Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Jews and Trump

President Trump has attacked Fed Chair Jay Powell for being crazy, in an attempt to place the blame on Powell for the recent stock market declines.  I like Powell because he is the first non-Jewish chair of the Fed in about 50 years, except for one year in the 1970s under William Miller.  I think the Jewish chairmen have used their position to financially benefit their Jewish brethren at the expense of non-Jews.  I don't think they have done anything illegal, but when there are several approaches to dealing with problems, they have usually chosen the one that will benefit other Jews.  This has been apparent for the last 10 years, when interest rates have been held close to zero, benefitting investors who take bigger gambles, typically Jews, rather than people who just want to invest conservatively for the long term.  Before the 2008 crash, conservative investors could buy bonds or just put money in savings accounts for the interest they paid; after the crash bonds paid nothing, and for any return investors had to buy riskier assets.  One result of this Jewish approach has been to radically increase income and wealth inequality, benefitting the wealthy, including Jews disproportionately, and penalizing the middle class, mostly non-Jewish whites.  By increasing interest rates, Powell is taking away the Jews' punchbowl.

Rather than hearing complaints from Jews in the financial industry, such as Goldman Sachs, we are hearing criticism from President Trump. How do we account for that?  One answer is that Jewishness has nothing to do with the matter; it's just about money! Another possibility is that the Jews don't have to speak out because Trump is speaking for them. 

I'm not sure what kind of relationship Trump has with Jews in general, or if he even sees it as a different relationship from his relations with other types of people, white Christians, Hispanics, etc.  New York is a Jewish city, particularly Manhattan, where Trump has lived and worked most of his life.  Roy Cohn, Jewish lawyer for Senator Joe McCarthy, was one of his mentors.  I think New York real estate is a particularly Jewish profession, but Trump has succeeded at it while being a white Protestant.  He has worked so closely with Jews that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is Jewish and his daughter Ivanka has converted to Judaism.  Yet establishment Jews have broken with him on many of his key issues.  Gary Cohn, who was supposed to represent the best of Jewish financial thought, has left his administration.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin is still there. Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, breaking with the rest of the world and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. 

On the other hand, his opposition to unlimited immigration and support for Southerners' defense of their heritage have put him at odds with many liberal Jews.  Most recently, his nomination of and support for Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court justice put him at odds with most of the Jews in the Senate, particularly Diane Feinstein, who led a Democratic Jewish attack casting filthy accusations against Kavanaugh in an attempt to block his approval.  This vile confrontation was basically a religious one, with Jews opposing Kavanaugh because as a Catholic Christian he opposes abortion, while Jews support access to abortion. 

I was pleased when Trump named a non-Jew, Jay Powell, to be chairman of the Fed, breaking with tradition.  But now Trump is criticizing Powell for trying to raise interest rates to a normal level.  Trump is now siding with the Jewish speculators against his own Fed chairman.  Which is the real Trump?  The one who named Powell, or the one who attacked him?  I don't know, but I want Powell to stay.


It looks like the conservative Jews who were so prevalent in previous Republican administrations -- William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, for example -- are either opposed to Trump or missing in action.  I'm sure that Trump has some Jewish friends and colleagues from his years of living and working in New York, but they are not too visible right now, except for his former lawyer Michael Cohen, and Trump would probably prefer that he had remained invisible.   

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Jews Still Crucifying Christians

In the Brett Kavanaugh Senate hearings regarding his appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, two Jews -- Diane Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal -- led the character assassination of Judge Kavanaugh.  The attack was to a certain extent religiously motivated.  As a Catholic, Judge Kavanaugh is opposed to abortion, although he has refused to say whether he would try to overturn Roe v. Wade.  The two Jewish senators are pro-choice, and want to retain the ability to have abortions, protected by Roe v. Wade.  Thus, religion is at the heart of the animosity. 

The Democratic attack on Judge Kavanaugh has been about as filthy, underhanded, and dishonest as possible.  Senator Feinstein had long advance knowledge about the allegations of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford, but she didn't reveal them until the last minute.  Feinstein's goal was character assassination, which she did rather well with a thoroughly coached and prepped Blasey Ford.  No one in the media was concerned that there was no concrete evidence to back up her testimony.  She seems to have a weak personality, and it seems likely that something happened to her, and she has been mentally unable to cope with it, which may well have led to her making up a version of events that absolve her of any blame.  What was she, a 15-year old girl, doing drinking at an unsupervised party with older boys, and then going up to the bedroom?  Did she plan to lose her virginity and then lost her nerve instead?  Was the boy really Bret Kavanaugh?  Did she latch on to his name in her revised memory because he had become famous and powerful?  Has she unknowingly changed her memory to make herself less guilty in her own mind? 

While Feinstein and Blumenthal may have been the only two Jews on the Democratic side, they were joined in their cries of "Crucify him!" by their other Democratic collogues.  I guess the American public is crying "Give us Barabbas!" a different, worse nominee to the Court. 


The Democrats may win, but they have soured much of the nation on Washington.  The hatred, the emphasis on sex and filth, that the Senate displayed was disgusting, and much of the public will be disgusted.  Certainly some of it rubbed off on Kavanaugh, who will never be the same.  It will be difficult to find any decent lawyer who will be willing to risk the personal attacks that now are part of any hearing on a Supreme Court nominee.  As a result, we will get much worse candidates, men and women who are willing to face the possibility of all kinds of shame in order to get a prestigious seat on the Supreme Court.  It will lower the caliber of the Court forever.  

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Editorials on Free Press

Today hundreds of newspapers carried articles defending the free press and criticizing Trump's characterization of the press as "fake news." The New York Times ran its own editorial and excerpts from others around the country.  In quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the Times laid out the tension between politicians and the press.  Jefferson loved the press while out of office, and distrusted it while in office. 

I agree that we need a free press and that the press should be free to say pretty much whatever it wants.  However, I think that in news reporting the press should stick to the facts and not editorialize, although it is free to editorialize on its editorial page.  I think that recently the press has lost this distinction between opinion and fact.  If Trump says more people attended his inauguration than any other, they should correct him.  However, they should be more careful about not convicting him of treason before he is found guilty.  They regularly reserve judgment for ordinary cases, referring to a murderer found standing over his victim as the "alleged" murderer.  Trump has not been convicted by Mueller, but you would think he has been.

The New York Times, for example, has ceased to be the old "Gray Lady" with "all the news that's fit to print."  It has become more of a tabloid carrying sensational stories about the Trump administration.  If there is something scandalous or some evidence of stupidity, they print it over and over.   Reprinting year-old news is almost like editorializing. 

The cable TV networks are worse -- CNN and MSNBC on the Democratic side and Fox on the Republican side.  The PBS News Hour is joining the Democratic side. 


There is no doubt that Trump has justification for criticizing the media, whether he calls it "fake news" or something else.  I am inclined to call it racist news because of the predominance of Jews attacking Trump in the pro-Democratic media.  The NYT's op-ed page is almost entirely Jewish, although I think David Brooks is an excellent columnist.  I can's say the same for most of the others.  

Monday, August 13, 2018

Illegal Immigration

Today the alt-right or white power demonstration in Washington was a failure.  I thought, "What's the big deal?"  Ordinary white people don't protest.  There were huge protests when I was in college in the 1960s, but it was because boys were being drafted and sent to Vietnam.  People were protesting mainly because they did not want to risk getting killed in Vietnam in a war that was not about the survival of the United States.  Today, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are about as non-essential to the survival of the US, but because there is no draft there are no protests. And soldiers are not being killed by the thousands as they were in Vietnam. 

Today, the counter-protest against the alt-right demonstration totally dwarfed the demonstration itself, and from the video coverage it looked like there was more violence on the side of the Antifa counter-protesters, but the commentators did not talk about it.  Many of the counter-protesters had bandanas over their faces so that they could not be easily identified if they resorted to violence.  

So, the blacks, Hispanics and white hoodlums intimidated the white power protesters.  What of it?  The counter-protesters were espousing criminality.  The huge influx of aliens into the US has been illegal, in violation of immigration laws.  The laws could have been changed to eliminate all immigration restrictions, but the Congress has not done it.  So, the Democratic Party is encouraging people to break the law, so that it can develop a non-white power base.  The Democratic Party wants to destroy the America that won World War II and replace it with some Afro-Hispanic conglomeration dominated by the Jews.  Most white people do not respond to such attacks with violence.  Even in Charlottesville, it was overwhelming presence of Antifa counter-demonstrators that lit the match leading to violence. 

Trump is the first President since the 1950s to worry about illegal immigration, causing the Jews (at CNN, NBC, the New York Times, etc.) to vigorously oppose him using their domination of the media.  No wonder Trump is dismayed by "fake news"'; it's enemy propaganda squarely directed at him.  He has faults, but trying to enforce immigration law is not one of them.  It's interesting that federal courts have nullified immigration law in order to oppose Trump.  Courts refuse to enforce the law. 

Roman Empire, here we come, following you down the drain.


Saturday, August 11, 2018

Trump and Putin

I am not upset by the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki.  I am upset by Mueller and the media.  Mueller's decision to release the indictment of the 12 Russian spies appears to have been politically motivated to make the Putin meeting more difficult for Trump.  It's the most overt indication I have seen that Mueller is not being even-handed and unbiased.  This action seemed clearly to benefit the Democrats and to make it impossible for Trump to have the friendly summit with Putin that he wanted. 

I think it is good that Trump likes Putin and wants to form a good relationship with him.  The US and Russia still have the two most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.  It's good that they don't want to use them on each other. While everybody in Washington is saying Putin is a terrible dictator, he is not saying things like Khrushchev's, "We will bury you."  I don't think any American journalists asked any questions at the joint press conference about nuclear weapons.  If so, the media ignored them.  The entire focus was on Russian meddling in the US election, in part because of Mueller's release of the indictments.  In essence the press said, "We don't care about nuclear annihilation, we only care about election hacking." 

The thing is: Russia did hack some stuff during the election; I'm not sure what or exactly who did it.  Putin may have been personally involved, or maybe not.  We know he dislikes Hillary because Hillary had tried to remove him from office.  He probably also doesn't like Hillary because her husband, Bill, was instrumental in expanding NATO up to the very borders of Russia, which Putin saw as an existential threat.  George W. Bush carried on the expansion.  To me, the Baltic countries -- Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia -- are just a nuclear tripwire.  They are on the Russian border.  If Russia attacks them they back up to the Baltic ocean and are only a few miles wide.  NATO defense against a massive Russian invasion looks almost impossible to me.  So the only response by NATO and us "as if the attack had been on the US mainland," is nuclear.  The US will have to launch a nuclear war against Russia in response.  After a massive nuclear exchange, hundreds of millions of people will be dead on both sides.  But the press does not care about that possibility; it only cares about election hacking.  The press is willing for a hundred million people to die, if it means no more hacking.  I don't think they have their priorities right. 

Maybe Trump did let Putin off the hook as far as accusing him of hacking the election.  But does anyone really believe Putin would admit he did it?  It's pointless to try to get him to confess.  Trump was trying to form a working relationship with Putin.  The press was insisting that Trump treat the hacking as if Putin had an ugly wart on his face and Trump had to tell Putin he was so ugly that it made people sick to look at him.  The press was basically yelling at Trump to spit in Putin's face, and when he didn't they called him a coward and a traitor. 


Watching the antics of the impassioned American press at the press conference, I am sure Putin thought, "Thank goodness I don't have a free press and don't have to deal with hate-filled maniacs like this."  The American press did not cover itself with glory.   Do they really believe that nuclear war is the best response to election hacking?  People need to calm down.  

Trump's Character

Trump and Obama are almost like polar opposites.  Obama was an outstanding representative of his black race, while Trump is a pretty sad representative of his white race.  The Obama family behaved itself impeccably in the White House.  Obama presided over the government with even-tempered moderation and spoke eloquently.  Trump has been tarnished by personal scandal and speaks more like a high-schooler than a college graduate. 

One of the biggest Republican complaints about Obama is the creation of ObamaCare, but much of ObamaCare was drafted by Congress which had to haggle over how to make it work.  If the crazies in the Democratic party had not been kept in control by Obama's moderation, it would have been much worse from a Republican viewpoint.  The biggest general criticism of Obama's foreign policy was probably his failure to enforce the "red line" against the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  I support Obama's decision to work with the Russians to remove chemical weapons from Syria, rather than blow Syria to smithereens.  We could not have "won" the war in Syria, and getting Syria to dispose of almost all chemical weapons except for chlorine probably meant that there were many fewer deaths from chemical weapons than there would have been otherwise. 

I think Obama's negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, was a significant accomplishment that reduced the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.  Trump was very foolish to abandon the agreement.  He may try to get Iranian concession on non-nuclear issues, such as support for Hamas, but he should have left the nuclear deal in place and worked to expand limits on Iran's other activities. 

On the anniversary of Charlottesville, the main Trump issue that I support is immigration and support for white people, including the non-crazies who participated in Charlottesville because they opposed removing the Confederate monuments.  The protesters against removing the monuments should not have tried to look like Nazis, but those in favor of removing the monuments, who had already won on the main issue, should not have violently opposed the marchers.  Charlottesville now has the reputation as a place where free speech is unconstitutionally opposed by violence. 

Trump is right that immigration has significantly changed the United States for the worse, at least for the former white majority.  I support his efforts to get immigration under control.  I also support his efforts to deal with Putin on a friendly basis.  Russia's economy may be weak, but its nuclear weapons arsenal is second only ours.  On the other hand, I do not support his confrontations with our traditional friends in Canada and Western Europe.  And I don't like his bull-in-a-china-shop style. He threatens and blusters, but then (thankfully) often backs down to a more reasonable position. 

I don't blame him for opposing the Mueller investigation.  The Russian collusion investigation was started to try to declare Trump's election illegitimate, and has now morphed into trying to create a basis to impeach him.  It may not be a "witch hunt" but it is a virulent personal attack on him by Democrats led by the intelligencia, Jews, blacks and Hispanics.  It is racist to a significant degree. Trump may have played the race card first, but the response has also been extremely racist, so that the current tension is due to ill will on both sides, not just Trump's.   

Trump is amazing in that he does not let the violent attacks against him deter him.  Apparently they affect him, but mainly by making him angry.  Although Trump is a poor example of what would expect as a representative of the white (formerly) ruling class, no polite, gracious member of this class could or would withstand these withering attacks.  


So far, the Democrats' case seems so weak that it seems to depend mainly on Don Junior's meeting with the Russian lawyer in Trump Tower.  This is thin gruel for an impeachment, although impeachment is really a political act rather than a legal one.  If the Democrats take over the House, and if Mueller comes up with enough other material to convince some Republicans in the Senate, impeachment is possible.  I really don't want Pence to be President, but maybe if he just took on a caretaker role until the next election, the country could survive.  Right now the 2020 election does not look pretty.  

Friday, July 27, 2018

Trump Tower Russia Meeting

The media is making a big deal of Michael Cohen's claim that Donald Trump had advance notice of the Don Junior's meeting with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.   The media talk about this meeting as if it was treasonous.  I don't think it was even improper.  What if the Russians were going to tell Trump that Hillary had given classified information to a Russian spy?  Wouldn't it make sense to see what the Russians were going to say?  If the Russians were going to offer $1 million to the Trump campaign, the Trumps could have refused it.  I don't see what's wrong with listening to what the Russians had to say as long as the Trumps did not act on any illegal proposals. 


The media's efforts to portray this meeting as treasonous are just part of the Democratic Party's effort to invalidate the election and remove Trump from the Presidency.  If it's not an illegal meeting, then it doesn't matter whether Trump had advance notice of it or not, even if he has denied he knew about it beforehand.  Therefore, Cohen's claim is irrelevant.  It just gives the press an opportunity to bring up the meeting again and slander Trump's connection to it.  It's another illustration of how partisan the press is whether it's "fake news" or not.