Archives‎ > ‎

Trump vs the Globalists (CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilaterals) and vs Adelson & the Lobby, from Peter Myers

(1) Putin praises 'bright and talented' Trump
(2) Donald Trump issued a remarkably blunt denunciation of the Iraq War during the debate
(3) Trump wants to broker Mideast peace; says Israel is the holdout
(4) Republican “brokered convention” to deny Trump the nomination
(5) Hillary Slams Trump On Muslim Ban
(6) Trump the only candidate not seeking Sheldon Adelson's favour and money
(7) The ‘Adelson primary’
(8) 3 Ways Sheldon Adelson could handle Donald Trump
(9) Trump's opposition to Open Borders called 'Anti-Latino hate-mongering'
(10) Latinos against, but Blacks for Trump
(11) Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win; Blacks support his anti-Immigrant stance
(12) Trump vs the Globalists (CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilaterals)
(13) Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral
(14) Trump: Turkey looks like they’re on the side of ISIS
(15) Islamic State move HQ from Iraq & Syria to Libya

(1) Putin praises 'bright and talented' Trump

By Jeremy Diamond and Greg Botelho, CNN

Updated 1934 GMT (0334 HKT) December 17, 2015 | Video Source: CNN

     Russian President Vladimir Putin says Donald Trump is "the absolute
leader of the presidential race";      Trump had earlier said he'd "get
along very well with" Putin

(CNN) Donald Trump has said that he would "get along very well" with
Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The feeling is apparently mutual.

Putin offered high praise for the billionaire
businessman-turned-Republican presidential front-runner on Thursday
during an annual news conference with reporters.

"He is a bright and talented person without any doubt," Putin said,
adding that Trump is "an outstanding and talented personality."

And in remarks closely mirroring Trump's assessment of the campaign, the
Russian leader called Trump "the absolute leader of the presidential
race," according to the Russian TASS news agency.

Masha Gessen, a Russian-American journalist who authored the book "Man
Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin," said she believed
Putin's comments are "sincere" and that the Russian leader shares a lot
in common with the brash billionaire.

"There's a really aggressive posture to both men. Putin respects
fighters and he respects aggression and he doesn't respect sort of calm
and deliberation," Gessen said. "He wants a manly adversary. He wants
somebody he can understand."

The two men are both well known for their blunt manner and bravado.

Trump prides himself on his straight talk and often attacks his
opponents for being "low-energy" or lacking the "strength and stamina"
to be president, touting instead the need for a "strong" leader like

Putin, a former KGB spy and avid outdoorsman, has staked his reputation
on his macho image, with his press shop even releasing a photo of the
Russian leader topless on horseback. [...]

While most Republican presidential contenders have demonized the Russian
president -- including calling him a "gangster" and a "thug" -- and
pushed plans to isolate Russia on the world stage, Trump has instead
touted his ability to improve Washington-Moscow relations by working
with the iron-fisted Russian leader.

Trump has repeatedly touted his joint appearance with Putin on an
episode of CBS's "60 Minutes" this fall, referring to himself and Putin
as "stablemates."

Trump said in October that he and Putin "are very different" but
suggested that the two men could move beyond the frigid relations that
have come to define U.S.-Russia relations under President Barack Obama.

Putin referenced Trump's reported desire "to reach another, deeper level
of relations" with Russia in his remarks Thursday.

"What else can we do but to welcome it? Certainly, we welcome it," Putin

While fellow Republican contenders have been highly skeptical of stepped
up Russian military involvement in Syria, Trump has welcomed it.

Trump suggested in the his September "60 Minutes" appearance that the
U.S. should avoid deepening its involvement in Syria, instead allowing
Russia to take a leading role in combating the radical Islamist group
that has called for attacks on the U.S.

"Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let
Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?" Trump
said, despite U.S. wariness of Russia's presence in Syria, which is
mainly aimed at bolstering the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, who the
Obama administration has called for to leave.

(2) Donald Trump issued a remarkably blunt denunciation of the Iraq War during the debate

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:24:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Frederick Adam

Vox News

Updated by Andrew Prokop on December 16, 2015, 12:20 p.m. ET

Midway through the GOP debate Tuesday night, Republican poll leader
Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last
Republican president's main foreign policy initiative — the Iraq War.

Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians would,
calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" — and added that
it achieved nothing whatsoever, except to leave the Middle East "a total
and complete mess." Here's what he said:

     "We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion
in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other
problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would
have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.

     We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East —
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have
been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It's
not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally
destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion
dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the
United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything
else that are all falling apart!"

