848 We Depolrables do not want unisex toilets, or female CEOs; we want Jobs

We Depolrables do not want unisex toilets, or female CEOs; we want Jobs
and Houses

Newsletter published on 27 September 2016

(1) Hillary calls Trump supporters 'Deplorables' - xenophobes, bigots,
racists, haters
(2) Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables, explained
(3) We Depolrables do not want unisex toilets, or female CEOs; we want
Jobs and Houses
(4) Deplorably, Trump is going to win
(5) Obama depicts Hillary-Trump contest as Globalism vs Nationalism
(6) CFR & NYT call Trump a 'know-nothing' and his supporters 'stupid'
(7) Council on Foreign Relations Declares War on Donald Trump
(8) Time to fire Trump - The {Rothschild} Economist
(9) Jill Stein vs Both

(1) Hillary calls Trump supporters 'Deplorables' - xenophobes, bigots,
racists, haters

http://americanfreepress.net/is-this-the-last-chance-of-the-deplorables/

Is This the Last Chance of the ‘Deplorables’?

September 13, 2016

During a recent fundraiser, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
called middle-class Americans, who support Donald Trump, "deplorables."
Mrs. Clinton is seeking to impose her liberal views on the country,
changing the face of the United States forever. Is a Trump presidency
the last chance for all of us "deplorables" out there?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser, where the
chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang, Hillary
Clinton gave New York’s social liberals what they came to hear.

"You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of
deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The
racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They
are "irredeemable," but they are "not America."

Emigrate While You Still Can!

This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to cover the
LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats went for $1,200.
And she had tried out her new lines earlier on Israeli TV:

"You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there
are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who …
think somehow he’s going to restore an America that no longer exists.
So, just eliminate them from your thinking…"

And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump?

They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let
them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. …
These are people we have to understand and empathize with."

In short, Trump’s support consists of one-half xenophobes, bigots and
racists, and one-half losers we should pity.

And she is running on the slogan "Stronger Together."

(2) Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables, explained

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12896540/hillary-basket-of-deplorables

Updated by Matthew Yglesias on September 14, 2016, 8:30 a.m. ET

It’s not really in character for Hillary Clinton to speak in terms of
vivid imagery, creative metaphors, or striking turns of phrase. But she
did it over the weekend, setting off a growing firestorm of controversy
that’s defined the week in politics.

"You know," Clinton said to a friendly crowd of wealthy donors this
weekend, "to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's
supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The
racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it."

With that odd turn of phrase — basket of deplorables — Clinton sent the
media-politico ecosystem into a tizzy. Donald Trump’s campaign
immediately took offense on behalf of his constituents, and Clinton
rather rapidly apologized. But Trump has only escalated. At a Monday
night rally in North Carolina, he accused Clinton of running a
"hate-filled and negative campaign" and released a television ad built
around the remark.

And indeed, while Clinton apologized for painting with such a broad
brush as to call fully half of Trump’s supporters deplorables, her
campaign is very much sticking to the core accusation that Trump is
trafficking in bigotry.

Meanwhile, some liberals think Clinton was wrong to back away from her
numerical estimates. Writers like the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates,
Slate’s Jamelle Bouie, New York’s Jonathan Chait, and Vox’s own German
Lopez have all argued that, as best as we can tell, Clinton was, if
anything, undercounting the quantity of irredeemable bigots in Trump’s
ranks.

The multifaceted controversy touches on two of the more enduring taboos
in American politics — frank discussion of racism and disparaging the
electorate. And it highlights the contrasting campaign strategies of the
Trump and Clinton camps. It started because the Trump camp correctly
sensed Clinton had made a mistake.

But it continues so viciously because it covers terrain Clinton is
fundamentally comfortable with — reenforcing a dynamic in which Trump,
like the television entertainer he is, chases the ever-tighter loyalty
of a minority — while Clinton seeks to paint Trump as broadly
unacceptable to the general population that will be voting in November.

What, exactly, did Clinton say?

Clinton’s remarks came in the context of what was essentially a
fundraising pitch. She expressed her understanding of the fact that
despite massive strides in achieving legal and social equality, LGBTQ
Americans still face many challenges. "You can get married on Saturday,
post your pictures on Sunday, and get fired on Monday," she said before
launching into a litany of specific policy commitments she’s made to the
LGBTQ community. [...]

Clinton’s use of the phrase "deplorables" at the LGBTQ gala was not
unique. Earlier in the week, in an English-language interview on Israeli
television, Clinton explained, "If I were to be grossly generalistic,
I'd say you can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets.
There are what I call the deplorables." And then there are the rest —
lots of basically good, decent Americans who she believes don’t buy into
the ugly side of what Trump is saying but who are so desperate to see
change in American politics that they are willing to vote for Trump.

Writing at Slate, Ben Zimmer suggests that the "basket of deplorables"
construction entered Clinton’s mind by way of analogy with the term
"parade of horribles," which, starting in the 1920s, "entered legal
usage as a dismissive term for imagined concerns about a ruling's
negative effects."

Clinton is an attorney by training, so Zimmer thinks she would be
accustomed to that particular instance of nouning an adjective.

Actual English-language use of "deplorables" as a term for a group of
people, however, is quite rare, though Zimmer did find Thomas Carlyle in
1831 writing that "of all the deplorables and despicables of this city
and time the saddest are the ‘literary men.’"

