Monday, June 20, 2016

821 Trump in WSJ: Voters, not Donors, must choose the Candidates

Trump in WSJ:  Voters, not Donors, must choose the Candidates

Newsletter published on 17 April 2016

(1) When Trump & Sanders loses the nominations, they should set up New
Parties
(2) Trump's Anti-Imperialism: assassins will be out to kill him
(3) Trump accuses GoP leaders of conspiracy; system is rigged, stacked
against him
(4) Trump: GoP Elite wants to choose the Candidates; Cruz' voterless
victory in Colorado
(5) Trump in WSJ:  Voters, not Donors, must choose the Candidate
(6) GOP executive cancels Colorado primary - Denver Post
(7) Sanders & Trump need to create New Parties, after they lose the
nominations
(8) Trump says unemployment 20% not 5%; renegote all trade deals
(9) Trump Terrifies the Washington War Party
(10) Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength - a strong military and economy

(1) When Trump & Sanders loses the nominations, they should set up New
Parties - Peter Myers, April 17, 2016


Trump and Sanders are articulating the grievances of ordinary people
against the elite.

Party bosses will ensure that they lose the nominations. They should
then set up alternative parties. This would be better than running as
independents, because these new parties would get members into Congress
too, breaking the 2-party system.

(2) Trump's Anti-Imperialism: assassins will be out to kill him

http://mltoday.com/article/2416-trump-way-to-the-left-of-clinton-on-foreign-policy/91

Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy – In Fact, He’s Damn
Near Anti-Empire

By Glen Ford

If the Bernie Sanders campaign has propelled the word "socialism" – if
not its actual meaning – into common, benign American usage, Donald
Trump may have done the world an even greater service, by calling into
question the very pillars of U.S. imperial policy: the NATO alliance;
the U.S. nuclear "umbrella"; the global network of 1,000 U.S. bases;
military "containment" of China and Russia; and U.S. "strategic" claims
in the Persian Gulf.

Were the U.S. to actually rid itself of these strategic "obligations,"
the military hand on the doomsday clock would immediately be rolled
back, giving humanity the breathing space to tackle other accumulated
crises.

Of course, Donald Trump may over time rephrase, reverse or "clarify" out
of existence some of his profoundly anti-imperial, "America First"
foreign policy points, elicited in extended interviews with major U.S.
media. However, if Trump’s tens of millions of white, so-called "Middle
American" followers stick by him, despite his foreign policy heresies –
as seems likely – it will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that
the American public favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means.
If the rank and file right wing of the Republican Party is not a pillar
of such policies, then who is? – rank and file, Black, white and brown
Democrats?

If the Trump candidacy can continue to thrive while rejecting the
holiest shibboleths of the bipartisan War Party, then we must conclude
that the whole U.S. foreign policy debate is a construct of the
corporate media and the corporate-bought duopoly political
establishments, and that there is no popular consensus for U.S.
militarism and no true mass constituency for war in either party.

If Donald Trump is to be the catalyst for such a revelation, then may
all the gods bless him – because lots of assassins will be out to kill him.

Trump’s language is sloppy, but there can be no mistaking the thrust of
his position on key points. He calls NATO, the globe-strutting
Euro-American military juggernaut that extended its domain to Africa
with the 2011 war of regime change in Libya, an alliance that is
"unfair, economically, to us." Trump told the New York Times that NATO
should focus on "counter-terrorism" – clearly a fundamentally
scaled-down mission.

He repeated his often-expressed willingness to withdraw U.S. forces from
Japan and South Korea, where American troops have been stationed since
the end of World War Two, unless both countries pay a lot more money to
maintain them. Trump actually seems eager to get out of the region,
based on the number of times he has brought the subject up in his
campaign. As with everything else in the Trump paradigm, he hooks the
alliance to his quest for a "better deal" – but the point is that he
doesn’t think the "price" of the far-flung U.S. military commitment is
"worth it." Trump’s stated intention to renegotiate virtually all of the
"deals" the U.S. has made around the world – the military architecture
of imperialism – means he is pointedly applying a cost-benefit test to
the 1,000 U.S. bases around the globe. He is reluctant to offer other
nations the "protection" of U.S. nuclear weapons.

The crucial point is: Trump does not accept the fundamental premise that
these bases exist for U.S. "security" interests, but rather, he frames
them as a kind of "service" that the clients should pay for. Once the
"national security" veneer is withdrawn, the military-imperial rationale
evaporates and all that is left is a business transaction – not enough
to call a nation to war, or to risk a world over.

Trump appears to welcome a strategic break with Saudi Arabia,
threatening to cut off U.S. purchases of oil from the kingdom unless it
"substantially reimburse[s]" Washington for fighting the Islamic State,
or unless the Saudis and the other rich oil states commit troops to the
anti-jihadist battle – at their own expense. It’s all nonsense, of
course, since Washington and Saudi Arabia have been partners in global
jihadism for two generations – but so what? Trump seems to relish the
idea of severing the Saudi connection. "If Saudi Arabia was without the
cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around," he
said. His threat to withdraw the "cloak" unless the potentates pay for
protection would negate the U.S. "national security" rationale in the
Persian Gulf going back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1943
declaration that "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of
the United States."

