Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Jews Versus Gentile Fed Chief?

In retaliation against Trump's selection of a gentile, Jerome Powell, as the new chair of the Federal Reserve to replace Janet Yellen, a Jew, the Jews who control American financial markets may have driven the stock market down thousands of points.  I don't know how they did it, but it shows the control that Jews hold over the financial system.  It may not have been consciously planned, but there was a concerted reaction to the fear that the Jewish sugar daddies and mamas at the Fed who had taken care of the Jews on Wall Street for 50 years were going away. This could be a valid fear.  Jews are clearly superior at finance; a gentile may be stupider or more incompetent, and therefore more likely to let the economy get away from him. 

On the other hand, the policies pursued by the Fed for the last ten years have been very beneficial to wealthy financiers.  Trump has Mnuchin and Cohn to protect Jewish financial interests, but Jewish investors may feel like they need a Jew in charge of the Fed to protect their interests. 

The Jews believed that they were going to take over control of the American political system with the election of Hillary Clinton.  Although Clinton is not Jewish, she was the perfect front person for them, and pretty much guaranteed to look out for Jewish interests, since Jews had been some of her biggest campaign supporters.  She would no doubt have had prominent Jews in her cabinet and her White House staff, who would look out for Jewish interests as Jack Lew, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and others did in the Obama administration, and Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Robert Reich, and other did in the Clinton administration. 

Of course, it's possible that the market crash on Powell's first day was just coincidence, but it's very suspicious.  It now looks like the crash is over and the market is recovering, but time will tell.  If the market keeps going up, then maybe there is nothing to the short term crash.  However, something triggered a sell-off after the stock market had been going almost straight up for about ten years.  Powell could just be unlucky, or there could be some racial component to the stock market mini-crash.  

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Op-Ed on Impeachment

In the 1/29/18 NYT David Leonhardt proposes a bill of impeachment against President Trump. 

He lists ten items, but only one is an act that could be impeachable, if it turned out to be a high crime or misdemeanor, the act of firing Comey.  The other nine are basically descriptions of impure thoughts or political braggadocio, which would mean impeachment for every politician who ever opened his mouth. 

Trump may have tried to influence Comey to drop his investigation or parts of it, at the White House dinner, for example, but if Comey was not swayed by Trump, no crime was committed.  If your best friend was being arrested, wouldn't you ask the police if they couldn’t let him go and give him another chance.  That doesn't seem like a crime although it puts pressure on the police.  It's their job to say no, if that's the appropriate response.  The statement about Trump Junior's meeting with the Russian lawyer was basically just spin, which is a Washington staple. 

The firing of Comey was to some extent made less serious by the immediate appoint of Mueller.  As a result, justice was not obstructed, whether that was the intent or not.  However, I believe the firing of Comey does raise serious questions.  Trump had legal authority to fire him, but if he fired him to stop the investigation into crimes and possibly treasonous conduct, then that merits serious consideration.  If there was no actual obstruction of justice, is attempted obstruction enough?  I don't know. 

I find the whole Russia investigation spurious.  People, particularly politicians and diplomats, talk to spies all the time.  It's part of life in the big leagues.  If they don't disclose classified information, it's no big deal.  What if the Russian lady lawyer had told Trump, Junior, that Hillary Clinton had passed secret information to Russia while she was Secretary of State, and showed Trump the documents Hillary had passed.  Would people still say that Trump should not have met with her? 

Leonhardt has one thing right.  This debate about whether Trump did anything wrong is about impeachment, not a trial in a criminal court.  What police force has the power to lock him up and put him in jail, set bond, etc.  Mueller is doing the research to provide evidence to Congress to bring a bill of impeachment.  Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one.  Therefore, the bill can contain anything, including impure thoughts or salty language, but it must also meet the political test that a substantial portion of the population believes that it was fair and just.  A kangaroo court in the Senate will undermine people's trust in government even further.  

