.
2/28/2016, "Sick Of Political Parties, Unaffiliated Voters Are Changing Politics," npr.org, Sago, Markus, Joffe-Block
"Independent Voters In Colorado, Florida And Arizona"
"The biggest group of voters politicians will have to woo this
November are the ones who often don't get a say in which candidates make
it to the general election ballot.
Turned off by the partisan
wars in Washington, 39 percent of voters now identify themselves as
independent rather than affiliated with one of the two major political
parties, according to a 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Self-identified Democrats accounted for 32 percent of the electorate,
Republicans 23 percent.
That's a big shift from as recently as 2004, when the electorate was nearly evenly divided into thirds by the three groups.
But many states require voters to affiliate with a party in order to take part in presidential primaries and caucuses....
Arizona: Independent Voters Try To Organize
It may sound like an oxymoron, but Arizona's unaffiliated, independent voters are organizing themselves and banding together.
Independents
are now the largest voting group in the state, and that trend is only
growing. For the past three years, the number of voters registering or
re-registering as independent has outpaced new Republican and Democratic
registrations combined.
But the last voter registration period
that ended Feb. 22 (2016) was different. The number of independents in Arizona
dropped slightly.
That's likely because unaffiliated voters can't
participate in Arizona's upcoming (2016) presidential primary, and some
independents chose a party for that reason.
The rule that
excludes independents from the presidential primary is just one example
of what independents here find to be unfair about the state's voting
system.
Now this growing group of voters wants more rights at
the polls, and they are trying to change that through grass-roots
pressure.
Patrick McWhortor of the group Open Primaries
organized a phone "town hall" last month for independent voters that
nearly 13,000 people called into to discuss these efforts.
"Independent
voters, now 37 percent of all Arizona registered voters, are treated
like second-class citizens," said McWhortor at the start of the meeting.
He
discussed his group's efforts to get two election reform initiatives on
the November ballot. One would make a single primary election with
every candidate on the same ballot. The top two candidates would advance
regardless of party affiliation. The initiative would also reduce
current barriers for independents running for office.
Deb
Gain-Braley, a 57-year-old retired accountant in Tempe, became
interested in independent voting rights issues after she realized that
she would not be able to vote in Arizona's March 22 presidential primary
unless she re-registered again with a party. She had previously been
registered as a Republican.
"I think that no one should have to
choose a party to vote in America," Gain-Braley said. "So I went
looking to see if there were any other organizations arguing against
what's going on."
In addition to the Open Primaries group,
Gain-Braley also discovered Independent Voters for Arizona, a campaign
focused on opening the presidential primary to independents that she now
volunteers for. The group got more than 30,000 people to sign a letter
to party leaders asking them to open the primary. So far those calls
have not been heeded, and the primaries will remain closed this year.
Timothy
Castro, who runs Independent Voters for Arizona, argues it's not fair
to exclude Arizona's 1.2 million voters from a presidential primary paid
for with taxpayer dollars.
"If we are paying for something we aren't allowed to vote in, then let us vote in it, or don't make me pay for it," Castro said.
In
fact, independents may have more luck getting out of paying for the
primary in future years rather than actually voting in it.
A
bill making its way through the Arizona Legislature would make political
parties — not taxpayers — pick up the tab for presidential primaries
starting in 2020. The bill is backed by the secretary of state's office.
If the bill succeeds, it will still leave independent voters to find a way into future presidential primaries here."
- "Jude Joffe-Block, KJZZ, Phoenix"
--------------------
Comment: The Bush crowd tried hard to get rid of all Republican voters and partially succeeded after 2004. The Republican Party would rather see this country burn to the ground than allow voters to choose candidates for House, Senate, or President. If a slip up happens, they merely sabotage the winner, eg Donald Trump.
.......................
.
"Cohn, who is 56, was brought into the Administration by Jared
Kushner, the President's son-in-law, who once interned for Cohn at Goldman Sachs. Cohn is a long-time donor to Democratic candidates." 8/26/17, Alastair Crooke
.....................
8/28/17, "Why Are Tillerson and Cohn Still Working at the White House?" Rush Limbaugh
 |
| Gary Cohn |
"RUSH: Tillerson and Gary Cohn. I’m asking, “Why are you still working
in the White House?” with what they’ve been saying, particularly Cohn.
Tillerson, ah, open interpretation. But how is Gary Cohn still there? He
threw the president under the bus.
They got rid of Sebastian Gorka, and they’re destroying Gorka with an
absolute libelous, slanderous attack that the guy’s a Nazi and so
forth. None of it’s true. I know, many people never heard of Sebastian
Gorka until Trump became president. He was on the national security
team, supposedly H. R. McMaster didn’t like him, I don’t know, but he
was good on TV, and Trump liked him on TV, but he’s gone. In his
resignation letter he really takes it to Trump. He says, look, pal,
everybody that was part of your Make America Great agenda is gone. Do
you realize this? The only people left are the Democrats in the swamp in your administration."
Break Transcript
"RUSH:...I’m gonna get to Gary Cohn and Tillerson and
why are they still there--and I’m not just casually asking that. I
mean, both these guys have said things that were I president, I’d have
serious questions." image above from RushLimbaugh.com
............
Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"
RealClearPolitics:
Tillerson: Sebastian Gorka Is "Completely Wrong" About Radical Islam,
Afghanistan, "Globalism vs. America First"
.......................
Added: No, no, no, Tillerson says terrorism comes from "many types of organizations:"
8/27/17, "Tillerson: Sebastian Gorka Is "Completely Wrong" About Radical Islam, Afghanistan, "Globalism vs. America First"," Real Clear Politics, Tim Hains
"Chris Wallace: Sebastian Gorka in his resignation letter wrote this about the Afghanistan speech: The
fact that those who drafted and approved the speech removed any mention
of radical Islam or radical Islamic terrorism proves that a crucial
element of the presidential campaign has been lost.
Is Gorka right?
TILLERSON: I think he’s completely wrong, Chris. And I think it shows a
lack of understanding of the president's broader policy when it comes to
protecting Americans at home and abroad from all acts of terrorism.
Terrorism, as we've said, manifests itself in many types of
organizations.
The president has charged us to develop policies and tactics both
diplomatically and militarily to attack terrorism in as many forms,
wherever it exists in the world and wherever it might present a threat
to the homeland or to Americans anywhere. This means that we have to
develop techniques that are global in their nature. All we want is to
ensure that terrorists do not have the capability to organize and carry
out attacks."...
.............................
Comment: Why don't Tillerson and Trump just shoot us all now? It would be much more humane
than the slow genocide being perpetrated. Tillerson says Gorka is
"wrong" but ignores or refuses to address Gorka's point about Islamic
terrorism, the terrorism that directly affects and concerns Americans, and that reference to Islamic terror was deliberately not mentioned in Trump's Afghanistan speech. Instead, Tillerson says: Terrorism "manifests itself in many types of
organizations."
Tillerson says the US (ie US taxpayers) will fight terrorism "wherever it exists in the world."
Even if that were possible, where are Tillerson and Trump getting the
money for these endless global wars? Do they think US taxpayers will
accept being global slaves of war profiteers? Among other things,
everyone knows governments enable terrorism.
------------------
.
Aug. 24, 2017, "Trump Divorces the GOP Congress,"
Wall St. Journal Editorial Board. August 25 print edition.
To WSJ Editorial Board: It's the exact opposite. The GOP Congress divorced/nullified President Trump. Excerpts from two articles follow:
8/26/17, "How the Deep State Ties Down Trump," Alastair Crooke, Consortium News
Trump "now has been rendered “helpless”:
in respect to détente with Russia...spitefully, by his own
party, working with the Democrats, to empty Trump's constitutional prerogatives in policy--and to seize them for Congress."...
===========
"America’s ability to pursue or even to
have a foreign policy is non-existent in the face of its internal civil
war."..."Executive powers have been transferred to Congress:"
8/6/17, "Playing Politics with the World’s Future," Alastair Crooke, Consortium News
"The strategy of neutering President Trump in his dealings with Russia
– and his administration’s own ignorance about complex Mideast issues--are combining to create grave dangers, writes
ex-British diplomat
Alastair Crooke."
"Finally...the U.S. Congress has produced a piece of legislation. And
it passed with quasi-unanimous, bi-partisan support. Only its substance
is not so much a deep reflection on the foreign policy interests of
America, but rather, the desire to hurt,
and incapacitate the U.S. President in any future dealings with Russia.
(And never mind the worrying impulse towards conflict with Russia this
entails, or its collateral damage on others).
The aim has been to see President Trump hog-tied, and “tarred and
feathered” for his “risky behavior” on Russia. This aim simply has
overpowered any other considerations--such as likelihood that the
outside world will conclude that America’s ability to pursue or even to
have a foreign policy is non-existent in the face of its internal civil
war. It is a key juncture. For an overwhelming majority of Democratic
and Republican Senators and Congressmen, bringing down “The Donald” is
all--and the devil take the consequences for America, in the world....
The U.S. President had little option but to sign the legislation, but
that does not mean that diplomacy is completely blocked. As expected,
he issued a Signing Statement (see here),
in which, while accepting the mandate of Congress, Trump took issue
with the new Congressional encroachments into his prerogatives (Article
Two of the Constitution) in terms of foreign policy, and he reserved the
right to decide on how the Congressional mandate might be implemented
(i.e. in respect to the quadrilateral negotiations over Ukraine)....
Medvedev's Assessment...
"The Trump administration demonstrated it is utterly powerless,
and in the most humiliating manner, transferred executive powers to
Congress....What does this mean for the U.S.? The American establishment
completely outplayed Trump. The President is not happy with the new
sanctions, but he could not avoid signing the new law. The purpose of
the new sanctions was to put Trump in his place. Their ultimate goal is
to remove Trump from power.”...
Polls (even CNN polls) suggest that there are very obvious political
limits to the Establishment (in both parties) using “Russia-gate” as a
mechanism to mobilize and widen public support for removing President
Trump. Polls indicate that 79 percent of Republicans are “not at all” or
“not very” concerned about Trump’s alleged links with Russia, and that
inversely, precisely the same proportion, 79 percent, of Democrats
precisely are “very” or “somewhat” concerned. (55 percent of
Independents side with Republicans with 37 percent “not at all” [concerned] and 18
percent “not very” concerned). The point here is that
the Republican support for Trump’s desire for détente with Russia has
not eroded one jot, whereas the “concern” of the Independents and even
among Democrats is eroding somewhat.