President Carter, another Democrat, upped the ante in 1980 with his
doctrine that the United States would use military force if necessary to
defend its "national interests" in the Persian Gulf. Bush presidents One
and Two were simply building on these previous national security
rationales. Trump recognizes no such imperative, without which U.S.
imperial policy in the region has no political basis.

Trump plays the trade card rather than the military gambit in dealing
with China. He would threaten economic retaliation for China’s
fortification of islands in the China Sea – not military encirclement.
"We have tremendous economic power over China, and that’s the power of
trade," he said. The same, presumably, would apply to Russia.

The presidential candidate shows no interest in "spreading democracy,"
like George W. Bush, or assuming a responsibility to "protect" other
peoples from their own governments, like Barack Obama and his political
twin, Hillary Clinton. On the contrary, Trump has stated that the U.S.
should not have invaded Iraq and Libya and killed their leaders, Saddam
Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, because they killed terrorists – in
contrast to Hillary Clinton’s macabre cackling over Gaddafi’s body. He
opposed the U.S. proxy war against the al-Assad government in Syria, for
similar reasons.

He even briefly defied the ultimate taboo, using the word "neutral" to
describe the stance he would take on Palestine.

In sum, albeit sloppily, and with no guarantee that he won’t change his
mind at any moment, Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial
war rationales, from FDR straight through to the present. For who knows
what reason, Trump is busily delegitimizing U.S. imperial policy since
World War Two.

It’s not that the Empire has no clothes, but that it is being stripped
of its rationale to march around the planet in battle gear. Thanks, not
to Bernie, but to The Donald.

Trump has reduced white American nationalism to Race, his "trump" card –
but without his hero, Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet sailing the
world to plant the flag on distant shores.

The first effect of Trump’s intervention in the Republican primaries was
to demonstrate that his white hordes really don’t give a damn for the
GOP establishment’s corporate agenda; indeed, Trump gave them a chance
to show they hated what global capitalism has done to "their" jobs. The
fact that this cohort despises and fears non-whites of whatever
citizenship status is nothing new – it’s a constant in U.S. politics,
which is why there has always been a White Man’s Party.

What makes this electoral season different – and, hopefully, a turning
point in U.S. history – is that much of the rank and file of the White
Man’s Party, the GOP, is rejecting the economic agenda of its corporate
masters. If the Republican voters accept Trump’s assault on the
ideological rationale undergirding U.S. foreign policy and its imperial
structures, there will be nothing left of the GOP for the corporate
rulers to defend. The Republican house of cards is collapsing,
inevitably throwing the whole duopoly system out of whack.

The job of the Left, at this historic juncture, is to ensure that the
two-party duopoly is permanently broken, to create the space for a much
broader national discourse and, especially, to free Black America from
the "trap within a trap" of the corporate-controlled Democratic Party.
As we have written before in these pages, the best scenario of 2016
would be a fracture at both ends of the Rich Man’s Duopoly. ...

(3) Trump accuses GoP leaders of conspiracy; system is rigged, stacked
against him

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36037906

Trump accuses Republican leaders of conspiracy

13 April 2016

Republican Donald Trump has said the party's leaders do not want him to
win the presidential nomination.

The system was "stacked" against him, he said in New York, accusing the
Republican National Committee (RNC) of conspiring against him.

His comments come after his rival Ted Cruz was awarded all the delegates
in Colorado without a state-wide vote.

Mr Trump leads the race but may fall short of getting enough delegates
to get the nomination outright.

That would lead to a contested convention in July, where delegates are
free after the first ballot to back whom they want, opening the door for
Texas Senator Mr Cruz or even the third candidate in the race, John Kasich.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Mr Cruz is likely to win
on a second vote, because he has persuaded so many delegates to vote for
him when they are "unbound" to vote as pledged.

But Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus rejected Mr
Trump's charge that the rules in states like Colorado had been changed
in response to his rise in the polls.

Mr Priebus tweeted that the nomination process had been well known for
more than a year.

"It's the responsibility of the campaigns to understand it. Complaints
now? Give us all a break." ...

Most states have opted to hold state-wide primaries or caucuses to
determine the number of delegates pledged to a particular candidate.

But Colorado decided last summer to select its delegates in a different
way, at its own state convention.

(4) Trump: GoP Elite wants to choose the Candidates; Cruz' voterless
victory in Colorado


https://www.rt.com/usa/339767-trump-rnc-colorado-votes/

  Trump blasts RNC, Ted Cruz for eliminating power of voters Published
time: 15 Apr, 2016 19:05

The GOP presidential frontrunner launched a scathing attack against the
Republican National Committee, accusing it of creating a system that
disenfranchises its own voters. The RNC shot back that the rules are
"easy to understand for those willing."

In a column published in the Wall Street Journal, Trump said "political
insiders" canceled the vote in Colorado and that the RNC
"disenfranchised" voters to Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s benefit. He
criticized the US "system" for failing Americans and only benefiting
insiders.

"Members of the club – the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians,
the pundits and the special interests – grow rich and powerful while the
American people grow poorer and more isolated," he wrote.