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Churchill, English History, World War II, and Donald Trump

I have just been to see the new movie "Darkest Hour: about Churchill's situation on the eve of World War II. I believe the HBO movie "The Gathering Storm" is actually a depiction of those times that I like better.  In "The Gathering Storm," Albert Finney seems like a stronger leader, despite being plagued by the "black dog" of depression, in part due to his being an unpopular political outcast.  Gary Oldman, however, may more graphically depict Churchill's depression and struggles with advancing age.  He became Prime Minister in 1940, at the age of 65.   In any case I would like to think of him as pugnacious, and one of the movies brings out that one term of endearment for him was "Mr. Pug," and it shows him having a pug dog. 

In any case, he was a great man.  I think one of the essays that best captures his greatness was Isaiah Berlin's essay, "Mr. Churchill" in The Atlantic in September 1949.  My favorite line is, "[H]e saved the future by interpreting, the present in terms of a vision of the past."  Some  more extended quotes from the article, which is as much about Churchill as historian as politician, follow: 

Mr. Churchill's dominant category, the single, central, organizing principle of his moral and intellectual universe, is an historical imagination so strong, so comprehensive, as to encase the whole of the present and the whole of the future in a framework of a rich and multicolored past. Such an approach is dominated by a desire—and a capacity—to find fixed moral and intellectual bearings to give shape and character, color and direction and coherence, to the stream of events….

[I]t was Mr. Churchill's unique and unforgettable achievement that he created this necessary illusion within the framework of a free system without destroying or even twisting it; that he called forth spirits which did not stay to oppress and enslave the population after the hour of need had passed; that he saved the future by interpreting, the present in terms of a vision of the past which did not distort or inhibit the historical development of the British people by attempting to make them realize some impossible and unattainable splendor in the name of an imaginary tradition or of an infallible, supernatural leader. 

From <>

Churchill was a man in touch with the grandeur and sweep of British history.  It gave him the confidence to stand up against Hitler.  But Churchill was a believer in the British Empire.  He believed that if England was left alone in Europe standing against Hitler, the Empire would come to its aid, and to his thinking this Empire still included the United States, if only in some honorary status.  He felt that he had to have, and would have, support from President Roosevelt and the United States. 

In World War II, the world was being unified as Hitler and Japan brought other nations under their military control.  Today the impulse seems to be in the opposite direction with centripetal forces breaking up existing political groups from the EU to the Middle East.  While many government and leaders call for acceptance of more diversity, populations are rebelling against it on racial, religious, and nationalistic grounds. 

People see Donald Trump as a leader of this resistance to greater diversity, but almost no one questions whether greater diversity is a social good.  They say the US is a nation of immigrants.  While the US has always accpeted immigrants, the number and type of immigrants has varied over the years.  Going back to Columbus and the Pilgrims taking land from the Indians hundreds of years ago is not meaningful except as history.  America had become a white country by the end of the 19th century, with a significant black minority and some Indians left on reservations.  According to Wikipedia, in 1900, the US was about 88% white, 12% black, and less than 1% Indian and other races.  There had been immigration during the 19th century, but it was almost entirely from white European countries.  That pattern changed during the 20th century.  By 2010 Hispanics made up nearly 20% of the US population, surpassing the black population, which remained steady at about 12%, while the white population fell to about 72%.    America is changing from being a northern European country speaking English to a Latino country speaking Spanish. 

What this means is that there is no shared history for a politician like Churchill to draw on.  With diversity, everyone has a different history, different morals and ideals drawn from different religions and cultures.  There are no common ties to draw the nation together.  The Civil War split the US over one issue; today the US is split over multiple issues with little common worldview to address them. 

If anything, the pundit talking heads on TV, radio and on op-ed pages characterize US history as evil, mainly because of slavery and lack of diversity. They imply that if America had been founded by blacks, Jews, and Hispanics it would be a much better country.  They are still afraid to say it outright, but the pundits and historians no longer respect the "founding fathers," Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, etc.  The play "Hamilton" has been a success because it praises Hamilton as an immigrant who was the son of a whore, the kind of man the new establishment likes.  Since he is a bastard and an immigrant, they forgive him for being white; it also helps that his role is played by a Hispanic.  The biography that Lin-Manuel Miranda based the play on was written by Ron Chernow, a Jew who may well have instinctive, ethnic prejudices against white men like the founding fathers. 