In general, this type of linguistic term suggests to me the vocabulary
of revolutionary France (and, indeed, Carlyle wrote an early history of
the French Revolution). This vocabulary is probably most familiar to the
mass audience from the musical and book Les Misérables, with its
invocation of "the miserables" as a term for the French urban poor. But
the revolutionary era also gave us Les Enragés ("the enraged") as a term
for a loose group of radical polemicists, the Sans-Culottes ("the
pantsless," i.e., people who were the opposite of fancy pants) for the
Paris mob, and other instances of nouning adjectives to give a name to
social classes. [...]

(3) We Depolrables do not want unisex toilets, or female CEOs; we want
Jobs and Houses

 From Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016
12:55:53 +0200 Subject: [shamireaders] From Russian elections to the
American ones, by Israel Shamir [1 Attachment]

Democracy’s Last Chance

ISRAEL SHAMIR

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

  The Russian parliamentary elections went smooth as a silk dress under
the hand. The ruling party, United Russia, has got a big majority of the
seats in the Parliament, while the other three parties, the Communists
(CPRF), the Nationalists and the Socialists shared the rest. Pro-Western
parties did not cross the threshold and remained outside, as before. [...]

Putin is the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the public;
every viable democratic alternative would be more radical, and more
pro-Communist or Nationalist. All Russian politicians above a certain
age were Communist Party members; the Socialists (Fair Russia) is a
splinter of the Communist Party established by the Kremlin in order to
undermine the CPRF. [...]

While agreeing with and supporting Putin’s foreign policy, the
Communists, the Socialists and a sizeable minority of the ruling United
Russia party disagree with Putin’s liberal economic and financial
policies. They would like to suppress the oligarchs, to introduce
currency controls, to re-nationalise privatised industries and to
strengthen the social state. But they can’t do it: even if they were to
gain a clear majority in the elections, Putin would still be entitled to
ask, say, liberal Medvedev or arch-liberal Kudrin to form a government.
[...]

The parliaments and people mean very little now in Europe – as little as
in Russia. The British people voted for Brexit. Fine! So did it happen?
Not at all. The new unelected government of Theresa May just pushed the
decision far away into the heap of not-very-urgent business
correspondence next to requesting assignment of a budget to a Zoo. Maybe
she will deliver it to Brussels in a year or two. [...]

Many people I spoke to already repeat, word-perfect, the new
post-Brexit-vote mantra: "Only retired old folk and unemployed racists
voted for Brexit." Mrs Clinton provided the name for them: The
Deplorables. This American name for perspective Trump voters fits the
Brexit voters like a glove. A Deplorable is a person who does not
subscribe to the ruling neo-liberal paradigm and its twin sister,
identity politics.

Clinton spoke of deplorables at her meeting with the rich perverts of
Wall Street, at a hundred thousand dollar a seat. Breaking the banks or
providing jobs will not help you, the holy LGBT victims of white male
persecution, she said. Sure, but it will help us, the working people. We
do not care for unisex lavatories, we do not obsess about female CEOs.
We have other worries: how to get a secure job and a decent house and
provide for our children. This makes us deplorable in the eyes of rich
perverts.

A new generation of parties has sprung up in Europe: the parties of the
Deplorables. In Sweden, until now, a Swedish Democrats party, the only
party speaking against NATO, against the EU, against the intake of
migrants had been excluded from public debate. Two main parties, the
Right and the Left, forgot about their long animosity and made a
government together, just to keep the SD out, because they are
deplorables. The result was paradoxical: more people have moved to
support the deplorable party.

French FN or Marine Le Pen is another party of Deplorables. She wants to
take France out of EU and out of NATO, and to keep the migrating waves
out. The Left and the Right would rather submit to Saudi Arabia and
transfer the power to sheikhs than to allow the Deplorables to win,
mused Houellebecq in his Submission.

The Deplorable Jeremy Corbyn was almost removed from his chairmanship of
the Labour party by the Labour MPs. The MPs preferred to keep their
party as a clone of the Conservatives and to leave the electorate
without a real choice. But Corbyn fights, and hopefully he will keep his
party and proceed to victory. More power, more money, more control goes
to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing
it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the
world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.

Russia with its very limited democracy is still better off: their
nobility of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in
the last elections, though they are still heavily represented in the
government. The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now
takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump, is hated by
the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated
minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated.

The Huffington Post published the following "Editor’s note: Donald Trump
regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant
xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to
ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from
entering the U.S."

A man so hated by enemies of democracy is one who deserves our support.
When the revolution comes, whoever says "xenophobe, racist, misogynist"
to his brother will be lined up against the wall and shot. So it
probably won’t be Sanders’ revolution.

I am worried that his enemies will not allow Trump’s inauguration: they
will say Putin hacked the voting machines, and send the case to the
Supreme Court; or perhaps they will try to assassinate him. But first,
let him win.

It is difficult to predict the consequences of his victory. Newsweek
noted (while discussing the US aid to Israel): "A Trump victory would
introduce a level of uncertainty into the world that Israel fears.
Nobody has any idea what Trump might do as president and that is
something new in international relations."

This already sounds enticing enough. Israel fears democracy, fears peace
in the Middle East, fears US disobedience, fears the Jews will lose
their reserved places at the first class saloon on the upper deck, in
the editor’s rooms and the bank manager’s. Let them tremble.