The groundwork for this debate was laid back in August 2015, when the
Colorado GOP canceled the presidential straw poll at its 2016 caucuses.
Instead of voting for who they’d prefer to see nominated, the party
elected delegates who had the choice of supporting any candidate they
wanted. After intense lobbying from the Cruz camp, his supporters were
elected and Cruz walked away with the entirety of the state’s 34 delegates.

"Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials
can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the
voters may decide," Trump argued.

The RNC, meanwhile, quickly responded to Trump’s opinion, saying states
finalized their rules for the 2016 nomination process more than six
months ago. RNC communications adviser Sean Spicer sent out a memo
saying the rules were "clearly laid out" in October 2016 and that they
were "easy to understand for those willing to learn it," Politico reported.

"As a party, we believe in the freedom of the states to make decisions
about how they will select delegates to the National Convention. And for
decades, this grassroots-driven, democratic process has been transparent
and effective," Spicer wrote in the memo. "This cycle is no different."

Spicer said that in the end, the campaigns themselves are responsible
for learning about the delegate rules for each state. "Whether delegates
are awarded through a primary, caucus, or convention, this process is
democracy in action and driven by grassroots voters across the country,"
he said in the memo.

However the rules were decided, the fact that roughly a million
registered Republicans did not get to participate in the process angered
many in the state. One Trump supporter named Larry Lindsey even filmed
himself lighting his Republican Party registration paperwork on fire and
posted the video on YouTube.

In his column, Trump also singled out Cruz himself, arguing the Texas
senator "toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in
Colorado."

"What we are seeing now is not a proper use of the rules, but a flagrant
abuse of the rules," he added. "Delegates are supposed to reflect the
decisions of voters, but the system is being rigged by party operatives
with ‘double-agent’ delegates who reject the decision of voters."

(5) Trump in WSJ:  Voters, not Donors, must choose the Candidate

http://www.wsj.com/articles/let-me-ask-america-a-question-1460675882

Let Me Ask America a Question

How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder
voters demand change.

By Donald J. Trump

April 14, 2016 7:18 p.m. ET

On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an "election" without voters.
Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the
people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which
nominee they preferred.

A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in
Colorado were sidelined.

In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians
furiously defended the system. "These are the rules," we were told over
and over again. If the "rules" can be used to block Coloradans from
voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or
an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the
system and we should embrace it. Advertisement

Let me ask America a question: How has the "system" been working out for
you and your family?

I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has
served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people.
Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the
pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the
American people grow poorer and more isolated.

No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders
made a choice to cancel it. And it was the wrong choice.

Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials
can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the
voters may decide.

The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of
elites is a bold infusion of popular will. On every major issue
affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are
wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on
trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.

Why should we trust the people who have made every wrong decision to
substitute their will for America’s will in this presidential election?

Here, I part ways with Sen. Ted Cruz.

Mr. Cruz has toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in
Colorado. For a man who styles himself as a warrior against the
establishment (you wouldn’t know it from his list of donors and
endorsers), you’d think he would be demanding a vote for Coloradans.
Instead, Mr. Cruz is celebrating their disenfranchisement.

Likewise, Mr. Cruz loudly boasts every time party insiders
disenfranchise voters in a congressional district by appointing
delegates who will vote the opposite of the expressed will of the people
who live in that district.

That’s because Mr. Cruz has no democratic path to the nomination. He has
been mathematically eliminated by the voters.

While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special
interests. Yet despite his financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only
three primaries outside his home state and trails me by two million
votes—a gap that will soon explode even wider. Mr. Cruz loses when
people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not
merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.

The great irony of this campaign is that the "Washington cartel" that
Mr. Cruz rails against is the very group he is relying upon in his
voter-nullification scheme.

My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign
strategy is to win despite them.

What we are seeing now is not a proper use of the rules, but a flagrant
abuse of the rules. Delegates are supposed to reflect the decisions of
voters, but the system is being rigged by party operatives with
"double-agent" delegates who reject the decision of voters.

The American people can have no faith in such a system. It must be reformed.

Just as I have said that I will reform our unfair trade, immigration and
economic policies that have also been rigged against Americans, so too
will I work closely with the chairman of the Republican National
Committee and top GOP officials to reform our election policies.
Together, we will restore the faith—and the franchise—of the American
people.

We must leave no doubt that voters, not donors, choose the nominee.

How have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged
delegate-selection process with more passion than they have ever
defended America’s borders?

Perhaps it is because politicians care more about securing their private
club than about securing their country.

My campaign will, of course, battle for every last delegate. We will
work within the system that exists now, while fighting to have it
reformed in the future. But we will do it the right way. My campaign
will seek maximum transparency, maximum representation and maximum voter
participation.

We will run a campaign based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.

Let us take inspiration from patriotic Colorado citizens who have banded
together in protest. Let us make Colorado a rallying cry on behalf of
all the forgotten people whose desperate pleas have for decades fallen
on the deaf ears and closed eyes of our rulers in Washington, D.C.

The political insiders have had their way for a long time. Let 2016 be
remembered as the year the American people finally got theirs.