Into this mix we introduce Donald Trump.  Trump could hardly be more different from the refined, polite Virginia plantation owners who were part of the group, or the educated lawyers from New England, although Trump may have more similarities to the immigrant Hamilton than today's pundits would like to admit.  Trump sees himself in the mold of Andrew Jackson, who while not a founding father, was an early, important President who put the US on the path if followed for over a century.  While Trump avoided military service in Vietnam, he has shown himself brave in standing up to withering attacks, primarily from Jews working for CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  His election has highlighted fractures in American society, mainly between whites who used to be an unassailable majority, and growing minorities led by Jews, blacks and Hispanics.  There are a lot of non-Jewish whites who oppose Trump, with without the minorities, they would be a voice in the wilderness.  Although Trump rails against the media and "fake news," he does not identify it as Jewish, which it is in large part.  He obviously knows this from his years in TV, but he has thrived in Jewish environments -- first in Manhattan real estates, which is traditionally a Jewish fiefdom, then in TV also an industry dominated by Jews.   It looks like over the years he has beaten them at their own game and doesn't fear them.  The last bastion of defense against Trump by the liberals is the legal system, another profession dominated by Jews.  The court system has blocked many of Trump's proposals, mainly related to immigration, but it continues to grind in the background with the Mueller investigation.  Mueller is not Jewish, but his boss at the Department of Justice, Rod Rosenstein, is. 

Monday, January 15, 2018

Failure of Democrats to Defeat Worst Republican Ever

According to New York Magazine’s article on the “Fire and Fury” book by Michael Wolff, Trump and his campaign did not expect to win the 2016 election. It says:

Even though the numbers in a few key states had appeared to be changing to Trump’s advantage, neither Conway nor Trump himself nor his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — the effective head of the campaign — ­wavered in their certainty: Their unexpected adventure would soon be over. Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be. Conveniently, the former conviction meant nobody had to deal with the latter issue.
From <>
The liberal media have been having a field day criticizing Trump for his poor campaign and rudderless administration, hyping the book, "Fire and Fury." The opposite inference from the discussion of this book is that the Democrats failed to defeat the worst candidate who ever ran for President. The book says that even Trump did not expect to win.

 How did the Democratic Party turn out to be such a gigantic failure, pulling defeat from the jaws of victory? At least part of the problem for Democrats was that they lost contact with a considerable portion of the United States population -- ordinary white people. The Democrats have become the party of minorities -- mainly Jews, blacks and Hispanics. This is probably the constituency of the future, but it was not for 2016.

 People ridiculed Trump for saying he would save coal mining jobs despite a failing industry, but the Democratic position was that coal miners should just go away and die. Meanwhile the Democrats promised and gave billions to blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. They clearly favored non-citizen DACA kids over unemployed American citizens in the rust belt; however, there were still enough white voters left so that the Democrats’ decision to spit in their faces lost the election.

 Since the election, the Democrats, led primarily by Jews such as Ben Cardin and Adam Schiff, have tried to nullify the election by claiming Russian meddling. As Congressional committees have failed to remove Trump, the Democrats have turned to special counsel Robert Mueller to find grounds for removing Trump. Mueller is under extreme pressure from his Democratic patrons to find some way to remove Trump, but he may have the integrity and character to stand up to them and do an honest investigation. Because of the political animosity surrounding the issue, whatever result he reaches will be subject to strong criticism from one or both sides.  But for now Trump is still President.

Monday, January 8, 2018

Jews on Sunday Morning Talk Shows

Once again Jews played a leading role on Sunday morning news talk shows.  On “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd (Jewish), had as commentators David Brooks (Jewish), Danielle Pletka (Jewish),  Mark Leibovich (probably Jewish), and Joy Reid (non-Jewish black woman).  Todd’s main guest was Michael Wolff (Jewish), but he also interviewed Lindsey Graham (not Jewish).  It was mostly Jews, and they all viciously attacked President Trump, except for Sen. Graham.  Of course, Todd is just doing the bidding of his Jewish bosses, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, and president of NBC News, Noah Oppenheim.  

