Trump vs. the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr

Super Tuesday and Super Saturday came and went. As expected, Donald Trump dominated the competition.

Sort of.

While Trump did exceptionally well in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere in the South, The Donald has stumbled as of late, coming in second to Ted Cruz in a number of recent contests.

Trump will likely expand his delegate lead in the coming weeks. However, he won’t arrive at the Republican convention with enough of them to secure the nomination outright.

If that happens, the oligarchs in the Republican party will do everything they can at the convention to deny Trump that which would rightfully be his.

It’s been rumored that Mitt Romney will be called upon by the establishment to save the Party of Lincoln from being “torn asunder.” Some Republicans say they simply won’t vote for Mr. Trump. Others suggest running a third party “conservative” candidate.

However it shakes out, if reaction to Romney’s anti-Trump press conference held earlier this month indicates anything, it’s that refusing the billionaire from New York the nomination if he has the majority of delegates would literally break the GOP in two.

Before discussing what a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party, let’s backtrack a bit and try to put this man’s candidacy into context. If possible, a Catholic context.

American “exceptionalism”

Since the Second World War but most especially since the early 1990s, a cabal of intellectuals desirous of global empire have hubristically argued that it is America’s duty to advance “freedom” and “democracy” to “the people” of the world, all in the name of bringing about a lasting “peace.”

Of course, when these men speak of “freedom” what they really mean is massive economic inequality and social hedonism. And when these men speak of “democracy” what they truly mean is rigged elections with candidates that they and not “the people” get to pick. (See the U.S.-backed coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014 for evidence of this.)

Syria

Despite the lofty language used to trick Americans into supporting this political pyramid scheme, the reality is that bringing about this so-called “peace” is a dirty business.

For one, the U.S. essentially bribes countries into joining NATO. Economically sanctioning those who refuse to do so.

Two, when leaders from sovereign Middle Eastern nations are no longer viewed as politically useful, they’re αssαssιnαtҽd. Of course, the more diplomatic way to put it is “so and so has to go!”

And three, sustaining American imperialism oversees requires the funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars to Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and providing firearms to “moderate rebels” in countries most people can’t locate on a map.

As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined in an interview, “the powerful of our world, the Western states” support groups like ISIS “indirectly.”

As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands, if not millions, of lives.

The end game, of course, is to pick off Eastern European countries one by one in order to expand NATO (something the U.S. promised decades ago they wouldn’t do) so that “liberal democracy” can be established not only there but also in North Africa and, most importantly, in Russia.

Globalism

Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives.

To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man.

Netanyahu

For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats and Jєωιѕн Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers.

While paying lip service to social conservatism, limited government, constitutionalism and state’s rights these war hawks hijacked the Republican Party and surgically transformed it into a weak-kneed, open borders, bloodthirsty Frankenstein in the service of international elites.

Though insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s reminded folks about the direction this clandestine group of war criminals was leading the country, the monied class acted quickly and decisively. Buchanan’s warnings about 1) the looming culture wars 2) the harm cheap labor abroad would have on the American middle class 3) the problems associated with not securing the border and 4) the debt and death required with being the policeman of the world were easily tamped down, thanks in no small part to the help of the corporate media.

Since that time Americans have had to choose between presidential candidates who, at the end of the day, were nothing more than cogs in the globalist’s wheel.

Enter Trump

Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can’t give specifics to half the things he talks about. And I don’t trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does.

For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.

At the same time, much of his public image is an act, and he has turned out be a shrewder political operator than I expected. No one, and I mean no one, predicted he would have this much success.

People support Trump not necessarily because of his policies but because of what he represents. And what he represents is the frustration ordinary, mostly white, Americans have towards politics in general. More specifically, the antipathy they have towards the feckless politicians the Republican Party has nominated over the past thirty years who have largely failed to halt the social and economic decay of the United States.

Against the neocons

Despite his inconsistency, immaturity and, at times, imbecility, Trump has been clear on several important policies. Policies that can be appreciated from a Catholic viewpoint.