Mr. Trump is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

(6) GOP executive cancels Colorado primary - Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus

Move makes Colorado only state to date to opt out of early nomination
process

By John Frank

The Denver Post Posted:   08/25/2015 02:06:20 PM MDT

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was first published on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015
at 2:06 p.m. Please see Angry Donald Trump blasts Colorado GOP results
as "totally unfair," published on Sunday, April 10, 2016.

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its
2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may
diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the
modern era.

The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional
presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules
to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the
caucus vote.

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the
early nomination process, according to political experts, but other
caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule. ...

The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw
a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum's
victory in 2012 caucus. So the party's move may hurt GOP contenders such
as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, who would have received a
boost if they won the state. Exclusive: Ted Cruz talks about marijuana,
immigration and more Denver Post

State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member
executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members
were absent — to skip the preference poll.

The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support
any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July. Republican
National Committee officials confirmed that the change complies with
party rules.

(7) Sanders & Trump need to create New Parties, after they lose the
nominations


http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/7527

US election turmoil

01/04/2016

Bernie Sanders campaign - an opportunity to build a new party of the 99%

By Tony Saunois (CWI Secretary) who recently visited the US for meetings
of Socialist Alternative

The US Presidential election campaign represents a turning point in US
society and the struggles of the working class, the middle class, young
people and all those exploited by capitalism. US society is gripped by a
mass politicisation and rejection of, or mass opposition to, the
established political parties and their leadership. 26% of the
electorate are registered Republicans and 30% Democrats. Yet the largest
group are registered ‘independents’ – 43%, indicating just some of the
potential for the support for a new party. The two party system in the
US is now disintegrating.

Both the parties of US capitalism, the Republicans and the Democrats,
are riven by division and upheaval. The emergence of the right-wing,
racist, reactionary populist, Donald Trump, signifies the losing of
control of the Republican Party by the ruling class which is currently
struggling to re-gain full control of it. At the same time there is a
massive struggle under way to win the Democratic Party nomination, as
millions have rallied to support Bernie Sanders "Democratic Socialist"
challenge to the pro-Wall Street Hilary Clinton.

Whatever the outcome of these unprecedented battles, US society will
never be the same again. At root these developments reflect a massive
class polarisation which has opened up. It is reflected in the enormous
inequality which has opened like a chasm ripping society apart. Between
1947 and 1979 the income of the bottom 20% rose by 122%. Following the
application of "Reaganomics", the richest 1% saw their income increase
by a staggering 270% while the rest remained stagnant or declined. If
wealth distribution was the same today as in the 1970s the bottom 20%
would each be US$11,000 per annum better off!

Amongst young people in particular there is a revolt against the
"system" and thirst to listen to socialist ideas as an alternative to
the still powerful but decaying US imperialism. The Washington Post
carried an article entitled: "Our socialist youth: Why millennials are
embracing a bad old term...This week, we’re talking about the rise of
socialism" (21st March 2016). ...

Over five million donations have be made to Bernie Sanders campaign from
approximately two million people!. Following what the press dubbed his
disappointing results on March 16th when voters in Illinois, Ohio,
Missouri and other states went to the polls, over US$4 million was
raised by Sanders in three days! Following his landslide wins in
Washington, Alaska and Hawaii he raised a further US$4 million in two days!

Yet, far from being "disappointing", as the media tried to portray the,
his results on the primaries on March 16th were an indication of his
growing support. The outstanding feature of these elections, was that he
did so well in a number of key states. In Illinois, which includes the
massive working class city of Chicago he went from being twenty points
behind to lose by only a few percentage points! In Chicago he polled
45.5% of the vote despite having the entire rotten Democratic Party
machine pitted against him. Clinton won it with 53.6% of the vote.
Sanders won 312,572 votes to Clinton’s 368,395. ...

Yet the undemocratic nature of the Democratic primaries and Democratic
Party means that it is still very unlikely Sanders will win a majority
of the elected delegates – although this cannot be entirely excluded if
the momentum he has gained in Washington, Alaska, Hawaii and other
states continues especially in New York and later in Calafornia.

However the Democratic Party has hundreds of "super delegates" - former
and current Senators, Governors, Presidents, party officials and others
- who are mainly defenders of the ruling class and whose votes can act
as a veto on Clinton’s behalf. In reality it is not a party with
individual membership but an electoral machine with no democratic check
or accountability. In Arizona there is a major upheaval following
Clinton’s victory as it has emerged that tens of thousands of people
were prevented from voting due to lack of sufficient polling stations,
ballot papers and people being wrongly registered. There is demand here
for a re-run of the election to be held in June. The election system is
designed to block the type of revolt that is currently taking place.

Yet such is the surge in support for his radical reformist polices and
the idea of a "political revolution", it is not absolutely certain it
will be able to do so. Should Sanders manage to win despite the major
obstacles which exist, the Democratic capitalist leadership would never
accept such an outcome. They would move to sabotage his campaign and an
effective split in the party would develop. ...

Republican Party in turmoil

How the battle develops in the Republican Party is a factor that could
have an impact on this possibility. While Trump has taken the lead, it
is not certain he will win the Republican endorsement. The party
establishment is at sea and opposed to him. Some appear to now have
thrown their support behind the equally right-wing Cruz. For them Trump
is a dangerous maverick. Yet like the movement in support of Sanders he
reflects the turmoil in US society and overwhelming feeling amongst the
mass of the population that the old established order no longer
represents them or defends their interests.

