880 Would Trump's Trade Policy really Cause a Recession? - Howard Richman and Raymond Richman

Would Trump's Trade Policy really Cause a Recession? - Howard Richman
and Raymond Richman

Newsletter published on 7 November 2016

(1) Would Trump's Trade Policy really Cause a Recession? - Howard
Richman and Raymond Richman
(2) Is Trump a True Conservative? - Howard Richman and Raymond Richman
(3) Trump's Got It Right on Trade - Peter Morici
(4) Trump Has A Sound Trade Policy - Eamonn Fingleton

(1) Would Trump's Trade Policy really Cause a Recession? - Howard
Richman and Raymond Richman

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/would_trumps_trade_policy_really_cause_a_recession.html

Would Trump's Trade Policy Really Cause a Recession?

By Howard Richman and Raymond Richman

March 8, 2016

On Thursday, Governor Mitt Romney gave an anti-Trump speech in which he
called upon Republicans to vote for anybody but frontrunner Donald Trump
so as to produce a brokered convention.  Romney claimed that Trump's
economic plans would cause a recession. He said:

     If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects
for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished. Let me explain
why[.] ... His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate
a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export
jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America.

On Friday, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the U.S. goods and
services trade deficit was $45.7 billion in January, up one billion
dollars from $44.7 billion in December.  January exports were $176.5
billion, $3.8 billion less than December exports.  The reduction in U.S.
exports predicted by Romney just happened, but Trump is not yet
president.  On February 26, the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced
that U.S. economic growth slowed to a measly 1.0% during the last
quarter of 2015, but Trump is not yet president.  Billionaire investor
Jim Rogers predicts a 100% chance of a U.S. recession within a year. If
he is correct, a recession will occur, whether or not Trump is elected
president.

It is true, as Romney claims, that Trump has called for tariff-like
penalties to prevent American factories from moving abroad and also to
bring currency-manipulating countries (including China, Japan, and
Mexico) into trade-balancing negotiations.  But would Trump's tariff
threats slow U.S. economic growth?  No!  Exactly the opposite!

Trade-surplus countries have a lot more to lose from a trade war, so
Trump's negotiations would likely succeed.  For example, in 1981,
Congress threatened trade-balancing import restrictions against
trade-surplus Japan, which resulted in President Reagan negotiating
"voluntary restraints" on Japanese automobile exports.  As a result,
Japanese automobile companies built factories in the United States that
continue to employ American workers and to buy American-made auto parts,
greatly increasing American incomes.

Positive Effects of Tariffs

Even if Trump's negotiations did not succeed, the American economy would
benefit if he imposed his tariff-like penalties.  First, government
revenues would increase, which would reduce the budget deficit.  Second,
American consumers would be encouraged to switch their purchases to
American producers and to the products of those countries, such as
Brazil and Canada, that buy more from us when we buy more from them.
America would become more attractive to foreign manufacturers and to
American manufacturers who had moved their factories abroad.  American
factory production would increase, and so would the employment and
incomes of American workers.

Romney's current attacks are ironic, because during the 2012 campaign,
Romney talked tough on Chinese currency manipulation and other trade
violations.  Romney said that the U.S. should tell China, "You can't
keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our
intellectual property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around
the world, even to the United States."  But Romney's attack on Trump
reveals Romney's stance as the sham that many of us suspected it was at
the time.  Trump is right to propose imposing significant tariffs on
China precisely because of the litany of trade violations 2012 Romney
claimed to be exercised about.  But now Romney claims that if Trump does
anything about China's rampant mercantilism, it will lead to a
depression.  Clearly he planned to go no farther in his China trade
policy than another ineffectual round of asking China to stop its
mercantilism.

In short, Romney doesn't appear to understand the economics of trade.
Economic research about the "tariff-growth paradox," including one of
our own academic papers, has found that tariffs hurt economic growth
only when trade is relatively balanced.  But periods of history during
which world trade has been relatively balanced (such as 1840-1865 and
1950-1973) have been followed by periods during which world trade became
more and more unbalanced.  The world is once again experiencing a period
of high trade imbalances (like the 1890s and the 1930s) in which
trade-deficit countries can grow more rapidly simply by increasing their
tariff rates.  Anything that Trump does to balance the enormous U.S.
trade deficits will be economically beneficial.

How Trade Deficits Have Been Hurting the U.S.

When countries run trade surpluses with the United States, they give us
trade deficits.  Those trade deficits reduce aggregate demand for
American products, American incomes, and investment in American
factories.  In his speeches, Trump has focused upon the three countries
that have large trade surpluses with the United States: China, Japan,
and Mexico.

     China.  Despite running huge and growing trade surpluses with the
United States, the Chinese government won't let its people buy
American-made Boeing passenger jets, Cadillac SUVs, or Caterpillar
tractors.  Instead, the Chinese government forces Boeing, GM, and
Caterpillar to build new factories to China in order to sell to the
Chinese market.  If Trump's negotiations force China to import as much
from the United States as we import from them, American companies could
locate new factories in the United States for shipment of their goods to
China.  Also, American farmers would export more meat to China.  The
benefit to American exporting industries and to American workers would
be enormous.

     Japan.  Under the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement,
Japan can continue to manipulate the yen-dollar exchange rate so it can
grow its enormous trade surpluses with the United States.  With the yen
priced low compared to the dollar, the costs of production in Japan will
continue to be low compared to the costs of production in the United
States.  These low costs give Japanese vehicle and electronic producers
high profits, which they have plowed into R&D and robotics so that they
can continue to gain market share in their competition with U.S. vehicle
and electronic producers.  If anybody but Trump is elected, American
companies that produce in the U.S. will continue to lose market share in
their competition with Japanese producers.

     Mexico. Despite being part of the NAFTA free trade agreement with
the United States and Canada, Mexico manipulates the dollar-peso
exchange rate so that its businesses have lower costs than businesses
that produce in the United States.  As a result, American industries
move factories to Mexico.  If Trump succeeds in his negotiations with
Mexico, U.S.-Mexico trade will move toward balance.