Meanwhile, on his CNN program, “The Global Public Square” Fareed Zakaria had a panel discussing international affairs that was all Jewish -- Richard Haass, Jane Harmon, and Dan Senor.  Of course, Fareed himself is not Jewish; he is a Muslim from India.  This GPS panel was more moderate and informative than Todd’s MTP panel.  

Fox’s Sunday show with Chris Wallace was considerably less Jewish, including both the guests and the commentators.  CIA Director Pompeo staunchly defended Trump in the face of some pretty strong questioning by Wallace.  

On CNN’s “State of the Union” Jake Tapper’s interview with White House staffer Stephen Miller went off the rails despite the fact that both Tapper and Miller are Jewish.  Miller spent most of his time criticizing CNN;s anti-Trump bias and defending Trump rather than answering Tapper’s questions.  Miller was followed by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, also Jewish.  Schiff and Tapper pretty much agreed that Trump has mental problems as described in the new Wolff “Fire and Fury” book.  Schiff also criticized the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, while Tapper suggested the investigation might be legitimate.  As commentators, Tapper had David Axelrod (Jewish) and Mark McKinnon (probably not Jewish).  The larger panel Tapper had on later did not have any Jewish members.  

ABC’s “This Week” did not feature too many Jews, although ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams is presumably Jewish.  Interviewee Sen. Bernie Sanders is Jewish, but an ethnic Jew who usually does not side with establishment views like those of the Jews on the other shows.  

On CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Carl Bernstein (Jewish) was an outspoken critic of Trump and defender of the “Fire and Fury” book, particularly questioning Trump’s mental wellness.  The difference between the highly critical Bernstein and his former partner Woodward, who is much more moderate, is notable.  

It appears to me that the “Fire and Fury” book by an unprofessional Jewish tabloid author opens the door for more professional Jewish journalists to criticize Trump as mentally unfit to be President.  I don’t think it was planned, but it grows out of a widespread Jewish hatred and contempt for Trump. Because there are so many Jews in the media, the book serves as the seed that creates a racist snowball of criticism.  

Friday, December 8, 2017

Immigration Needs Action

Trump needs to take action to stem illegal immigration.  This was his first promise when he opened his campaign, and he still has taken no signification action to control it.  I really don’t care about building the wall, as long as new illegal immigration is stopped and meaningful action is taken against aliens who are currently here illegally.  I am not a big fan of DACA, but I agree we should not punish children for the acts of their parents; however, we should restrict DACA benefits to those who have clearly demonstrated a desire to stay here and to contribute to the United States, as opposed to collecting US government benefits.  

We can start by just enforcing the laws on the books.  I issued visas to Brazilians at the American Consulate in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in the 1970s.  Whenever I denied a visa, a felt badly because I knew that if that Brazilian lived in Mexico, he could just walk across the border to the US, while that option was not available to Brazilians.  Because of the absence of law enforcement, Mexicans received a gigantic benefit that was available to no other nationality on earth, except Canadians, who didn’t need it.  It was racial discrimination run amok, egregious discrimination against all non-Mexicans around the world.  

Democrats wanted poorer voters who would vote Democratic as soon as they could.  Republicans wanted cheap, illegal labor whom they could pay almost nothing.  Together they conspired to ignore the immigration law, just as bootleggers had ignored prohibition laws in the 1920s.  American immigration law was a joke, a travesty, spit on and reviled by everyone involved, while publicly they left it on the books as if it actually meant anything.  

America has ceased to be a predominantly European country.  It has become a Latin American country, Northern Mexico, run by a coterie of Jews, who as racists, have no trouble subjugating the Mexicans while advocating their addition to the Democratic Party.  

It is probably too late for America.  Europeans are not enthusiastic about coming to a country that no longer espouses European ideals, but instead follows a caudillo model of strongman government (Trump).  It also becomes less attractive to Mexicans, because it now looks much more like Mexico than it used to.  Moving to the US no longer means moving to a more advanced country; it just means more free lunches from time to time, which is reflected in the declining illegal immigration rates.  

Nevertheless, I would like Trump to test the theory that it is not too late for the US to revert to being a European country.  The US is already astoundingly Mexican, but there were enough white people left to elected Donald Trump.  There might be enough left to change the country’s direction.  We won’t know unless we try.  But so far, Trump has not tried.  