Significantly, Trump is directing his reactionary populist propaganda at
winning sections of the white working class who feel abandoned and that
nobody is speaking for them. It is not an accident that he has raised,
in the past, support for a free health system and, recently, declared he
will not touch social security. His reactionary populism is not a
defence of classic neo-liberalism which is one reason why the Republican
elite is opposed to him.

However, it is not certain Trump or the other candidates will meet the
requirement of the "rule 40" introduced in 2012 to stop Ron Paul
securing the nomination. To get onto the first ballot each candidate
first needs the majority in eight states and to then win the nomination
by over 51% of the votes on the first ballot. The rules committee is
considering a change to the convention rules – by arbitrary imposition –
indicating the undemocratic nature of the Republican Party as well. As
one leading Republican commentated this would mean "a political Jihad"
at the Republican convention in July. Already Trump and Cruz have said
they would not necessarily endorse each other as Republican candidates
if selected. This could mean Trump, if he is blocked, running
independently on the Libertarian Party ticket meaning two right wing
candidates. It is also possible that Trump win the official Republican
nomination but an anti-Trump Republican also stands as an independent.
Such developments could increase the pressure on Bernie to do the same
on the Democrats side and run independently if blocked by the Democratic
Party.

This possibility would open the way for an explosive political
development which although not the most likely cannot be entirely excluded.

There is political turmoil and social upheaval in the US at this time.
Developments within the political parties and infrastructure are not
under the control of the ruling class and the outcome of the struggle in
either party is not predetermined or settled in advance. ...

(8) Trump says unemployment 20% not 5%; renegote all trade deals

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-02/trump-country-headed-massive-recession-its-terrible-time-invest-stocks

Trump: "The Country Is Headed For A Massive Recession; It's A Terrible
Time To Invest In Stocks"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/02/2016 21:30 -0400

Donald Trump continued to streamroll over all conventional narratives
when during a massive 96-minute interview with the Washington Post on
Thursday which was released today, in which he talked candidly about his
aggressive style of campaigning and offered new details about what he
would do as president, he said that economic conditions are so perilous
that the country is headed for a "very massive recession" and that "it’s
a terrible time right now" to invest in the stock market, which, the
traditionally cheerful WaPo said embraces "a distinctly gloomy view of
the economy that counters mainstream economic forecasts."

Unfortunately, his "gloomy view" is supported by such events as the
record surge in gun violence and deadly shootings in Chicago, where the
locals also do not ascribe to the WaPo's rosy take on events, and
instead blame the economy and the lack of jobs for the ongoing social
collapse in the windy city.

In any case, Trump dismissed concern that his comments, which the WaPo
said "are exceedingly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a major party
front-runner", which is precisely Trump's style, "could potentially
affect financial markets."

     "It’s irresponsible. It’s baffling that he would do this and also
substantively wrong. There is no recession in sight." -Doug Holtz-Eakin

     — Robert Costa (@costareports) April 2, 2016

As the WaPo adds, "over the course of the discussion, the candidate made
clear that he would govern in the same nontraditional way that he has
campaigned, tossing aside decades of American policy and custom in favor
of a new, Trumpian approach to the world."

In his first 100 days, Trump said, he would cut taxes, "renegotiate
trade deals and renegotiate military deals," including altering the U.S.
role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This is what he said:

     "I think we’re sitting on an economic bubble. A financial bubble...
We’re not at 5 percent unemployment. We’re at a number that’s probably
into the 20s if you look at the real number. That was a number that was
devised, statistically devised to make politicians – and in particular
presidents – look good. And I wouldn’t be getting the kind of massive
crowds that I’m getting if the number was a real number."

     "I’m talking about a bubble where you go into a very massive
recession. Hopefully not worse than that, but a very massive recession.
Look, we have money that’s so cheap right now. And if I want to borrow
money, I can borrow all the money I want. But I’m rich... If somebody is
a great, wonderful person, going to employ lots of people, a really
talented businessperson, wants to borrow money, but they’re not rich?
They have no chance...

     Is it a good time to invest now? "Oh, I think it’s a terrible time
right now... because the dollar's so strong... You have – think of it –
you have cheap money that nobody can get unless you’re rich. You have
the regulators are running the banks. Not the guys that are being paid
$50 million a year to run the banks. I mean, when you look at many of
your friends that are running banks that are being paid $40 and $50
million, yeah, they’re not running the banks. The regulators are running
the banks. You have a situation where you have an inflated stock market.
It started to deflate, but then it went back up again. Usually that’s a
bad sign. That’s a sign of things to come."

     "Part of the reason it’s precarious is because we are being ripped
so badly by other countries. We are being ripped so badly by China. It
just never ends. Nobody’s ever going to stop it. And the reason they’re
not going to stop it is one of two. They’re either living in a world of
the make-believe, or they’re totally controlled by their lobbyists and
their special interests. Meaning people that want it to continue.
Because what China, what Mexico, what Japan – I don’t want to name too
many countries, because I actually do business in a lot of these
countries – but what these countries are doing to us is unbelievable.
They are draining our jobs. They are draining our money."