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Tuesday, this, like much of what Trump
says, exists outside the bounds of normal political discourse. Even for
Democrats who criticize the Iraq War, it's considered gauche to say that
so many veterans died and were injured for nothing (though many likely
believe this in their hearts).

And even those Republicans who now think the war was a mistake would
hesitate to call it "a tremendous disservice to humanity." Beyond that,
they certainly wouldn't suggest the money spent on the war could have
been plowed into increasing domestic spending, which they generally
argue won't improve things.

Yet again, Trump has identified an opportunity left open by the
polarized two-party system. By pairing his tough rhetoric and persona
and avowed nationalism with various efforts to play to Americans' racial
anxieties on immigration and terrorism, he can convincingly tell
conservatives the Iraq War has been a disaster. And here again, he may
come off to voters as more honest and straight-talking than the other

(3) Trump wants to broker Mideast peace; says Israel is the holdout

AP Conversation: Trump says Mideast peace rests with Israel


Dec. 3, 2015 1:20 PM EST

STERLING, Va. (AP) — Donald Trump says that if he's elected president,
he'll know within six months whether he can achieve an elusive peace
accord between Israelis and Palestinians, one of the world's most vexing
challenges. But the Republican presidential candidate says he has doubts
about each side's commitment to the peace process.

"I have a real question as to whether or not both sides want to make
it," Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The Republican front-runner said his concerns are greater regarding "one
side in particular." While Trump wouldn't say whether he was referring
to the Israelis or the Palestinians, he said the chances for a lasting
peace rest with Israel.

"A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to
make the deal — whether or not Israel's willing to sacrifice certain
things," Trump said. "They may not be, and I understand that, and I'm OK
with that. But then you're just not going to have a deal."

"If I win, I'll let you know six months from the time I take office," he

Trump stuck by his comments Thursday while speaking in Washington before
the Republican Jewish Coalition, reiterating that he doesn't know "if
Israel has the commitment" to reach a peace deal. He was loudly booed
when he refused to say whether he supports Israel's position that
Jerusalem is its undivided capital.

One of Trump's rivals for the GOP nomination, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio,
said at the same forum that those calling for more sacrifices from
Israel "are dead wrong, and they don't understand the enduring bond
between Israel and America."

In his interview with AP, Trump was short on specifics about how he
would tackle trying to broker peace in the Middle East, or even whether
he supports the longstanding U.S. government goal of a two-state
solution — saying he didn't want to show any bias in favor of one side
or the other in case he does become president.

"Look, we show our cards too much in negotiations," Trump said.

Still, the billionaire businessman who has made his skills as a
dealmaker a key piece of his pitch to voters was visibly enthusiastic
about the prospect of tackling the intractable foreign policy challenge.

"I think if I get elected, that would be something I'd really like to
do," Trump said during the interview at his golf club in northern
Virginia. "Because so much death, so much turmoil, so much hatred — that
would be to me a great achievement. As a single achievement, that would
be a really great achievement."

Trump said a key to peace negotiations would be meeting early in his
presidency with top leaders in the region. He said he planned to meet
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a trip to Israel
"sometime after Christmas, probably."

"You know, I'm going to be probably going over there pretty soon and I
want to see him, I want to see other people, I want to get some ideas on
it," he said. He added that the trip had been in the works long before
rival Ben Carson's recent trip to Jordan to visit Syrian refugees.

Trump said he was a "big, big fan" of Israel. Yet his questioning of
Israel's commitment to a lasting peace with its Palestinian neighbors
could still raise eyebrows in some Republican corners.

Trump sat down and shared his views on Israel in an AP Conversation — a
series of extended interviews with the 2016 candidates to become the
nation's 45th president. ___

During his unexpected five-month run atop the Republican field, Trump's
rivals for the GOP nomination have argued he lacks depth and fluency on
foreign policy. At the heart of his campaign is Trump's argument that
his experience in business and real estate would prepare him for
negotiations with world leaders.

Trump took a similar approach in discussing Israeli-Palestinian peace,
saying the only way to resolve the issue is "if you had a real
dealmaker, somebody that knew what he or she is doing."

"I'll be able to tell in one sit-down meeting with the real leaders," he

Trump evaded specific questions about whether Palestinian demands in
peace negotiations are legitimate and whether Israel should be allowed
to build settlements in the West Bank without restrictions, though he
said the Israeli housing projects were a "huge sticking point" in talks.

"I have my feelings on it, but I'm just not going to discuss it now,
because if I end up in the midst of a negotiation, I don't want people
saying, 'Well, you can't do it, you're not going to be good, you're
biased,' " Trump said. "I want to be very neutral and see if I can get
both sides together."

