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. 

Friday, July 6, 2018

Jews and Asians at Harvard

A recent report says that Harvard is discriminating against Asian applicants.  Harvard once discriminated against Jewish applicants, but I believe that Harvard has been discriminating in favor of Jewish applicants for years.  It's difficult to tell, because Jews don't allow themselves to be identified as Jews, except when they want to be.  When they are identified, it's sometimes confusing whether only religious Jews are numbered, or all ethnic Jews, a larger number.  Jews who do not want to be identified as such, identify as white.  Thus, the number of "white" students at Harvard includes many Jews, who are not identified separately.  This means that the percentage of students who are non-Jewish white is much less than the published percentage of "white" students. 

As a consequence, Harvard has become more and more a Jewish school, most recently recognized by the selection of a new Jewish president, Lawrence Bacow, whose mother was a Holocaust survivor.  Of course, he's not the first.  Larry Summers was another Jewish president of Harvard. 

The problem for Asians is that the Jews at Harvard see Asians as competitors.  Jews are not concerned about blacks and Hispanics, whom they see as inferior races easily dominated by Jews.  They probably see whites as inferior, too, but whites remain competitors because they were the original founders of the United States and of Harvard, and of many American institutions, which give whites advantages beyond what Jews may consider their strengths as a race.  Asians, however, appear to be the equals of the Jews in intelligence and industriousness.  Thus, Jews need to dominate prestigious schools like Harvard to help maintain their position in America.  

Of course, it's not only at universities that Jews (and others) see Asians as competitors.  This Bloomberg article reports how Asians are systematically excluded from corporate executive suites. 

It would be interesting if the suit against Harvard by Asians brought out any information about Jews at Harvard, but it is unlikely to do so.  If anything, they will manage to get themselves lumped in with "white" students, so that "whites" will take the blame for any discrimination against Asians.

Fareed Zakaria's June 28 Washington Post column, "Meritocracy is under attack," took on the issue of discriminating against Asians, since he is an example of an Asian who went to Harvard.  He points out that until the 1950s, the US was run by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants or WASPs.  The WASPs were removed from power by the concept of a meritocracy that was created by the educational system.  Fareed, of course, as a South Asian, was a beneficiary of this system.  Who created the system?  I think it was largely Jews who were bettering their place in American society.  However, having gained preeminence, they do not plan to give it up, and thus are discriminating against the new rising meritocracy: Asians.  

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Trump Campaign Informant

I can't get excited about protecting the source who reported on Trump's campaign.  His name has been revealed by the Washington Post as Stefan A. Halper.  I don't know who revealed it first, but it has now been published by liberal media like the Washington Post who earlier were claiming that it would be the end of the world if the name was revealed. 

We still have to figure out the impact of this spying on the 2016 election.  Looking at two or three Trump campaign hangers-on to see if they were Russian agents didn't affect the election, as Russian media meddling may have.  It does raise the odd issue that the President does not have to get a security clearance like any other government official who has access to classified information.  The voters give the President his security clearance, although at the beginning of his adminsitration, there seemed to be some reluctance by the intelligence community to give Trump an unlimited briefing on the most sensitive intelligence. 

If the FBI had found through their spy that Trump was actually working in cooperation with the Russians, what would the FBI have done?  Presumably it would have publicized this fact, as it did Hillary Clinton's email investigation.  The American people can elect someone who favors a Russian alliance or a Communist government if they want to.  Should the FBI arrest Donald Trump because they think his politics are too favorable to Russia?  Isn't a Communist allowed to run for President?  Should we prohibit someone from running for President simply because he likes Vladimir Putin? 

The FBI and CIA were probably justified in trying to find out whether Trump was a stalking horse for Putin, but that would not justify their arresting him or killing him.  In fact, the proper way for America to handle this situation would have been for the media -- newspapers, TV networks, and on-line channels -- to investigate and publicize Trump's connections to Russia, rather than organs of the US government.  Trump is right to be outraged that Obama's government treated him as if he were a traitor.  The only remedy for a treasonous President is impeachment. 

The whole Russia connection brouhaha is a charade to cover up the fact that the Democratic Party ran the worst political campaign in recorded history in 2016.  First, the Democrats pushed out Joe Biden by choosing Hillary Clinton while Biden was mourning the death of his son, displaying despicable callousness and disrespect for him.  Then they ran a fecklsss campaign with no message and no enthusiasm, in essence saying Democrats rule this country by divine right; we don't have to campaign. 

Monday, April 30, 2018

Charolottesville Slogan

A Wall Street Journal op-ed examines "The Theory Behind That Charlottesville Slogan." Some Jews have been trying to destroy Christianity for 2,000 years.  Obviously Jews are no more a monolithic culture than any other ethnic group.  While most Jews are Democrats: Jewish senators, and donors like Donald Sussman, George Soros, Haim Saban.  During the George W. Bush administration, the war on Iraq was led by Jews: Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith, and others.  In the 2016 election, most of the wealthy Jewish donors supported Hillary, while a Jewish politician, Bernie Sanders, was her principal opponent.  Sheldon Adelson was one of the few wealthy Jews who supported Trump.  While Jews support both parties, the  Jerusalem Post says Jewish donors contribute 50% of all funds received by the Democratic Party, and only 25% of all funds received by the Republican Party.  The Democratic Party is the immigrant party, both of recent immigrants, like Jews, and of future immigrants, like Hispanics.  Jews support policies that will displace the white European middle class as the majority ethnic group in the US, a position it has held for almost 250 years.  People forget that the United States was founded by British colonists who rebelled against the King, and it remained very British until the mid-1900s. 

Non-British immigrants did not start arriving in America until the late 1800s and even then not in such large numbers that it changed the ethnic make-up significantly.  Most of these immigrants came from western and northern Europe.  Jewish immigrants did not start arriving in great numbers until the 1930s as Hitler began his rise to power in Germany and contined into the 1970s and 80s when the Jackson-Vanik amendment facilitated Jewish emigration from Russia.  The amendment was responsible for bringing almost 600,000 Russian Jews to the US, more than doubling the population of Russian Jews in the US, while also facilitating the emigration of about 1 million Russian Jews to Israel. 

Even before this influx, Jews were leaders in the fight to restrict immigration quotas and remove other restrictions which might be detrimental to Jewish immigration and their success in the US.  Henry Ford's collection of essays, The International Jew, describes in detail the efforts of Jewish groups to remove any trace of Christianity from official American life. 

The professor who was attacked in the Wall Street Journal article, Kevin McDonald, has posted several replies: 

In these replies, McDonald points out the role that Jewish organizations have played in resisting limitations on immigration.  Just a few of these lobbying and public persuasion organizations include:  the JDL, ADL, B'nai B'rith, World Jewish Conference, AIPAC, J-Street, and the AJC.  Henry Ford spent a whole chapter discussing the Kehilliah, which apparently was sort of like a Jewish Sharia law court and/or municipal administration, but as far as I know, the Kehilliah has pretty much disappeared or has been subsumed into the activities of the other organizations.    In the WSJ article, Abraham Miller points out that most of  the principal authors of the 1965 immigration act which opened the US to universal immigration were not Jewish.  However, that overlooks the decades of Jewish work to open the US to universal immigration with no racial  or country of origin restrictions.  Jews had lobbied Congress for years, and no doubt made financial contributions to further their goal.  They had worked for years to make white people feel guilty about being a majority of the US population, and created a movement to destroy that majority status.  The 1965 law played on this guilt. 

Ironically the Bible's Old Testament and the Torah say that Jews are God's chosen people, and many or most Jews believe this.  Thus, they have a religious justification for believing that Jews are a superior race to all other races -- whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, whatever.  So, they have a public, propaganda line, that everyone is equal, and an internal Jewish belief, that Jews are superior to everyone else.  Jews probably perceive whites and Asians as the biggest threat to Jewish domination of the United States, and thus are motivated to increase the numbers and power of blacks and Hispanice, whom they believe they can manipulate to support Jewish domination.   That is the real reasoning behind the Charlottesville chant: "Jews will not replace us."  Jews are on a mission to replace whites as the dominate power in the US.  The 1965 immigration act is just one example of that.