The consequences of Trump’s victory will be far-reaching. Our belief in
democracy will be restored. NATO will shrink, money will go to repair
the US infrastructure instead of bombing Syria and Libya. Americans will
be loved again.

The consequences of Clinton’s victory will be as short-lived as we are,
for she will deliver us the living hell of a nuclear war, and eternal
dictatorship of the Iron Heel.

This election is like a red pill/blue pill choice given to you. "You
take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe
whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in
Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
Providentially, we know what colour stands for Trump, and what for
Clinton. First published at The Unz Review

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

(4) Deplorably, Trump is going to win

http://atimes.com/2016/09/deplorably-trump-is-going-to-win/

Deplorably, Trump is going to win

By David P. Goldman on September 11, 2016

The presidential election was over the moment the word "deplorable" made
its run out of Hillary Clinton’s unguarded mouth. As the whole world now
knows, Clinton told a Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender fundraiser Sept.
10, "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of
Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right?
The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.
And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them
up." Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump arrives before the
start of the ceremony marking the 15th anniversary of the attacks on the
World Trade Center at The National September 11 Memorial and Museum in
New York

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump arrives before the start of
the ceremony marking the 15th anniversary of the attacks on the World
Trade Center at The National September 11 Memorial and Museum in Lower
Manhattan in New York City. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Hillary is road kill.

She apologized, to be sure, but no-one will believe her: she was
chilling with her home audience and feeling the warmth, and she said
exactly what she thinks. The "Clinton Cash" corruption scandals, the
layers of lies about the email server, health problems, and all the
other negatives that pile up against the former First Lady are small
change compared to this apocalyptic moment of self-revelation.

You can’t win an American presidential election without the deplorables’
vote. Deplorables are America’s biggest minority. They might even be the
American majority. They may or not be racist, homophobic and so forth,
but they know they’re deplorable. Deplorable, and proud. They’re the
median family whose real income has fallen deplorably by 5% in the past
ten years,  the 35% of adult males who deplorably have dropped out of
the labor force, the 40% of student debtors who deplorably aren’t making
payments on their loans, the aging state and local government workers
whose pension funds are $4 trillion short. They lead deplorable lives
and expect that their kids’ lives will be even more deplorable than
theirs. [...]

Corporations are making money by gaming the regulatory system rather
than deploying new technologies. Close to half of the increase in
corporate profits during the past decade can be attributed to regulatory
rent-seeking by large corporations, according to a June 2016 study by
Boston University economist Jim Bessen. Bessen concluded that
"investments in conventional capital assets and R&D account for a
substantial part of the rise in valuations and profits especially during
the 1990s. However, since 2000, political activity and regulation
account for a surprisingly large share of the increase."

That’s why Trump won the nomination. Ted Cruz, an evangelical Christian,
solicited the religious vote (what Hillary Clinton thinks of
"homophobes"), but the evangelicals by and large voted for Trump. They
want an outsider with a big broom to come in and sweep away the
Establishment, because the Establishment has given them deplorably few
crumbs from the table these past eight years. As "Publius" wrote Sept. 5
in Claremont Review, "A Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette
with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and
take your chances."

There are any number of things I would like Donald Trump to do as
president. I have no idea what he will do when elected. Deplorably,
we’re going to find out.

(5) Obama depicts Hillary-Trump contest as Globalism vs Nationalism

Obama, in Farewell to U.N., Paints Stark Choices for Unsettled World

By MARK LANDLER

SEPT. 19, 2016

UNITED NATIONS — It was President Obama’s last appearance on the marble
dais of the United Nations General Assembly hall, and his farewell
speech on Tuesday revealed a man whose eye was fixed as much on the next
seven weeks of the American political campaign as on his place in history.

Mr. Obama delivered a stinging rebuke of those who would build walls, a
message aimed at foreign leaders who he said had fueled rising
nationalism, sectarian hatred and economic inequality — but,
unmistakably, at Donald J. Trump, as well.

"A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself," Mr. Obama said of
the protectionist impulse to resist the forces of global integration. At
another point, he declared to the packed chamber in New York, "the world
is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall" to keep out
extremists. Lest anyone miss the point, he said of the spreading Zika
virus, "mosquitoes don’t respect walls." [...]

"At this moment, we all face a choice," Mr. Obama said. "We can choose
to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration, or
we can retreat into a world sharply divided and ultimately in conflict
along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."

That choice, Mr. Obama implied, was as sharply drawn in the race between
Mr. Trump and the president’s preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, as
it was in the grinding sectarian war in Syria, the predations of
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and the muscle-flexing of China.
Mr. Obama spoke of a "crude populism" driving politics in the United
States and Europe that fed on "uncertainty and unease and strife" around
the world.

Mr. Obama’s words underscored the distance he has traveled from the
hopeful leader who first addressed the General Assembly on Sept. 23,
2009. On that day, he pledged to forswear the unilateralism of his
predecessor, George W. Bush, heralded a new era for the United States’
relationship with the Muslim world and promised to revive peace
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

On Tuesday, he dismissed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process with a
single sentence — not a fervent call for a two-state solution but the
perfunctory observation that both sides would "be better off if
Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel,
but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle
Palestinian land." [...]

A version of this article appears in print on September 21, 2016, on
page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama, in Farewell
to U.N., Paints Stark Choices for World.

