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.  

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.  

Lee's Good Qualities

With all the attacks on Robert E. Lee, it is good to remember some of the good qualities that he had, qualities that are worthy of a statue or monument or two.  

In the one volume abridgement of Douglas Southall Freeman’s biography of Robert E. Lee, the introduction states that Freeman described Lee as “one of the few, the very few of her sons, whom America offers at the altar of the ages as worthy by reason of his character to be exempted from the else-universal sentence of death.” It adds, “After reading this biography, we are almost prepared to believe it.”

The foreword states that Freeman portrayed a Lee almost without blemishes or warts. It says:

In the index of the original four-volume biography is the entry “Personal Characteristics,” which include: abstemiousness, alertness, amiability, boldness, calmness, charm of manner, cheerfulness, courage, courtesy, dignity, diligence, fairness, faith in God, friendliness, generosity, goodness, good judgment, good looks, grace, heroic character, humility, integrity, intelligence, justice, kindness, mercy, modesty, patience, poise, politeness, resourcefulness, sincerity, tact, thoughtfulness, wisdom. All of these characteristics stand out with even more clarity in this one-volume abridgment, which of necessity strips away much of the verbiage of the original but retains the essence.

Freeman, Douglas Southall. Lee (Kindle Locations 95-97). Scribner. Kindle Edition.

Roy Moore

I think there is probably something to the accusations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. It’s not clear to me how much of a criminal act it was.  One of the Sunday talk shows made a big point of the fact that the victim was 14, which would make this a lesser offense than if she were younger.  It was probably not a felony, and the statute of limitations has probably run out, although I’m not sure.  In any case, it’s messy unless it’s an outright lie.  

Assuming it’s not a complete lie, one thing concerns me.  Did the Washington Post delay publishing this story until after the primary election?  If it had come out before the election, it would have improved the chances of Moore’s Republican opponent, Luther Strange.  If Strange had been elected, he almost certainly would have beaten his Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.  Now, the story greatly benefits Jones.  It remains to be seen whether it will swing the election in Jones’ favor.  

If Moore is elected despite the story, I suspect that he will be seated in the Senate.  It does not look like he is a criminal, whatever his morals.  Other Senators may treat him as an outcast, but he will be there and will be able to vote.  Under those circumstances he may be even more obstreperous than he would have been before the story.  

Another effect of this story may be to keep many basically good people out of politics.  Almost everyone has some blot on their record, something they did in a weak moment and wish they had not done.  In the old days, some indiscretions were overlooked or hushed up, but that is almost impossible today.  The fact that so many basically good people eliminate themselves from politics is at least partly responsible for the horrible political scene we have now.  We get people who run who don’t care about moral failings, people consumed by a lust for power or publicity, or on the other hand, people who are completely colorless, who have never done anything interesting in their lives.   Neither type produces the best politicians or leaders.  

Niger Ambush

I am tired of hearing the press complain about the White House insulting La David Johnson.  I’m also tired of hearing the press talk about what bad soldiers he and his colleagues were because they got caught in an ambush.  I was turned off by the contempt of the White House press for Gen. Kelly when he spoke about his son being killed.  The press’ attitude was that the press corps consists of much better people who had made much greater contributions to the country than Kelly.  They think they are God’s gift to the world.  I don’t agree. They are conceited, egotistical, unpatriotic blowhards.  It’s fine to mourn La David Johnson,  but it’s terrible to revile General Kelly for talking about the death of his son.   Chip Reid (CBS) believes Gen. Kelly is scum for allowing his son to die in service to America as a Marine.  Chip Reid has no heart; he is consumed by hatred of Trump, Republicans, and the American military.  

Both Trump and Kelly made mistakes while talking about Sgt. Johnson’s death, but I would think that everyone involved would make the best of it and move on to respect his memory.  Instead his death has been made into a circus sideshow, mainly by his dysfunctional family, an eavesdropping congresswoman, and the invasive press.  Apparently the American press spits on the three dead white soldiers; only the dead black soldier is worth memorializing.  

Since all the media coverage has been critical of the White House, I think someone should question the party line being screamed in unison by the press.  How did Sgt. La David Johnson end up so far from the rest of his unit that his body was not found for two days?  It sounds like the four killed soldiers were in a convoy that was separated from the main body of troops, according to CNN.  It’s possible that he was cut off from the rest of his small group, or that he was trying to go for help, or that he was just trying to escape from the ambush.  But there is a question why he did not stay and fight with his three colleagues who were killed fighting together.  The New York Times raised further questions about discipline and unity among elite troops by reporting suspicions that two members of a Navy seal team in Mali had killed an Army special forces soldier.  I have not seen anything about whether all three were the same race or not.  Because of the press’ ignoring all the dead white soldiers and its focus on the one dead black soldier, La David Johnson, we need clarification of what really happened in darkest Africa.  