Effect of Trump's Trade Balancing on the U.S.

So if Trump succeeds, how much would his trade balancing help the U.S.
economy?  Doing so would cause businesses to locate new factories within
the United States.  Since R&D gets located near factories, new
innovations would be invented in the United States.  Since workers learn
by doing, American workers would gain on-the-job skills, increasing
their pay over time.  Since American workers buy services from American
service providers, American entrepreneurs would prosper. In sum,
Americans would get more pay, more factories, more R&D, more
innovations, and a more prosperous country.

Trump is the only candidate who has consistently opposed TPP. Although
he voted against fast-tracking it on final passage, Senator Cruz had
helped TPP get momentum by co-authoring an op-ed with Paul Ryan in its
favor.  The other Republican candidates have always supported TPP, and
Hillary Clinton was part of the administration that negotiated it. All
are members of the Republican/Democrat establishment consensus, which
supports overseas production in return for campaign contributions.

And TPP is not just about trade.  It is also part of the open borders
agenda, to which the establishments of both political parties subscribe.
  Under TPP, foreign service providers will be able to recruit cheap
workers in Mexico and Malaysia and bring them legally to the United
States to take American service-sector jobs.  The destruction of the
American middle class will accelerate.  The popularity of socialist
candidate Bernie Sanders tells us where this is going.

The economic case for Donald Trump is clear.  If any other candidate is
elected, U.S. economic growth will continue to stagnate in the 1% to 2%
range.  In contrast, Trump's trade policies would return the United
States to its normal 3% per year growth.  If any other candidate is
elected, median U.S. family income will continue to decrease, but if
Trump is elected, it will return to its normal increase.  Under Trump,
the U.S. middle class, a bulwark against socialism, will gradually be
restored.

The Richmans co-authored the 2014 book Balanced Trade: Ending the
Unbearable Costs of America's Trade Deficits, published by Lexington
Books, and the 2008 book Trading Away Our Future, published by Ideal
Taxes Association.

(2) Is Trump a True Conservative? - Howard Richman and Raymond Richman

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/is_trump_a_true_conservative.html

February 8, 2016

Is Trump a True Conservative?

By Howard Richman and Raymond Richman

During Saturday’s Republican presidential candidate debate in New
Hampshire, Donald Trump was asked:

     Mr. Trump, you've heard the argument from many of the candidates on
this stage that you're not a true conservative. Tell the voters watching
tonight why you are.

He replied:

     Well, I think I am, and to me, I view the word conservative as a
derivative of the word "conserve." We want to conserve our money. We
want to conserve our wealth. We want to conserve. We want to be smart.
We want to be smart where we go, where we spend, how we spend. We want
to conserve our country. We want to save our country. And we have people
that have no idea how to do that, and they are not doing it, and it's a
very important word and it's something I believe in very, very strongly.

Trump gave a general definition of conservative, which is valid. But
there are more specific definitions as well. A political conservative is
one who believes in a limited role for government, a strict construction
of the constitution, fiscal discipline, rule of law and free enterprise.
Social conservatives support the traditional family and oppose abortion,
pornography, sexual promiscuity and redefinition of marriage. One can be
politically conservative without being socially conservative and vice
versa. We are not experts on social conservatism, but we do know
something about economics, so we will examine whether Trump is a
political conservative.

No president is 100% conservative. From the politically conservative
Mises Institute comes the following quote: "Contrary to popular myth,
every Republican president since and including Herbert Hoover has
increased the federal government's size, scope, or power—and usually all
three." Were they political conservatives? Not by our definition. That
applies to Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush
and George W. Bush. Republicans woo the same constituencies that the
Democrats do, so that is no surprise.

Many self-described conservatives say they will not support Donald Trump
because he does not have a record as a conservative. But Trump does not
have any legislative record at all, so it is not surprising that he does
not have a record as a conservative. Trump’s credentials come from the
private sector. He is an entrepreneur with an undergraduate degree in
economics from the Wharton School of Business of the University of
Pennsylvania. It is time we had a president who understands economics
and has a practical grasp of how the economy really works.

The National Review, which self-identifies itself as a conservative
magazine, recently devoted a special issue with writings by 20 persons
that it deems to be conservatives, indicating why they believe Trump is
not.  But very few of the reasons cited have anything to do with
conservatism. Let’s look at Trump’s current positions to see if they are
conservative.

Centralized Power vs. Distributed Power

The key issue dividing liberals and conservatives is centralized power
versus distributed power. Liberals prefer centralized power that makes
it possible for them to impose their policies from the top. This is
especially important in the economic realm because liberal policies only
work if they are imposed from the top. Otherwise, localities that follow
liberal dictates deteriorate economically, while those that follow
conservative dictates prosper.  So liberals want big government, the
bigger and more powerful, the better.

In contrast, conservatives, including America’s founding fathers,
believe in distributed power. When they created the United States, they
maintained separate states each with its own power, and reserved to the
states those powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution.

Take education for example, President Reagan sought to eliminate the
Department of Education. But today’s Republican establishment favored
"No Child Left Behind" under President George W. Bush and now favors
"Common Core" under President Obama, both being attempts to implement a
national educational program. In contrast, Trump opposes Common Core and
has called for cutting the Department of Education.

Or take the environment. Each state has its own environmental protection
agency, and most environmental problems are local. Liberals favor giving
more and more power to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, so
that they can control environmental policy from Washington.
Conservatives prefer leaving environmental policy to the states, so that
if California enacts regulatory policies that make gasoline and eggs
more expensive, other states can out-compete it economically. Trump
wants to cut the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Or take the issue of using trade agreements to enforce environmental
agreements such as the Paris climate treaty. When President Obama
negotiated the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), his trade negotiator
wrote that TPP will enforce multilateral environmental agreements or "we
will not come to agreement." His trade negotiator now says that TPP is
too controversial for climate commitments to be added, so Canada’s
Minister of International trade says that they will be added, instead,
to a different trade agreement, NAFTA. Trump is skeptical about global
warming and opposes both TPP and NAFTA.