     "I can fix it. I can fix it pretty quickly...I would do a tax cut.
You have to do a tax cut. Because we’re the highest-taxed nation in the
world. But I would start...I would immediately start renegotiating our
trade deals with Mexico, China, Japan and all of these countries that
are just absolutely destroying us. " ...

(9) Trump Terrifies the Washington War Party
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:45:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Frederick Adam
<fja0527@bellsouth.net> Subject: Fw: Why Trump Terrifies The Washington
War Party

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/03/29/the-trump-challenge/
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/why-trump-terrifies-the-washington-war-party/

The Trump Challenge

He’s confronting the post-World War II international order – and winning

by Justin Raimondo, March 30, 2016

The candidacy of Donald J. Trump has upended American politics, and,
indeed, has changed the political landscape in ways our liberal and
conservative elites never expected and clearly abhor. He talks like an
ordinary person, for one thing – a rarity in a realm where politicians
routinely speak as if they are giving a speech before the Peoria Rotary
Club. Unrehearsed and raw, he doesn’t do  "talking points" – and this, I
think, more than his controversial proposal to deport millions of
illegal immigrants, has provoked the policy wonks and the
"intellectuals" into paroxysms of contempt. It’s also what’s endears him
to ordinary people, and makes them listen – perhaps for the first time –
to what a candidate for the highest office in the land is saying about
where America is today and where he wants the country to go.

Trump’s domestic platform, such as it is, doesn’t really interest me:
his proposal to "temporarily" ban Muslims from entering the US is
unenforceable and downright silly. (How can you know if someone is a
Muslim?) The issue that catapulted him to national attention –
immigration – has already been settled, for better or worse: with
millions of illegal immigrants already here, largely as a result of US
laxity in maintaining border security, the immigration restrictionists
are about forty years too late. His plan to deport illegals will never
happen.

It’s in the realm of international affairs that Trump has really made a
significant and lasting contribution to the discourse. As Bill Schneider
writes in a Reuters opinion piece: "Trump is repudiating the entire
framework of US foreign policy since 1947." That dramatic and
unmistakable fact is being lost amid the theatrics of a campaign season
that often resembles an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Trump explicates his
consensus-busting view of America’s proper role in the world:

·  On defending Korea and Japan – "[A]t some point, there is going to be
a point at which we just can’t do this anymore. … at some point, we
cannot be the policeman of the world." "[I]f we are attacked, [Japan
doesn’t] have to do anything. If they’re attacked, we have to go out
with full force. You understand. That’s a pretty one-sided agreement,
right there."

This gets straight to the heart of Trump’s challenge to the foreign
policy elites. Since the end of World War II, the US has occupied Japan.
In effect, Japan is a conquered nation: and yet it’s an open question as
to who conquered whom. As an economic entity, Japan exists to send cheap
tariff-free exports to America in exchange for complete subordination to
Washington’s imperial diktat. Only a few right-wing Japanese
nationalists – and most of the inhabitants of Okinawa – object to that:
as for the great majority, they are content to live prosperous lives
under the American defense umbrella. Trump is quite right that this is a
one-sided agreement: the Japanese don’t have to worry about defending
themselves and they also get the economic benefits of having a strictly
protected market while they hollow out our industrial base with cheap
cars and precision machinery. This is the price we pay for the American
empire – an imperium, as the Old Right writer and editor Garet Garrett
put it many years ago, "where everything goes out and nothing comes in."

·  On protecting the Saudis – "The beautiful thing about oil is that,
you know, we’re really getting close, because of fracking, and because
of new technology, we’re really in a position that we weren’t in, you
know, years ago, and the reason we’re in the Middle East is for oil. And
all of a sudden we’re finding out that there’s less reason to be. …[W]e
protect countries, and take tremendous monetary hits on protecting
countries. That would include Saudi Arabia, but it would include many
other countries, as you know. We have, there’s a whole big list of them.
We lose, everywhere. We lose monetarily, everywhere. And yet, without
us, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist for very long. … I would say at a
minimum, we have to be reimbursed, substantially reimbursed, I mean, to
a point that’s far greater than what we’re being paid right now. Because
we’re not being reimbursed for the kind of tremendous service that we’re
performing by protecting various countries."

This must have sent shivers through the powerful Saudi lobby in
Washington and the many politicians and policy wonks on the take. The
Kingdom has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with Washington ever since
Franklin Delano Roosevelt cemented the alliance in a meeting with King
Ibn Saud in 1945 aboard the USS Quincy. US oil companies captured
valuable franchises and the US military followed in their wake, with
overflight privileges, military training programs, and a firm commitment
by the US to defend the Kingdom against all comers.

Although the relationship has had its ups and downs, it has continued to
this day essentially in its original form, due largely to the efforts of
a well-funded Washington lobby backed by US oil interests, who are most
interested in utilizing the US military to protect their profits.

Trump’s critique of US-Saudi relations threatens a self-interested
claque of privileged plutocrats and their lobbyist supporters, just as
his threat to cut off our other mostly useless "allies" from the gravy
train has induced panic from Paris to the Potomac.