(6) CFR & NYT call Trump a 'know-nothing' and his supporters 'stupid'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald-trump.html
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/stupid-party-created-donald-trump/p38178

How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump

By MAX BOOT

JULY 31, 2016

It’s hard to know exactly when the Republican Party assumed the mantle
of the "stupid party."

Stupidity is not an accusation that could be hurled against such
prominent early Republicans as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt,
Elihu Root and Charles Evans Hughes. But by the 1950s, it had become an
established shibboleth that the "eggheads" were for Adlai Stevenson and
the "boobs" for Dwight D. Eisenhower — a view endorsed by Richard
Hofstadter’s 1963 book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," which
contrasted Stevenson, "a politician of uncommon mind and style, whose
appeal to intellectuals overshadowed anything in recent history," with
Eisenhower — "conventional in mind, relatively inarticulate." The John
F. Kennedy presidency, with its glittering court of Camelot, cemented
the impression that it was the Democrats who represented the thinking
men and women of America.

Rather than run away from the anti-intellectual label, Republicans
embraced it for their own political purposes. In his "time for choosing"
speech, Ronald Reagan said that the issue in the 1964 election was
"whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we
abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual
elite in a far-distant Capitol can plan our lives for us better than we
can plan them ourselves." Richard M. Nixon appealed to the "silent
majority" and the "hard hats," while his vice president, Spiro T. Agnew,
issued slashing attacks on an "effete core of impudent snobs who
characterize themselves as intellectuals."

William F. Buckley Jr. famously said, "I should sooner live in a society
governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than
in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard
University." More recently, George W. Bush joked at a Yale commencement:
"To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say,
well done. And to the C students I say, you, too, can be president of
the United States."

Many Democrats took all this at face value and congratulated themselves
for being smarter than the benighted Republicans. Here’s the thing,
though: The Republican embrace of anti-intellectualism was, to a large
extent, a put-on. At least until now.

Eisenhower may have played the part of an amiable duffer, but he may
have been the best prepared president we have ever had — a five-star
general with an unparalleled knowledge of national security affairs.
When he resorted to gobbledygook in public, it was in order to preserve
his political room to maneuver. Reagan may have come across as a dumb
thespian, but he spent decades honing his views on public policy and
writing his own speeches. Nixon may have burned with resentment of
"Harvard men," but he turned over foreign policy and domestic policy to
two Harvard professors, Henry A. Kissinger and Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
while his own knowledge of foreign affairs was second only to Ike’s.

There is no evidence that Republican leaders have been demonstrably
dumber than their Democratic counterparts. During the Reagan years, the
G.O.P. briefly became known as the "party of ideas," because it
harvested so effectively the intellectual labor of conservative think
tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation
and publications like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and
Commentary. Scholarly policy makers like George P. Shultz, Jeane J.
Kirkpatrick and Bill Bennett held prominent posts in the Reagan
administration, a tradition that continued into the George W. Bush
administration — amply stocked with the likes of Paul D. Wolfowitz, John
J. Dilulio Jr. and Condoleezza Rice.

In recent years, however, the Republicans’ relationship to the realm of
ideas has become more and more attenuated as talk-radio hosts and
television personalities have taken over the role of defining the
conservative movement that once belonged to thinkers like Irving
Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and George F. Will. The Tea Party represented
a populist revolt against what its activists saw as out-of-touch
Republican elites in Washington.

There are still some thoughtful Republican leaders exemplified by House
Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who devised an impressive new budget plan for his
party. But the primary vibe from the G.O.P. has become one of
indiscriminate, unthinking, all-consuming anger.    See Sample Privacy
Policy

The trend has now culminated in the nomination of Donald J. Trump, a
presidential candidate who truly is the know-nothing his Republican
predecessors only pretended to be.

Mr. Trump doesn’t know the difference between the Quds Force and the
Kurds. He can’t identify the nuclear triad, the American strategic
nuclear arsenal’s delivery system. He had never heard of Brexit until a
few weeks before the vote. He thinks the Constitution has 12 Articles
rather than seven. He uses the vocabulary of a fifth grader. Most
damning of all, he traffics in off-the-wall conspiracy theories by
insinuating that President Obama was born in Kenya and that Ted Cruz’s
father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It is hardly
surprising to read Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter for Mr. Trump’s best
seller "The Art of the Deal," say, "I seriously doubt that Trump has
ever read a book straight through in his adult life."

Mr. Trump even appears proud of his lack of learning. He told The
Washington Post that he reached decisions "with very little knowledge,"
but on the strength of his "common sense" and his "business ability."
Reading long documents is a waste of time because of his rapid ability
to get to the gist of an issue, he said: "I’m a very efficient guy."
What little Mr. Trump does know seems to come from television: Asked
where he got military advice, he replied, "I watch the shows."

Mr. Trump promotes a nativist, isolationist, anti-trade agenda that is
supported by few if any serious scholars. He called for tariff increases
that experts warn will cost millions of jobs and plunge the country into
a recession. He claimed that Mexican immigrants were "bringing crime"
even though research consistently shows that immigrants have a lower
crime rate than the native-born. He promised that Mexico would pay for a
border wall, even though no regional expert thinks that will ever happen.