Or take federal government growth.  Republicans have controlled the
federal government’s purse strings for the past six years and have
little to show for it.  Their only accomplishment was an
across-the-board cut in the growth of federal expenditures, cutting both
good programs and worthless programs indiscriminately. The Republican
controlled House and Senate just capitulated to the President’s threat
of a veto and gave him a two year budget much larger than 2015. In
contrast, Trump promises to put fellow businessmen in his cabinet with
instructions to make significant cuts in the federal government.

Immigration and the Law

Conservatives tend to support the rule of law and to oppose lawlessness.
Take illegal immigration, for example. Unskilled immigrants are pouring
across the porous U.S. borders. Some are committing crimes. Some are
taking jobs that unskilled Americans would otherwise have. Trump
promises to enforce the law, which is a conservative position.

Or take Muslim immigration. Islam is the only major religion that still
believes in conquering the world by force. Pamela Geller, citing Peter
Hammond, laid out the pattern. As the Muslim population rises,
lawlessness directed against non-Muslims tends to increase. If Pres.
Clinton had examined our open doors to Muslims after the first attack on
the World Trade Towers, the 9/11 attack could have been avoided, three
thousand lives saved, and enormous property damage avoided. Not only
that, the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacres could
have been averted. Trump is the only candidate to advocate temporarily
closing our borders to Muslim immigrants "until we are able to determine
and understand this problem and the dangerous threat that it poses."

The Issue of Trade

During the past several decades, trade deficits converted the United
States from being the world’s leading creditor nation to the world’s
leading debtor nation, resulting in the loss of millions of U.S.
manufacturing jobs and a decline in American economic and political
power, relative to the rest of the world.

There is a huge divide within the Republican Party between those who
favor and those who oppose Trump’s trade proposals. All, including
Trump, favor free trade with Canada, because it is balanced.  The
disagreement between Trump and many conservatives occurs regarding those
countries that run trade surpluses that give the U.S. trade deficits.
Trump advocates placing tariffs upon their products to bring them to the
negotiating table. The two positions on free trade when it is unbalanced
are: (1) one-sided free trade and (2) balanced trade.

Some conservatives want to continue the Bush-Obama one-sided free trade
policy. In fact they want to double-down on it by passing the Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12 country trade agreement which would let
Japan, Mexico, Vietnam, and Malaysia run growing trade surpluses with
the U.S. while preventing any response from the United States.

Others prefer balanced trade agreements. For example, on January 19,
Sarah Palin endorsed Trump’s candidacy for President. Almost five years
earlier, after meeting with Trump, she told the Los Angeles Times:

     What do we have in common? Our love for this country, a desire to
see our economy put back on the right track. To have a balanced trade
arrangement with other countries across this world so Americans can have
our jobs, our industries, our manufacturing again. And exploiting
responsibly our natural resources. We can do that again if we make good
decisions.

University of Maryland Professor Peter Morici, a former chief economist
in the U.S. trade office, also supports Trump’s balanced trade policy.
He recently wrote (Trump’s Got it Right on Trade):

     Donald Trump has been savaged by economists and media aligned with
establishment candidates for tough positions on trade — including a 45
percent tariff on imports to force China to the negotiating table.

     Actually, he’s got it right….

     Overall, the U.S. trade deficit exceeds $500 billion a year and
kills about 4 million jobs. Lost manufacturing takes a big bite out of
R&D spending and that goes a long way toward explaining why growth is so
disappointing and median family incomes are down $4000 since 2000.

Before President George W. Bush, conservative presidents acted against
unbalanced trade by forcing our trade surplus trading partners into
negotiations, just as Trump proposes:

·      In 1971, conservative U.S. President Richard Nixon took advantage
of a provision for trade-deficit countries in GATT rules (which became
WTO rules) by imposing the across-the-board 10% tariff that got the
negotiations going which brought U.S. trade into balance by 1973.

·      In 1981, conservative U.S. President Ronald Reagan threatened to
support a Congressional bill that would limit U.S. imports from Japan.
In the negotiations that followed, he got Japan to "voluntarily"
restrain its automobile exports to the United States.

In a 2012 article, Federal Reserve researcher Justin R. Pierce and Yale
economist Peter K. Schott found a direct link between the sharp drop in
U.S. manufacturing employment after 2001 and the U.S. granting of
permanent normal trade relations to China. U.S. trade agreements have
encouraged U.S. companies to move their operations abroad, secure in the
knowledge that their products could be shipped to the U.S. free of duty.

So which is the principled conservative position when countries run
trade surpluses with the United States? Presidents George W. Bush and
Barack Obama gave their answer by doing next to nothing when China,
Japan, Mexico, and other countries ran huge trade surpluses with the
U.S. throughout their presidencies. During Bush’s presidency, the
Republican Party lost first the Senate and then the House, while during
Obama’s presidency the Democratic Party lost first the House and then
the Senate.

Yet the Bush-Obama trade policy is still supported by Republican
congressional leaders. Majority leader Senator Mitch McConnell recently
asked President Obama to postpone the vote on TPP until after the
November elections, knowing that many Republican Senators would have to
vote against it if it comes up before the election, but could vote for
it if it comes up afterwards.

So is Trump a true conservative? He would transfer power back from the
federal government to the states. He would cut the federal government’s
budget. He would enforce immigration laws. He would combat lawlessness
due to immigration. And he would balance trade. His proposals indicate
that he is indeed a true political conservative

The Richmans co-authored the 2014 book Balanced Trade: Ending the
Unbearable Costs of America’s Trade Deficits, published by Lexington
Books, and the 2008 book Trading Away Our Future, published by Ideal
Taxes Association.

(3) Trump's Got It Right on Trade - Peter Morici
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Peter-Morici/donald-trump-trade-economy-china/2016/01/28/id/711561/

Trump's Got It Right on Trade

By Peter Morici

Thursday, 28 Jan 2016

Donald Trump has been savaged by economists and media aligned with
establishment candidates for tough positions on trade — including a 45
percent tariff on imports to force China to the negotiating table.

Actually, he’s got it right.

