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.  

Confederate Monuments

Historians invited by the major networks to comment on the Confederate memorials that are being torn down have all said that the memorials were not built until well after the Civil War, from around 1890 to 1920.  They attributed this to increasing efforts to hold blacks down with Jim Crow laws.  I think they are poor historians.  If they looked at other memorials for other wars, they would find that the memorials seldom go up right after the war, unless they commemorate a specific battle or event.  Except for cemeteries of those killed in the war, memorials to the men usually don’t go up until the veterans start dying off.  By and large, living men who are decent and modest don’t want statues of themselves, with exceptions of course.  

One example right under Washington’s nose is the World War II memorial on the mall.  It was not finished until 2004, about 60 years after the end of the war in 1945.  Did Americans hate World War II veterans and only grudgingly build a monument for them after 60 years?  No, until recently they had the veterans themselves.  They didn’t need a  memorial.  

Robert E. Lee died in 1870.  Stonewall Jackson died during the war, but many Confederate veterans of the war lived well into the 1900s.  It’s not surprising that as the men disappeared, their friends and families would think about memorials to remember them after they were gone.  The TV historians were chosen not because of their historical expertise, but because of their political viewpoint.  They were chosen to condemn Southerners for their race hatred, often being “reformed” Southerners themselves.  They have established their credentials to be accepted in the best Democratic Party circles in Washington and New York.  As Southerners they have made their careers by pissing on their fathers’ graves.  

While I am on the subject of memorials, there is one puzzling thing to me about the World War II Memorial.  Why is the Holocaust Memorial so much better?  It was built first; it has a building; it is in a more desirable part of Washington.  It appears to be part of the National Mall, although apparently it is not legally part of it.  Virtually none of the people memorialized in the Holocaust Museum have any link to the United States, except for relatives who came to States during or after the war.  Implicit in the Museum is criticism of President Roosevelt and the United States for not getting into the war earlier, and not invading France earlier in order to free the Jews in the death camps.  The hatred of America is palpable as you walk through the the Museum.  Perhaps it is justified.  I think not.  I find it remarkable that we have an anti-American memorial on the Capital Mall, a memorial to people with no pre-war connection to the United States, but whom it implies the US callously allowed to die.  

If I were a black man, I would ask why dead Jews in Central Europe who did not fight against the Nazis are more important to the United States than African Americans, who only recently got their own museum on the mall.  Blacks got an even worse deal than the World War II veterans.  But don’t hold your breath for someone to criticize a Jewish memorial the way the Jews have criticized the Confederate memorials.  

Charlottesville

What happened in Charlottesville last weekend was a sad example of the failure of the American legal system.  The far right demonstrators had a permit to hold their demonstration.  Although they showed up in force, there is no indication that they started any violent confrontation.  The violence started when the demonstrators were attacked by the protesters against the legal demonstration.  It appears that the Jewish mayor of Charlottesville and his black police chief encouraged the protesters to attack the far right groups.  The police failed to protect the right wing groups who had permission to assemble as authorized by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

There is no excuse for the far right participant who drove his car into a crowd of protesters, but there is no indication that his act was connected to the peaceful demonstration.  His was a personal, vindictive act, but not encouraged or condoned by the leaders of the demonstration.  The demonstration leaders could have done more to weed out crazies like him, but the real responsibility lies with the city and the police of Charlottesville.  Given the number of attacks carried out in Europe by vehicles against people on the street, Charlottesville should have taken measures to prevent a similar occurrence there.  One news report said that Charlottesville streets were supposed to have been closed off, but for some reason they had not been.  Whether they failed to plan or failed to implement a plan, the city is at fault.  They should have protected citizens from crazy visitors like the driver.  

I don’t believe that racism trumps the Constitution.  Americans are free to believe that one race is superior to another if they want to.  However, they cannot act on those beliefs unless they do so legally, and if there is on legal way to act on them, so be it.  But freedom of thought and expression should not be restricted, although actions may be restricted.  Currently, many Americans seem to favor some kind of mind control, especially in universities, where freedom of expression is strongly suppressed.  

Trump has now condemned the far right groups who organized the demonstration, the KKK, Nazi party, etc., That’s appropriate for him to say he does not agree with their ideas, which are mean spirited and wrong, but holding these beliefs does not make them criminals, as long as they do not act on those beliefs in some criminal way.  Holding an officially permitted demonstration is Charlottesville was not criminal.  Killing a bystander in the anti-demonstration protest group was clearly a criminal act.  An anti-demonstration protester attacking and punching the demonstration organizer at his press conference seems to me to also be a criminal act of assault, although much less serious than driving into the protesters.  I have not heard that any charges will be filed against the protesters who resorted to violence against the demonstrators.  It appears to me that the so-called peaceful groups were more violent than the far-right groups during the confrontations.  

If the far-right demonstrators had been allowed to hold their rally without outside provocation, the day would probably have passed peacefully.  They would have registered their objections and gone home.  Thus, I believe liberal groups wanted violent confrontations and provoked them.  It appears the city also wanted to direct attention of the far-right groups, and thus did little or nothing to stop the violence.  

It worked.  The national media has talked nonstop about “white supremacists” and “white nationalists,” rather than abou Constitutional freedom of speech and the right to assemble.  I have not heard anyone on TV or seen in print media any reference to the Supreme Court case regarding a Nazi demonstration in Skokie, Illinois.  According to Wikipedia, “National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (also known as Smith v. Collin; sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of assembly. The outcome was that the United States Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words". Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.”  Charlottesville and its protesters tried to deny these right-wing demonstrators the right to assemble.  I guess they don’t read Supreme Court decisions in Charlottesville.  Or they just don’t care about the Supreme Court and the Constitution.  The media have joined Charlottesville in wilful ignorance about Constitutional law.