Mr. Trump also proposed barring Muslims from entering the country
despite terrorism researchers, myself included, warning that his plan
would likely backfire, feeding the Islamic State’s narrative that the
war on terrorism is really a war on Islam. He has since revised that
proposal and would now bar visitors from countries that have a "proven
history of terrorism" — overlooking that pretty much every country,
including every major American ally, has a history of terrorism.

Recently, he declared that he would not necessarily come to the aid of
the Baltic republics if they were attacked by Russia, apparently not
knowing or caring that Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty
obliges the United States to defend any NATO member under attack. Last
week, Mr. Trump even invited Russia’s intelligence agencies to hack the
emails of a former secretary of state — something impossible to imagine
any previous presidential nominee doing. It is genuinely terrifying that
someone who advances such offensive and ridiculous proposals could win
the nomination of a party once led by Teddy Roosevelt, who wrote more
books than Mr. Trump has probably read. It’s one thing to appeal to
voters by pretending to be an average guy. It’s another to be an average
guy who doesn’t know the first thing about governing or public policy.

The Trump acolytes claim it doesn’t matter; he can hire experts to
advise him. But experts always disagree with one another and it is the
president alone who must make the most difficult decisions in the world.
That’s not something he can do since he lacks the most basic grounding
in the issues and is prey to fundamental misconceptions.

In a way, the joke’s on the Republican Party: After decades of
masquerading as the "stupid party," that’s what it has become. But if an
unapologetic ignoramus wins the presidency, the consequences will be no
laughing matter.

Even if we can avoid the calamity of a Trump presidency, however, the
G.O.P. still has a lot of soul-searching to do. Mr. Trump is as much a
symptom as a cause of the party’s anti-intellectual drift. The party
needs to rethink its growing anti-intellectual bias and its reflexive
aversion to elites. Catering to populist anger with extremist proposals
that are certain to fail is not a viable strategy for political success.

Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, was a
foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaigns of John McCain,
Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 2, 2016, on page A23
of the New York edition with the headline: How the ‘Stupid Party’
Created Trump.

(7) Council on Foreign Relations Declares War on Donald Trump

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/03/01/the-council-of-foreign-relations-declares-war-on-donald-trump-his-days-are-numbered/

The Council of Foreign Relations Declares War On Donald Trump- His Days
Are Numbered

There will be no parades and no media shows which start out as… "we
interrupt this broadcast to bring you this breaking news item…", but the
almighty Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) has spoken and they are
endorsing a Hillary Clinton, but mostly they have issued a position
statement that Donald Trump must be stopped at all costs. This is the
caricature of Trump that ran in the mouthpiece of the Council of Foreign
Relations, The Economist.

This is the caricature of Trump that ran in the mouthpiece of the
Council of Foreign Relations, The Economist. Since when does the
self-proclaimed righteous defender of the elite, founded by John
Rockefeller, lower themselves to such blatant and childish mudslinging?
They don’t, and this behavior is representative of  a departure of
tactics employed by the elite. And the fact that elite are approaching
such a state of desperation, near-panic, if you will, all options are on
the table. Again, I say, the elite are proclaiming that all options are
on the table when it comes to the fate of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is their choice and has always been their
choice to follow Obama into the White House, with her criminal behavior
notwithstanding.

The Council of Foreign Relations is no longer a secret and this is who
Hillary Clinton serves. Look at the background behind Mrs. Clinton. This
is how the CFR gives tacit approval. No matter how criminal, no matter
how long the trail of bodies becomes, the CFR is "all in" for their
support of America's modern day version of Lizzy Borden.

The Council of Foreign Relations is no longer a secret, as it once was,
and this is who Hillary Clinton serves. Look at the background behind
Mrs. Clinton. This is how the CFR gives tacit approval. No matter how
criminal, no matter how long the trail of bodies becomes, the CFR is
"all in" for their support of America’s modern day version of Lizzy Borden.

As an average American, anytime the CFR, or its first cousin, the
Trilateral Commission endorses a candidate, no matter how subtle the
endorsement, I assume it is opposite day and move in the other direction.

Do you know your CFR history? The CFR was the first "modern-day"
globalist organization that arose in the early 1920’s when President
Wilson was unable to convince the Senate and the American people that it
would be a good idea to join The League of Nations, which arose out of
the ashes of World War I.

The League of Nations, like its descendant, the United Nations, was
designed to usurp national sovereignty from its member nations. The CFR
was founded by John Rockefeller and they worked very hard at obscuring
their existence in the media (whose top elite were members). Any talk of
the CFR would have earned that person the original label of "conspiracy
theorist".

The main goal of the CFR is world governance and a one world economy
that they control. The one world economy is taking shape and it is
comprised of those people that Patrick Wood calls technocrats. I hope
you are sitting down. These people are intent on owning all energy on
the planet through unrealistic caps on our energy usage. Their system of
carbon trading will reduce the lifestyles of the average person to about
the 1870’s in terms of lifestyles, if we are lucky.

Dehumanization and Depopulation are central themes of this approach. Pat
Wood details this in his book Technocracy Rising.