Establishment Democrats and Republicans embrace free trade because it
puts free markets first with benefits any decently trained economist
should extoll. Unfortunately, trade with China and many nations is
hardly market-driven.

It hurts U.S. growth and victimizes America’s families.

Obama’s six-year expansion has averaged 2.2 percent annual economic
growth and added 13.6 million jobs. Coming off a similar bout with
double-digit unemployment, Reagan delivered 4.6 percent growth and in a
smaller economy, added 18.1 million jobs.

Now conditions in China threaten to derail the U.S. recovery. Beijing’s
statisticians report China’s growth slowed to 6.9 percent in 2015, down
from double digits a few years ago. Western estimates are as low as 4
percent, and much of that is decadent.

Building apartments and office complexes that attract no tenants, and
entire ghost cities, count in China’s GDP tally but add little to
productivity. Wasteful outlays have boosted debt to 260 percent of GDP.

Nervous about a looming credit crisis, Chinese investors are heading for
the doors — selling yuan for dollars to invest in overseas real estate
and securities. This panics global stock markets and pushes down the
yuan against the dollar — making Chinese goods artificially more price
competitive against American-made products than underlying costs warrant.

For all the talk of a faltering dragon, U.S. imports from China were up,
exports down and the bilateral trade deficit increased nearly $25
billion in 2015 — killing 200,000 American jobs.

Crippling debt is epidemic among emerging economies, as many borrowed in
a mad race to expand manufacturing. Like Japan and the European Union,
they now seek to cope with excess capacity and crushing interest
payments by cheapening their currencies to juice exports and ship
unemployment to America.

Those strategies have pushed U.S. manufacturing into recession —
employment in export-focused durable goods is down 35,000 since June.

Trade should work better for America. We have a highly productive
workforce and generate most of the world’s cutting edge innovations, but
commerce doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Governments put up tariffs, impose
tough regulations on foreign goods and investment, and offer businesses
subsidies to export more.

That’s why American automobile and electronics manufacturers locate in
China, and the same goes in other Asian venues.

How tough conditions are for U.S.-based industry is strongly determined
by international trade agreements — those administered by the World
Trade Organization and deals struck with individual countries.

The Obama Administration heralded the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement as
creating "countless new opportunities for U.S. exporters to sell more
Made-in-America goods, services and agricultural products to Korean
customers — and to support more good jobs here at home."

Since implemented in 2012, imports from Korea have risen much more than
exports, and the bilateral trade deficit is up about $16 billion —
destroying 130,000 good-paying American jobs.

Now the Obama Administration is making similarly fanciful claims to win
congressional approval for a Trans-Pacific Partnership. It would
establish free trade with 11 other nations, including Japan, without
cleaning up subsidies and currency manipulation.

Overall, the U.S. trade deficit exceeds $500 billion a year and kills
about 4 million jobs. Lost manufacturing takes a big bite out of R&D
spending and that goes a long way toward explaining why growth is so
disappointing and median family incomes are down $4000 since 2000.

Trump’s proposals for fixing trade — starting with China — address the
salient issues of currency, trade barriers and subsidies. Those echo
Mitt Romney’s 2012 platform — and candidate Obama in 2008 — but threaten
entrenched interests in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Trump is hardly reckless on trade — just a long needed agent for change.

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of
Maryland, and a national columnist. He tweets @pmorici1

(4) Trump Has A Sound Trade Policy - Eamonn Fingleton
http://www.unz.com/efingleton/trump-has-a-sound-trade-policy-but-where-will-he-get-sound-trade-policy-aides/

Trump Has A Sound Trade Policy, But Where Will He Get Sound Trade Policy
Aides?

Eamonn Fingleton

April 30, 2016

Donald Trump’s speech on foreign policy on Wednesday has been widely and
predictably misrepresented. The Economist, for instance, claimed to see
many "errors" there, yet curiously failed to identify a single one.

In suggesting his proposed strategy is riddled with contradictions, the
only substantiation the magazine offered was this:

     He….vowed that his America would be a "reliable friend and ally
again". But moments earlier he explained how he would begin his
presidency by summoning allied leaders for a summit to discuss how they
"look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation
to honour their agreements with us."

Pace the Economist and its compulsion to belittle the Trump phenomenon,
his attitude to allies is no way contradictory. He is evidently
referring to trade agreements and is saying that just because a nation
like Japan or South Korea is classified as an American ally does not
relieve it of an obligation to honor its trade agreements. If such
nations continue to discriminate against U.S. exports, it will be they,
not a Trump-led America, that will fall short on obligations of friendship.

Trump’s larger point is that for any serious future Presidential
administration, trade can be a powerful lever in influencing foreign
partners – and not just China, whose rivalry with the United States is
now obvious and ever-present, but nations like Japan, South Korea, and
Germany, which have long used saccharine-sweet professions of friendship
towards the United States to try to slough off their trade obligations.

So much for the broad outline of Trump’s strategy. But if it is to work,
he will need a small army of reliable aides to implement it. Although he
has already named several advisors on other issues, he seems not yet to
have reached out to any trade experts. Yet in trade more than almost any
other area of policy, the devil is in the details and a President simply
has to delegate much of the strategizing and most of the negotiating to
trustworthy aides. The evidence of history is that the caliber of trade
negotiators in the past has generally fallen way below what the American
nation is entitled to expect.

The challenge for Trump is to find aides who cannot be either corrupted
or broken (in the latter case, via, for instance, blackmail).

The traditional first port of call for administrations in search of warm
bodies is, of course, the Washington think-tank industry. But far too
many think-tank types are hired guns whose only loyalty is to their own
pocketbooks. In any case, almost without exception think-tanks are on
the wrong side of the issues. So too for the most part are Washington
law firms and Ivy League universities.

A major part of Trump’s problem will be transforming the culture at the
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Hitherto the
USTR seems to have been peopled largely by an amoral breed of young
lawyer for whom, in typical revolving door fashion, government service
is just a stepping stone towards the real deal, a big paying job in the
private sector. For such people, and their likely future employers in
the Washington foreign trade lobby, a reputation for standing up for the
U.S. national interest is not considered an asset.