This is the crux: the clique around former CIA head John Brennan et al
have put their shirt on “Russia-gate” to bring down Trump – claiming
scandal. But what goes around – quite often – comes comes
around. Unless the Establishment can keep up the tempo of innuendo or
produce new revelations, “Russia-gate” may just become a stale narrative
– or a butt of satire. Worse, the meme could turn and bite the hand of
those who have been feeding it. There may too be other skeletons in the
cupboard, but belonging to the other party: like who paid
Fusion GPS (who were commissioned to produce the “dirty dossier” on
Trump)? Might the murdered Seth Rich story take another turn? Or, the
fugitive former DNC Chairwoman’s IT staffer, Imran Awan, give the
narrative a different twist? Or something as yet unknown....
So, are Trump’s hopes for détente with Russia all done? Too early to
say, I suggest. Medvedev seems categoric, but maybe his dark
prognostication is intended more to underline to Americans that their
relations with Russia are not some domestic “game show” – but rather,
are profoundly serious. For the time being, substantive U.S. politics
with Russia will be on “a long vacation.”
The deeper question is whether the U.S. Deep State is overreaching itself. First, we have this sanctions bill, and then the news that
special counsel Robert Mueller, as part of his investigation into the
Trump campaign’s potential dealings with the Kremlin, is using a Grand
Jury to issue subpoenas. While the use of a Grand Jury does not
necessarily mean an indictment is imminent, it is a tool to compel
witnesses to testify or force people to turn over sensitive documents
that may aid investigators in their probe.
It is a sign of a yet more aggressive approach to gathering
“Russia-gate” evidence – a search that will now encompass all the Trump
family’s financial affairs. Overreach? (So far, evidence of misdeed, is
missing.)
As indicated earlier, Trump’s Republican base (unlike support from
the Republican establishment) is not eroding, but rather is becoming
angered and resentful. The more the MSM and the East Coast élites attack
the deplorables’ “alt” news and websites – the greater the pushback, it
seems."..."Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior
figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is
the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum."
================
Added, 8/26/17: For the "his own party" crowd:
Trump "now has been rendered “helpless”:
in respect to détente with Russia...spitefully, by his own
party, working with the Democrats, to empty Trump's constitutional prerogatives in policy--and to seize them for Congress."...
8/26/17, "How the Deep State Ties Down Trump," Alastair Crooke, Consortium News
"America’s Deep State players have tied down President Trump on
Russian sanctions and other foreign and economic policies but that
doesn’t mean the struggle is over, writes ex-British diplomat Alastair
Crooke."
"President Trump has had his foreign policy hands and feet tied by the
Russia (and Iran) Sanctions Act. He now has been rendered “helpless”:
in respect to détente with Russia — gulliverized, spitefully, by his own
party, working with the Democrats, to empty Trump's constitutional prerogatives in policy--and to seize them for Congress....
It seems that the American deep state is so frenzied in this way that
its inhabitants can no longer see straight: they are ready to risk
despoiling not just the “recalcitrant” abroad, but America herself. And
the way they are going about trying to “have her,” may well ruin the
deep state too, as collateral damage.
The Russia Sanctions Act may have been conceived both to
paralyze President Trump, and to validate the “Putin-stole-the-Election”
narrative, but it precisely removes any chance of Messrs Mattis,
McMaster, Kelly and Tillerson to succeed with seizing America as world proconsul.
Russia, China and Iran, now linked by again being threatened by sanctions, are now firmly embedded into a strategic coalition – and they are determined to resist."...
...........................
Among comments to 8/25/17 WSJ Editorial Board, link at top of post:
.........................
....................
.
"It is Cohn who made an improper equation. He equated the
antifa thugs who committed violence in Charlottesville with those who
“stand up for equality and freedom.” Antifa isn’t about standing up for equality and freedom. It’s about imposing a far left vision through violence and anarchy....Cohn’s urge to engage in virtue signaling overcame...his regard for the truth."
8/26/17, "Why Trump should fire Gary Cohn," Paul Mirengoff, Powerline
"Gary Cohn is President Trump’s National Economic Council Director. In
an interview with the Financial Times, Cohn criticized Trump’s comments
about the violence in Charlottesville, stating that “citizens standing up for equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK.”
True. But Trump did not equate the two sets of people. He said that
more than one side was to blame for the violence in Charlottesville.
This statement is true. Even a New York Times reporter who witnesses the violence acknowledged the role of the “hard left” in the violence.
It’s bad enough when a presidential adviser goes on the record to rip
the president for something he said. When an adviser rips the president
for a statement he did not make, that adviser should be sacked.
Moreover, it is Cohn who made an improper equation. He equated the
antifa thugs who committed violence in Charlottesville with those who
“stand up for equality and freedom.”
Antifa isn’t about standing up for equality and freedom. It’s about imposing a far left vision through violence and anarchy.