The press has made the military deaths in Niger a matter of racial discrimination where only black lives matter.  Chip Reid and his colleagues believe that any white man who is stupid enough to enlist in the military deserves to die like Gen. Kelly’s son.  But they should read Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness or watch the war movie Apocalypse Now, which is based on it, to get some realistic concept of race and war.  Perhaps then Chip Reid and his colleagues would not rejoice in the death of Gen. Kelly’s son.  

"The horror! The horror!"

John Oliver on the Confederacy

John Oliver’s in-depth issue this week was the Confederacy on “Last Week Tonight.”  Oliver condemned the Confederacy and everything connected to it because one of the things it fought for was the maintenance of slavery.  According to him, this justified getting rid of all public monuments to, and statues of, anything or anybody connected to the Confederacy.  

If slavery is what condemns a civilization, then clearly the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians must be condemned, and all artifacts, statues, buildings, and other monuments must be removed from public view.  That would mean that the Roman forum, the Acropolis, the Parthenon and the Egyptian pyramids would have to be destroyed, along with the many other Roman ruins spread across Europe and North Africa. By the same reasoning, Oliver, the Democratic Party and other anti-Confederate hate groups must applaud the destruction by ISIS of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and the destruction of the Bamiyan cliff buddhas by the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Can you imagine the horror that would ensue if the mayor of Charlottesville were the mayor of Rome, destroying thousands of monuments?  

Of course the Confederates got their moral guidance on slavery from the books of Moses in the Bible.  Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon all had slaves and lived in a society where slavery was an ordinary fact of life.  Abraham had a son, Ishmael, by his family’s female slave Hagar.  Moses freed the Jews from slavery in Egypt, but he wrote the Jewish law authorizing slavery and describing how Jews should treat their own slaves, particularly in Leviticus.  It describes different treatment for Jews enslaved to other Jews, and for non-Jewish slaves.  It seems likely that Solomon’s temple was built with slave labor.  If they were going to be consistent, Oliver and the Democrats should call for the destruction of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.  And because Moses and King David had slaves, they should call for the destruction of Michelangelo’s statues of Moses and David.  

Of course any statues or monuments to any famous people of these countries would have to be destroyed -- statues of Plato, Aristotle, all Roman emperors, and statues of all Egyptian Pharaohs.  History is unimportant.  Only morality as defined by Oliver is important.  People who lived in societies that condoned slavery were evil, and any image of them must be destroyed according to Oliver and the Democrats.  

They really do have much in common with ISIS and the Taliban, believing that a tangible representation of anything they think is morally repugnant must be destroyed.  They believe that their morals are supreme and unimpeachable and that no other ideas can be allowed to be expressed.  They are not chopping off heads yet, but that may be coming.  HBO is preaching the ideology of ISIS and the Taliban in the US while American troops are fighting against it in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It is sad to see such fundamentalist religious intolerance being preached in the US.  

Leonhardt on Jewish Advisers

David Leonhardt called on Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin to stand up and oppose Trump’s tax plan in his NYT article “Cohn and Mnuchin Risk Reputations.”  The article illustrates the Jewish opposition to Trump.  I don’t know if Leonhardt is Jewish, but he is very sympathetic to the NYT’s devotion to Jewish issues and viewpoints.  Establishment Jews are of two minds; they hate Trump, but they want their own Jews in the corridors of power.  Jared Kushner is not reliable as a Jew because he is too close personally to Trump.  Steve Miller is a Jewish insider in the Trump administration, but he is not part of the Jewish establishment.  There are establishment Jews who want Cohn and Mnuchin to leave because, as Leonhardt’s column states, they are in danger of embarrassing themselves (and their Jewish brethren) by associating themselves with Trump’s administration and his comments on Charlottesville and other anti-Semitic issues.  On the other hand, Jews want to influence Trump to the extent that they can.  

Cohn and Mnuchin find themselves in a tough position.  Their Jewish supporters want them to leave and stay,  Leonhardt tells themthat  if they stay, they must stand up against Trump.  Leonhardt’s model is Defense Secretary Mattis.  The problem is that Trump has a higher opinion of Mattis than he does of Cohn and Mnuchin, making it less likely that they can emulate Mattis.  

In any case Leonhardt’s article illustrates the NYT’s and Jew’s obsession with the two main establishment Jews in the Trump administration.  