Yet Trump is right to prioritize trade. It is not only a field that has
long cried out for strong presidential leadership, but it is one where,
given aides of appropriate commitment and strength of character, a
future President Trump could aim for large early victories.

As a practical matter, however, people of the appropriate caliber are
not thick on the ground. Some of the most clear-sighted trade economists
moreover are left-leaning Democrats like Robert Kuttner, Jeffrey
Madrick, and Robert Scott who will probably not be available to a
President Trump.

Meanwhile some key figures who in a previous life came to national
attention as trade hawks have long since tiptoed away from their former
positions and have even in some instances cosied up to persistently
protectionist nations (it may not be a coincidence that such nations are
noted for big-budget attempts to subvert intelligent American criticism
of their trade policies). In the nature of things, such experts are
better left unnamed but a useful litmus test is the extent to which they
have written about, say, Japan’s globally crucial car market. That
market remains as closed as ever and provides the Japanese car industry
with a high-profit sanctuary from which to "target" world markets.

A further problem is that many people with deep knowledge of the issues
(acquired typically in the 1980s and 1990s, when trade was last a
hot-button issue) are now in their late 60s or older. Whether they will
be as enthusiastic as the 69-year-old Trump for a new challenge is
anyone’s guess.

All that said, let’s name some appropriate names. Two people Trump
should call immediately (if he hasn’t already done so) are Patrick
Buchanan and Pat Choate.

Buchanan ran for President as a third party challenger in both 1992 and
1996 and among his top issues were America’s ill-advised trade strategy
and trade’s role in American industrial decline. A familiar face to the
American public from a long career as a television commentator, Buchanan
is an erudite historian who first came to prominence as a senior advisor
to Richard Nixon in the 1960s.

As for Choate, he was Ross Perot’s running mate in a 1996 presidential
campaign in which they strongly challenged Bill Clinton’s trade
policies. An institutional economist positioned on the moderate right,
he is a noted expert on the shortcomings of extreme laissez-faire. He is
also the author of Agents of Influence, a bestseller on the Washington
trade lobby, and in recent years has served as an advisor to corporate
America on international patent problems.

Here are a few other well-informed and reliable trade experts whom Trump
should seek out at the first opportunity:

Dan DiMicco. In his former capacity as chief executive of the Nucor
steel company, DiMicco fought many trade battles and is an expert on
East Asian dumping.

Ralph Gomory. A noted applied mathematician and former head of research
at IBM, he is the author, with William Baumol, of Global Trade and
Conflicting National Interests. In this book and follow-up papers,
Gomory has challenged the theoretical foundations of textbook free trade
theory.

Kevin Kearns. Head of the U.S. Business and Industry Council, an
organization representing domestic manufacturers, Kearns formerly served
as a foreign service officer in Germany, Korea, and Japan, and in that
capacity observed first-hand the obstacles faced by US companies in
trying to export to key foreign markets. In Japan, he opposed the
give-away of American taxpayer funded aerospace technology to the
Japanese FSX program.

Robert Lighthizer. A partner in the Skadden Arps law firm and a former
deputy United States Trade Representative (USTR), he divides his time
between traditional trade litigation, policy advice, and legislative
initiatives. He represents heavy manufacturing, agricultural and
high-tech companies and has been lead counsel in countless antidumping
and countervailing duty cases.

Richard McCormack. Publisher of Manufacturing & Technology News, a
well-regarded newsletter, McCormack is an expert on the practical
problems faced by U.S. industry in competing in rigged global markets.

Peter Morici. A professor of international business at the University of
Maryland and a former advisor to the U.S. International Trade
Commission, he is one of the few prominent academic economists who
forthrightly challenges his colleagues’ ivory tower commitment to
unilateral free trade.

Patrick A. Mulloy. A lawyer who served five two-year terms on the
bipartisan United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission,
he currently serves as a consultant to non-profit groups interested in
reforming U.S. trade and economic policies.

Michael Sekora. A noted physicist, he founded Project Socrates, a
classified U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency program established in 1983
within the Reagan administration. He holds that the cause of U.S.
industrial decline is that U.S. decision-makers abandoned
technology-based planning and adopted economic-based planning at the end
of World War II.

Alan Tonelson. As research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry
Council Educational Foundation, he has written extensively on free trade
and globalization and their role in U.S. industrial decline.

How realistic is it to hope that a future President Trump can bring
America’s now persistently disastrous deficits under control? Many
observers are daunted at the scale of the undertaking. Kevin Kearns, for
instance, believes that the organizational effort required will be
monumental.

" Trump will need to formulate a comprehensive plan to fulfill his
promise to bring back jobs to America," Kearns comments. "It will
involve not just USTR and the Commerce Department, but also Treasury,
Defense, Energy, Labor and other departments and agencies. He will have
his work cut out finding people who share his vision and are willing to
man the various federal government positions to carry out his plans.
They exist, but they are few and far between. And certainly, there are
legions of lobbyists, think-tankers, and academics who would be only too
glad to take a job and subvert his program."

Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries: Why
Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future
Prosperity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999).

879 George W. Bush embraces Hillary Clinton at Nancy Reagan funeral, March 11, 2016

George W. Bush embraces Hillary Clinton at Nancy Reagan funeral, March
11, 2016

Newsletter published on 7 November 2016

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 21:46:53 +0000 Subject: Forward: Birds of same
feather From: "penninecottage@hush.com" <penninecottage@hush.com>

https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/george-w-bush-hugs-hillary-at-nancy-reagan-funeral.jpg

878 Trump ad targeting Globalists (Soros, Yellen, Goldman) branded 'anti-Semitic' by ADL

Trump ad targeting Globalists (Soros, Yellen, Goldman) branded
'anti-Semitic' by ADL