·  On NATO – "I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it’s obsolete. When
NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was
a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia,
which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly
much more powerful than even today’s Russia…. Today, it has to be
changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed
from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much
of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is
Ukraine…. Why is it always the United States that gets right in the
middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not
nearly as much as it affects other countries."

NATO became obsolete when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union
disintegrated. Yet instead of going the way of the horse-and-buggy, it
grew until it reached the very gates of Moscow – in spite of a promise
by George H.W. Bush that NATO would freeze its membership if Mikhail
Gorbachev would allow East Germany to reunify with the West. What Trump
is proposing is the dissolution of NATO as we know it – essentially an
anti-Russian alliance – and its reconfiguration into an instrument
devoted to counterterrorism. Indeed, later on in the interview with the
Times, he suggests that NATO could be scrapped, and a new institution
devoted to a more current problem – terrorism – would take its place.

This is a direct challenge to the military-industrial complex in this
country, which lobbied heavily for NATO expansion in the post-Soviet era
and made multi-billions. NATO requires member states to upgrade their
militaries to meet certain standards, and of course it’s just a
coincidence that they invariably turn to US military contractors to do
the job. The prospect of this pot of gold being snatched away from
Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, and all the rest has the War Party
in a lather – no wonder the neoconservatives (whose thinktanks are
largely funded by these characters) is shouting "Never Trump!"

·  On Syria – "I thought the approach of fighting Assad and ISIS
simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and
yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of
them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve
always felt that. Assad is, you know I’m not saying Assad is a good man,
’cause he’s not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS."

With our Pentagon-funded Syrian rebels fighting our CIA-backed Syrian
rebels, the absurdity of our foreign policy of regime change is so
obvious that only a Washington policy wonk could fail to see it. Both
parties have supported this insane policy, having learned nothing from
the destruction of Iraq and the fall of the Iraqi Ba’athist regime.
Although ISIS is portrayed as an "existential" threat to the US by the
neoconservatives and our sensationalistic media, Washington has been
trying to destroy the only effective fighting force that is today
succeeding in defeating the "Caliphate" – the government of Bashar al-Assad.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again while expecting a different result, then our Syria policy surely
fits the bill. And yet from Hillary Clinton – the architect of our
pro-rebel policy – to Lindsey Graham, the Washington consensus is that
"Assad must go."

Trump is challenging this nonsense – and performing a great service in
doing so.

·  On nuclear weapons – "When people talk global warming, I say the
global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global
warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry
today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s
unthinkable, the power. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that
times many, many times, is what you have today. And to me, it’s the
single biggest, it’s the single biggest problem."

This part of the interview came up front, and it looked to me like the
reporters were baiting Trump, expecting him to come out with some
belligerent statement implying that of course he wouldn’t hesitate to
nuke anyone. He didn’t fall for it. Indeed, his critique of the Iraq war
and his general unwillingness to commit to putting ground troops in the
Middle East – a statement he made several times in the course of the
interview – shows that underneath the combative persona Trump is a bit
of a peacenik. He clearly understands the horror of war, and in my view
would be less likely than any other candidate to go to war, let alone
use nuclear weapons.

·  An overview – "I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First.’ So I
like the expression. I’m ‘America First.’ We have been disrespected,
mocked, and ripped off for many many years by people that were smarter,
shrewder, tougher. We were the big bully, but we were not smartly led.
And we were the big bully who was — the big stupid bully and we were
systematically ripped off by everybody."

Trump’s appropriation of this slogan is the final insult to the
globalists of the Washington set: it conjures their favorite
"isolationist" bogeymen, the generally conservative "isolationists" who
opposed US entry into World War II. The true history of the America
First Committee – the biggest antiwar movement of modern times – is
almost completely unknown, and it is regularly smeared by both liberals
and conservatives as a "pro-Nazi" fifth column, when it in fact it was
nothing of the sort.

America’s entry into the world war marked the beginning of our emergence
as a global empire, and our role as self-appointed enforcer of the world
order. Now that we have exhausted ourselves playing out that role,
running up a debt of $18 trillion in the process, it’s only fitting that
the slogan of "America First" should come back into circulation.

As Bill Schneider put it:

"During the debate in 2013 over a U.S. military strike to punish Syria
for using chemical weapons, Benjamin Rhodes, President Barack Obama’s
deputy national security adviser, said, ‘The US for decades has played
the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing
international norms. And we do not want to send a message that the
United States is getting out of that business in any way.’

"That’s precisely the message Trump is sending. And millions of
Americans seem eager to endorse it."

Yes, there are problems with Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements: his
AIPAC speech was horrific, there was no mention of the "evenhanded’
approach he had previously said he’d employ in trying to reach a
settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s not a consistent
opponent of US intervention overseas, and, worst of all, he can’t be
trusted. He’s simply too unpredictable.

Yet this is all quite irrelevant to the question of his significance,
whether or not he actually succeeds in grasping the GOP nomination. The
point is that he has changed the foreign policy discourse in the
Republican party, wresting it from the heretofore iron grip of the
neocons and successfully selling a demonstrably less interventionist
policy to GOP primary voters. You’ll recall that the pundits routinely
discounted Rand Paul’s presidential campaign on account of his
anti-interventionist views – which are quite mild compared to Trump’s.
Given Trump’s popularity, however, from this day forward they won’t be
able to get away with that again. The terms of the debate have been
irrevocably changed – and that is Trump’s great achievement, for which
he must be given full credit.