The ushering in of these strict environmental regulations is why Obama
is sitting in the White House. At some future date I will, in great
detail, Obama’s connection to this group. Suffice for now, let’s just
say that his original membership in the Joyce Foundation where Obama
worked for Valerie Jarrett, now the senior-White House advisor is
noteworthy. With the support of notables such as Al Gore, Warren Buffet
and George Soros, the Joyce Foundation morphed into the intended carbon
trading organization, The Chicago Climate Exchange.

arrett and Obama were unable to get the Chicago Climate Exchange to a
position of prominence because Obama was unable to advance his complete
Climate Change initiatives, to any degree, through the Congress. Later,
Justice Scalia, was the swing vote on the Supreme Court that was
standing in the way of Obama making his Climate Change initiatives law
through executive branch fiat. And I am compelled to point out, where is
Scalia today? This is a dire warning for Donald Trump.

When the smoke clears, Obama may not get his entire package codified
into law. However, that is why the CFR has Hillary Clinton. At stake, is
the world economy. The elite power structure of the CFR is in charge of
the smart grid, and ultimately the use of all energy on this planet
including the world’s new economy, carbon trading, the new global
currency. Under this system, all debts will be forgiven because the
people will be left with nothing when the bank runs, the bail-ins and
the absolute collapse of the dollar takes place.

This is the most important Presidential race in our history because of
the specter of technocracy. If Hillary secures the White House, the
elite in the CFR are going to get exactly what they want, absolute power
over the planet and with that, the complete power over who lives and who
dies.

Let’s take a look at the CFR’s condemnation of Trump and their de facto
endorsement of Clinton so there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of
what I am speaking about.

Relevant Excerpts From The CFR’s The Economist

      …the Republican nomination could be all but over. Donald Trump has
already won three of the first four contests. On March 1st, Super
Tuesday, 12 more states will vote. Mr Trump has a polling lead in all
but three of them. Were these polls to translate into results, as they
have so far, Mr Trump would not quite be unbeatable. It would still be
possible for another candidate to win enough delegates to overtake him.
But that would require the front-runner to have a late, spectacular
electoral collapse of a kind that has not been seen before. Right now
the Republican nomination is his to lose...

With the statement the CFR alarm was sounded. But there is more…

     When pollsters ask voters to choose in a face-off between Mr Trump
and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner wins by less than three
percentage points. Mr Trump would have plenty of time to try to close
that gap. An economy that falls back into recession or an indictment for
Mrs Clinton might do it for him.

     That is an appalling prospect. The things Mr Trump has said in this
campaign make him unworthy of leading one of the world’s great political
parties, let alone America. One way to judge politicians is by whether
they appeal to our better natures: Mr Trump has prospered by inciting
hatred and violence. He is so unpredictable that the thought of him
anywhere near high office is terrifying. He must be stopped (Editor’s
Note: Stopped at all costs?).

This last statement is a declaration of war by the self-appointed elite
in this country and this is so reminiscent of what happened to Bobby
Kennedy.

When one is losing an argument, they resort to name-calling and that is
what we see here where the power-brokers are so desperate that they
resort to infantile name calling, taking quotes of out of context and
engaging in the worst type of yellow journalism. There’s more…

     ,,,hinted that Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, was
murdered (Editor’s Note: He was murdered); proposed banning all Muslims
from visiting America (Editor’s Note: Trump stated that all immigrants
should be screened, a sentiment embraced by most Americans with common
sense).

Conclusion

What is the fate of all effective reformers.

When the Council of Foreign Relations declares war on an individual,
history shows (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, et al) have a short shelf-life. One
can only imagine how John F. Kennedy felt when he knew that the
interlocked and combined forces of the Federal Reserve, the oil industry
and the military industrial complete were closing in on him. Donald
Trump is in a very similar position.

The fate of those who would date to buck the CFR power elite.

This is often the fate of those who would date to buck the CFR power
elite. I liken Trump and his future to Larry McDonald than I do John
Kennedy. I see it ending the same way.

I do not want to end this article on a note of doom and gloom. Those of
who work in the Independent Media know that if you are going to be on
the list, you better be on the top of the list. Right now, placing
extreme attention on the topic of Trump’s safety, is the best way to
keep him alive until election day.

(8) Time to fire Trump - The {Rothschild} Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693579-front-runner-unfit-lead-great-political-party-let-alone-america-time-fire-trump

The Economist

Time to fire Trump

The front-runner is unfit to lead a great political party, let alone
America Feb 27th 2016 | From the print edition

IN A week’s time, the race for the Republican nomination could be all
but over. Donald Trump has already won three of the first four contests.
On March 1st, Super Tuesday, 12 more states will vote. Mr Trump has a
polling lead in all but three of them. Were these polls to translate
into results, as they have so far, Mr Trump would not quite be
unbeatable. It would still be possible for another candidate to win
enough delegates to overtake him. But that would require the
front-runner to have a late, spectacular electoral collapse of a kind
that has not been seen before. Right now the Republican nomination is
his to lose.

Worse, it might not stop there. Polls show that 46% of Americans of
voting age have a "very unfavourable" opinion of Mr Trump, which
suggests his chances of winning a general election are slight. But Mr
Trump’s political persona is more flexible than that of any professional
politician, which means he can take it in any direction he wants to. And
whoever wins the nomination for either party will have a decent chance
of becoming America’s next president: the past few elections have been
decided by slim margins in a handful of states. When pollsters ask
voters to choose in a face-off between Mr Trump and Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic front-runner wins by less than three percentage points. Mr
Trump would have plenty of time to try to close that gap. An economy
that falls back into recession or an indictment for Mrs Clinton might do
it for him.