When asked whether his goal in peace talks would be a two-state
solution, he said, "Well, I'm not going to even say that." [...]

As if to underscore the complexity of the political and policy issue,
the normally supremely confident Trump suggested that achieving peace in
the Middle East may be the ultimate test of his capabilities as a dealmaker.

"If you can make that deal, you can make any deal," he said. "It's
probably the toughest deal to make."

(4) Republican “brokered convention” to deny Trump the nomination

How The Republican Establishment Can Keep Donald Trump From Getting The

By Michael Snyder, on December 13th, 2015

It is going to be much more difficult for Donald Trump to win the
Republican nomination than most people think. In order to win the
nomination, a candidate must secure at least 1,237 of the 2,472
delegates that are up for grabs. But not all of them will be won during
the state-by-state series of caucuses and primaries that will take place
during the first half of 2016. Of the total of 2,472 Republican
delegates, 437 of them are unpledged delegates – and 168 of those are
members of the Republican National Committee. And unless you have been
hiding under a rock somewhere, you already know that the Republican
National Committee is not a fan of Donald Trump. In order to win the
Republican nomination without any of the unpledged delegates, Trump
would need to win 60.78 percent of the delegates that are up for grabs
during the caucuses and primaries. And considering that his poll support
is hovering around 30 percent right now, that is a very tall order.

In the past, it was easier for a front-runner to pile up delegates in
“winner take all” states, but for this election cycle the Republicans
have changed quite a few things. In 2016, all states that hold caucuses
or primaries before March 15th must award their delegates
proportionally. So when Trump wins any of those early states, he won’t
receive all of the delegates. Instead, he will just get a portion of
them based on the percentage of the vote that he received.

In 2016, more delegates will be allocated on a proportional basis by the
Republicans than ever before, and with such a crowded field that makes
it quite likely that no candidate will have secured enough delegates for
the nomination by the time the Republican convention rolls around.

And this actually plays right into the hands of the Republican
establishment. A dinner for prominent Republican leaders that was held
in Washington D.C. last week discussed the possibility of a “brokered
convention” if they can keep Trump from getting the required number of
delegates during the caucuses and primaries. The following comes from
the Hill…

     More than 20 top GOP officials discussed at a dinner on Monday the
party’s strategy in the event of a brokered convention amid Donald
Trump’s consistent lead in the polls.

     Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus and
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) listened as several
longtime party members argued the establishment must lay the groundwork
for a floor fight if Trump storms through the presidential primaries,
five sources familiar with the meeting told The Washington Post.

     The sources said Priebus and McConnell were mostly silent during
the deliberation and did not signal support for an explicit anti-Trump

What was extremely interesting to me was who was reportedly at this
meeting. According to the Washington Post, key advisers to Jeb Bush,
Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney were all there…

     Attendees included Ward Baker, executive director of the National
Republican Senatorial Committee; Rob Simms, his counterpart at the
National Republican Congressional Committee; Ron Kaufman, an RNC
committeeman and Romney confidant; and pollster Linda DiVall. Whit
Ayres, an adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), and Vin Weber, an ally of
former Florida governor Jeb Bush, also were there, among others.

In the event of a “brokered convention”, it is almost inevitable that an
establishment candidate would emerge as the nominee. That list would
include names such as Bush, Rubio and Romney, and it would exclude names
such as Trump, Cruz and Carson.

Unless the field thins significantly, it looks like it is going to be a
real challenge for anyone to stockpile the required number of delegates
before the convention at this point. Here is an analysis of the delegate
math that candidates are facing that comes from Think Progress…

     Trump’s biggest asset is winner-take-all states. So long as he
captures a plurality of the vote in these states, he wins every delegate
that is up for grabs in the state. Although the GOP’s rules require
states that wish to hold a winner-take-all contest to schedule their
primary or caucus no sooner than March 15, eleven states and territories
will have such a contest. Additionally, a handful of states allocate
some portion of their delegates to the winner of the state as a whole.
In total, Trump could win about 500 delegates in states that award a
bloc of delegates to the candidate who wins a plurality of the vote.

     Even if Trump captures every single one of these delegates,
however, he would still need to capture over 700 of the nearly 2,000
remaining delegates in order to emerge as the nominee, and here is where
the math gets much more difficult for him. Even if he captures every
single delegate awarded to candidates who win a plurality of the votes
in a state, he would still need to win approximately 37 percent of the
remaining delegates to capture the nomination — under the various and
often complex rules that each state uses to allocate these delegates.
Currently, the Real Clear Politics polling average shows Trump leading
the GOP field with about 30 percent of the vote, so his current polls
likely do not give him enough support to capture the nomination outright.