Newsletter published on 7 November 2016

(1) Trump ad targeting Globalists (Soros, Yellen, Goldman) branded
'anti-Semitic' by ADL
(2) Most Americans don't know that those Globalists are Jews - because
the Media doesn't tell them
(3) Jewish opposition to Trump is virtually unanimous - Kevin MacDonald
(4) David Horowitz calls Bill Kristol a 'Renegade Jew' conspiring
against America
(5) Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew - by David Horowitz
(6) NYT editor Jonathan Weisman brands Trump supporters anti-Semitic;
some reply he's trying to deceive the Goys
(7) Trump realizes that to win Election he must gain Jewish support by
backing Israel - Peter Beinart
(8) Trump Names Jewish Financier, Fixer to Major Campaign Positions
(9) Trump Whistles His Dogs - Gilad Atzmon
(10) Trump accuses Hillary of colluding with international bankers to
undermine the nation and control the world
(11) What To Do If Hillary Wins - Brother Nathanael Kapner
(12) Americans can deal a decisive blow to the rule of the Masters of
Discourse - Israel Shamir
(13) Last Stand of the Angry White Man: Trump Will Win - Michael Moore
(14) US election may follow the path of Brexit; but Globalists won't
accept defeat
(15) Trump victory will reinforce Brexit, free America from Globalists,
as Brexit freed UK
(16) George W. Bush embraces Hillary Clinton at Nancy Reagan funeral,
March 11, 2016

(1) Trump ad targeting Globalists (Soros, Yellen, Goldman) branded
'anti-Semitic' by ADL

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/353563/in-final-pitch-before-elections-trumps-ad-evokes-anti-semitic-undertones/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

In Final Pitch Before Elections, Trump’s Ad Evokes Anti-Semitic Undertones

Nathan Guttman

November 6, 2016

In his final appeal to American voters, Donald Trump is now blasting the
airways in key states with a two-minute long campaign ad full of
promises for a better future, and laced with unmistakable anti-Semitic
dog whistles.

The theme of Trump’s ad is taking back America from the political
establishment that has taken hold of the nation, branding himself as the
outsider champion of everyday Americans struggling against mighty forces
out to exploit the country.

But beyond the use of terms such as "global power structure" that is
seen by some in the extreme right as a codeword for Jewish power, it is
the visual images in Trump’s ad that have made some Jewish activists
feel uneasy.

As Josh Marshall detailed in Talking Points Memo, Trump’s ad leaves no
room for doubt on who exactly are those "global powers" that are ruining
America:

"The four readily identifiable American bad guys in the ad are Hillary
Clinton, George Soros (Jewish financier), Janet Yellen (Jewish Fed
Chair) and Lloyd Blankfein (Jewish Goldman Sachs CEO," he writes,
detailing the way Jewish images in the video are coordinated with
certain themes:

"The Trump narration immediately preceding Soros and Yellen proceeds as
follows: ‘The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this
election. For those who control the levers of power in Washington [start
Soros] and for the global [start Yellen] special interests [stop
Yellen]. They partner with these people [start Clinton] who don’t have
your good in mind.’

For Blankfein: ‘It’s a global power structure that is responsible for
the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our
country of its wealth and put that money into the [start Blankein]
pockets of a handful of large corporations [stop Blankfein] and
political entities.’"

Jewish leaders insist this is not a case of them being over-sensitive.

The Anti-Defamation League’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted that
"whether intentional or not" the use of these images and rhetoric "needs
to stop." He called on all sides to avoid "conjuring painful stereotypes
and baseless conspiracy theories."

     This #Trump ad touches on images and rhetoric that anti-Semites
have used for ages https://t.co/fKjHU3Bsy5pic.twitter.com/itMxVUpS2R—
ADL (@ADL_National) November 6, 2016

Al Franken, who is Jewish and a Democratic senator, likened the ad to
the oft-debunked and viciously anti-Semitic "Protocols of the Elders of
Zion". The National Jewish Democratic Council accused Trump of "casual
use of anti-Semitic memes and stereotypes" in his campaign and argued
that the latest ad proves this is a "strategic choice" on behalf of the
Republican candidate.

The Trump campaign, through Jason Greenblatt (Co-chairman of Donald J.
Trump’s Israel Advisory Committee) responded that:

     The ADL should focus on real anti-Semitism and hatred, and not try
to find any where none exist. I am offended and concerned that an
institution such as the ADL would involve itself in partisan politics
instead of focusing on its important mission. Mr. Trump and his campaign
have laid out important ideas, a vision and critical policies for our
country. The suggestion that the ad is anything else is completely false
and uncalled for. Mr. Trump’s message and all of the behavior that I
have witnessed over the two decades that I have known him have
consistently been pro-Jewish and pro-Israel and accusations otherwise
are completely off-base.

Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com or on Twitter @nathanguttman

(2) Most Americans don't know that those Globalists are Jews - because
the Media doesn't tell them
- by Peter Myers, November 7, 2016

Was Karl Marx a Nazi because he said Jewish bankers run the Capitalist
system?

If they DO run it, is it 'anti-Semitic' to say so?

Trump's comments are called 'dog-whistles' because he doesn't identify
any of his targets as 'Jews'. And the public does not know, or is not
supposed to know, because the Media (largely Jewish-owned) does not
mention it. But Jews know, and those who identify with the Lobby claim
offence.

Of course, detribalised Jews or 'ex-Jews', know too, and support Trump.
So do some Zionist Jews, because Trump has abandoned his earlier
neutrality on the Middle East. He realized that, without the backing of
at least one Jewish faction, he had no chance.

For the record, it is worth listing some Jews or ex-Jews who support
Trump (US), or Brexit (UK), or the abolition of Section 18C in Australia
(with its threat to Free Speech)

Eric Margolis
Breitbart News
Gilad Atzmon
Spiked Magazine (formerly Living Marxism, then LM Magazine) eg Melanie
Phillips, Frank Furedi
Israel Shamir
Michel Chossudovsky (says Hillary's accepting donations from Qatar &
Saudi Gov'ts is Treason, because she knows they fund ISIS)
Brother Nathanael Kapner
Howard Richman
Benjamin Netanyahu
David Stockman
David Horowitz
Jim Lieberman. chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (re 18C)

(3) Jewish opposition to Trump is virtually unanimous - Kevin MacDonald
http://www.unz.com/article/claremonts-codevilla-on-the-coming-revolution-americans-will-be-nostalgic-for-donald-trumps-moderation/

Claremont’s Codevilla On the Coming Revolution "Americans Will Be
Nostalgic For Donald Trump’s Moderation."