In an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel Mcadams outlines where Trump differentiates himself from the war hawks in his party.

First, according to Mcadams Trump states “the obvious” when he says “the Iraq war was brought to us by the liars of the neoconservative movement” and that it was a “total disaster” for the rest of us who “are forced to pay for their fantasies of world domination.”

Second, Trump wants to “actually speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to see if US/Russia differences can be worked out without a potentially world-ending nuclear war.”

Third, although Trump is “arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel” he is “nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role in the Israel/Palestine issue…the US side should…take a neutral role in the process.”

Fourth, Trump is also calling out the “idiotic neocon advice” that resulted in the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Lybia that has led to “the red carpet” being “laid down for ISIS” in that failed state.

And lastly, Trump is “suggesting that it may be a good thing that Russia be bombing ISIS into oblivion and that we might want to just sit back and let that happen for once.”

Push back

Predictably, the ruling class disdains each and every one of these positions. And for good reason.

By talking about the Iraq War and claiming Bush lied about it, Trump reminds us about the back room dealings and costs, both human and monetary, spreading  “freedom” and “democracy” necessarily entails. And by drawing attention to the disastrous situation in Libya, Trump shines light on the foolishness of nation building abroad and the need to nation build at home. Obviously, all of this causes voters to have a less favorable view of foreign intervention in the future.

By painting Putin as a potential ally instead of a “thug,” Trump de-programs Americans from thinking of the Russian President as Josef Stalin re-incarnated. It also disabuses ordinary citizens from seeing everything through an us-versus-them prism. Having a villain to point at evokes patriotism at home and affirms Americans in the moral right-ness of the pursuit of spreading “liberty.” Neocons have long understood this. And Trump could potentially reverse that paradigm.

Furthermore, by taking a “neutral” stance towards Israel, Trump is indicating that he may put American interests ahead of Zionist interests. In other words, Trump would likely approach the Middle East in a way that holds Israel to the same moral standards as others. Realizing that this may result in an American president who refuses to be silent about the terrorist attacks Israelis commit against Palestinians on an almost daily basis, the globalists and their cronies in the media have been quick to compare Trump with, you guessed it, Adolf Hitler.

Going forward

Neoconservatives, in short, are apoplectic over a possible Trump presidency. His success could mean their demise, if only for a short while.

To be sure, it is difficult to know who Trump would surround himself with if he were to win the presidency. Would he call up Henry Kissinger? Would he seek the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations? I don’t know.

But what I do know is that as of right now Trump appears to have all the right enemies. Enemies that include the neo-Catholic neocon community. Read here.

Now, don’t expect the elites to go silently into the night. The attacks in the coming days and weeks will only get more vicious. We’ve already seen how quickly they brought up “the 1930s.” Additionally, more than 100 self identified “members of the Republican national security community” have signed an open letter excoriating Trump for his foreign policy views, adding that they are “united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency.”

Unsurprisingly, some of them have said they would support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic neocon, instead of Trump in the general election.

So much for party loyalty.

In brief, a Trump nomination means the internationalists would no longer dictate the terms of America’s economic and foreign policy. Moreover, if Trump arrives at the Republican convention with the majority of delegates and is denied the nomination, it will be clear to all that we live in country that is anything but a democracy.

Indeed, far from being a “breaking” of the GOP in two, wouldn’t a Trump victory be nothing more than a re-calibration of the party to what it stood for historically? A party that serves the will of the American people instead of the global elites?


https://akacatholic.com/trump-vs-the-new-world-order/

The opposition to Trump is just a ruse so that those he is trying to con (the rednecks, middle class and fringe) will more vehemently want him to win.  Trump is as part of the establishment as Bush was, if not more.  He's only an "outsider" in the sense that he's never been a policitian before, so he's not part of the politician club, though he's part of the larger NWO club, which includes some politicians.  Based on ideology and goals, he's a NWO guy 100%.

From this article, it seems as if Trump is anything but a partisan of NWO. They are trying to figure out how to stop him.

http://www.thewrap.com/gop-and-tech-leaders-hold-secret-meeting-to-stop-trump/

 :detective:

Enter Trump

Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can’t give specifics to half the things he talks about. And I don’t trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does.