When news of the dinner meeting of establishment Republicans in D.C.
first came to light, it created a huge uproar. Needless to say, Donald
Trump was not thrilled, and he is even hinting that he may stage an
independent run if he is not treated fairly…

     “I’ve been hearing about these closed-door meetings and I don’t
like that,” Trump told CNN’s “State of the Union With Jake Tapper.”
“That wasn’t the deal I made. I signed a pledge, and the pledge was
supposed to be a double deal. They were supposed to be honorable, so
we’re going to find out. If it’s going to be that way we’ll have
problems, but I hope it’s not going to be that way.” [...]

(5) Hillary Slams Trump On Muslim Ban

December 15, 2015 @ 5:33 pm

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

It all started at San Bernardino.

Two Muslim terrorists went on a shooting spree leaving 14 dead and many

Trump jumped on it and ‘political incorrectness’ got prime time.

[Clip: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of
Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives
can figure out what the hell is going on.”]

Hillary wasted no time either and ‘political correctness’ chimed in.

[Clip: “Instead of showing leadership, some candidates in this race are
resorting to ugly, hateful rhetoric. Donald Trump, the Republican
frontrunner, has made a name for himself in the last months by
trafficking in prejudice and paranoia. His latest insult is his call to
stop all Muslims from entering the United States. This is both a
shameless and a dangerous idea.”]

If Hillary loves Muslims so much, why did she support the Iraq War which
left 4 million Muslims dead while Trump opposed it?

If Netanyahu loves Muslims so much when rebuking Trump, why can’t a
Muslim, even with a deed to his land, get into Israel?

We’re knee-deep in hypocrisy served on a kosher platter by political

For with the ADL and the SPLC slamming Trump as a bigot and giving Bibzy
a free pass, what’s good for the goose is bad for the gander.

Even with Trump’s pro-Israel stand, Jews want the ‘easier-controlled’
Hillary and Bibzy’s in on it.

They’re swooping down on Trump’s Muslim stand in order to destroy him.

If Trump were smart, he would’ve called for a moratorium on “The Open
Immigration Law Of 1965?—pushed by the American Jewish Committee for
unrestricted Third World immigration—and that would’ve spared Trump some
grief. [...]

(6) Trump the only candidate not seeking Sheldon Adelson's favour and money

Which US presidential candidate is good for Israel?

Akiva Eldar

[...] Sheldon Adelson ... is being courted by all the Republican
candidates with one exception, the billionaire Donald Trump, who doesn’t
need campaign contributions. If one of the other candidates gets to the
White House in 2016, he or she will need Adelson’s money to stay there
after 2020. That will require Jerusalem’s blessing. Meanwhile, Trump has
sent Netanyahu and Adelson a troubling message. In an Associated Press
interview, he said that if he manages to bring about peace between
Israel and the Palestinians, “That would be to me a great achievement.”
He added that he would know within six months of launching his efforts
whether they would be successful. Netanyahu would prefer someone like
Marco Rubio, who said at a conference of the Republic Jewish Coalition
that peace was a far-off dream for Israel.

If Adelson were running for the presidency, Netanyahu’s choice would be
so much simpler. Absent such an option, he will await his patron’s pick.
According to Politico, as of now Rubio is the lucky winner.

(7) The ‘Adelson primary’

Millions at stake, the ‘Adelson primary’ is neck and neck

The behind-the-scenes wooing of the Adelsons has been underway for months.

by Michael Isikoff -Chief Investigative Correspondent

My Catbird Seat, Dec 7, 2015

It is the biggest financial prize in Republican presidential politics:
the endorsement of Sheldon Adelson, the multibillionaire casino magnate
legendary for his willingness to spend huge sums to promote the
candidates of his choosing.

But this year the bidding to become the winner of what is informally
called the “Adelson primary” has gotten complicated. After being wooed
by virtually all the major GOP contenders, the 82-year-old Adelson was
believed to be close to announcing his backing of Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio shortly after the Dec. 15 Republican debate — an event that,
conveniently enough, is being held at the Venetian Las Vegas, a hotel
Adelson owns.

That scenario, however, has run into resistance from a surprising
source: Miriam Adelson, the megadonor’s strong-willed and equally
hawkish wife. An Israeli-born physician, Miriam Adelson has become
enamored of late with Ted Cruz, according to four Republican sources
close to the couple. The Texas senator has impressed her with his
unwavering toughness on national security issues, especially his support
for Israel, the issue that the couple cares most passionately about.

“He really likes Marco, but she really likes Cruz — and it’s a
standoff,” said one well-placed Republican fundraiser familiar with
Adelson family dynamics.