These thugs and their sympathizers were not standing up for freedom when they rioted in Berkeley in an attempt to shut down the free speech rights, or when they caused the cancellation
of a parade Portland, Oregon by threatening violence against Republican
participants, or when they smashed windows and assaulted police
officers in Washington, D.C. the day of Trump’s inauguration.
Antifa is the antithesis of a group that stands up for freedom. It
seeks to deny freedom to its political opponents, including mainstream
ones such as Oregon Republicans. Even the radically leftist Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized them.
Yet, the clueless investment banker from Goldman Sachs, equates them
with freedom fighters. Has he worked out why they wear masks?
Cohn’s urge to engage in virtue signaling overcame not only his sense
of loyalty to the president but his regard for the truth. It has not
overcome his eagerness to participate in the Trump administration, but
should put an end to Trump’s willingness to have him continue that
participation."
"UPDATE: John’s [Hinderaker] latest post
is on point. Cohn’s inability or unwillingness to perceive the current
threat to freedom posed by left-wing bullies should disqualify him from
further service in the Trump administration."
........................
Added, linked above:
8/26/17, "Far-Left Bullies Suppress Civil Rights In California," John Hinderaker, Powerline
"The “heckler’s veto” is not recognized in American law, but it is
increasingly becoming a fact of life in American cities. The hecklers
are always from the far left, and they generally come armed. This is a
scandal of major proportions, but is rarely recognized as such.
The Associated Press ["San Francisco claims victory after right-wing group shut out"] reports on a blatant violation of civil rights:
"A planned right-wing rally in the shadow of the Golden
Gate Bridge that was downgraded to a news conference at a small park
fizzled further on Saturday, after San Francisco police swarmed the park
and city workers erected a fence around it.
An organizer for the group Patriot Prayer later spoke in suburban
Pacifica with a handful of supporters, after civic leaders and police in
San Francisco repeatedly voiced concerns that they would draw angry
counter-protesters and spark violence in the area known as the cradle of
the free speech movement."
Rather than defending Patriot Prayer’s First Amendment rights, local
authorities slandered the group in order to justify their own inaction:
"Earlier in the week, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee raised
concerns that Patriot Prayer would attract hate speech and potential
violence.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Democrat who represents San
Francisco, called the planned rally a “white supremacist” event."
“White supremacist” has become a catch-all epithet for anyone the
Democrats don’t like.
Patriot Prayer has a vague, pro-unity message that
has nothing to do with race. Apparently its critics’ theory is that it
is secretly white supremacist. But it is hard to find any support for
that speculation:
"Organizer Joey Gibson denied his group was looking for
trouble. He said members had received anonymous threats on social media
and feared civic leaders and law enforcement would fail to protect them.
“My hope is to be able to talk to normal citizens without all the
extremists,” Gibson, who identifies as Japanese American, said at the
news conference.
Other speakers included African Americans, a Latino and a Samoan
American. Several said they support Donald Trump and want to join with
moderates to promote understanding and free speech."
Of course, even if they were white supremacists–whatever that
means–they would have a right to hold a rally, and would be entitled to
the same police protection as any other group, just like Black Lives
Matter.
So what happened? A vicious mob of antifa fascists swarmed the area while police stood by, threatening the “right wing” rally.
"The pivots by the group didn’t deter more than 1,000
left-wing counter-protesters from descending on Alamo Square park, where
they suspected right-wing supporters still might show up.
“San Francisco as a whole, we are a liberal city and this is not a
place for hate or any sort of bigotry of any kind,” Bianca Harris said.
“I think it’s a really powerful message that we’re sending to people who
come here to try to spew messages of hate that it’s just not welcome in
this city.”"
Does hunting down your political enemies with baseball bats an ax handles count as "hate"?
Of course not!
"Members of the [Patriot Prayer] group ended the news
conference abruptly when they heard members of an anti-fascist movement
were headed to Pacifica."
The Associated Press describes an armed mob seeking to beat up people
with whom they disagree politically as “anti-fascist”–with a straight
face! What a time we live in.
So what happened next? Gibson and his group intended to take their message to Berkeley, but that didn’t happen either:
"When Gibson canceled the Golden Gate rally on Friday, he
said his followers would instead attend an anti-Marxist rally on Sunday
in nearby Berkeley. But a short time later, the organizer of that rally
called it off.
Organizer Amber Cummings said in a lengthy statement issued via
Facebook that she had “grave concerns for the safety of the people
attending my event.”
Cummings said the event was planned “to speak out against the
political violence happening to people who do not agree” with left-wing
ideology, and that the meaning was being lost as rhetoric around the
rally escalated.
The left-wing group By Any Means Necessary, which has been involved
in violent confrontations, had vowed to shut down the Berkeley rally."
So those who oppose the far left–surely a majority, even in
California–are not allowed to assemble. This is an intolerable (not to
mention illegal) situation. It can’t be allowed to continue."
........................
Comment: I appreciate Powerline's always
informative work. Mr. Hinderaker says "white supremacist" is a catch
all term for anyone Democrats don't like. If he wants this to
end, blaming democrats isn't going to do it. The Republican
Establishment has used the racism issue against its own voters for many
decades. At minimum, they've done nothing to stop its widespread use in
the media. Nelson Rockefeller in 1963-64 (a "Rockefeller Republican")
used his national microphone to bitterly warn the country that the GOP
was being taken over by racists (he used terms like John Birchers). In
2009 began 24/7 coverage of the allegedly "racist" Tea Party. Tea Party
audiences were always said be "overwhelmingly white." The TP was no
threat to democrats, but for a short time was a big threat to the Deep
State GOP. The GOP was thrilled the IRS was holding up conservative
groups seeking non-profit status, making them spend enormous amounts of
time giving detailed information, then never approving them. At minimum,
they did nothing to help right of center groups. When Obama was
re-elected in 2012 the GOP was thrilled because it meant the TP was
nearing its end. In 2014 in the Mississippi GOP primary and runoff,
the GOP E campaign against the TP Republican was entirely that the TP
and its candidate were racist. (Articles about this posted below).
The GOP E went into black Democrat neighborhoods and paid Democrats to
vote in the open GOP primary for the Deep State GOP candidate. The GOP
Establishment candidate won because of Democrat votes. In 2015, Trump
arrived, and the racism card was immediately dealt. Unless right of center Americans have a political party behind them, this 24/7 racism campaign will continue.
The Deep State GOP isn't going to be that party. They've made it clear
they'd rather see the country burn to the ground than let Trump voters
have what they voted for. The GOP is only slightly better than the
democrats, but it's all that's left. Right now, the GOP is thrilled with
all the violence. In fact, they've floated a "unity" (ultra Deep State
globalist) ticket of John Kasich and Hickenlooper.
Three articles about the 2014 the Mississippi Open GOP primary and runoff which was finally won by soliciting and even buying Democrat votes: 538.com, Codevilla and NY Times
1. 538.com, 6/25/2014
June 25, 2014, "It looks like African-Americans really did help Thad Cochran Win," 538.com, Harry Enten. With "some forty thousand votes."
............................
2. Angelo Codevilla, 6/30/2014
Establishment Republicans said buying black Democrat votes in Mississippi was “minority outreach:" "The (Wall St.) Journal’s Jason Riley endorsed it cynically as “minority outreach:”"
6/30/2014, "The Ruling Class Went Down to Mississippi," Angelo M. Codevilla, Liberty Law site
"The mass of GOP and independent voters, having come to see themselves
as disadvantaged and insulted by the ruling class, have increasingly
supported anti-establishment candidates to challenge it in Republican
primaries. Accurately, the Republican establishment sees this as a
greater threat to themselves than any Democrats could be.
In the Mississippi primary, Republican establishmentarians from
around the country solicited votes from Democrats to defeat the
insurgent challenge to Senator Thad Cochran. Their arguments were the
same ones used by the bipartisan ruling class that has ruled America for
a generation:
The role of government is to generate benefits for its
clients,
and those who object are bad people.
They paid many Democrat
voters (nearly all black) so called “walking around money” for their
votes, and have refused in many counties to let McDaniel aides examine
the voter roles to see whether these voters were eligible to cast
ballots.
The retail corruption is much less remarkable than the acquiescence
therein of the establishment’s leadership – such as Karl Rove and The Wall Street Journal’s
editorial page. This is very remarkable. Rove’s super-PAC,
“Conservative Victory Project,” which played a leading role in
recruiting Democrats for Cochran exists explicitly to defeat insurgent
Republicans everywhere.
The Journal’s editorial page, whose
editorials and featured columnists mobilized opinion against the
Mississippi insurgency, had done the same throughout this and previous
years’ primaries. Rove’s post election commentary glossed over the vote-buying as if it had not happened, while the Journal’s Jason Riley endorsed it cynically as “minority outreach.”
To Republican and independent voters who are dissatisfied with the
direction of the country, the conflict between the pretenses and the
actions of such as Rove and of the Journal added insult to injury. The Journal,
for example, never loses an opportunity to declare itself the mortal
enemy of “crony capitalism” as it decries the direction in which America
has been headed, while the word “conservative” as part of the title of
Rove’s super-PAC intentionally evokes the complex of sentiments of
voters angry at the ruling class’s characterization of them as, well,
the litany: “racist, greedy, stupid,” etc.
Indeed, the Republican Party’s very identity, the one, sole, argument
it makes to persuade voters to vote Republican rather than Democrat,
is
that it will take the country
in a direction different from the one in
which it has been going.
But, in the Mississippi primary, the Republican Establishment’s
campaign was by and for crony capitalism, and employed the classic
themes by which the ruling class has beaten down the rest of America.
To Mississippians white and black, the establishment’s message was:
All this Tea Party talk about dangerous deficits and the need to cut
spending is a threat to responsible officials’ capacity to bring you the
jobs and federal assistance on which your prosperity depends.
Orchestrating that message was Haley Barbour, former governor of
Mississippi, former national chairman of the Republican Party,
and
arguably Washington’s biggest lobbyist.
Day to day operations were run
by Stuart Stevens, formerly chief strategist in Mitt Romney’s 2012
national campaign, along with Henry and Austin Barbour, Haley’s nephews.
There could be few better personifications of crony capitalism.