For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.

The article referenced above is here:

Donald Duce
By ROD DREHER • March 4, 2016, 12:25 AM
   
If you watched tonight’s GOP debate and are still confident in your decision to support Donald Trump, then you and I live on the same planet, but in different worlds. Tonight was a disaster for Trump. There can no longer be any doubt of these things:

1. That he is a thoroughly untrustworthy character. The Trump University debacle was devastating to him tonight. He had no plausible answers at all for the damning facts against him, just bluster and name-calling. Rubio and Cruz were merciless against Trump on his hypocrisy on foreign workers and American jobs. Plus, he looked comically evasive on the question of the New York Times off-the-record transcript. He plainly told the Times editorial board off the record that he doesn’t mean what he says on immigration. If you believe otherwise after tonight, you will believe anything.

2. That he will say anything to get elected. I am not sure if this is intentional. I think he says anything that comes to mind.

3. That he comes across as temperamentally unsuited to hold the presidency. He can’t take criticism, and can’t answer his critics with anything but the heat of a flaming gasbag. How can we trust someone so unstable with the power to start a war? When Rubio rattled him, he called him “Little Marco” — a remark that did not make Rubio look small, but rather Trump.

None of this is new, of course. But all of it came through with such force in tonight’s debate that it was finally impossible to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. He fell apart under attack.

The decisive moment for me, though, was when Trump insisted — and later repeated — that if he gave an illegal order to the US military, that they would follow it. He was proud of this! This is a man who cannot be counted on to respect the rule of law, and would even be willing to cause a constitutional crisis over it.

As regular readers know, I have a lot of sympathy for people who like Trump, and I have been grateful to Trump for some of the things he has done in this campaign (most especially for breaking the ridiculous GOP taboo on criticizing the Iraq War). I do not pity the Republican Party its travails over Trump, because it deserves to be cold-cocked over its misrule. Here’s the thing, though: there are millions of people who believe in Donald Trump, and who believe that he will do the things he says. Many of them have been let down by life. They’re scared of the future, and they have reason to be. They don’t believe that the Republican Party has their back, and they’re probably right about that.

What happens if Donald Trump is elected president, and can’t deliver on his gaudy promises? There’s no way he’s going to be able to do the things he says. Being president of the United States is not like running your own company. Trump doesn’t even know his own mind. Every time he got in trouble in tonight’s debate (which was a lot), he quickly retreated to Trumpenprinzip: the obnoxious assertion that Trump is the best leader because he’s got the best polling numbers. He’s a man who believes that the truth is what he says it is. If he becomes the next president, and if — no, when — he betrays all the people who voted for him believing he was a man of his word, a man who would be for them, things are going to get very ugly, very fast in this country.

What a ridiculous spectacle the Republican Party has become. Watching tonight’s debate in front of a hooting mob of goons was to witness genuine decadence. Read John Cassidy’s New Yorker piece — written before tonight’s debate — about why he thinks the GOP establishment’s #NeverTrump efforts are going to fail. Excerpts:

In rallying disaffected Republicans and independents, he has identified a set of internal contradictions in the G.O.P. that no amount of negative advertising can conceal. And rolling out somebody like Romney only highlights these contradictions.

For decades now the Republican Party has been appealing to low-income and middle-income whites while promoting an economic agenda that runs contrary to their interests: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, free trade, deep cuts to entitlement programs, and so on. Trump, who is hawking a tax plan that he appears to have ordered up at short notice from Art Laffer or Larry Kudlow, can be accused of adopting the same bait-and-switch tactics, but taxes aren’t central to his campaign. In promising to end illegal immigration and impose hefty tariffs on good from countries like China and Mexico, he can, at least, claim to be pursuing an agenda that would boost American wages and save American jobs.

