(The Benghazi Death Witch) Go Home Hillwitch, we dont want you here!
Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued, “we don’t need to make America great. America has never stopped being great. … Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers” in a speech after winning Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic primary.
Hillary stated, “[T]omorrow, this campaign goes national. We are going to compete for every vote, in every state. We are not taking anything, and we’re not taking anyone, for granted.”
She further said, “I am so looking forward to working with the Congressman [Jim Clyburn D-SC)], to make the changes and continue the progress, that we can build, on the record and accomplishments of President Obama.”
She later added, “[W]e’re going to start by working together with more love and kindness in our hearts, and more respect for each other, even when we disagree. Despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great. America has never stopped being great. But we do need to make America whole again. Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers.”
Hillary later said, “America isn’t a single issue country, my friends. We need more than a plan for the biggest banks.”
The financial elite have largely remained mute over the ascension of Donald Trump. After he swept the South Carolina primary and picked up 82 delegates, however, The Economist and the Council on Foreign Relations assaulted Trump on the very same day.
The Economist admitted on Saturday Trump is all but unbeatable, but held out a desperate hope the tide may be turned.
The weekly newspaper is owned by the Rothschild banking family of England and the European financial investment company Exor controlled by the Agnelli family that has the largest holdings on the Italian stock exchange.
“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,” according to the editorial board of the newspaper.
The Economist claims 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.”
“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 editorial continues.
The Ohio Governor came in fourth in South Carolina and collected a paltry six delegates. After Kasich’s campaign collapses (he has promised to stay in the race until the primary in his home state of Ohio) the bankers will throw their weight behind the neocon candidate, Marco Rubio.
Benn Steil, a Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Max Boot, a leading neocon and the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the CFR, attacked Trump on the pages of The Weekly Standard over the weekend.
After claiming Trump “is prepared to abrogate America’s commitments” to globalist trade deals and pointing to his vociferous opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Steil and Boot lay out what they consider Trump’s disastrous plan for America. The CFR duo is particularly concerned about Trump’s plan to reduce troop numbers overseas and his criticism of autocratic regimes supported by the United States.
“Trump has already done considerable damage to America’s reputation with his crude, bombastic, and often ugly rhetoric. American standing, as measured both in ‘soft power’ and more traditional realpolitik terms, would suffer far more if he were to become commander in chief,” Steil and Boot write. “A Trump presidency threatens the post-World War II liberal international order that American presidents of both parties have so laboriously built up—an order based on free trade and alliances with other democracies.”
It remains to be seen what the financial elite can do to derail Trump. Articles published in newspapers and magazines read primarily by the elite and their minions will not change the situation.
Political Class Plan to Trash Trump
GOP strategist Roger Stone told Alex Jones last week the elite will pull out all the stops in a bid to halt Trump. They will back Rubio and if he fails to gain traction on Super Tuesday they will re-introduce failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
“$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he’s got to win the Florida primary or he’s out and Mitt Romney’s in,” Stone told Jones. “That’s the plan.”
The Economist, a publication that has come to be regarded as a megaphone for elitist sentiment, has published a leading editorial piece that argues Donald Trump “must be stopped” from winning the presidency.
EntitledTime to Fire Trump, the editorial worries that Hillary Clinton may lose her slight lead over Trump in national polling if the U.S. economy falls back into recession, handing Trump the Oval Office.
“He is so unpredictable that the thought of him anywhere near high office is terrifying. He must be stopped,” states the editorial.
The article goes on to claim that Marco Rubio is still the establishment’s best hope of eclipsing Trump and that Ted Cruz should “get out of his way”.
Trump has prospered “by inciting hatred and violence,” according to the piece, which argues that, “The things Mr Trump has said in this campaign make him unworthy of leading one of the world’s great political parties.”
The Economist, which is 50% owned by the Rothschild banking family of England and is regularly represented at the influential and elitist Bilderberg confab,previously acknowledgedthat a global superclass does conspire to shape the future of the world.
The editorial’s panicked tone again illustrates how not just theRepublican establishment, but the neo-liberal global elite is absolutely petrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency.
As we previously highlighted, during last month’sDavos summit, financial elitists expressed their alarm at the prospect of Trump being the Republican nominee, with highly influentialCEO Martin Sorrell insistingthat “Hillary will win,” a statement that some took as a threat rather than a prediction.
Regular Bilderberg attendee and associate editor of the Financial Times Martin Wolfalso asserted last monththat the “global super elite” must stop Donald Trump from winning the presidency.
“Nativist populists must not win. We know that story: it ends very badly,” wrote Wolf. “In the case of the US, the outcome would have grave global significance. America was the founder and remains guarantor of our global liberal order. The world desperately needs well-informed US leadership. Mr Trump cannot provide this.”
Real-estate magnate Donald Trump held his biggest lead yet in a new CNN poll of Republican primary voters released Monday, a day ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses that he looks set to dominate.
