TRUMP SHAKES UP NEW WORLD ORDER

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Mon Mar 7, 2016 | 2:41 PM EST

Foreign diplomats voicing alarm to U.S. officials about Trump

By Mark Hosenball, Arshad Mohammed and Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Foreign diplomats are expressing alarm to U.S. government officials about what they say are inflammatory and insulting public statements by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, according to senior U.S. officials.

Officials from Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia have complained in recent private conversations, mostly about the xenophobic nature of Trump's statements, said three U.S. officials, who all declined to be identified.

RECOMMENDED: U.S. Supreme Court sides with lesbian over parental rights

"As the (Trump) rhetoric has continued, and in some cases amped up, so, too, have concerns by certain leaders around the world," said one of the officials.

The three officials declined to disclose a full list of countries whose diplomats have complained, but two said they included at least India, South Korea, Japan and Mexico.

U.S. officials said it was highly unusual for foreign diplomats to express concern, even privately, about candidates in the midst of a presidential campaign. U.S. allies in particular usually don't want to be seen as meddling in domestic politics, mindful that they will have to work with whoever wins.

Senior leaders in several countries -- including Britain, Mexico, France, and Canada -- have already made public comments criticizing Trump's positions. German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel branded him a threat to peace and prosperity in an interview published on Sunday.

Trump's campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the private diplomatic complaints.

READ MORE: Hulk Hogan takes on Gawker in Florida sex tape trial

Japan's embassy declined to comment. The Indian and South Korean embassies did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for the Mexican government would not confirm any private complaints but noted that its top diplomat, Claudia Ruiz Massieu, said last week that Trump's policies and comments were "ignorant and racist" and that his plan to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration was "absurd."

The foreign officials have been particularly disturbed by the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim themes that the billionaire real estate mogul has pushed, according to the U.S. officials.

European and Middle Eastern government representatives have expressed dismay to U.S. officials about anti-Muslim declarations by Trump that they say are being used in recruiting pitches by the Islamic State and other violent jihadist groups.

On Dec. 7, Trump’s campaign issued a written statement saying that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump subsequently said in television interviews that American Muslims traveling abroad would be allowed to return to the country, as would Muslim members of the U.S. military or Muslim athletes coming to compete in the United States.

There are also concerns abroad that the United States would become more insular under Trump, who has pledged to tear up international trade agreements and push allies to take a bigger role in tackling Middle East conflicts.

“European diplomats are constantly asking about Trump's rise with disbelief and, now, growing panic," said a senior NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"With the EU facing an existential crisis, there's more than the usual anxiety about the U.S. turning inward when Europe needs U.S. support more than ever."

Another of the senior U.S. officials said the complaints are coming mostly from mid-to-low ranking diplomats – described as “working level” - rather than from the most senior officials.

"The responses have ranged from amusement to befuddlement to curiosity," the official said. "In some cases, we've heard expressions of alarm, but those have been more in response to the anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment as well as the general sense of xenophobia.”

More than a hundred Republican foreign policy veterans pledged this week to oppose Trump, saying in an open letter that his proposals would undermine U.S. security.

"A LOT OF QUESTIONS"

On Tuesday, General Philip Breedlove, the United States' top military commander in Europe, said that the U.S. elections were stirring concerns among America's allies.

“I get a lot of questions from our European counterparts on our election process this time in general," said Breedlove, who did not mention Trump by name. "And I think they see a very different sort of public discussion than they have in the past

TRUMP WILL CLOSE THE DEAL OF A LIFETIME.

3 problems Trump must fix to beat Hillary

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

By Michael Goodwin

March 5, 2016 | 11:24pm

Modal Trigger

At the end of “The Candidate,” the  engrossing 1972 film about the underbelly of campaigns, rookie  politician Robert Redford is  shocked by his triumph. Grabbing his handler, he pleads, “What do we do now?”

http://robert-redford.tumblr.com/post/26120460774/iwantcupcakes-the-candidate-1972

In a case of life imitating art, Donald Trump finds himself in a similar situation. His improbable run is rocking and shocking the world, but after each victory, the climb only gets steeper.

The home stretch of the nomination race is going to be ferocious, and if he survives, he faces a general-election war against Hillary Clinton that would be unlike any in modern times.

Is Trump built to go the distance? Can the author of “The Art of the Deal” close the deal of a lifetime?

Yes he can. He can get a majority of delegates and beat Clinton, too. But he’ll have to tone down the juvenile nastiness, flesh out and stick to clear policies and build a national campaign infrastructure. Oh, and he’ll need to spend real money, at least $1 billion, either his own or other people’s.

The list is a tall order, but doable. Moreover, Trump starts this new phase with advantages, not the least of which is a passionately devoted base of support and the fact that he won’t need to make the usual tricky pivot toward the center for the general election.

Despite a hard line on immigration, he’s already close to the center in other ways, with his support for the non-abortion work of Planned Parenthood a prime example. On other conservative litmus tests, including taxes and gun control, his is the most liberal record a Republican front-runner has had in more than half a century, so supporting him in the general wouldn’t be an impossible leap for moderates.

That head start would give him an edge over Clinton, who faces a lot of repair work after she finally dispatches Bernie Sanders. Her drift toward socialism to head him off leaves her far from the center, where most independents are.

But it won’t be easy for her to move right because the Sanders wing, which doesn’t trust or like her, won’t give her a free pass. Those hurdles don’t include the potentially fatal FBI probe hanging over her.

But Clinton is not Trump’s immediate problem — consolidating the fractured Republican Party is. Reports of the GOP’s imminent demise are frequent, but not yet irreversible fact. There is still time for Trump to demonstrate that he is a leader and not just a human wrecking ball.

Roughly speaking, he must fix three problems:

First: His me-me-me ego can be a turn-off to Main Street Republicans who are culturally wary of braggarts, so he needs to talk less about himself and more about the Americans he’s trying to enlist. Off-the-cuff is interesting until he wanders off into the weeds of TrumpLand.

Second: His stumbles and lack of knowledge on foreign affairs give cold shivers to policy and intellectual conservatives. He needs to develop a brain trust that can get him up to speed on major hot spots. Respected advisers can also act as surrogates to comfort others who don’t know or trust a candidate.

And, third: His relationship with congressional Republicans, which is somewhere between frosty and nonexistent. The aim of holding the Senate should be a common ­denominator, especially with the Supreme Court in the balance. As virtual head of his party, Trump would need to keep congressional candidates’ interests in mind.

Now is the time to address those concerns and stop making new enemies. Already he faces upwards of $20 million in negative ads in Florida that aim to hand the winner-take-all delegate pot to Marco Rubio. And there’s talk that Rubio and Ted Cruz will take a dive in Ohio so Gov. John ­Kasich doesn’t have to split the anti-Trump vote there.

The aim is to block him from getting a majority of delegates and set up a contested convention. The weaknesses of the plan are many, including that there is no broadly acceptable alternative to Trump. Mitt Romney would be run out of town by Trump’s voters, and there would be a lasting schism, and a Clinton victory, if a maneuver hands the nomination to a rival who has fewer delegates than he does.

Those factors make consolidation difficult, but necessary. One poll found that 27 percent of GOP voters would pick Clinton over Trump, a shockingly large defection he must prevent.

Luckily for him, he can kill two birds with one stone. In addition to helping him secure the nomination, beginning the hard work of uniting the party would bolster his chances in the fall.

Attracting independents and crossover Democrats is important, but there aren’t enough available, so he needs to unite the GOP and build on it.

By all indications, he realizes as much. At Thursday’s bruising debate, he stressed that he’s a negotiator and that not all his positions are carved in stone, including on immigration, which had to please some who fear he is too dogmatic.

Two days before that, on Super Tuesday night, he held a press conference instead of a victory rally, and threw a change-up instead of a fastball. He was more gracious than usual and talked of uniting the party, leading a very skeptical friend to note that it was the first time he saw Trump looking presidential.

“Look, I’m a unifier,” the candidate said. “I know people are going to find that a little bit hard to believe, but ­believe me, I am a unifier.”

He added: “And we are going to be a much bigger party . . . That hasn’t happened to the Republican Party in many, many decades. So I think we’re going to be more inclusive. I think we’re going to be more unified.”

The numbers make his point. On Super Tuesday, Republican turnout increased by 81 percent, from 4.7 million in 2012 to 8.5 million last week, according to the Wall Street Journal. Trump is clearly the straw stirring the GOP drink for good.

And for bad. In late January, before voting started, Gallup found that he had a 60 percent unfavorable rating among all voters, the highest it has found among any major candidate going back to 1992. By contrast, Hillary Clinton’s highest negative has been 53 percent, and in 2012, President Obama and Romney both maxed out at 48 percent.

Of course, Trump must broaden his base without losing too much of the street-fighter attitude that is key to his appeal. He will have to hold his tongue and control his hyper-competitiveness by reminding himself that the election is about America.

To keep his eye on the prize, he might channel his inner Vince Lombardi, the legendary football coach who also was excellent at closing the deal. “Winning isn’t everything,” Lombardi said, “it’s the only thing.

SIKHS AND MUSLIMS Hold Rally in DC in Support of DONALD J. TRUMP

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Jim Hoft Mar 7th, 2016 12:25 am

Sikhs and Muslims gathered in a suburb of Washington DC this weekend.
They group supports Donald J. Trump for President.

Muslims and Sikhs join the Trump Train–

The group had “Muslims for Trump” and Sikhs for Trump” signs made for the event.

A representative of the Trump campaign addressed the gathering.

The event organizer told reporters, “We agree with Donald Trump” and that, “We should not bring people into the country before we can vet them.”
IBN Live reported on the event.

A group of Sikhs and Muslims mostly from South Asian countries have joined the Donald Trump bandwagon in the US state of Maryland, asserting that the Republican presidential frontrunner is “not against” their communities.

Under the banner of “Sikh Americans for Trump” and “Muslim Americans for Trump” scores of Sikhs and Muslims held their first meeting in a suburb of Washington DC in Maryland, wherein a representative from the Trump campaign addressed them.

Organisers of the event – from both the Sikh and Muslim communities – argued that the view of Trump about minority community has been “twisted” and “taken out of context” by the mainstream media and claimed that the 69-year-old billionaire real estate magnet would create more jobs in the country which would benefit he minorities.

“He (Trump) is not at all against the Sikhs or the Muslim community. What he says is given spin. The mainstream media gives a spin. Because they are scared of him. He is not the status quo. He is not taking anybody’s money,” said Jasdip Singh, who helped organised the “Sikh Americans for Trump” in Maryland.

A prominent member of the Sikh community, Singh is Chairman of the Maryland Governor’s Commission on South Asian Affairs and Chairman of the Board of Sikh Associations of Baltimore.

“When he talks about Muslims, he does not talk about all Muslims or American Muslims. He spoke in the context of the refugee crisis that was happening in Syria. We (Sikhs) agree with him. Muslim (Americans) agree with him that we should not bring people into this country before we can vet them. And this was a temporary measures proposed by him,”Singh said.

Who Is The Real Ted Cruz?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

dailycaller.com

4874047

Vladimir Lenin said, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”

I can’t think of a better description of Ted Cruz’s relationship with the DC-Wall Street Establishment – Cruz being the scoundrel of course. Cruz’s claim of not being a tool of the political elite is like Bill Clinton telling the world, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Webster’s definition of a scoundrel is a dishonest or unscrupulous person, and Cruz has become quite adroit at saying one thing while his history shows him doing the other. Rather than the outsider he claims to be, Ted Cruz is the ultimate insider, former top Bush 41 policy aide and globalist, Ivy Leaguer, and establishment insider.

Not many conservatives coming out of Princeton and Harvard. “I’m just sayin,'” Ted, as said in the debate.

There is no better example of this than Calgary Ted’s actions surrounding the big Wall Street banks and their secret funding of his political ascension. Cruz has been gorging at the table of the ultimate insider of all insiders – Goldman Sachs and Citibank .

You may recall in a recent Fox Business Network debate that Cruz, in Mr. Haney from Green Acres voice, declared to one of the moderators, “The opening question [moderator Jerry Seib] asked — would you bailout the big banks again — nobody gave you an answer to that. I will give you an answer — absolutely not.”

What else would you expect a scoundrel to say who had secretly secured big sweetheart loans from Goldman and Citibank — by leveraging his retirement accounts –– to fund his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign. Loans which the Calgary Ted conveniently forgot to disclose to the Federal Election Commission. These are the very retirement accounts that he said he and his wife said he cashed in to fund his senate race. In other words, Ted lied.

At the same time Ted’s bulging 2016 campaign accounts and supporting Super-PACs are stuffed with big oil and gas money. He knows how to play the game.

And perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy of the native born Canadian is that his spouse, Heidi, by all accounts a lovely wife and mother, has been employed by Goldman Sachs since 2005. She is on leave as managing director and regional head of private wealth management. Heidi is a proud member of the lefty Council on Foreign Relations, advocates of one world government and the New World Order.

Heidi is not a bit player in the Cruz campaign with those credentials but rather an integral part of the campaign’s fundraising efforts. As reported by CNN last year, “She works the phones the way she worked them when she was at Goldman,” said Chad Sweet, the Cruz campaign’s chairman, who recruited Heidi to work at the giant investment bank.”

Yet we are to believe that the big Wall Street banks have no leverage over Ted Cruz? Why didn’t Heidi Cruz resign from Goldman Sachs instead of taking a leave of absence? That’s like saying Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky have had no influence on Barack Obama.

The other inside connection that hits one like a baseball bat is the Bush connection.

Ted was George W.’s brain when he ran for President. A top policy adviser. Ted maneuvered for Solicitor General in Bush World but settled for a plum at the Federal Trade Commission. Ted’s a Bushman with deep ties to the political and financial establishment.

Ted and Heidi brag about being the first “Bush marriage” – they met as Bush staffers which ultimately led to marriage. Cruz was an adviser on legal affairs while Heidi was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice. Condi helped give us the phony war in Iraq.

Also conveniently missing from Heidi’s Wikipedia bio is her service as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative to USTR head Robert Zoellick. At USTR Heidi worked on U.S.-China trade policy- the one Donald Trump talks about so much.

And Chad Sweet, Ted Cruz’s campaign chairman, is a former CIA officer. Michael Chertoff, George W. Bush’s former Secretary of Homeland Security, hired Sweet from Goldman Sachs to restructure and optimize the flow of information between the CIA, FBI and other members of the national security community and DHS. Chertoff and Sweet co-founded the Chertoff Group upon leaving the administration.

A known tactic of the intelligence community is the use of strategic communications as a “soft power” weapon against it adversaries — the creation of false narratives by the effective use of all media — social, digital, newspaper, print, etc. Combined with denial and deception, it can be a potent force. Glenn Beck and Mark Levin are abetting this.

Despite his ability to lie with a straight face (sadly Nixonian) on his support for amnesty and TPP, he got nailed by Senator Marco Rubio on the debate. Acting like a prick in the U.S. Senate was the core of Ted’s disciplined effort to bury his old school ties and reinvent himself as a modern-day Jesse Helms and supposed Conservative outsider. It’s a ruse.

As we get closer to the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, Cruz and his establishment puppet masters are engaged in an aggressive strategy against Trump. The false narrative of course being that Cruz is the outsider while Trump is the insider. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In its most simplistic terms – the power elite have no leverage over Trump – nothing.

Cruz, on the other hand, is the establishments quisling, spawned by the Bushes and controlled by Wall Street, who became a strident “outsider” only four years ago.

The U.S. Constitution does not defined “native born” citizen, nor have the courts. That Ted was eligible  to run for office as a citizen only 15 months ago is weird. Trump’s right the Democrats would have a field day with Calgary Ted, the Manchurian, Canadian Candidate.

Don’t get me wrong. Ted Cruz is a smart, canny, talented guy who has run a great “long race” campaign. He aspires to be Reagan but trust me he’s Nixon. Right down the incredible discipline and smarts playing the political game. Ted Cruz is not who he appears to be. As the bible says, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” In this case we must beware a Canadian bearing gifts.

COMMENTS

West Virginia Lawmakers Override Veto: Permitless Carry ‘Becomes Law In 90 Days’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Getty Images

by AWR HAWKINS6 Mar 20161461

On March 4, the West Virginia House voted to override Governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s (D) veto of permitless carry legislation and on Saturday, March 5, the West Virginia Senate followed suit.

When Tomblin vetoed the legislation–House Bill 4145–he released the following statement:

West Virginia’s law enforcement officers have dedicated their lives to keeping us safe and helping us in times of need, and it’s disheartening that the members of the Legislature have chosen not to stand with these brave men and women – putting their safety and the safety of West Virginians at risk. It’s unfortunate that the concerns of officers from every law enforcement branch in the state, including the West Virginia State Police and university campus police officers, have been ignored by today’s action.

But lawmakers who view the requirement of a concealed carry license as a burden on the exercise of Second Amendment rights saw things differently. WSAZ 3 reports that the Senate override the veto by a vote of 23-11.

The override means persons 21-year-old or older who are not barred from gun possession will be able to carry a gun without permit and persons 18-20 years of age will be able to get a concealed carry permit to carry a gun.

Permitless concealed carry “now becomes law in 90 days.”

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2nd Amendment, Second Amendment, Concealed Carry,constitutional carry, West Virginia,Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, Permitless Carry

Michigan Polls Put Donald Trump Far Ahead Of Ted Cruz, and John Kasich in Fourth Place

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Getty

by MICHELLE MOONS6 Mar 20162966

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton lead with likely Michigan primary election voters, according to two polls released Sunday.

In the GOP primary race, Trump received 41 per cent of support from respondents, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)had 22 percent support, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) received just 17 per cent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich came in at 13 per cent. Only 5 per cent were undecided in the poll. Marist surveyed 482 Republican likely primary voters from March 1 to March 3.

A YouGov/CBS poll released Sunday also showed Trump at 39 percent in Michigan, far ahead of Cruz at 24 percent. Rubio scored 16 percent and Kasich was in fourth place, with 15 percent. The March 2 to March 4 poll included 638 likely GOP primary voters.

The two polls are every different from a poll by American Research Group, released late Saturday, which showed Kasich beating Trump, 33 percent to 31 percent.

That ARG poll was conducted March 4 and March 5, and it shows Kasich doubling his mid-February rating of 17 percent. But the poll was based on a small sample of 284 self-identified Republicans, plus responses from 116 independents and Democrats.

When matched up head-to-head, Cruz does better against Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), according to the Marist survey. Clinton beat Trump 53 per cent to 36 per cent in a hypothetical head-to-head race. Cruz polled better than Trump in these match-ups, losing to Clinton by only 7 per cent, said the Marist poll.

The YouGov/CBS poll showed Clinton beating Sanders, 55 percent to 44 percent, in Michigan. That Democratic poll questioned 597 likely Democratic primary voters, and was conducted March 2 to March 4.

Clinton received 72 per cent of support, far outpacing Sanders’ 22 percent support. Democratic voters were more resolute in their decisions with 72 per cent strongly committed to their chosen candidate, 22 percent somewhat committed and a mere 5 per cent that expressed a willingness to vote differently.

Clinton edges up among African American voters with 76 per cent to Sanders’ 21 per cent. However self-identified independent voters strongly favor Sanders over Clinton by a margin of 27 points. The survey also showed that voters under age 45 backed Sanders, while voters above age 45 favored Clinton.

Sunday night brings a Democratic party debate between Clinton and Sanders in Flint, Michigan.

Voters in Michigan and Mississippi will vote on both Republican and Democratic candidates on Tuesday. Republican candidates also will be up for election in Hawaii and Idaho on that day.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter@MichelleDiana

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton,Bernie Sanders, poll, Michigan, primary election

Politico: The Reagan’s Were ‘Insurgents’ Against the GOP Establishment

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

by BREITBART NEWS6 Mar 2016927

Matt Latimer writes in Politico:

Nancy Reagan never would have considered herself part of the Washington “establishment.” For one thing, she hadn’t lived in this town in decades. More importantly, she had a constituency of one: her beloved husband. And if the DC establishment didn’t like it (they often didn’t) that was too damn bad.

Still it’s hard to miss the symbolism of Mrs. Reagan’s passing—she died Sunday at age 94—coinciding with the final collapse of the Republican ruling class as GOP voters over the weekend anointed one of two antiestablishment outsiders, Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), as their likely new standard bearer. With her death and the eclipsing of the GOP establishment, there is a palpable sense that something in the Grand Old Party—to which Nancy and Ronald Reagan devoted decades of their lives—has been lost forever.

There is more than a little irony to that outcome. Through the last decades of her life, Nancy Reagan tenderly kept her husband’s legacy alive, and his presidency became the altar upon which every GOP aspirant to the White House pledged fealty. But it didn’t play out that way when she actually was in the White House.

Amid the many well-deserved tributes to the former First Lady, it does no injustice to Mrs. Reagan’s memory to recall that she was an unpopular figure in Washington. To the contrary such an acknowledgment puts her accomplishments in proper perspective.

Indeed, the Reagans arrived in Washington in the winter of 1981 as insurgents themselves. A number of Republican leaders had worked against Reagan’s nomination, preferring predictable moderates like George H. W. Bush or seasoned political tacticians such as Senators Howard Baker or Bob Dole. The California governor was an outspoken outsider who preferred a good horse, cowboy hats, and denim to the meaningless blather of DC salons. He said impolitic things like Washington was the problem. Many, including the man he defeated, Jimmy Carter, intimated that he might start a nuclear war.

You can read the rest of the story here.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Nancy Reagan, President Ronald Reagan