David Brooks on Abbie Hoffman

David Brooks’ column in the NYT “The Abbie Hoffman of the Right” says that Donald Trump is trying to win the “culture wars” in the same way that Jews won the culture wars in the 1960s.  Brooks delights in the destruction of the “Protestant establishment” in the 1960s.  He says:

So in the late 1960s along came a group of provocateurs like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and the rest of the counterculture to upend the Protestant establishment.

Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were Jewish.  Of the new Jewish-dominated establishment, he says:

But eventually a new establishment came into being, which we will call the meritocratic establishment….

Hillary Clinton is part of this more educated cohort. So are parts of the conservative establishment….

This establishment, too, has had its failures. It created an economy that benefits itself and leaves everybody else out.

So in 2016, members of the outraged working class elected their own Abbie Hoffman as president. Trump….

Brooks then says that Trump has made the NFL culture war about race, i.e., blacks.  But what Brooks doesn’t say, or is afraid to say, is that the culture war is about Jews.  Jews like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and David Brooks replaced the old Protestant establishment with the new “meritocratic” Jewish-led establishment.  Hillary was supposed to be the public front-person for the new establishment, which was made up of Jews - who supplied the brains and the money - and the other anti-old-establishment groups who supplied the votes and public support - blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc.  However, the Jewish brains miscalculated in 2016 and all the needed voters did not show up.  Nevertheless, the Jews continue to use blacks (in the NFL in this case) and other minorities to pursue their own dominance.  A high percentage of NFL team owners are Jewish.  

I was surprised to see David Brooks revel in the destruction of the Protestant establishment and the rise of the Jewish establishment so clearly, even if he did not state it explicitly.  

NFL - Blacks Love Their Plantation

The NFL is one of the closest things we have to the old ante-bellum Southern plantations running on slave labor.  We have a bunch of rich white guys, about half of them Jews, each owning dozens of black men.  Of course, the black men are not slaves; they are well paid, but they are not always free to leave, depending on their contracts which bind them to their owners.  But the black players love their owners, just like the old slaves used to love the plantation masters with whom they lived.  It’s nice that black players love their white owners.  It’s ironic that men who choose to be slaves are now protesting for more freedom.  

American Jews Are Driving America’s Wars

I am surprised to find so many serious articles claiming that America’s Jews are driving America’s wars.  It started out when I found a tweet by by former CIA agent Valerie Plame favorably citing an article with that subject by Philip Giraldi, also a former CIA agent.  From that I found a Mother Jones article listing many people who were movers and shakers of American policy toward Israel.  Most of them I recognized as Jewish, but I was not sure about Danielle Pletka, who seems to have something of a second life on TV, appearing frequently on “Meet the Press.”  I then found this article in Israel Behind the News which says she is Jewish and has strong views on US policy toward Israel.  Surprisingly, none of these mention Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who is also Jewish, and who is on TV constantly, starting with “Morning Joe” first thing in the morning.  

These articles make me wonder whether American Jews are loyal to America first or Israel first.  Of course, Jewish political doctrine is not monolithic, but given the relatively small size and the homogeneity of the Jewish population, it is probably more uniform that among larger ethnic groups.  American may be experiencing a hostile takeover by Jews.  There is nothing illegal about this, as long as it is done without violating any laws (like insider trading or illegal political contributions).  But most Americans may not be aware that it is happening.  

About half of the richest 10 or 20 Americans are Jewish.  Google, Facebook, The New York Times, most TV networks, particularly CNN, are controlled by Jews. Jews, led by Chuck Schumer, are a powerful bloc in the Senate.  Jews are less powerful in the House, but Adam Schiff, a Jew, has been the most outspoken and widely televised House member attacking Trump about the Russian investigation.  

Jews were extremely powerful behind the scenes in support of Hillary Clinton.  Her defeat was an uncharacteristic failure for them.  As a result, they are leaders in the subsequent attack on Trump, either to remove him from office, or render him powerless.  Because of the huge number of Jewish lawyers and judges, they see the legal system as a principal means of attacking him.  The need to exert Jewish power in the White House is one reason that the status of Gary Cohn has become so important.  Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is Jewish, but he’s still a kid by Washington standards.  Gary Cohn is rich and powerful enough in his own right to smack Trump in the face with a two-by-four if Jews believe it is necessary.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin does not have the heft of Cohn.  Of course Trump’s young flamethrower of an adviser, Stephen Miller, is also Jewish.  There are probably others as well.  