Would his strategy work? Probably not. But in talking about safeguarding Social Security, forcing pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices, preventing people who don’t have health insurance from dying in the streets, and eliminating tax breaks that favor hedge-fund and private-equity managers (such as Romney), Trump is using the language of economic populism in a manner that none of his Republican rivals can match. Beholden to their campaigns backers, they are forced to confine themselves to the standard guff about cutting taxes, loosening regulations, and encouraging enterprise. At this late stage, many none-too-affluent G.O.P. voters appear to be smelling a rat.

He goes on to quote reformist Republican Reihan Salam’s recent piece saying that the GOP really hasn’t done jack for working-class people, and that it needs to make substantive policy changes to “reinvent itself as the champion of America’s working- and middle-class families.” Cassidy is skeptical that Republican politicians can do that because it would require them to go against the interests of their deep-pocketed donors.

And there’s this:

As New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait commented on Twitter on Thursday, “#NeverTrump, at its core, is people satisfied that the Republican Party is fundamentally sound.” And that, in the final analysis, is why they are unlikely to be able to see off Trump’s insurgency.

Read the whole thing. If you watched that bizarre spectacle in Detroit tonight and believed that the Republican Party is in any way sound, you should consider that Trump voters aren’t the only Republicans prone to magical thinking. Consider: after doing an effective job showing that Trump is a reckless mountebank who would threaten American democracy, Cruz and Rubio agreed at debate’s end that they would support him if he’s the nominee — thereby massively undermining their argument.

Trump, with his remarks on being willing to deliver illegal orders to the US military, and expecting them to obey, revealed himself to be a man in search of a balcony. They would campaign for Donald Duce? Really? That being the case, how bad do they really think Trump is? Or does party matter more than principle? It’s crazy — just think of how much good either Rubio or Cruz could have done for their candidacies by refusing to support nominee Trump. They’re trying to convince Republican voters that Trump is a mortal threat to the GOP and to America itself … but in the end, they’ll fall in line behind him, if he gets the nomination.

That’s leadership?

Consider: after doing an effective job showing that Trump is a reckless mountebank who would threaten American democracy, Cruz and Rubio agreed at debate’s end that they would support him if he’s the nominee — thereby massively undermining their argument.

Trump, with his remarks on being willing to deliver illegal orders to the US military, and expecting them to obey, revealed himself to be a man in search of a balcony. They would campaign for Donald Duce? Really? That being the case, how bad do they really think Trump is? Or does party matter more than principle? It’s crazy — just think of how much good either Rubio or Cruz could have done for their candidacies by refusing to support nominee Trump. They’re trying to convince Republican voters that Trump is a mortal threat to the GOP and to America itself … but in the end, they’ll fall in line behind him, if he gets the nomination.

That’s leadership?

I don't think they were specific enough in their responses to warrant this assessment.

I heard a position from a media person (don't remember who) which was more precise. That individual said that in no way would he ever vote for Trump, but he also would not be promoting a 3rd party candidate which would all but guarantee a Clinton victory.

I took the debate question to be a pledge not to support a 3rd party candidate, not an endorsement of Trump.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Third, although Trump is “arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel” he is “nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role in the Israel/Palestine issue…the US side should…take a neutral role in the process.”

The man who stands in front of the Jєωιѕн Coalition Forum and proclaims that he personally "knows everyone in this room", who did a commercial for "Bibi" Netanyahu's campaign, and who says he doesn't know any other leaders of neighboring Arab countries is not going to be neutral. He just doesn't want to come to the negotiating table with a long history of bashing the Palestinians.

The man stood in front of Aipac and said publicly that their problem is that they want to buy their politicians and he doesn't want their money. Please tell me who we can possibly hope to have the guts to do this...even if you try to downplay this as some sort of theatrics, it dopesn't make sense because what he said brought a lot of unwanted negative attention to Aipac. Nobody accuses them of bribing and manipulating 'democracy' and publicly at that. I mean seriously, who does this while campaigning. At this point to be adamantly opposed to a Trump presidency is one of those situations where you kinda get what you asked for. Don't complain when war breaks out with Russia and the Middle East when one of these puppets gets in and goes after Assad, as is pretty much openly proclaimed by all these psychopaths running.

Trump for President :ready-to-eat: