Look who is calling on GOP leaders to revoke their endorsements of Donald Trump!, Obama, the great clumsy Inspector Clouseau of all time foreign policy, this title fits his role in the White House since he has had no sense of what he wanted to do in the world as his foreign policy has not been leading anywhere but nowhere. Hey inspector, you are the last person on earth, whom with 8-years record of totally failed policies, the GOP members want to even listen to! Donald Trump responded to Inspector’s call, saying he has been a failed leader who along with secretary HRC created a foreign policy that has destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi, made not only the region but the whole world unsafe, and concluded both of them are unfit to be president.
The democratic machine backed by the corrupt DNC, whose conspiracy against Sanders to make him the loser in the Primary election has been exposed by Wikileaks, and the Clouseau administration that are responsible for the last 8 years of failing of not only the U.S. but the whole world in all grounds, cunningly and insidiously are running a fixed election with the support of mercenary Medias to put their pathological liar, an inept slacker, and a dangerous-to-national-security, nominee, the criminal HRC, in the White House. America needs to wake up and stand against the on-going corrupt system to protect the endangered democracy and the will of the people, as they say, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves”. Democratic Party and their members under the guidance of the Clouseau administration have become the Muslim ass kissers; they misuse a Pakistani Muslim family in their conventional propaganda to create a bizarre ado about nothing in order to contempt the other Party and its nominee!
I am neither a republican nor a democrat, furthermore personally I am not a fan of Trump but what he said about the Islamic terrorists was in no way disrespect to the Muslim family and their son. However so long as there are American leaders like Inspector Clouseau in the White House and his former Secretary of State, the HRC, who in fact care for Islam more than Muslims themselves (as Persian proverb says,” A bowl which is hotter than the soup”) to the point of undermining the very driving force behind the act of terrorism across the globe, the Islamic ideology, we cannot expect the Islamic societies to unbiasedly confront the issue of Islamic terrorism.
The situation becomes more chaotic when the republican leaders join this coward voice of “Political Correctness” to appease the ideology of Islam and its followers. To those, including Clouseau administration, DNC and its members, and all republicans, who think that these barbarian acts of terror all around the world has nothing to do with Islam, I say “you are burying your heads in the sand”. The core of Islam is founded on Quran, without this book there is no Islam. There are 164 Jihad verses in Quran that are associated with the offensive war commanded to kill the pagans and humble, the Christians, and Jews, which is what is still in force today and are pursued by Muslims, allegedly radical Islamists. For genuine and authentic Muslims, religion is their everyday policy of life, and their everyday policy of life is nothing other than their religion. This is the point that the followers of “Political Correctness” are undermining.
So, why so much denial and perseverance on using “Political Correctness”? We have to go back to the “nation of sheep and government of wolves” notion to find the truth. It is because the western hegemony wants to accredit the imbecilic nations around the world by putting the Islamic chains around their necks as their slave puppets so that they can abuse their human/civil rights and facilitate plundering their natural wealth. What the puppeteers have undermined all along is the scenario when this “Political Correctness” becomes counterproductive and starts to backfire on them. Hasn’t the backfire already started to ignite?! [DID]
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama skewered Donald Trump on Tuesday over his criticism of the parents of a Muslim U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq and said the Republican presidential nominee is unfit to succeed him in the White House. Mr. Obama, responding to a question at a news conference, also called on GOP leaders to revoke their endorsements of Mr. Trump rather than simply denounce his comments. “The Republican nominee is unfit to be president,” Mr. Obama said. “He keeps on proving it.
“The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job,” the president added.
In a statement, Mr. Trump linked his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, to the president’s record. “They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office,” Mr. Trump said. Read more…
The FBI director James Comey scrapped so many of the talking points that Hillary Clinton has used over and over again throughout her email scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”
While Clinton ducked a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will trail her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was synonymous to a political indictment. [DID]
With the 571 undemocratic votes of super delegates, yesterday Hillary Clinton was boosted up to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. While in reality she has earned only 2184 democratic pledged delegates, which is 199 votes short from the 2383 votes needed for nomination. Since there is only one primary (DC with 46 delegates) left, which will be held in June 14, none of the democratic candidates would be able to claim the nomination, and as a result the party nomination should be decided in the contested convention. But this is a capitalist country and money plays the main role in almost every aspect of life particularly in any critical decision making concerning politics. The story of super delegate and the undemocratic boosting Hillary to get the unfair nomination is just an example, and like it or not, she is probably going to get even more boosted to be the next U.S. President.
If that happen Hillary would not only fail the presidency but she will also let the country down. Here I explain the rationale behind my statement in case you wonder why that may be the case. Everybody who is seeking a job is judged by his/her resume. Let’s take a glance at Hillary’s resume when she was the Secretary of State. She has had a long history of abusing the public’s trust, on her email scandal she pleaded innocence but nearly every major editorial board in the country questioned Clinton’s motives, noting her long history of secrecy. Her foreign policy record is abysmal, from trying to reset relations with Russia, something she later called a “brilliant stroke” that has been an utter failure, to advocating for a war in Libya that has triggered a crisis in destabilizing the region and resulting floods of refugees to Europe. From Libya to Syria, and to Iran, her foreign policy in the Middle East has been a failure. Office of Inspector General has released a management alert detailing rampant mismanagement within the State Department during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure. The State Department gives away over a billion dollars of taxpayer money annually in grants. The management alert warned that the State Department had mismanaged over $6 billion.
Hillary’s political and family finances have been under scrutiny, in particular her ties to Wall Street as donation sources for her political campaign, public speaking appearances, her foundation, and her family members. Hillary is terrible on domestic policies too. Her policies matches up seamlessly with Obama’s including ensuring China would buy U.S. debt to fund the stimulus, raising taxes on businesses, jobs outsourcing and crowd out domestic industries, opposing new sanction on Iran, and downplaying major issues like Keystone. In short, a Clinton presidency would serve as a third term for Obama. [DID]
And lo, it came to pass: As of last night, Hillary Clinton is officially the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States. Setting aside her party’s elite “super delegate” insurance policy, Clinton has now secured a majority of pledged delegates, which reflect the will of primary voters. And despite falling to Bernie Sanders in a startling 23 nominating contests, the former Secretary of State has attracted roughly 3.7 million more votes than the Vermont Senator nationwide.
The fact that Clinton failed to clear this hurdle until the very last day of balloting underscores her profound weakness as a candidate. She enters the general election stage of the campaign as one of the most disliked and distrusted political figures in America, and one of the least popular presidential nominees of all time. Despite his even uglier public image and endless parade of divisiveness and insults, the Republican nominee-in-waiting only trails her by an average of two percentage points at this stage of the race, inside the margin of error. Several weeks ago, a Democratic operative basked in the afterglow of Donald Trump’s effective nomination victory, crowing on Fox News that the GOP had selected “exactly the candidate they deserve.” Ironically, both Trump’s strong backers and detractors on the right would likely agree with this statement, albeit for different reasons. This week, the same formulation applies to the Democrats. They’ve chosen the corrupt, opaque, power hungry, self-serving, aloof, greedy, politically soulless, congenital liar they so richly deserve. Read more…
If you are searching for an undemocratic election in the world, you don’t have to go to a third-world-nation country in Africa or to a theocratic State in Middle East such as the apocalyptic Mullahs’ regime in Iran to find one. You just need to look into the process of the U.S. presidential election. The election is structured through pledged delegates that outwardly delivers based on the grassroots votes, but next to it there is Super-Pacs-Super-Delegates system that literally has the power to shape the election outcome for the benefit of the top 1% wealthy. In plain English, Super Pacs work as lobby mediators between the wealthy that own and control the corporations and the party Super Delegates whose unbound votes determines the fate of the candidates. Strictly speaking, the political election is run by the rich investors and corporate owners, they are the ones who buy the votes and accordingly appoint the political authorities from reps and senators to governors and presidents. Based on 2015 American Values Survey, 64% Americans believe their vote does not matter because of the influence that wealthy individuals and big corporations have on the electoral process.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a contributor to Vanity Fair writes “Virtually all U.S. Senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift — through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price — it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.” Read more…
The problem is the misunderstanding the definition of Muslim. A Muslim is the one who does the deeds instructed by Quran. The Western Medias and the political correctness have divided Muslims into two categories: Radical Muslims and Moderate Muslims, because they are paid by interest groups like Oil and Banks Cartels to do that. However in reality, there is no such group as Moderate Muslims but they are the ones who have followed the path they inherited from their parents. These groups never showed interest to open their Quran to see what is really written in there. Over time the habit of this lack of interest of theirs to open the book has turned into a superstitious fear of doing so. The extent of their knowledge about Quran and Islam has sufficed to what has been transferred to them by the parenthood and what they hear from religious leaders. Their only contact with Quran comes along when they need to pray, in which they hold the closed book with their both washed hands while bowing and kissing the tome, a sign of respect for the book, proceeded by expressing their prayers.
So when we hear about the term “Moderated Muslims”, we have to realize that these passive groups are naive about Islam and have no clue what really Islam is all about, their concepts of Islam do not go beyond the impression “Islam is a religion of peace” their parents have had from Islam. For this reason I don’t call them Muslims at all, they are some group who unknowingly lost in whatever they are blindly pursuing as Islam. They and Their parents never did open the Quran to get its real message!
Therefore, when we talk about Muslims, we actually talk about those who believe in Islam by really making time to read and follow the instructions given in Quran. These groups know that there are 164 Jihad Verses in the Quran, because they have reviewed the Quran. They know that there were 3 stages during the evolution of Islam, stage one in Mecca, in which there was no retaliation, stage two in Medina that were along with defensive fighting, and stage three after conquering Mecca that were associated with the offensive war commanded to kill the pagans and humble, the Christians and Jews. In this last stage of Quran evolution, aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers is commanded and since this is the final teaching of the Quran regarding Jihad, it is what is still in force today. This last stage of developmental process of Islam is exactly the Quran Instruction the Muslims, allegedly radical, are pursuing today as part of their Jihad against infidels. In short there are no Moderate Islam and Radical Islam; there is just one Islam, which is Radical. [DID]
After winning four pivotal presidential primaries on April 26, Hillary Clinton drew a line between “hard working, terror-hating Muslims” and (Muslim) terrorists.
In front of a raucous audience of supporters in Philadelphia, Clinton – the presumptive presidential candidate for the Democratic Party – only made mention of Muslims in relation to terrorism, and reaffirmed the mythic “good versus bad” Muslim paradigm.
Muslim Americans were either “terror-hating” or terrorists, slotted into one of these two caricatured categories with no space in between, or existential affiliation beyond.
Video Clip: UpFront – Muslim Americans and US liberal values
The ‘good Muslim’Within the broader context of counter-radicalization policing, whereby local law enforcement monitor Muslim spaces through electronic surveillance and the seeding of informants, Clinton’s rhetoric presented Muslim Americans with an already familiar, yet never more threatening, ultimatum: choose the moderate brand of “terror-hating” Muslim identity sanctioned by the state, or be branded with the suspicion that invites its scrutiny, surveillance, and civil liberties infractions.
Much ink, many film reels, and an infinite number of news headlines have focused on bad Muslims.
From terrorists to dictators, foreign transgressors to fabricated threats, Muslim identity is marred by almost every imaginable negative stereotype and menacing trope. Representations of good Muslims, in every medium, are few and far between. Read more…
There is no argument about the Obama’s foreign policy that has not been leading anywhere but nowhere. Nonetheless when it comes to Iran, history shows this matter is apart from any presidency decision at a time, rather it is embedded within the long term policy of the U.S. governance system. This is because Iran has always been a critical point of geopolitical interest for the United States.
During the cold war era, as a resolution to stop the expansion of communism in the Middle East, U.S. along with its European allies, in a Conference in France in January 1979, came to conclusion to establish a green belt under the Soviet Union border by promoting and supporting the anti-atheist Islamic theocrats to take over the government in Iran. Since then the Mullahs’ regime has shown its extreme domestic and global atrocities in at least three fronts, act and support of terrorism, meddling in neighboring countries, and grave human rights violation against its own people.
During the past almost four decades, six U.S. presidents have been the bystanders of the regime’s shocking security threats across the region and the globe and yet not a single countermeasure against it has been instituted. Over time it has become more evident that such inaction and indifference of U.S. presidents has nothing to do with any individual U.S. government’s lack of will in responding to these unprecedented threats but has emanated in long term U.S. policies, which sought strategies far into future. These long term policies, per domestic and global necessities, are usually modified or changed over the course of a decade or so and has little to do with a single U.S. government’s dogma at a time.
About four decades of appeasing Iran policy has been carried out by six U.S. presidents. Regardless of the Iranian grassroots discontent, they have made all the supportive efforts they could to keep the mullahs’ regime well and alive. Why?, because firstly, the neocolonialism loves to deal with imbecilic Islamic mullahs whom at the very least, per their Sharia among other things, are against the nationalism, a key-code and an invitation card for an easy foreign aggression. And secondly, the apocalyptic IRI regime can easily be used as a wrecking ball to do the U.S. dirty job of destroying the region. How long this policy will continue? is it going to change at all? if so, when? All the evidence suggests that for no less than another term of the U.S. presidency, regardless of whoever is the next U.S. president, the ongoing chaos in Middle East is not only going to continue but will spread all over the region in general and to Iran in particular. Remember this is part of the long-term U.S. geopolitical strategy in the Middle East, which tends to change the current regional borders once established by the Sykes–Picot agreement, exactly a century ago. [DID]
At least now the betrayal is out in the open.
For years, Syria’s revolutionaries have suspected America’s lack of meaningful support for their uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad was tied to President Barack Obama’s desire to re-engage with Iran.
Iran is Assad’s primary patron (though Russia, which has been bombing on his behalf since September, is a close second). Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are fighting in Syria, as are soldiers of Iran’s proxy Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, along with Shia irregulars from Afghanistan and Iraq whose passage to Syria Iran facilitates.
Defeat for Assad held the prospect of dramatically weakening Iran’s influence in the Middle East, a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy for decades—until Obama changed it.
In a remarkable New York Times Magazine profile, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, does not explicitly link Obama’s abandonment of Syria with Washington’s outreach to Iran, but he frames the importance Obama placed on rapprochement with Iran in a way that makes it difficult to avoid concluding the two were connected. Read more…
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans — tonight I look around this room and I see two types of people. My friends who want to make America great again, and the rest of you losers who were too stupid to vote for me. I mean, seriously; I won…you didn’t…and that’s why you’re down there in the loser pit because you didn’t have what it takes to be a winner like me.
Now, America is going to win because I won and I will make it happen.
So to all you losers tonight I say this: You’re fired. No, no. Stop laughing. I’m not joking. You’re fired. Go home. Take a vacation to Loser Island. I don’t need you here. America doesn’t need you here. I don’t need you to make America great again. I don’t need a bunch of losers in Congress talking about rules, and procedures, and votes, and filibusters, and closure or cloture or whatever it is you in the Senate use to avoid making decisions. All these things just get in the way. I don’t need them.
So how am I going to make America great again? Easy. I have a plan and the best people. I only hire the best people. I don’t tolerate anything but the best. I fire losers. I will take those plans and make them a reality. We are going to start winning again in so many places. It will be great. And it will be very fast. And the Congress will only get in the way and slow things down. Read more…
The GOP has become a two-headed albino King snake, whose heads sometimes fight with each other try to steal food from one another, one head signifies the GOP nomination and the other one characterizes the GOP establishment. A day after his triumph in Indiana primary presidential election, Trump becomes the presumptive GOP nominee. Since then many high-ranking party officeholders are already running as fast as they can away from Trump. Defiant Trump claims he can win without backing of Republican leaders and says party doesn’t need to show united front.
GOP party leaders in the Senate are telling his colleagues that it’ll be OK for them to run against their own party’s nominee during the general election. They believe that GOP would be better off with 4 years of democratic nominee in the White House rather than having to face the outcome of a disgrace party by the President Trump. The republican establishment doesn’t need to figure out how to fail the general election. Lack of support of two groups of voters for Trump, the Latinos and the women along with the broken and disunited party and also the Democrat’s popularity factor among black voters all guarantee the Democratic nominee to be the next U.S. President.
The Republican Party establishment has begun digging its own grave by actually allowing the party to be stolen away from them. The problem with the GOP party is the fact that it has long been carried on at status quo, holding to their rigid political ideals and old traditional leaders, while ignoring the rapidly changing world. What the Republicans need is to reshape their party structure by introducing trustworthy young and innovative talents who could pump fresh blood in the system and bringing new ideas to the party that can be used to tackle the current challenges of today’s generation. [DID]
It wasn’t precisely an act of moral courage, but House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s (Wis.) comment that he’s not ready to support presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump was at least . . . something.
Whether it’s a start or a finish remains to be revealed, but it would seem that we’re witnessing the beginning of the end. To wit: A Republican friend, who has abandoned her behind-the-scenes work of getting conservatives elected, called me recently to express her condolences. “I feel sorry for you,” she said, “because you (given your job) can’t ignore the collapse of Western civilization.”
Now a renegade from the nominating process, she is like so many others disillusioned by the Trump movement who’ve slipped the noose of politics in search of meaning beyond the Beltway. But Trump’s triumph, though most insiders thought it impossible, should have surprised no one. He was inevitable not because he was The One but because he’s a shrewd dealmaker with deep pockets and unencumbered by a moral compass. Both his platform and style were crafted to fit the findings of extensive polling he commissioned before announcing his run. Read more…
As we get closer to the end of the 2016 primary presidential election, I am more convinced that my prognosis about the outcome of this epic, which I made on March 25th, can turn out into a reality. The direction of the 2016 presidential election has been engineered in a bipartisan context, using all the resources at their disposal from GOP and DNC elites to super pacs and super delegates to core members of insiders and outsiders, to stop-Trump movement (!), to public figures and left-to-right mainstream Medias, in order to make sure that Donald Trump would be the GOP nominee. That may be the bad part, but the worse starts when you find out that the intention behind this marathon is not for Trump to be the U.S. President, and the only reason for paving the path for him to be the GOP nominee is to make sure that the Democratic nominee will get to be the next U.S. president, how so? Well according to all kind of polls the GOP nominee Donald Trump will lose the national presidential election to any democratic nominee by 2-digit points (by an average of 15%), these polls have consistently been (±3 error) precise. The underlying rationale behind such poll result, at the very least, is the lack of support of two groups of voters for Trump, the Latinos and women, and also the Clinton’s popularity factor among black voters.
So, why the U.S. political stage is getting prepared for at least another four years of democratic presidency? Well the answer is embedded in U.S. overall domestic and foreign policy change, since Obama has taken over the White House. Health care reform, climate change agreement, clean energy pact, planned parenthood policy, free college education, income inequality policy, gun control order, drone war policy & special operation versus boots on the ground, investment in myriad public services, immigration reform act, Cuba policy change, and Iran’s nuclear agreement are some of the policies that has been initiated during Obama’s presidency however not fully executed.
The cost of changing these policies is humongous and beyond the current capacity of U.S. treasury, which already is under about 20 trillion dollars deficit. It is interesting to mention that most of these policies are relatively in parallel to the cohesive order carried out by European socialist states, which raise the question: has United States already started changing its political/social track? If so, then those policies necessitate growing deep and get rooted in the mainframe of the American society for reshaping the way people live, which requires the continuation of at least another 4 years of Obama legacy. Thus America would soon be witnessing the germination of the giant seed of the social democrats, and accordingly the melt down of the current republican political structure for good.
P.S.: This prognostication can still be valid in case some other candidate rather than Donald Trump, like Tom Cruz, happened to be the GOP nominee through contested convention. Remember the polls shows that the democratic presidential candidate senator Bernie Sanders can easily defeat every republican candidate by a significant margin, which justifies why Sanders tends to continue staying in the race to the end of the primaries in spite of the fact that Hillary Clinton is about 800 delegates (including about 500 super delegates) ahead of him, and needs only 218 more delegates to win the nomination. This could be nothing more than a last minute strategy adjustment for the democratic party (i.e., super delegates are unbound by the voters and can switch their votes anytime they like).[DID]
Donald Trump gave his much-anticipated foreign policy speech at an event hosted by the Center for the National Interest today. It was contradictory in parts and repeated standard Republican criticisms of President Obama, but there was a clear message that is consistent with what Trump has said before. It was not the shift in substance that some predicted. There were several notable takeaways, most of which confirmed what we already knew.
- Trump will end U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia
Trump was more specific than usual about his beef with America’s allies. He said,
“We have spent trillions of dollars over time—on planes, missiles, ships, equipment—building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense—and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.”
Trump is not asking them just to increase their defense budgets to 2 percent of GDP (a long-standing U.S. claim), nor is he asking them to pay a greater share of overseas bases. Read more…
My concern about Donald Trump being as the GOP nominee is fourfold, first it is with his trustworthiness, he blasts companies like Ford and Apple for manufacturing products outside the United States. He even threatened to stop eating Oreo cookies after he learned some production was moving to Mexico. But Trump does the same thing, his signature men’s dress shirts and ties are made in China, Bangladesh or “imported,” meaning they were made abroad. The Trump university lawsuit shows another trouble-example with his credibility, a hearing has already been schedule by the Judge in July 18, 2016. In the filing, the Trump University is accused of “persistent fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct,” false advertising, “operating an unlicensed private school,” refusing to provide mandated refunds, and other misdeeds.
Second, Donald Trump and the religious right are an unexpected match and his nomination could change the core trend of the republican party for good, a catalyst to loosen the stiffness of the establishment, which GOP may be in need of after all.
Third, trump’s ambitious presidential bucket list, such as rejecting NATO alliance may sound a bit naïve, an indication of lack of understanding of global order that has governed the world since the end of World War II to deter interstate conflict and thus maintaining global stability. Furthermore Trump’s primary objective in foreign policy is to extract cash from allies, he decries that the U.S. is protecting Saudi Arabia and not being properly reimbursed for every penny that is spent. He doesn’t see these alliances and commitments as security guarantees against global threats but fancy sorts of business deals. . As such, a Donald Trump president can make business deals with rogue states such as the theocratic regime of Iran and its terrorist mullahs, to him even human rights can be compromised and negotiated as long as the outcome is economically profitable.
And forth, the delegate math predicts that Trump will probably fall 50 to 100 pledged delegates short of the required 1237, however in the first ballot of convention in July 18-21 he may be able to compensate the shortage by convincing the super delegates to vote for him and become the GOP nominee. Regardless, by all kind of polls it has become evident that Trump as GOP nominee will lose national presidential election to Democratic nominee, either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. [DID]
President Barack Obama is trying but failing to reassure foreign leaders convinced that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. They’re in full-boil panic.
According to more than two dozen U.S. and foreign-government officials, Trump has become the starting point for what feels like every government-to-government interaction. In meetings, private dinners and phone calls, world leaders are urgently seeking explanations from Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Trade Representative Michael Froman on down. American ambassadors are asking for guidance from Washington about what they’re supposed to say.
“They’re scared and they’re trying to understand how real this is,” said one American official in touch with foreign leaders. “They all ask. They follow our politics with excruciating detail. They ask: ‘What is this Trump phenomenon? Can he really win? What would it mean for U.S. policy going forward or U.S. engagement in the world?’ They’re all sort of incredulous.” Read more…