Kevin MacDonald

October 11, 2016

We are nearing the climax of a watershed election. The Ruling Class
understands that Donald Trump represents a counter-revolution to all
they have built up over the last 50 years. [...]

Thus, despite appearances to the contrary, there is a unified oligarchic
Establishment that straddles both the Republican and Democrat parties.
This has not been so obvious in previous elections, when Republicans and
Democrats were apparently quite different on some issues. However, the
rise of Donald Trump has shown that the Establishment is entirely
united. For example, billionaires are supporting Hillary Clinton 20–1,
whereas in previous elections, they were much more split between the two
parties. Not one Fortune 100 CEO is supporting Trump.

The other pillar of the Ruling Class is the media which reflects
academic culture and political culture generally. The media, along with
academia, and the bureaucracy, have been prime drivers of this top-down
revolution, in which the moral and intellectual high ground has been
seized by people hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the
West. This new Ruling Class is completely out of touch with the
interests of a majority of its citizens—particularly White Americans.
Thus the print media is almost completely in the anti-Trump camp [...]

Finally, given my research interests, II would be remiss if I did not
mention the critical role played by Jews and the organized Jewish
community in the changes that are now coming to a head.

There is no question that Jews are a prominent component of our new
elite and played a determinative role in passing the watershed 1965
immigration law. I have written five VDARE.com articles on Jewish
opposition to Trump, often expressed in terms of Jewish identity,
interests in multiculturalism, immigration and refugee policy, and fear
of a fascist America.

Given the very powerful position Jews enjoy in the American media
(summarized briefly here and more extensively here, pp. xlvi-lvi), they
necessarily play a major role in the anti-Trump movement.

Jewish opposition to Trump is virtually unanimous, and in the Republican
Party, Jewish neoconservatives are leading the #NeverTrump movement.
(One of them, Paul Ryan adviser Dan Senor, is rumored to have leaked the
Access Hollywoodtape, although the MSM seems reluctant to ask him).
According to 538, in 2012, around 70% of money given by Jews directly to
candidates went to Obama, while in 2016, 95% has gone to Clinton. [The
GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump,By Eitan Hersh and Brian
Schaffner, September 21, 2016] Jews are vastly overrepresented among the
top donors to pro-Clinton PACs, while the Republican Jewish Coalition
has not endorsed Trump, with many donors switching to Clinton. Adelson,
after investing $93 million in the 2012 campaign for Republicans,
including $30 million to a Romney PAC, now says he will donate only $45
million, of which only $5 million will go to Trump, the rest going to
House and Senate candidates. [Donald Trump Gains the Support of a Former
‘Never Trump’ Billionaire, by Michal Addady, Fortune.com, September 20,
2016]

Codevilla says frankly that a deep unhappiness with the current
political culture is brewing that could ultimately lead to a
revolutionary upheaval.

Trump accomplished a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Can he
accomplish a hostile takeover of the presidency in the teeth of
unanimous opposition from our hostile elites?

(4) David Horowitz calls Bill Kristol a 'Renegade Jew' conspiring
against America

http://www.vdare.com/articles/jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-donald-trump-4-neocon-angst-about-a-fascist-america

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump (4): Neocon Angst About A
Fascist America

Kevin MacDonald

May 20, 2016, 10:26 pm

The reactions of anonymous people on Twitter criticizing Jews are now
fodder for news stories by both "right wing" Jews like Ben Shapiro and
more liberal journalists like Jonathan Weisman.  [Trump’s supporters
unleash anti-Semitic attack on New York Times editor, by Sophia Tesfaye,
Salon, May 20, 2016] Somehow, all the death threats,  vulgar criticism,
and actual violence  conservatives have received over the years never
become  a source of sympathy from the Main Stream Media!

One of the more spectacular examples of an MSM frenzy over supposed
anti-Semitism: the reaction to the attack by David Horowitz against his
fellow Jew Bill Kristol, leader of a campaign to destroy Donald Trump
[Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew, May 15, 2016] The
headline, written by Horowitz, alluded to Kristol being Jewish.

As Jonathan S. Tobin notes in Commentary,

     [T]he real offense here is … his attempt to wrap him in the Star of
David and to somehow brand his opponents as traitors to the pro-Israel
cause. …

     [H]is invocation of "America First" and the use of a term like
"renegade Jew" in the headline (though not in the text of the article)
seems to echo the smears of the pro-Trump alt right racists who have
attacked conservative critics of the candidate with an avalanche of
anti-Semitic invective.

     [Breitbart’s ‘Renegade Jew’ Disgrace, May 16, 2016]

Horowitz’s offense was not simply criticizing Kristol’s campaign against
Trump. Lots of people have done that without incurring the wrath of
Commentary. And even saying that Kristol’s views are not good for Jews
and Israel is commonplace:  Mondoweiss, J Street, and Mearsheimer and
Walt in The Israel Lobby argue that neoconservatives and the Israel
Lobby have a tragically mistaken view of Jewish and Israeli
interests—also discussed in Charles Bloch’s and Steve Sailer’s VDARE posts.

The unforgivable offense: implying Kristol’s being a Jew had something
to do with his opposition to Trump. After all, there would have been
exactly zero upset if instead the headline was "Bill Kristol: Republican
Spoiler, Renegade Republican."

But putting ‘Jew’ in the headline was guaranteed to bring out immediate
charges of anti-Semitism by the likes of Michelle Goldberg [Email her]
in Slate :

     To define someone as a ‘Renegade Jew’ in a column about scheming
elites written for an audience full of white nationalists is to signal
to the sewers. … A narrative is taking shape, an American
Dolchstoßlegende that will blame a potential Trump loss on conniving
Semites.