Trump grabbed 49% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters nationally, according to the poll. That put him more than 30 points ahead of Sen. Marco Rubio, who was at 16%, and Sen. Ted Cruz, who was at 15%. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was at 10% in the poll, while Ohio Gov. John Kasich rounded out the Republican field at 6%.
Trump’s number in the poll was up eight points from last month, before the first caucuses and primaries of the election season. Rubio also saw an eight-point jump, while Cruz fell four points in the survey.
The CNN survey provided him with a better standing than other polls recently. According to the RealClearPolitics average of recent national surveys, Trump has about a 16-point lead.
Trump’s rivals are scrambling to prevent him from running away with the Republican presidential nominations after his dominating victories in three of the first four voting states. Trump has strung off three consecutive victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, ahead of Super Tuesday’s contests, in which more than 10 states vote.
The CNN poll found that Trump’s supporters were highly enthusiastic about the election season and largely committed to voting for him. Almost 80% of Trump supporters said they were more excited about voting this year compared to past elections. And almost the same eight in 10 said they would definitely support him, compared with 57% for other candidates.
For as much as we agitate about new endorsements in the presidential race from candidates who’ve dropped out, it’s always worth remembering that people leave the race because they don’t have much support. Chris Christie,who on Friday stunned observers with an endorsement of Donald Trump, left the campaign after the New Hampshire primary — averaging only three percent in the national polls. (Jeb Bush, who was averaging only slightly more, stuck around for one more state.)
In New Hampshire, Christie did slightly better with older and better-educated voters, but generally was appealing to the same voters as Trump, which isn’t really a surprise. When The Post and ABC News surveyed voters in December, there wasn’t a lot of overlap between Christie’s and Trump’s bases in the more-crowded field, perhaps in part because Christie’s support was so shallow.
Christie’s campaign was successful in one regard, though. Unlike Bush, opinions of Christie in the eyes of the electorate steadily improved — not as much as Donald Trump’s, but they still ticked upward. He came into 2015 as the one-time front-runner who’d been battered by the bridge scandal. He came out with a net-positive favorability — still low, but an accomplishment.
What Christie offers Trump, then, isn’t voters, and it probably isn’t the emotional appeal of a beloved character. As the announcement press conference made clear, Christie will over the short term continue to play the other role he played effectively while a candidate: serial bully toward Marco Rubio. More than that, though, he’ll likely also serve as a validator. Not to voters, but to the establishment, which is trying to come to terms with a possible Trump nomination.
Think of it this way.
Chris Christie is a Trump-type (though not quite as Trumpy) who has managed to work with the Republican establishment. He’s a conduit between two worlds, the little girl at the TV in Poltergeist. Christie’s path to that junction was different than Trump’s would be, but he sends a signal to the hand-wringers that Trump has convinced at least one of them that he’s legit.
There is nothing about this that hurts Donald Trump. In the wake of the body blows that Rubio landed Thursday night — which, as with everything in this election, may mean everything or nothing — Trump now has a serious counter-puncher who might also help give pause to the Republican donors who were otherwise set to rain money on Marco Rubio v. 3.0.
Again: It’s impossible to know what happens next. If I’d told you 24 hours ago that Marco Rubio would own Donald Trump in a debate and then Chris Christie would endorse Trump, you’d have been awfully surprised. Who knows what happens in the next 24.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Homeless people have until the end of Friday to vacate a rambling tent city along a busy San Francisco street declared a health hazard by city officials earlier this week.
Sam Dodge, the mayor’s point person on homelessness, said Friday afternoon that about 30 tents remained, down from a high of 140 this winter. The tents have lined both sides of a street under a freeway overpass for months, drawing complaints from residents and businesses.
San Francisco has long had a problem housing its homeless, but tensions have been exacerbated by a shortage of affordable housing amid a tech-based jobs boom.
Earlier this month, a founder of a technology startup posted a letter to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee complaining that he “shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people” on his way to work.
The letter, which went viral, was soundly mocked on social media for its whiny lack of sensitivity but writer Justin Keller is not alone in demanding the city do more about homelessness.
People who live near the tent city, for example, testified at a city hall hearing on Thursday that they were afraid to step outside their homes due to aggressive behavior. The tents are along Division Street, a multi-lane thoroughfare that divides two rapidly developing neighborhoods, the South of Market and Mission districts.
The homeless and their advocates say they need more services and homes for the unhoused. An estimated 3,500 people sleep on the streets of San Francisco each night.
“I’m not going to let somebody run me out of somewhere where I’ve made my home,” said camper Patrita Tripp, as she dished cold beef pasta out of a can earlier this week. “Where am I supposed to go?”
On Friday morning, city workers sprayed bleach and power-washed one side of the street as campers packed up some half-dozen tents. City outreach workers are prodding many to move into a large canopy shelter on Pier 80 that has 150 sleeping mats.
The health department posted notices Tuesday evening, calling the encampments a public nuisance and ordering people to leave within 72 hours. On Thursday, health officials posted a notice for homeless campers to vacate a neighboring area.
It’s uncertain what will happen to campers who refuse the order.