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:53:08 +0000 (UTC) From:
"fja0527@bellsouth.net" <fritza2tt@yahoo.de> Subject: Fw: The Trump
Doctrine: Peace Through Strength | The National  Interest

In laying out his Trump Doctrine, Trump has assiduously avoided
surrounding himself with a large circle of advisors. He has done so
because he has "off the record" access to a broad distributed network of
experts around the world — as well as
<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433187/donald-trumps-foreign-policy-advisers-skeptical-reviews>
an inner circle that stays out of the limelight. From his own detailed
foreign policy research over many years — required due diligence to
conduct business globally — Trump has developed a strong aversion to the
kind of "nation building" that dragged America into wasted and
protracted wars in God-forsaken killing fields like Iraq and
Afghanistan. Accordingly, Trump has promised the American people – he
will not be shedding the blood of any American soldier either in vain or
under the vanity banner of American Exceptionalism. This is how Trump is
in tune with the American public that is both tired of war and ready for
the new era of prosperity that will usher in peace founded on true
American power.

(10) Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength - a strong military and economy

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-trump-doctrine-peace-through-strength-15631

The Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength

America will be great again through a strong military and economy

Peter Navarro  ,

March 31, 2016

Those who insist Donald Trump has no foreign policy are simply not
listening. The "Trump Doctrine" is a page right out of Ronald Reagan’s
playbook: peace through economic and military strength.

Trump knows the key to keeping America safe in an increasingly dangerous
world is to "make America great again" through economic renewal. America
must have the fiscal firepower to end Pentagon’s budget sequestration in
order to fund the military the U.S. needs for adequate defense. Cutting
the corporate tax rate and cracking down on unfair trade practices to
increase America’s GDP growth rate are just as demonstrative of national
might as the F-35. Here is how President Trump would use a newly
empowered economy and military confront our rivals abroad:

Defeating Daesh

The best way to kill ISIS is to cut off its own financial head in two
ways: first, target any oil fields that it may be using as a cash
register and "follow the money" through the Internet and expropriate it.
Trump is probably aware of Nietzsche’s admonition to beware that "when
fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster." Trump also
knows that when you are facing an enemy willing to bomb your sons and
daughters and behead prisoners, you must strike equal fear into the
heart of that enemy. Under a Trump Administration, no ISIS member will
be safe, the cells of Guantanamo will be fuller, and America will be safer.

Overturning the Iran Nuclear Deal

Trump believes, as the strange bedfellows of Saudi Arabia and Israel are
wont to do, that the Obama administration has made a terrible deal with
Iran. Removing sanctions will allow this fascist, terrorist state to
restore it economy and continue to develop capabilities to deliver
nuclear warheads as near as Riyadh and Tel Aviv and as far away as
Brussels and New York. President Trump will abrogate that deal the day
he takes office. As commander in chief, he will exert both economic and
military pressure on Saudi Arabia, our quasi-enemy that has pledged to
destroy Israel and dreams of ruling a new Middle Eastern caliphate. As
far as Israel is concerned, however, Trump appears to regards this
democratic state as America’s most important ally in the Middle East.
But Trump, along with most Americans, disagrees with hardliners who
insist there can be no deal brokered between Israel and the
Palestinians. A deal is possible, but you cannot have peace unless you
are willing to negotiate.

 From Russia, With Revanchism

Trump recognizes Vladimir Putin for the clever, ruthless, charismatic
leader that he is. Putin has run strategic circles around both America
and its NATO allies when it comes to Russia’s military intervention in
Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, and former Socialist Republics like Georgia and
Latvia.

Putin recognizes Trump as a strong and fearless leader who will draw
clear red lines in Europe and the Middle East that Putin dare not cross.
This is a far better and safer situation for America than a status quo
Russia policy that leads from behind and inspires far more contempt from
Putin than respect.

China’s Rising Phoenix

Trump will no longer tolerate a mercantilist China having its way with
America’s factories and jobs. He will firmly crack down on unfair trade
practices like illegal export subsidies, currency manipulation, and
intellectual property theft and bring American jobs and factories home.

That’s not just good trade policy—it’s good foreign policy, too. China’s
rapidly advancing military strength has been its ability to economically
grow much faster than its strategic rivals. In other words, by
rebalancing trade between the US and China, Trump will also rebalance
the military equation in America’s favor.

Sharing the Burden of Defense

Trump has made headlines about revamping America’s alliances—from NATO
to our allies in Asia. Trump knows the problem here is not that these
alliances are not useful to the defense of the American homeland.
Rather, Trump is tired of the U.S. having to pay the lion’s share of the
bill to protect wealthier nations unwilling to spend the requisite funds
to defend their own homelands. Consider that while the U.S. spends fully
3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, Japan is at a measly 1.0 percent,
Germany is at 1.1 percent, and even South Korea, with an absolute madman
on its border contributes a measly 2.6 percent. As president, Trump will
demand a better deal for American taxpayers.



No comments:

Post a Comment