To the blacks, who, according to The New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight.com provided some forty thousand votes, the message was:
"Don’t be intimidated by the Tea Party. . . . Mississippi cannot and will not return to the bygone era of intimidating black Mississippians from voting. We must rise up on Tuesday and have our voices heard on who will represent Mississippi in the U.S. Senate. VOTE THAD COCHRAN."
The Times reported the effect: Roger Smith, a black Democrat who said
he was being paid to organize for Mr. Cochran, said, ‘I don’t know too
much about [Cochran’s opponent] McDaniel other than what McDaniel is
saying:
that he’s Tea Party, he’s against Obama, he don’t like black people.”
In short, those who oppose the way things are done in America are racists.
You ought to hate them as they hate you.
Why do such things? Cui bono? Clearly such behavior by the Republican
establishment has nothing to do with the role it claims for itself of
opposition to the direction on which America has been taken in recent
decades, never mind with anything “conservative.”
It has everything to
do with maintaining its status, and that of its clients, within the
ruling class.
The Mississippi primary confirmed yet again that, if America is to go
in a direction other than the one of which some three fourths of
American disapprove, it is compelled to do so with a vehicle other than
the Republican Party."
-----------
"Angelo M. Codevilla professor emeritus of international relations at
Boston University. He served as a U.S. Senate Staff member dealing with
oversight of the intelligence services. His new book Peace Among
Ourselves and With All Nations was published by Hoover Institution
Press." Photo above from Liberty Law site.
(Ed. note: In 2016 Codevilla was not a Trump supporter).
============================
3. NY Times article, 6/24/2014:
From NY Times article, a
Black Mississippi Democrat says he was paid to organize for the
Republican Establishment candidate in Mississippi's 2014 open Republican
primary. Money from around the country poured in to help the
Establishment candidate defeat the grassroots candidate. Liberal
billionaire Mike Bloomberg gave as much as $500,000 to support the GOP Establishment candidate over the grassroots Republican:
6/24/2014, "Cochran Holds Off Tea Party Challenger in Mississippi," NY Times, Jonathan Weisman, Hattiesburg, Mississippi
"Roger Smith, a black Democrat who said he was being paid to organize for Mr. Cochran, said, “I don’t know too much about McDaniel other than
what McDaniel’s saying: that he’s Tea Party, he’s against Obama, he
don’t like black people.”
“You’re going to get one of the white guys in there,” he said. “You got to make a choice.”...
With
an unusual assist from African-American voters and other Democrats...Senator Thad Cochran on Tuesday beat back a
spirited challenge from State Senator Chris McDaniel, triumphing in a
Republican runoff and defeating the Tea Party in the state where the
movement’s hopes were bright....
Mr.
McDaniel, speaking in Hattiesburg, was angry, and he did not hesitate
to say so. “There is something a bit strange, there is something a bit
unusual about a Republican primary that’s decided by liberal Democrats,”
he said."...
=======
.......
.
"Cohn, who is 56, was brought into the Administration by Jared
Kushner, the President's son-in-law, who once interned for Cohn at Goldman Sachs. Cohn is a long-time donor to Democratic candidates....The American deep state is so frenzied...they are ready to risk
despoiling...America herself....That which cannot be “had,” must be despoiled....U.S. elites desire both to crush the "infuriating" Trump, and his "deplorables.""...
8/26/17, "How the Deep State Ties Down Trump," Alastair Crooke, Consortium News
"America’s Deep State players have tied down President Trump on
Russian sanctions and other foreign and economic policies but that
doesn’t mean the struggle is over, writes ex-British diplomat Alastair
Crooke."
"President Trump has had his foreign policy hands and feet tied by the
Russia (and Iran) Sanctions Act. He now has been rendered “helpless”:
in respect to détente with Russia — gulliverized, spitefully, by his own
party, working with the Democrats, to empty Trump's constitutional prerogatives in policy--and to seize them for Congress..
And in a further humiliation, Trump has been “rolled” by
his military minders (Generals James Mattis, H.R. McMaster and John
Kelly) on his Afghan policy: he has relinquished civilian oversight of
this military expedition in Afghanistan to McMaster and Mattis — the
former being the presumed author of the “new” Afghan policy. The
President was “rolled” on his foreign military prerogatives too – as
Commander in Chief – by his triumvirate of military minders in the White
House. The “civilian” leadership has given place to the “military.”
The question is whether these humiliating concessions will appease
his opponents sufficiently to allow the President to “live on,” albeit
as an incapacitated President, or is this just the hors d’oeuvre? It seems that the entrée may
be being planned as the complete discrediting of Trump’s base –
ordinary Republicans being lashed to the Trump “Titanic” – to be sunk
along with its captain – as “white-supremacists, white bigots and
Nazis.”
Professor Walter Russell Mead – and he should know – tells
us that “President Trump’s highest officials remain committed, one way
or another, to defending the global order the U.S. has been building
since the Truman era. That includes [Secretary of State RexTillerson,
Mattis, Kelly and McMaster]: These men share a disdain for the Obama
administration’s retrenchment and retreat. …They want to check the
ambitions of America’s rivals, while restoring the foundations, both
military and economic, of U.S. world power.”
Ok – that is clear: they want to “grasp” America as world order. They
have been trying that for some time now, but have not yet succeeded in
seizing “her.” With all “her” allure and riches, their quarry remains
frustratingly elusive, and her very unattainability seems to madden
“ego” even more – so that which cannot be “had,” must be despoiled.