The disturbing theme of the articles cited above is that these powerful Jews are using America’s power to further Jewish interests.  America’s and Israel’s interests may converge on many issues, but not on all.  I fear that it is Jewish political power than has drawn the US into the protracted conflict in the Middle East.  In essence gentile Americans are killing Arabs to advance Israel’s interests.  Of course, Osama bin Laden attacked the US, but he did it mainly because he saw the US and Israel as joined at the hip.  He was mad because Israelis were killing Palestinians with weapons supplied by the US.  The US and Israel were one enemy.  After 9/11, we could have gone into Afghanistan, destroyed his operations there, and left.  But we are still there 16 years later.  There was no reason to attack Iraq based on the 9/11 attacks, but we did anyway.  The Iraq war was ginned up mainly by Jews -- Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, etc.  Did we attack Iraq because it was in America’s interest, or Israel’s?  The argument in the above articles is that now it is mainly Jews who are pushing for war with Iran.  Conservative Republicans support various levels of effort against Iran, but would they be as enthusiastic if the Jewish controlled press did not discuss this issue daily.  Many liberal Jews support maintaining the nuclear agreement with Iran, but Israel is strongly opposed to it.  I believe that Israel is safer with the nuclear agreement in place than without it.  Some Jews may also view the nuclear agreement as beneficial to Israel.  

Biden Op-Ed

I was disappointed by former V.P. Joe Biden’s op-ed in the NYT, Reclaiming America’s Values.” Biden basically said that there are only two American values worth reclaiming -- diversity and democracy.  He said:

Reclaiming our values starts with standing up for them at home — inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. If these are the democratic principles we wish to see around the world, America must be the first to model them…..

You cannot define Americans by what they look like, where they come from, whom they love or how they worship. Only our democratic values define us. And if we lose sight of this in our conduct at home or abroad, we jeopardize the respect that has made the United States the greatest nation on earth.

So, Biden does not think a common language is important; English is no more important than Lao, Swahili or Spanish.  It’s more important that people speak many different (diverse) languages than that they speak a common language.  Any kind of a shared cultural heritage is bad.  Children should renounce their parents as evil; this is something that usually occurs in teenagers anyway, although it violates the Fifth Commandment.  

While democracy and the rule of law are important, I do not believe that diversity is a touchstone of American values.  America was founded by men who looked alike and spoke the same language.  Did they believe they were evil because of that?  I don’t think so.  

Jewish Student Population at Elite Universities

In a study of race at top colleges, the New York Times failed to examine how Jews are represented in these colleges, “Even with Affirmative Action, Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges than 35 Years Ago.” .  The study only breaks out blacks, Hispanics, whites and Asians.  Jews do not consider themselves “white,” otherwise all their complaints about anti-Semitism would be meaningless.  Semitic refers to language, i.e., Hebrew, rather than to race, but Jews use it as shorthand for race.  Arabic is also a Semitic language; so, if they did not mean for anti-Semitism to refer to discrimination against Jews only, Jews themselves would be anti-Semitic because of their discrimination against Palestinians and other Arabs.  Palestinians are kept in ghettos in Israel, just as Jews were in Europe before World War II.  

Jews also try to emphasize the confusion between whether being Jewish refers to race or to religion.  Clearly it refers to both, but clearly there is a Jewish ethnicity separate from race.  An ethnic Jew who becomes a Christian, a Muslim, or an atheist remains an ethnic Jew.  Whether being Jewish means being a separate race from whites may be debatable, but it is clearly an identifiable ethnicity, such as white Hispanic or Slavic.  

I believe that Jews are overrepresented in elite universities, but they hide this fact by refusing to be distinguished from “whites.”  The result is that non-Jewish whites constitute a smaller percentage of students than most statistics indicate.  The Jerusalem Post reported in 2015 that 27 percent of Yale’s undergraduate student body is Jewish, 1,500 out of 5,477.  This figure is apparently based on information from Hillel, a religious organization, and thus may underreport non-religious, ethnic Jews at Yale.  Yale itself reports that 72 percent of its students are “white” but provides no separate data on Jewish enrollment.  Thus, it appears that non-Jewish whites make up only about 50 percent of the Yale students, lower than their share of the US population, while Jews, which reportedly make up only 2 or 3 percent of the population are hugely overrepresented.  The New York Times article did not examine this issue at all, by omitting any discussion of Jewish enrollment.  

My objection to this article is that it purposely ignores an important racial issue, while claiming to be about racial discrimination.  Pointing out the problems of blacks and Hispanics is legitimate, but it’s likely that buried in the numbers is discrimination against non-Jewish whites in favor of Jewish whites.  Therefore an interesting study would be comparing Jews (overrepresented) and Asians (underrepresented).  I suspect that part of the problem is the strongly pro-Jewish bias of the New York Times, but it is also due to the widespread Jewish practice of screaming “anti-Semitism” when anybody mentions the word “Jew.”  The Jews have intimidated everybody.  In addition, the faculties of elite universities are heavily populated by Jewish professors, who tend to play down the Jewishness of their institutions; however, it is hard to find data because Jewish faculty members are usually just reported as “white.”

Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post says that the university with greatest total number of Jewish students is the University of Florida, with 6,500 Jewish students.  

Mobile in WW II

The hype about the new PBS series on the Vietnam War reminded me of the PBS series on World War II, which featured my old hometown, Mobile, Alabama, as one of four ordinary cities that figured prominently in the war effort.  It described Mobile’s importance to the war effort as a shipbuilding town, and it highlighted the war experiences of some citizens of Mobile.  This is a link to the description of the city of Mobile during the war:  

City of Mobile - http://www.pbs.org/thewar/the_witnesses_towns_mobile.htm

These are two of the Mobilians who were described in the series.  Unfortunately, the search engine for the series does not seem to be working.  I could only find names I could remember.  I remember these because I went to school with some of their sons.

Herndon Inge - http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_5173.htm

Dwain Luce - http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_5167.htm

Tom Galloway - http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_5196.htm

Sidney Phillips - http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_5193.htm

Eugene Sledge - http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_5206.htm and http://www.pbs.org/thewar/detail_4182.htm

Joint Resolution Attack on White Southerners

I am disappointed to see that you were a cosponsor of S. J. Res. 49 condemning Southern white men as racists.  As a Southern white man, born in Florida and raised in Alabama, I take offense at your racist bigotry.  I am not a “White supremacist” or a “neo-Nazi,” but my great-grandfather, James M. Williams, did fight for the Confederacy in the Civil War.  There is a book about his exploits, “From that Terrible Field.”  The title refers to the Battle of Shiloh, where he fought and where he best friend, George Dixon, was wounded.  My great-grandfather returned to Mobile, Alabama, to command Fort Powell in the Battle of Mobile Bay.  George Dixon went on to command the Confederate submarine Hunley which sank the Housatonic in Charleston harbor.  My great-grandfather named his first son George Dixon Williams in memory of his friend. 

In addition to my great-grandfather’s Civil War service, my grandfather served in the Spanish-American War and World War I.  My father served in World War II and the Korean War.  He was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Korea.  I served in Vietnam in an Army artillery battery along the DMZ and on the Laotian border. The names of two of the men I served with are on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial.  After Vietnam, I served twenty-five years in the Foreign Service of the US Department of State. 

I became a confirmed Democrat when I was serving as Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Warsaw, Poland.  One of my main jobs was to oversee a science cooperation agreement between the US and Poland that was to last five years.  Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were elected while I was there, and one of their first actions was to end US funding for the science cooperation after three years, although there was a signed agreement stating that it was to last for five years.  From Poland I went to Rome, where I again handled scientific affairs.  The Republicans refused to fund appropriations to buy oil for North Korea that the US had promised under the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization agreement.  One of my jobs became to ask the European Union, for which Italy then held the rotating presidency, to contribute enough money to KEDO to honor the US agreement, so that the US would not be the first party to violate it.  I was extremely upset that the US would give North Korea a legitimate excuse to restart its nuclear weapons program.  Finally, while I was at a cocktail party celebrating the launch by the US of an Italian communications satellite, an executive of the Italian telephone company came up to me and said, “You Americans must really hate me.”  It turned out that his daughter had been denied a visa to visit Disney World because his company had some connection with the Mexican telephone company that had some connection with the Cuban telephone company that was banned by the Helms-Burton Act.  In the fictional series The Winds of War by Herman Wouk, the Jewish heroine was prevented by the Nazis from leaving Italy for Israel by denying a visa to her child.  The situation I found in Rome was too similar.  I decided that I would retire from the Foreign Service because US foreign policy did not come up to my standards of decency.  I did not make it a political issue; I just retired in disgust. 

aI voted almost a straight Democratic ticket from then on, for the next twenty years, until the 2016 election. I voted for Bernie Sanders at the last Democratic caucuses.  But that changed with Hillary Clinton’s nomination and her characterization of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables,” clearly meaning Southern white men like me.   Ironically, I had been the Warsaw embassy officer responsible for organizing President and Hillary Clinton’s visit to the site of the old Warsaw ghetto during Clinton’s visit to Warsaw to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. 

I became disillusioned with the Republican Party for failing to appropriate funds to meet America’s international commitments.  Now I am disillusioned with the Democratic Party for passing hateful, bigoted legislation condemning me as a racist.  You are free to hate me.  There is no law against hate, as long as you do not act on it.  However, politicians are in a position to act on it.  I see this Resolution as a sign that race-based discriminatory legislation is coming.  It is strange that you, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi would replace Sen. Jesse Helms, Rep. Dan Burton, and their ilk as the new racists in Congress. 