It’s a standoff that could result in an awkward split decision — or no
decision at all, according to some GOP insiders. Both the Adelsons give
generously in their own names, almost always in tandem: The couple’s
publicly reported donations exceeded $98 million during the 2012
election. Miriam Adelson wrote nearly half those checks personally,
totaling more than $47 million, usually delivering them on the same day
her husband wrote seven-figure checks for about the same amount.

But one prediction that is gaining traction in GOP circles is that the
Adelsons may end up sitting out the early GOP primaries altogether,
rather than choose sides and risk funding attack ads against a candidate
one of them actually favors. Some say they could even go their separate
ways, at least in the early stages of the contest. “She’s very capable
of doing whatever she wants,” said one GOP insider in regular touch with
the Adelsons. “If she wants to support Cruz, there’s nothing stopping
her.” (Spokesmen for Adelson and for Cruz did not respond to requests
for comment. Rubio spokesman Alex Conant emailed: “I don’t comment on
the Adelsons.”)

The Adelsons’ dilemma comes at a critical juncture in the GOP race.
Rubio and Cruz are openly sniping at each other over national security
issues as they vie to become the “responsible” conservative alternative
to frontrunner Donald Trump. [...]

(8) 3 Ways Sheldon Adelson could handle Donald Trump

Ron Kampeas

December 15, 2015

(JTA) — For months, Republican Party insiders have speculated who
Sheldon Adelson, the pro-Israel billionaire, will back in the GOP
presidential primary.

Now there’s a follow-up question: How does Donald Trump’s continued
perch atop the polls scramble the casino magnate’s calculations?

In 2012, Adelson and his wife, Miriam, backed Newt Gingrich to the tune
of $40 million. Insiders say that money forced eventual candidate Mitt
Romney to spend dollars fending off Gingrich – expenditures that helped
cripple Romney’s efforts against incumbent Barack Obama in the general
election. Republicans who have communicated with Adelson say the
billionaire is loath to repeat that experiment and wants to be sure of a
front-runner before he steps in.

But Trump, the maverick real estate billionaire and reality television
star, is rewriting the script. Establishment Republicans and the party’s
Jewish donor base fear that his impolitic outbursts and alienation of
constituencies being courted by the GOP may destroy the party.

Adelson’s office declined comment, and Adelson has never said on the
record what he thinks of Trump. Sources close to Trump, however, leaked
to Politico last month that there was a time when Trump sought the
backing of Adelson.

After speaking with a number of GOP operatives, including several who
back Trump’s rivals, here are three possible strategies for Adelson. **
Save it for the general election**

Reports suggest that the Adelsons are down to deciding between backing
Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas. Miriam Adelson
favors Cruz, while Sheldon Adelson favors Rubio, according to Yahoo
News. Both candidates are rising in the polls and have been targeted by
Trump in his stump speech.

Backing one or the other now would be a zero-sum game: Like with
Gingrich in 2012, whoever receives the money could inflict serious
damage on the eventual nominee. Meanwhile, Trump, who has benefited from
media attention money can’t buy – and who has plenty of his own cash,
should he need to start spending seriously – would emerge unscathed.

A number of factors – the growth of social media, surging grassroots
resentment of the establishment and Trump’s ability to command free
media attention for every outrageous utterance – have conspired to
render fundraising far less useful in the primaries. Former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush is flush with cash, yet remains stranded in the single digits
in polls. All that may change as the actual voting nears, but as Bush
can attest, trying to stop Trump with cash seems to be a case of
throwing good money after bad.

Give it to a SuperPAC

The Adelsons may be able to spend against Trump, while avoiding favoring
another candidate, by giving to a SuperPAC, political action committees
that allow unlimited spending against a candidate.

One contender could be Club for Growth Action, the SuperPAC affiliated
with the famed anti-tax group, which already has targeted Trump for his
calls to tax the super-rich.

One smart move for Adelson might be to back a SuperPAC that
strategically targets Trump in states where he may be vulnerable, like
Florida, whose March 1 primary is considered a must-win for native son

Crush him – now

Waiting out Trump might seem tempting, but there are reasons Adelson
might want to bash Trump early and often. The prospect of Trump as the
Republican nominee spooks establishment Republicans in general, but
Adelson and other donors for whom Israel is the premier issue have
specific reasons for fearing his candidacy.

Trump could drive away moderate Republicans from the polls and galvanize
minority voters repelled by his rhetoric. That would be a disaster for
pro-Israel Republicans in Congress who face tough reelection campaigns,
chief among them Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

Trump has also refused to toe the line that pro-Israel Republicans
expect from their candidate. At the Republican Jewish Coalition’s
candidates forum earlier this month, Trump made headlines for joking
about the wealth and business prowess of those in attendance. But more
substantively, Trump raised eyebrows by blaming Israel in part for the
impasse in peace talks with the Palestinians, and would not commit to
moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and keeping the city as Israel’s
undivided capital.