What else accounts for the new Afghan plan? Almost nobody (outside of
the U.S. élites) believes it will do other than prolong an unwinnable
war (or worse, push Pakistan and India into confrontation).
Yet the
further despoliation of Afghanistan must go on, for the sake of the myth
of this America – of Trump’s “highest officials” – that America is always victorious, if only it wills it sufficiently, and is persistent – “defeat” as heresy.
It is a familiar story of inflated ego. But the sense of power and
wanting to “grasp at something unattainable” is so compelling, that the U.S. elites desire both to crush the "infuriating" Trump, and his "deplorables" – to thrust them down into the irrecoverable depths–
while weakening any external rival that might hinder the way to
their “having” America, as world order.
A Frenzied Deep State
It seems that the American deep state is so frenzied in this way that
its inhabitants can no longer see straight: they are ready to risk
despoiling not just the “recalcitrant” abroad, but America herself. And
the way they are going about trying to “have her,” may well ruin the
deep state too, as collateral damage.
The Russia Sanctions Act may have been conceived both to
paralyze President Trump, and to validate the “Putin-stole-the-Election”
narrative, but it precisely removes any chance of Messrs Mattis,
McMaster, Kelly and Tillerson to succeed with seizing America as world proconsul.
Russia, China and Iran, now linked by again being threatened by sanctions, are now firmly embedded into a strategic coalition – and they are determined to resist.
Incredibly, as one commentator
[MoonOfAlabama website, posted by "b"] put it: “During the ramp up to new UN sanctions on North Korea, the
Trump administration threatened to sanction China if it did not commit
to further pressure [on N. Korea] … Trump himself implied that he was
willing for a quid pro quo: ‘If China helps us, I feel a lot differently toward trade, a lot differently toward trade’, [Trump] told reporters…
“A deal was made, and the UN Resolution 2371 passed … China did its
part of the deal: It helped pass the UN resolution against North Korea –
and it immediately implemented it, even though that caused a
significant loss for Chinese companies which trade with North
Korea. [But …]
“Now Trump is back at sanctioning Chinese (and Russian) companies:
The Trump administration on Tuesday imposed sanctions on 16 mainly
Chinese and Russian companies and people for assisting North Korea’s
nuclear and ballistic missile programs and helping the North make money
to support those programs …
“Among those sanctioned are six Chinese companies, including three
coal companies; two Singapore-based companies that sell oil to North
Korea and three Russians that work with them; a Russian company that
deals in North Korean metals and its Russian director; a construction
company based in Namibia; a second Namibia-based company, and its North
Korean director, that supplies North Korean workers to build statues
overseas to generate income for the North.
“These are ‘secondary sanctions’ which block financial transactions
and make it nearly impossible for those companies and people to run an
international business. Moreover – China had already banned all coal
imports from North Korea. It had sent back North Korean coal ships, and
instead bought coal from the United States. [And] now, Chinese companies
are getting sanctioned over North Korean coal that they no longer buy?
Furthermore, selling fuel oil to North Korea is explicitly allowed under
the new UN sanctions…”
The alliance of these three states and their “partner forces” no
longer believe that America is capable of serious diplomacy, or that it
enjoys any real capacity to “seize” the world. On the contrary, they see
Europe drifting away from the U.S., the Gulf Cooperation Council in
disarray, and even Israel is despairing of its Washington ally. They do
remain concerned about North Korea, but the fear of U.S. pre-emptive
military action against North Korea is tempered by the knowledge that
North Korea effectively holds 30,000 U.S. servicemen hostage in the
de-militarized zone.
The primary focus is now shifting to how these states might protect themselves, if the two sides in the U.S. internal conflict
["America headed for a new kind of Civil War"] succeed in each despoiling one another, and thereby throw the world
into financial turmoil (hence the flurry of activity in arranging local
currency contracts and currency swaps):
“When Steve Bannon was ejected from the White House, last week,” the New Yorker quotes Bannon
as citing “his frustrations with the coming tax bill, as one of the
reasons he believed that the Trump nationalist agenda had been hijacked
by the so-called globalists, such as Cohn and the other members of the
Big Six.”
Yes, Trump has been “rolled” in the economic sphere, too: The “big
six” consist of four members of Congress (including Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan), plus economic
adviser Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin – both of Goldman
Sachs.
“They’re not populists, they’re not nationalists, they had no interest in his [i.e. Trump’s] program – Zero”, Bannon told the Weekly Standard,
“On what element of Trump’s program, besides tax cuts — which is going
to be the standard marginal tax cut — where have they rallied to Trump’s
cause? They haven’t.” [What Trump "cause"? Trump hired all of them.]
The Power of Cohn
“In the Bannon-era, factionalized Trump White House, Cohn was not
just the head of the National Economic Council but the leader of the
group of officials whom Bannon derided as ‘New York.’ (Breitbart stories
called Cohn and his companions at the N.E.C. ‘Globalist Swampsters’)”, notes the New Yorker.
Cohn, who is 56, was brought into the Administration by Jared
Kushner, the President's son-in-law, the President’s son-in-law, who once interned for Cohn at
Goldman Sachs. Cohn is a long-time donor to Democratic candidates.
