it aggressively and loudly enough, it’s the truth — that’s the way Roy used to operate to a degree, and Donald was certainly his apprentice."  For 13 years, the lawyer who had infamously whispered in McCarthy’s ear whispered in Mr. Trump’s. In the process, Mr. Cohn helped deliver some of Mr. Trump’s signature construction deals, sued the National Football League for conspiring against his client and countersued the federal government — for $100 million — for damaging the Trump name. One of Mr. Trump’s executives recalled that he kept an 8-by-10-inch photograph of Mr. Cohn in his office desk, pulling it out to intimidate recalcitrant contractors.  The two men spoke as often as five times a day, toasted each other at birthday parties and spent evenings together at Studio 54.  And Mr. Cohn turned repeatedly to Mr. Trump — one of a small clutch of people who knew he was gay — in his hours of need. When a former companion was dying of AIDS, he asked Mr. Trump to find him a place to stay. When he faced disbarment, he summoned Mr. Trump to testify to his character.  Mr. Trump says the two became so close that Mr. Cohn, who had no immediate family, sometimes refused to bill him, insisting he could not charge a friend.  "Roy was an era," Mr. Trump said in an interview, reflecting on his years with Mr. Cohn. "They either loved him or couldn’t stand him, which was fine."  -- Peter Myers website: http://mailstar.net/index.html  |
Archives‎ > ‎