(9) Trump's opposition to Open Borders called 'Anti-Latino hate-mongering'

U.S. Capitalism and the New “Brown Scare”

by Justin Akers Chacon

Jul 22, 2015

Anti-Latino hate-mongering has been rising alongside the central role of
immigrants in the U.S. economy, argues Justin Akers Chacón, in an
article published at Arcade.

THE SPECTACLE of candidate Donald Trump casting aspersions on Mexicans
in the United States as "criminals" and "rapists" cannot be fully
understood as just the noxious ranting of a self-entitled bigot. [...]

Opening Borders for Capital Accumulation

COMMONLY REFERRED to as the neoliberal turn, the last thirty years has
witnessed a substantial increase in U.S-led free trade agreements.

 From the North American Free Trade Agreement to the Dominican Republic
and Central American Free Trade Agreement, to the recently proposed
Trans-Pacific Partnership Alliance; bi-partisan administrations have
made the aggressive push for pro-corporate free trade regimes a
centerpiece of the epoch.

At the heart of these agreements in relation to Mexico and Central
America has been the dismantling of economic developmentalist policies,
the re-writing of trade rules that dismantle tariffs and favor
multi-national corporations over smaller producers, privatization of
state industry, and the requirement of "labor flexibility" so as to
decrease labor costs.[1]

The components of trade agreements had been perfected by corporations
and applied within the United States through successive administrations
before being exported to Mexico and Central America under the aegis of
International Monetary Fund debt restructuring diktats.

In the U.S., labor flexibility has been a primary strategy employed by
the U.S. capitalist class since the 1970s. The over-arching goal has
been to increase worker productivity while suppressing working-class
living standards as a means to increase the rate of exploitation of labor.

Central to this strategy is union busting. Employers have relied on a
number of strategies to weaken or break unions as part of this process,
and they have been successful. For instance, the rate of unionization in
2014 sank to 11.1 percent of the workforce, the lowest it has been in
100 years. [...]

(10) Latinos against, but Blacks for Trump

100 Black Religious Leaders to Endorse Donald Trump on Monday

by Michelle Fields27 Nov 20152,647

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will announce next week
that he is being endorsed by a coalition of 100 black pastors and
religious leaders, reports say.

Trump is expected to meet with the coalition of black religious leaders
and pastors privately on Monday at Trump Towers in New York City. He
will then hold a press conference at 1 p.m. ET to announce their support.

The group of leaders are expected to come from early primary states like
South Carolina and Florida.

Trump has held several meetings with evangelical Christians during his
presidential campaign.

One of the people who was impressed with Trump after meeting him was
Darrell Scott, pastor of the New Spirit Revival Center in Ohio. Scott
helped organize the coalition of black leaders who are expected to meet
with Trump Monday.

Scott told the New York Times that, after meeting with Trump, he
realized that he was the best candidate for president and said that
accusations of racism in the media against Trump were false.

“I was looking for some subtle hints of racism,” Mr. Scott said. “I
didn’t see it at all.”

Pastor Mark Burns of South Carolina told the Wall Street Journal that he
will also be endorsing Trump.

“He’s the best candidate for the Republican nomination” said Burns. [...]

(11) Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win; Blacks support his anti-Immigrant stance

Donald Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win

By Bruce Bartlett September 4 Follow @BruceBartlett

Bruce Bartlett has worked for many Republican officeholders, including
Jack Kemp and President Ronald Reagan, for whom he was a domestic policy
adviser. He is the author of “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s
Buried Past.”

It’s safe to say that virtually all political professionals think Donald
Trump’s presidential campaign is doomed. The odds of him winning the
Republican nomination are long, and the odds of him winning the general
election are nonexistent, they say. The key reason is that Trump’s
campaign is based on alienating Latinos, a large and fast-growing voter
bloc, by supporting the deportation of 11 million undocumented
immigrants and building a wall along the border with Mexico to prevent
further emigration. If the eventual Republican nominee needs 47 percent
of the Latino vote to win the general election — the threshold set by
two political scientists in a study for Latino Decisions — what chance
does Trump have?

But if Trump could replace Latino votes with those of another large
minority group that traditionally votes Democratic, he might have a
fighting chance at victory. And even without changing his message, black
voters could be that group.

African Americans have long been receptive to the anti-immigrant
concepts behind Trump’s campaign. Simply put, the jobs, housing and
other opportunities that immigrants take come largely at the expense of
blacks who were born in the United States. [...]

(12) Trump vs the Globalists (CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilaterals)

Will Donald Trump Will Be Assassinated By a Man with a Diary?

23 Jul, 2015

by Dave Hodges

[...] The Ross Perot Parallel

The last time the American people had a candidate that appeared to
represent middle class interests, was nearly 24 years ago, that would be
6 elections ago. Americans loved Ross Perot because he was all ears.

Every major candidate since that time has had the CFR, Trilateral and
Bilderberger’s controlling their every statement. The last time America
had a true “independent” candidate would have been a man named Ross Perot.

To effectively evaluate Trump’s candidacy from an historical
perspective, one has to be old enough to remember Ross Perot. I remember
the 1992 campaign clearly. The nation was locked in a three way battle
for the Presidency. Pappy Bush was running for re-election, Bill Clinton
was still lifting up skirts as had secured the Democratic nomination.
And then there was Ross Perot, a man who looked more like a caricature,
or some cartoon character, rather than a legitimate Presidential
candidate. Yet, five months before the election, Ross Perot had a
seemingly insurmountable lead in the Presidential race.

Perot convinced American voters that he would save millions of American
jobs by stopping NAFTA.

Perot convinced American voters that he would save millions of American
jobs from being sucked south of the border by the treasonous and
unconstitutional free trade agreement, NAFTA.

NAFTA was the first step towards a one-world economic system and
fulfilling the globalist goal of destroying the United States. Perot was
at the point in opposing NAFTA. This would prove to be his undoing.

The message was clear to the American voters, if you wanted to save your
job, you voted for Ross Perot. [...]

By opposing NAFTA, Perot was playing with his life. [...]

Perot allegedly withdrew from the race because of some very vague
threats that had been made with regard to his daughter’s upcoming
wedding in June of 1992. The story never made sense. The reason given
for Perot’s withdrawal did not warrant derailing a successful
Presidential campaign.

Perot was an intelligent man. He knew the fate of men who has seriously
challenged the globalists. At the end of the day, there are three
reasons why reformer, Ross Perot, withdrew from the 1992 election and
those three reasons were JFK, RFK and MLK. Somebody got to Ross Perot. [...]

(13) Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral

by Jon Rappoport

August 24, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

The powerful Globalist players at the Council on Foreign Relations, the
Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission are certainly watching
the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

Trump has already made statements about immigration they find troubling.
They may or may not be taking Trump’s presidential run seriously. They
may or may not view him as an inconsequential blowhard, a
shoot-from-the-hip cowboy who forgets today what he said yesterday—but
today the New York Times has made reference to Trump in a way that will
make these Globalist heavy hitters pause and blink while drinking their
morning coffee (Here in “As Stock Market Plunges, Donald Trump Takes a
Worldview” by Alan Rappeport):

“Mr. Trump has said that bad trade deals with China and Mexico are to
blame for a sluggish American economy and weak job creation. He has
promised to make ‘great’ deals with other countries to protect American
workers and has threatened to raise taxes on imports to the United
States to bolster domestic production.”

It’s the last part that rings alarm bells and shoots firecrackers into
the sky:

“[Trump] has threatened to raise taxes on imports to the United States
to bolster domestic production.”

Taxes on imports. Also known as tariffs.

Every significant trade-treaty negotiated since 1945 has been aimed at
lowering or eliminating tariffs, in order to establish Globalist “free

Treaties like GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, for example; as well as the current
TPP and its cousins.

Free trade is code for: mega-corporations and banks can roam the planet
and set up shop anywhere they please. They can bankroll and build
production facilities, produce cheap goods, and sell them anywhere in
the world without paying tariffs. [...]

(14) Trump: Turkey looks like they’re on the side of ISIS

Donald Trump: We Should Take Oil From ISIS

by Dan Riehl1 Dec 2015

Washington, DC404

During an exclusive interview on Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Daily today,
host Stephen K. Bannon led off by asking businessman and GOP frontrunner
Donald Trump his opinions on events in Turkey.

[...] Turkey “has been a good partner but things are getting very
complicated because you have ISIS – you have Assad in Syria, where
they’re fighting ISIS and we’re supposed to be fighting I guess both
according to the Obama administration. Lots of times that doesn’t work
out too well. How are you going to fight both? The people that we are
fighting for against Assad are rebels that we have no idea who they
are.”…. Turkey looks like they’re on the side of ISIS, more or less,
based on the oil.” [...]

(15) Islamic State move HQ from Iraq & Syria to Libya

Islamic State is gaining ground in Libya

How to help Libya … before it’s too late

The Islamic State is gaining ground in Libya, already having seized
control of Sirte, an hour's flight from southern Europe.

Mustafa Fetouri

Posted December 16, 2015

While the US-led coalition has been busy attacking Islamic State (IS)
strongholds in Raqqa, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq, the faraway coastal city
of Sirte, Libya, has been seized by the extremist group. Only an hour's
flight from Europe’s southern shores, Sirte fell without a shot of
resistance. What began as a small group of locals pledging allegiance to
IS has evolved into a sizeable force that has extended its control
nearly 40 miles west of Sirte and nearly twice that to the east,
threatening the city of Ajdabiya and even Benghazi.

Omar, a civil servant who requested the use of a pseudonym, has lived
all of his 30 years in Sirte. He told Al-Monitor by phone, “IS now has
full control of the city and all roads leading to Sirte in all
directions.” IS has imposed laws banning tobacco sales and smoking and
ordering women to cover their hair. “Actually, my own brother was jailed
for a couple of days because they caught him smoking in the street,”
Omar said. Like other residents, he is extremely worried and is already
planning to leave if his mother agrees to go with him.

Sirte is strategically situated at the crossroads connecting Libya’s
three regions: Fezzan in the south, Cyrenaica to the east and
Tripolitania to the west. In addition, it is close to the country's main
oil terminals at Brega and Ras Lanuf as well as Sidra. Ras Lanuf could
well be the next safe haven for IS' top leaders. On Dec. 9, England's
Daily Mail cited the Iranian news agency, FARS, as reporting that an
injured Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had already arrived in Sirte, having fled
his headquarters in Mosul with Turkish assistance.

Given the absence of a functioning state in Libya, it would not be
surprising if IS leaders decamped to Sirte. The increased air
bombardments of IS strongholds in Syria and Iraq will likely hasten
their departure to Sirte, if they have not already left.

During a visit to Tripoli last spring, Omar had talked to Al-Monitor
about “some 300 fighters, mainly foreigners, concentrating at the
Ouagadougou Halls,” the huge conference center in Sirte built by Moammar
al-Gadhafi’s regime to host major events such as Arab League and African
Union summits. In early December, Omar spoke of there now being 3,000 or
4,000 fighters.

“Almost two-thirds of them are foreigners,” Omar said. “They are young
people from Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Chad and Niger. Now they can move
freely all the way to Ajdabiya and beyond. If you are heading west, the
checkpoints are manned by Arabs with Tunisian and Algerian accents, but
when you head east, you encounter Africans speaking broken Arabic with a
heavy accent.”

IS fighters in Sirte are hard to take out. According to Omar and lorry
drivers passing through the area, IS fighters do not move about in big
groups in the streets or near former government buildings. Omar
observed, “They have taken over many houses whose owners have fled in
fear and use them as bases for meetings and organizing their activities.”

Omar and other Sirte residents had reported airplanes constantly buzzing
over the city long before France's Dec. 4 admission to having flown
reconnaissance missions over IS-controlled areas in late November. In
June, the United States admitted to having launched at least one drone
strike, which it said killed Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the notorious al-Qaeda
leader, in Ajdabiya, east of Sirte.

There are two main reasons why Libya fell prey to IS. First, as noted,
the country lacks a strong central government. For now, the two
quasi-governments still sit in Tripoli and Tobruk, backed by their
various militias. The Libya Dawn armed alliance had taken over Tripoli
in August 2014, forcing the official, internationally recognized
government to relocate to Tobruk. Second, about 200 young Libyans who
fought for IS and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria have returned home with
orders to focus on the local level, including fomenting jihad.

The anti-IS coalition in Syria and Iraq should move quickly and help
Libya before it is too late and it finds itself in a similar scenario
there. Its assistance could take different forms. First, pressure should
be applied to the two rival governments to accept the UN-proposed unity
government as quickly as possible. It is unlikely IS can be defeated
with air power alone, as evidenced in Syria and Iraq, so a unified
government is necessary to undertake operations on the ground.

Second, the UN should lift the arms embargo imposed on Libya since the
2011 war. This would allow a new government to acquire the military
hardware it needs to mount a serious fight against all terror groups in
the country, including Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi. Third, Turkey and
Qatar should stop interfering in Libyan internal affairs. Libya’s
internationally recognized government has accused both countries of
supplying arms to Islamists in the western part of the country.

If the international community does not move quickly, it might soon find
itself waging a pointless war against a well-prepared IS in Libya.
Before any air campaign starts targeting the strategically located
Sirte, the city should be liberated by ground troops and established as
the seat of government, so Libya can establish the capability needed to
fight for itself.

Peter Myers