So, Trump’s “reflation trade” is being “normalized” by the “big six” – more of the usual D.C. politics.
But, why be concerned
if the U.S. stock market is hitting new highs every day? Indeed, the
“market” has ridden an “ascending curve for 101 months since March
2009, during which the S&P 500 rose by 270% and rarely dropped by
more than 2-4%, without [its members] coming to believe that nothing
mattered except hitting the bid [button] during the more than 50
intervals when the stock market momentarily faltered. Virtually without
exception, each shallow dip was accompanied by easy money ‘buy’ signals
from the central banks, or selective ‘green shoots’ [releases] among
the in-coming data.”
As David Stockman writes:
“After 101 months of dip buying … the headline reading algos [robot
computer traders] have become programmed in a completely asymmetrical
manner. They are triggered to ‘buy’ on economic/policy good news
(because it implies more profits); but also to ‘buy’ on bad news (because it means more [liquidity] accommodation, and market-support/price keeping actions by the Fed and other central banks.
“But this beneficent arrangement also encourages even prudent
gamblers to minimize the amount of downside hedging insurance they
purchase to protect their often heavily leveraged (through options and
derivatives) book of longs.”
Stockman is warning that markets already are trading at historic
highs, and that no one is paying attention to these extreme valuations
or the economic or political fundamentals – simply because the latter
has become utterly irrelevant, if every small market dip, is immediately
followed by the unbroken elevation of all asset classes (thanks to
Central Bank interventions).
“That is, the gamblers and robo-machines have become so hard-wired to
the expectation that the central banking and fiscal branches of the
state will do ‘whatever it takes’ to keep the stock averages rising,
that it has become irrational to waste time and resources on parsing
‘whatever is going on,’” Instead, writes
Stockman, “it’s all about the chart points, money flows, next in
rotation sectors, ETF buying power, momentum trades and technical
arbitrages, such as embodied in the currently massive risk parity
trades.”
In short, all sensibility to risk (political or credit or any other)
has been expunged by the determination of the Central Banks to keep
asset prices inflating higher. The financial system precisely is looking
the other way — intent on making money “when the going is easy” – and
consequently, any crisis now will create a disproportionate impact on
those levered asset values, magnified by the trades today being all
one-way.
A Zombiefied Trump
Here is the point: Will the political zombiefication of President
Trump satisfy the two party Establishments? Are they mollified enough,
to come together to agree on a budget and a new “clean” debt ceiling
(the “ceiling” arrives on Sept. 29)? And, even if achieved, will
so-called “normalization” of Trump policies really take the U.S. back to
the nirvana of “how things used to be”?
Ostensibly, “normalization” of Trump’s economic policy should be
manageable: Ryan and McConnell would need only to line up a modest
number of Democratic votes (together with Republican foot-soldiers), to
enact a debt ceiling increase. But it may be more complicated – much
more complicated than that:
Should the Democrats cooperate (and they
will want to appear that they are co-operating in order to avoid blame for any subsequent Federal shut-down), it will be only on the basis of “an onerous quid pro quo that
requires Trump to give up the Mexican Wall; tax cuts for the wealthy;
his proposed deep domestic spending cuts, and also to fund the insurance
company bailouts that are needed to forestall drastic premium increases
and coverage cancellations during the 2018 insurance (and
election) year.”
Certainly, the Democrats will present a public face of co-operation,
but such is the angry temper of Washington today (with both sides
looking for a fight), that almost certainly they will require their
revenge pound of flesh cut from Trump’s side. The Freedom Caucus
group of Republicans (which is linked to Bannon) might then jump ship,
leaving the Big Six with either “no ceiling deal” or a
“Democratic”-shaped budget.
Trump tweeted: “I requested that Mitch M and Paul R tie the Debt
Ceiling legislation into the popular V.A. Bill (which just passed) for
easy approval. They didn’t do it so now we have a big deal with Dems
holding them up (as usual) on Debt Ceiling approval. Could have been so
easy-now a mess!”
Axios reports that “top White House and GOP leadership officials tell us [Axios],
the chances of a market-rattling government shutdown are rising by the
day — and were [such] even before Trump threatened at his raucous
Phoenix rally on Tuesday night, to use a shutdown as leverage to get
funding for the [Mexican] border wall.”
Quoting a “top Republican source” who puts the chance as high as 75 percent, Axios adds that “the peculiar part is that almost everyone I talk to on the Hill, agrees that it is more likely than not.”
The Democrats seem determined to remove any provision for “the wall,”
and Trump seems to be spoiling for a fight with the Democrats (and Ryan
and McConnell) on this issue. He has had to acquiesce to being “rolled”
in foreign and defense policy — might he turn, and dig in his heels? He
is already channeling the blame onto the Republican Establishment
leadership.
If so, what price the continuation of a market historic “high” and brimming with complacency?
Russia and China are right to be thinking “worst case” and how to
minimize their exposure to any American cataclysmic descent into
political turmoil – and possible violence."
"Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior
figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is
the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum."
....................
If McConnell wanted to help he would. If Ryan wanted to help he would. There's passive aggressive and then there's what these guys are doing."...