Archives‎ > ‎

Jewish Donors shun Trump, from Peter Myers

(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 <>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:33:42 -0700
> 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.
(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:
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:
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.
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
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 or on Twitter @nathanguttman
(4) Jewish Republican donors staying away from funding Trump
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
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
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. [...]
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.— 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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, 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
What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man
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
"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
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
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