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Income Inequality and Public Relations

Martin Wolf’s column in the Financial Times on “A Republican Tax Plan Built for Plutocrats” raised an interesting issue for me as a former Southerner.  Wolf wrote:

The pre-civil war South was extremely unequal, not just in the population as a whole, which included the slaves, but even among free whites. A standard measure of inequality jumped by 70 per cent among whites between 1774 and 1860. As the academics Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson note, “Any historian looking for the rise of a poor white underclass in the Old South will find it in this evidence.” The 1860 census also shows that the median wealth of the richest 1 per cent of Southerners was more than three times that of the richest 1 per cent of Northerners. Yet the South was also far less dynamic….

The South was a plutocracy. In the civil war, whose stated aim was defence of slavery, close to 300,000 Confederate soldiers died. A majority of these men had no slaves. Yet their racial and cultural fears justified the sacrifice. Ultimately, this mobilisation brought death or defeat upon them all. Nothing better reveals the political potency of tribalism.
Why wasn’t the antebellum South more upset by income inequality.  My great-grandfather, who fought in the Civil War as a colonel in the 21st Alabama regiment, moved to Mobile, Alabama, from Iowa just a few years before the war started.  He worked for a Mobile silversmith, James Conning, and had no slaves.  During the war, he was often so short of money that he asked to Mr. Conning to help out  his wife while he was away fighting.  (See From That Terrible Field by John Folmar.)  There were, no doubt, some in the South who resented the wealthy plantation owners, but as Gone with the Wind brings out, most Southerners looked at the aristocracy favorably, while the aristocracy exercised a sort of benevolent dictatorship that cared for the lower classes, even if they didn't do much to improve their situation.  

The lesson for me then is that income inequality is less of a problem if there is a friendly relationship between the classes.  The aristocracy had a sense of “noblesse oblige.”  In the South, this relationship had been built up over generations, and was made easier to bear because income and class inequality was widespread and accepted in in Europe at that time.  The US was much more democratic than Europe, which lessened the perception of differences in America.  We had rebelled against the British royalty and their decrees: “No taxation without representation.”  We declared that “All men are created equal.”  There was a softening at both ends, with the aristocracy showing sympathy for the lower classes, and the lower classes feeling empowered by their power in the democracy.  

Alexis de Tocqueville was apparently not as impressed with the South as he was of the Northern United States.  He thought that slavery and the agrarian economy made the South less responsive to the democratic trends sweeping the North.  But this view ignores the fact that many of the leaders of Revolution and creation of the new country were Southerners, particularly from Virginia , the bastion of the plantation aristocracy, or plutocracy as Martin Wolf calls it.  Most of the early Presidents came from Virginia, starting with Washington, as did many other political leaders.  The fact that Southern secession was widely supported in the Southern states is evidence of the support by the lower classes of the slave-holding aristocracy.  

Today, one problem of the aristocracy of the 0.1 percent is that they are not widely liked by the lower classes particularly by the white middle class.  Many of the upper one percent are recent arrivals in the US -- Jews, Indians, Asians -- who have made no effort to ingratiate themselves with the broader population.  If anything, they have isolated themselves in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.  Mark Zuckerberg went on some sort of a tour of the US, which turned out to be mainly a joke.  Buzzfeed reports that the trip increased Zuckerberg’s Q Score, a popularity rating, from 14 percent to 16 percent, about the same as Ashton Kutcher, Rachael Ray, Charles Barkley, Warren Buffett and Mark Cuban.  Elon Musk’s Q Score is 24%.  Tom Hanks has a Q Score of 46%.  Billionaires are not particularly well liked.  

The billionaires’ contempt for everybody else explains the resentment against them, and thus the rising concern about inequality.  The public perception is that these people don’t deserve the wealth and privilege they hold, that they gained it dishonestly, even if they came up with some brilliant new invention.  I would guess that Steve Jobs is viewed much more favorably that Bill Gates, because Jobs was concerned about the beauty and functionality of the products he built, while Bill Gates pretty much only cared about the money.  He is trying to make amends by giving money away now, but he has lots of evil to atone for.  Today’s billionaires might take a lesson in public relations from the plantation owners of the old South.