That is an appalling prospect. The things Mr Trump has said in this
campaign make him unworthy of leading one of the world’s great political
parties, let alone America. One way to judge politicians is by whether
they appeal to our better natures: Mr Trump has prospered by inciting
hatred and violence. He is so unpredictable that the thought of him
anywhere near high office is terrifying. He must be stopped.

The world according to Trump

Because each additional Trumpism seems a bit less shocking than the one
before, there is a danger of becoming desensitised to his outbursts. To
recap, he has referred to Mexicans crossing the border as rapists;
called enthusiastically for the use of torture; hinted that Antonin
Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, was murdered; proposed banning all
Muslims from visiting America; advocated killing the families of
terrorists; and repeated, approvingly, a damaging fiction that a century
ago American soldiers in the Philippines dipped their ammunition in
pigs’ blood before executing Muslim rebels. At a recent rally he said he
would like to punch a protester in the face. This is by no means an
exhaustive list.

Almost the only policy Mr Trump clearly subscribes to is a fantasy: the
construction of a wall along the southern border, paid for by Mexico.
What would he do if faced with a crisis in the South China Sea, a
terrorist attack in America or another financial meltdown? Nobody has
any idea. Mr Trump may be well suited to campaigning in primaries, where
voters bear little resemblance to the country as a whole, but it is
difficult to imagine any candidate less suited to the consequence of
winning a general election, namely governing.

America’s primary agenda: our interactive 2016 election calendar

With each victory, the voices trying to make peace with Mr Trump’s
hostile takeover of the Republican Party grow louder. He has already
been endorsed by some Republican congressmen. Some on the left point out
that he is less conservative on social and economic questions than some
of his rivals (while privately hoping the Republicans nominate him so
that Mrs Clinton can give him a shellacking). Some on the right argue
that Mr Trump is merely playing a role, blowing chilli powder up the
nostrils of the politically correct, and that in essence he is a
pragmatic New York property developer who likes to cut deals. Were he to
win the nomination, their argument runs, he would be privately
intimidated and would appoint sensible advisers to whom he would defer.

This is wishful thinking by those who want their side to win at any
cost. There is nothing in Mr Trump’s career—during which he has
maintained close control of the family business he runs, and often acted
on instinct—to suggest that he would suddenly metamorphose into a wise
chairman, eager to take counsel from seasoned experts. For those who
have yet to notice, Mr Trump is not burdened by a lack of confidence in
his own opinions.

Republican in name only

For too long, the first instinct of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the
leading alternatives to Mr Trump, has been to avoid criticising the
front-runner in the hope of winning over his voters later. The primaries
may at times resemble a circus, but they also provide a place to test
candidates for leadership and courage. So far both men have flunked that
test. Republicans need to take Mr Trump on, not stand transfixed by what
is happening to their party. More than 60m people voted for Mitt Romney
in 2012. A big majority are decent, compassionate, tolerant people who
abhor political violence, bigotry and lying. Thoughtful conservatives
will be heart-broken if asked to choose in November between a snarling
nativist and a Democrat.

If The Economist had cast a vote in the Republican primaries in Iowa,
New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada we would have supported John
Kasich. The governor of Ohio has a good mixture of experience, in
Congress and in his home state as well as in the private sector. He has
also shown bravery, expanding Medicaid in Ohio though he knew it would
count against him later with primary voters, as indeed it has. But this
is not Mr Kasich’s party any more. Despite his success in New Hampshire,
where he came second, Mr Kasich is the preferred choice of less than 10%
of Republican voters.

If the field remains split as it is now, it is possible for Mr Trump to
win with just a plurality of votes. To prevent that, others must drop
out. Although we are yet to be convinced by Mr Rubio (see article), he
stands a better chance of beating Mr Trump than anyone else. All the
other candidates—including Mr Cruz, who wrongly sees himself as the
likeliest challenger—should get out of his way. If they decline to do
so, it could soon be too late to prevent the party of Abraham Lincoln
from being led into a presidential election by Donald Trump.

 From the print edition: Leaders

Featured comment

oesioij Feb 25th, 16:29

Trump's the problem? And what about the huge coalition of voters that
have rallied under Trump's banner? Trump isn't the problem, the problem
is whatever made people feel that Trump is there only hope for political
representation in the first place.

Trump is on a different level. Most Republicans go around saying,
"people are fed up with political correctness!". Trump says he wants to
punch protesters in the face, calls Mexicans rapists, and gets into
name-calling matches with the Pope. Most Republicans, when talking
immigration, fall into technical discussions about work visas and what
have you. Trump says he going to build a gigantic wall to keep the
illegals out.

If you look past what he's saying, you can see he has become the banner
of everyone who is sick of political correctness, sick of being called
"racist" for expressing non-liberal opinions, and, most especially, sick
of politicians who say whatever they need to to get elected, and then
proceed to do whatever the people who paid for their campaign want.

It doesn't matter if Trump can't keep his promises. He is punishment for
a party that has disenfranchised its political bases so much that they
feel their only hope for having their interests represented is - the
demagogue. He is punishment for politicians who have crossed a line in
ignoring the wants of their voters (a line they always seem to want to
get as close to as possible without going over). If it's any
consolation, one of the insights from Bentley's "The Process of
Government" is that demagogues, as politician coalitions, tend to fall
apart as soon as they win power and begin to work out the details of
what they're going to do.