Democrats Running for President in 2020 Depend on Jews

An article in today’s New York Times about Democrats running for President in 2020, “Long List of Top Democrats,”  illustrates how heavily such candidates rely on rich Jews.  The article mentions Marc Lasry, Howard Kessler, Albert Dwoskin, Guy Saperstein, and Michael Kives.  These are only some of the people mentioned as donors and the only ones I could find directly linked to some Jewish organization.  There were only one or two others mentioned in the article who may not have been Jewish.  

No doubt there are many liberal gentiles who contribute to the Democratic Party, but they didn’t get mentioned in the article about potential candidates.  I think the article accurately reflects the major role being played by wealthy Jews in controlling the Democratic Party.  

Most of the media, except for the Murdoch empire, is controlled by Jews.  It, like the Jewish donors listed above, strongly supported Hillary Clinton, and will strongly support whoever emerges as her successor in the Party.  The media is also strongly critical of Trump, as he frequently points out.  He is wise to call it the media, rather than the Jews.  Otherwise he would be pilloried as an anti-Semite even more than he already is.  

The two prominent Jews in his administration, Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin, are the focus of attention, and under pressure from both sides of the political powers that be -- Jews that want them to stay and Jews who want them to go.  They are both billionaires who are working to cut taxes on the rich, their Jewish billionaire buddies.  Of course a lot of rich gentiles will benefit, too, but many of them, like Warren Buffett, object to cutting taxes.   

Gary Cohn and the Jewish Power behind the Throne

The furor in the media, particularly the financial media, over whether Gary Cohn will stay on in the White House after Trump’s Charlottesville speech illustrates the power of Jews in America, particularly in the financial system.  The clearest example of the importance of his Jewishness is probably illustrated in the Financial Times article by Gillian Tett.  The article says:

Mr Cohn, a Jewish-American who was president of Goldman Sachs before becoming head of the White House national economic council, told the Financial Times he faced “enormous pressure” to quit after the uproar over Mr Trump’s reaction to the clashes in the Virginia university city that left one woman dead.

The Financial Times is only the latest.  The TV financial news shows, CNBC and Bloomberg, have been talking nonstop about Cohn for days.  The underlying implication is that Jews are so important to the US financial industry, that if Mr. Cohn quits the White House, the stock market will crash.  

I see Mr. Cohn as being caught between two Jewish currents.  He is under pressure from Jews concerned about the religious and ethnic implications of Charlottesville, who want him to leave to show his displeasure with Trump over Charlottesville.  On the other side, he is under pressure from Jews in the financial industry to stay in the White House and work for their interests, reducing taxes, regulations, etc.  For the moment, Mr. Cohn has decided to go with the money, and stay in the White House, but this will be an ongoing battle between two wings of Judaism.  In any case, it shows that Jews are perceived as extremely important and influential in the financial community, if not absolutely controlling it.  

It’s interesting that Fed Chair Janet Yellen came out in favor of strict banking regulation at its annual meeting in Jackson Hole.  Furthermore the regulations she was defending, the Dodd-Frank Act, was drafted in large part by a Jew, Barney Frank.  This kind of a split is not unusual for Jews.  The big money Jews largely backed Hillary Clinton in the last election, but her main primary opponent was Bernie Sanders, a Jew who supports helping the downtrodden, and who strongly opposed the moneyed interests who supported Hillary.  But wherever you look, there are Jews shaping what America will become.   

Democrats Started the War over Statues

Most Confederate statues have been in place for one hundred years or more.  They were put in place around the turn of the nineteenth century as the Confederate veterans died, and their friends and relatives wanted to remember them.  Some may have been built from racist motivations, as hatemongers like Jon Meacham claim, but most were built out of love and respect for a generation of Civil War veterans that was fast dying out. Those who built the statues saw their heroes, not as evil racists, but as honorable men who had fought bravely for a losing cause, representing the highest ideals of military manhood.  

Most of these statues had stood as memorials to honorable men for about a century, when suddenly the Democrats stirred up their black, Hispanic, and gay supporters to protest them.  The statues did not change; the attitudes changed.  The men did not become dishonorable; they were portrayed as dishonorable by politicians and news media who wanted to stir up those populations for political gain.  This is not some noble outcry against the monuments; it is racist, political hatred stirred up to undermine the any remaining political and economic power of ordinary, white, middle-class Americans.   These are the people who elected Trump, and the Democrats will do anything to destroy them.  

It is political and economic warfare, begun by the Democrats.  Where it will lead is not clear.  Religious and race hatreds often take on a life of their own, as we saw during the riots in America in the 1960s, and as we currently witness in the Middle East.  The failure to elect Hillary Clinton was an unthinkable disaster for the Democratic Party, and its supporters, many of whom are Jews, blacks and Hispanics.  The cries about “anti-Semitism” indicate that the Jews are playing a major role in creation of this internecine American conflict.  

Jews, Other Minorities, and the Confederacy

No Jews signed the Declaration of Independence or participated in the Constitutional convention. Jews had no stake in the founding of the United States.  Most have been here only one or two generations.  According to freerepublic.com, no signers of the Declaration of Independence were Jews. According to adherents.com, none of the signers of any of the documents creating the United States -- the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution -- were Jews.  Jews might say this is because they were discriminated against, but more likely there were not enough Jews in the colonies to gain the popular support to attend any of these meetings.  Ironically the first Jew to gain cabinet rank in North America was Judah Benjamin, who was Secretary of State of the Confederacy during the Civil War.  Two Jews, a Senator and a Representative, were elected to the US Congress in 1845, according to Wikipedia.  

Ethnic Germans and Poles came to the US in the 1800s and early 1900s, much earlier than ethnic Jews from the same countries. There have always been Jews in America, but in relatively small numbers until the last century, when many left their ancestral homes for the US because of World War II.  They came not because they loved America but because they were driven out of the countries where they had lived for hundreds of years.  They arrived in the US as refugees, not as emigrants seeking political or religious freedom.  A later influx came from the Soviet Union in the 1970s as a result of the Jackson-Vanik amendment pressuring the Soviet Union to loosen restrictions on Jewish emigration.  This group did leave by choice, rather than being physically driven out by war.  

Because they did not play a major role in the founding of the US or in its early days, I worry that Jews are not as committed to continuing to rely on the the Constitution as the cornerstone on which the country is founded.  It’s even more understandable that blacks would not be committed to a document that enshrined their status as slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Similarly, most hispanics come from Mexico or Central America for economic reasons, or because they were in danger of being killed by drug cartels in their home countries.  As late comers, who came not for political or religious reasons, they have relatively little commitment to the American system of government.  

They may think they have a better idea, but if so, it probably means another revolution, another uprising against the established government, like America’s 1776 Revolutionary War, or the Civil War.  I see this revolution coming from the left, while the media sees it coming from the right in the form of “White Nationalists.” I don’t consider myself a white nationalist, but I don’t want a leftist revolution.  As such I consider myself more like a Loyalist who favored remaining in the British Empire during the American Revolution.  I perceive Jews, blacks and Hispanics as those on the left who are fomenting rebellion.  I see the Jews as the brains of the rebellion, and the blacks and hispanics as the brawn.  I think they thought they were taking over peacefully during the last election by installing Hillary Clinton as President.  Trump’s election was an enormous blow to plans that had been in operation for many years.  Ironically, it was Reagan who legalized the massive influx of Hispanics with his Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to almost all illegal aliens who had entered the US prior to 1982.  The burgeoning Hispanic population became a strong base for the Democratic Party in future elections.  USA Today reported that about 27 million hispanics were eligible to vote in 2016.  

A Brookings report shows that between 2004 and 2016 the percentage of Hispanics eligible to vote increased from 8.2 percent to 11.9 percent.  The percentage of blacks eligible to vote increased only slightly, from 11.6 percent to 12.3 percent.  The percentage of whites eligible to vote shrank from 75.2 percent to 68.9 percent.  However, in 2016 minorities voted in lower percentages than whites; otherwise Hillary would almost certainly have won the election.  The Democratic strategy, which I believe was masterminded by Jews, failed in 2016, but is less likely to fail in the future.  Currently they may have to decide whether they prefer to impeach Trump, or to build wider support among the electorate, although they are trying to do both.  

Either impeachment or the election of radical leftists would probably lead to major changes in our system of government, equivalent to some sort of revolution.  

Sunday Talk Shows

The Washington Post in its article “Democrats say Confederate monuments are now white-supremacist rallying points,” was just fomenting more race hatred by reporting only one side of the issue, although this was apparently the only side presented by the Sunday morning political talk shows.  

Although the article characterizes the participants as “leading Democrats,” they were mostly Jewish and black.  Sen. Benjamin Cardin, who is Jewish, said you don’t need monuments to appreciate history.  I say, maybe you don’t need them, but why can’t you have them if you want them.  Most of these monuments have been in place for around one hundred years, and nobody objected for 99 of those years.  In the last year, these monuments and the history they represent have come under vicious attack.

Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney, who is black, took issue with Trump’s comparison of Lee and Jackson with Washington and Jefferson, because they “did not take up arms against the United States of America.”  It’s true they did not take up arms against America, because the United States did not exist.  They took up arms against the government of their colonies, the British government.  Washington and Jefferson were rebels; they were just rebels against a different country.  

Adam Schiff, who is Jewish, said the President should “do everything possible to bring our country together, to help make us a more perfect union.”  This sounds great, but it is also a recipe for surrender to violence.  Do whatever the protesters want you to do in order to make the violence and conflict go away.  This avoids asking who is right and who is wrong.  

This morning, Fareed Zakaria spent some time comparing the ante-bellum South to Nazi Germany.  He equated slavery with genocide.  By that standard, why didn’t he equally condemn Jews, who owned slaves in old testament times, or the ancient Greek or Roman civilizations for genocide.  By that reasoning, we should have no prisons.  If someone is found guilty of a crime, locking them up and depriving them of their liberty is equivalent to killing them.  So, if someone is convicted of robbery, by Fareed’s reasoning, they should be executed.  It’s the same thing to him.  It would certainly save us a lot of money on jails.  Fareed is usually intelligent.  I don’t know if he really believes this, or if he is being pressured by CNN executives to stir up more hatred and violence.  His argument is that Lee and Jackson are morally equivalent to Hitler and Goebbels.  

Along these lines, the hatemongers in the Democratic Party say that Trump’s has no right to compare George Washington and Robert E. Lee, because Washington was creating a country, and Lee was rebelling against one.  They fail to recognize that Washington and Jefferson were rebels rebelling against the British.  They had to destroy the colonies’ domination by Britain before they could create the United States.  There are probably few monuments to Washington and Jefferson in Great Britain.  But there are many in the US.  Similarly there are few monuments to Lee and Jackson in northern states, but like the United States, the Confederate States loved their leaders.  Lincoln recognized the importance of reuniting the country after the Civil War, although he did not get a chance to do so.  Nevertheless, after Reconstruction, which in many ways continued the animosity between North and South, the nation did come together.   On December 25, 1868, President Andrew Johnson granted an unconditional pardon to all Confederate soldiers who took an oath of amnesty.  Lee’s written oath of amnesty was pigeon holed and not acted upon until President Ford granted Lee full citizenship in 1975, according to “Professor Walter’s History Lessons.”

According to Wikipedia, in 1913 the largest reunion between Union and Confederate troops took place at Gettysburg.  Around 53,000 veterans attended, about 9,000 from the Confederate side. Addressing the reunion, President Wilson said, “We have found one another again as brothers and comrades in arms, enemies no longer, generous friends rather, our battles long past, the quarrel forgotten—except that we shall not forget the splendid valor."  

The 1913 reunion was the largest, but one was also held in 1888, on the 25th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.  According to the Blog of the Gettysburg National Military Cemetery, at the 1888 reunion, Union General Daniel Sickles said:

Twenty-five years have passed, and now the combatants of ’63 come together again on your old field of battle to unite in pledges of love and devotion to one constitution, one Union and one flag. To-day there are no victors, no vanquished. As Americans we may all claim a common share in the glories of this battlefield, memorable for so many brilliant feats of arms. No stain rests on the colors of any battalion, battery or troop that contended here for victory. Gallant Buford, who began the battle, and brave Pickett, who closed the struggle, fitly represent the intrepid hosts that for three days rivaled each other in titles of martial renown.  

His speech was followed by one from Confederate General John Gordon, then the governor of Georgia:

My fellow countrymen of the North, if I may be permitted to speak for those whom I represent, let me assure you that in the profoundest depths of their nature they reciprocate that generosity with all the manliness and sincerity of which brave men are capable. In token of that sincerity they join in consecrating for annual patriotic pilgrimage these historic heights, which drained such copious drafts of American blood poured so freely in discharge of duty, as each conceived it, a Mecca for the North, which so grandly defended it; a Mecca for the South, which so bravely and persistently stormed it; we join you in setting apart this land as an enduring monument of peace, brotherhood, and perpetual union.  

There were other speeches by veterans of both sides.  The NPS blog closes by saying:

No hard feelings were expressed in any of the official or unofficial remarks. If any hard feelings remained no one mentioned them. This was a time to celebrate the sacrifices made on the field by the soldiers of both sides and to celebrate the fact that the veterans again lived in a united country under one flag and under one constitution.

It is sad that today the Democratic Party is destroying the camaraderie that was established over 100 years ago between the soldiers who actually fought against each other in the war by trying to characterize the Southern soldiers as war criminals.