But I chuckle every time I see some eight page refutation of Trumps
economic policies. If that's how you're going to try and take him down,
then I can safely say that Trump will end up doing whatever the forces
of history have in store for him. Scholarly critiques will do nothing.
Maybe he won't win, and instead will end up costing a party the election
as punishment. Either way he's a part of the democratic process, like it
or not. Without demagogues, all people have left is militias.

(9) Jill Stein vs Both

https://www.rt.com/usa/360709-jill-stein-debate-social-media/

3rd party candidate Jill Stein responds to Clinton-Trump duel in real time

Published time: 27 Sep, 2016 01:12 Edited time: 27 Sep, 2016 03:35

Barred from participating in the Clinton-Trump showdown at New York’s
Hofstra University, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein fights
back with her own livestream Q&A contribution to the debate on social media.

In answer to a debate question how to achieve prosperity, Stein said
Clinton approved of NAFTA, which was signed into law by her husband,
then president, Bill Clinton.

She said everything that Donald Trump markets is an off-shored
manufactured item.

"So Donald Trump knows all about it. In fact, he advised that people
close their factories and move somewhere and then impose low wages on
the workers," Stein told more than 7,000 viewers on her livestream.

"We are calling for the antidote to NAFTA. The Green New Deal, investing
in people, 20 million living wage jobs that will transition us to 100
percent clean energy," said Stein."…[Restoring] our ecosystem, turning
the tide on climate change, reviving our health, that alone is enough."

With over 9,000 viewers online, Stein said the policies that led to the
Wall Street crisis, and the consequence of predatory lending and
predatory student loans, were a result of deregulation brought to us by
then president Bill Clinton, with the support of Hillary Clinton.
Clinton is a friend of the big banks, too, said Stein.

"Don’t just listen to talk," said Stein.

"It’s very important we go back and renegotiate NAFTA …but we need to
develop our jobs here," said Stein. "That’s why we call for investing in
new jobs through our Green New Deal...in small businesses, worker
businesses, worker collectives."

Stein said both Democrat and Republican parties have a history of
cutting taxes on the wealthy, and shifting the tax base to the middle
class and working people.

"America wasn’t meant to be an aristocracy," said Stein. "22
billionaires have as much money as 50 percent of the US population.
...We need a progressive income tax, with the rich paying at least at
the 55 to 60 percent level."

"We need a politics of integrity," said Stein when the candidates talked
about their tax returns and financial disclosures.

"I think they are both right," said Stein. "I think the America people
deserve disclosure about who is the bigger crook."

With 10,300 viewers, Stein said the police tactic Stop and Frisk "was a
disaster for human rights, and a horrific assault on communities."

"The place where need law and order is on Wall Street," said Stein who
explained that the police were "missing in action. They need to be
brought back."

"Immigrants are among the most law-abiding groups out there," said
Stein. "It is false for Trump to be fear-mongering that immigrants are a
community of violence."

Stein said the systemic racism in prisons, the courts and in the economy
needed to be addressed.

Stein said the police needed training in de-escalation techniques, to be
evaluated over whom is hired, and to not be loaded up with military gear.

"Police forces need to look like the communities they serve," said Stein.

With 10,800 viewers, 15,000 likes and 15,000 shares, Stein said: "We
need an international treaty to prevent cyberwar, which the Chinese and
the Russians as well want but our government has been refusing to go
along. We need to listen to the concerns raised here, and move ahead
with the treaty."

On the allegations that Russia hacked the DNC emails, Stein said: "I
agree with Donald Trump, surprisingly."

"There is no evidence that the Russians were the ones who hacked into
the DNC emails, but they gave us plenty of evidence that the DNC was
involved in backroom dealing."

On the issue of Edward Snowden, Stein said the NSA whistleblower should
be given a pardon and "brought home as a hero."

On Foreign policy, Stein said we need a Peace Offensive in the Mideast
to cut off weapons and funding to terrorist militias.

"When it comes to nuclear weapons, the Obama administration had just
approved trillions of dollars on new modes of delivering nuclear
weapons," said Stein. "Clinton has given no indication of changing
course. She is pushing for an air war against Russia over Syria,
creating a no-fly zones namely against Russia."

"That is the one solution here – it is nuclear abolition as an
international emergency," said Stein.

Stein said the Iran deal ensured there would be no nuclear weapon in the
country in the future.

"Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program and was not
engaged in a nuclear weapons program," said Stein.

"There are nuclear weapons in the hands of the Israelis and Pakistanis."
"It now takes 44 percent of your tax dollars to fund the military," said
Stein. "I am only candidate not taking money from the military industry
and the fossil fuel industry."

After the debate, Stein engaged in an #AskJill Q&A on Twitter and
Facebook. Questions ranged from LGBT rights, immigration and campaign
reform to how to fight climate change and what to do about public schools.

On climate change, Stein said she was against all new fossil fuel
infrastructure and would phase out fossil fuels by 2030 "to avert the
climate catastrophe that is coming."

On helping public schools, Stein said they should be fully funded and
have smaller classes. She also advocated hiring more teachers, getting
rid of high stakes testing, teaching students for life-long learning,
and focusing more on arts and music.

Stein was asked if she would pardon whistleblower Chelsea Manning. "We
should pardon her and bring her back a hero," said Stein.

Stein said she hopes the next time she’ll be on the debate stage.