     [Breitbart Calls Trump Foe "Renegade Jew." This Is How
Anti-Semitism Goes Mainstream, May 16, 2016]

Of course, we are supposed to engage in the fiction that the opinions of
Bill Kristol et al. have nothing to do with being Jewish or what is good
for Israel, but everything to do with their perception of what is good
for America.

And of course, this goes well beyond neocons to include Jews in the
media generally. For example, the ADL condemns the idea Jews have an
outsized influence in Hollywood by claiming that Hollywood Jews just
"happen to be Jews"—that their Jewish identity does not affect the
content of movies or television. [Alleged Jewish ‘Control’ of the
American Motion Picture Industry, September 1999] As I’ve painstakingly
documented over the course of my career, this is patently absurd. In
fact, the Jewish identities and sense of Jewish interests of the neocons
are obvious from a close reading of their careers [Understanding Jewish
Influence III: Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement, by Kevin MacDonald,
The Occidental Quarterly, August 2004].

While it’s obviously true that Trump has support among some Jews linked
to the GOP, there is one Jewish faction that is all but apoplectic he
might win [Where Jewish conservatives stand on Donald Trump: A running
tally, by Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency, May 6, 2016]. And there
can be little doubt that their opposition is fueled by their Jewish
identity.

This mystifying to some. For example, Bill O’Reilly seemed genuinely
bewildered when he interviewed (at 3:00) Charles Krauthammer—another
ardent neocon opponent of Trump— about a Bret Stephens article in the
Wall Street Journal.

Stephens was triggered by Trump’s use of the phrase "America First" and
decried  "the Republican descent into populism" [The GOP Gets What It
Deserves, May 2, 2016]. O’Reilly couldn’t help but observe, "he’s really
teed off, he’s really angry."

maxbootcfrStephens’ outburst was nothing compared to the anti-Trump
invective spewed by neocon stalwart Max Boot [email him]

Boot said:

     I would vote for a conservative third-party candidate or for
Hillary Clinton. I regard Donald Trump as an ignorant demagogue who is
one of the most dangerous candidates ever to run for the American
presidency and one of the least qualified. … He has shown that he
doesn’t understand the basics of policy, he has shown that he is
erratic, he is xenophobic, he is guilty of sexist and racist comments …

     Let’s remember, this is the guy who wants to ban all Muslims from
the country, he wants to send the police breaking into American homes to
round up 11 million undocumented migrants; … He has hijacked the party.
… He is not remotely conservative. He is a populist demagogue,
xenophobic…[BBC NewsNight (YouTube) May 9, 2016]

This sort of anger is hardly likely to come from Trump’s supposed lack
of concern about "limited government," or "commitment to the
Constitution," "true conservatism," or even his personal qualities.

In unpacking these talking points, it’s useful to separate the red
herrings from more fundamental concerns. For real conservatives, such as
Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich, this election is a simple
choice between someone who would be far better than Hillary Clinton on
fundamental issues conservatives claim to hold dear. There is in fact a
long list of Trump policies and proposals that are conservative by any
reckoning—promising Scalia-like Supreme Court appointments, securing the
border and deporting illegals, supporting the police against the Black
Lives Matter movement, promising to end Obamacare, doing away with
Common Core, taking strong pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands, and
supporting the military and veterans. [Trump unveils his potential
Supreme Court nominees, by Jeremy Diamond, CNN, May 28, 2016]

Neocons never threatened to run a third-party candidate against
"compassionate conservative" George W. Bush even though he was far more
liberal than Trump—proposing Amnesty for illegals, expanding Medicare
entitlements, signing No Child Left Behind, and racking up huge budget
deficits—what some have called "Big Government Conservatism" [The
liberal leanings of George W. Bush, by John Ibbitson, The Globe and
Mail, April 3, 2009]. Nor was Mitt Romney a small-government candidate.
[Back to Bush’s Big-Government Conservatism, by Michael Tanner, National
Review, November 30, 2011]

For neocons, the huge expansion of entitlements, promotion of
culture-destroying immigration, and rampaging budget deficits were not
offenses against "conservatism." These policies didn’t even register as
a problem. It was more important that Bush carried out their
(disastrous) neoconservative foreign policy.

It’s impossible to take the dedication of self-styled "conservatives"
like Stephens and Kristol to conservative principles seriously. After
all, they refuse to acknowledge that unless we deal with the problem of
importing millions of Third Worlders who both vote for and utilize
welfare and "big government," any kind of "limited government" will be
impossible.

Another very basic principle actual conservatives support is freedom of
speech. Immigration threatens this as well. Universities throughout the
West are under siege by the intolerant Left, and one more liberal
appointment to the Supreme Court could well be the end of the First
Amendment. Intellectual rationales for curtailing First Amendment
freedoms, and in particular speech critical of the multicultural ideal,
are already common in liberal academic circles [Why we should ban "hate
speech," by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 24, 2012].
Continuing to import millions from intolerant Third World cultures does
not bode well.

Yet Stephens and Kristol soft-pedal the effect the catastrophic impact
of a President Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Kristol [Email him] is given to
Pollyannaish  tweets that a Third-Party candidate would actually win.

     There is a viable path to victory for a credible independent
candidate. Not easy, but doable.https://t.co/DECILg4p6l

     — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) May 18, 2016

This is presumably to avoid the charge that he is really quite happy
with Clinton and her pro-Israel donors, notably Haim Saban [Jane Harmon,
Haim Saban, and AIPAC: The Disloyalty Issue in Multicultural America, by
Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, April 25, 2009].

Indeed, it’s hard to see why Kristol would disapprove of Hillary’s
neocon foreign policy advisers like Robert Kagan,  [Email him]who
advocates military intervention and democracy creation throughout the
Middle East as a moral imperative [Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary
Clinton, ConsortiumNews, February 25, 2016]. Needless to say, this
doesn’t stop Kagan from portraying Trump as a fascist [This is how
fascism comes to America, Washington Post, May 18, 2016].

So why are neocons so upset? Two reasons:

1.) Trump has rejected basic neocon foreign policy positions on the
Middle East. Trump opposed the Iraq war which was promoted by the
neocons, calling it a "complete disaster." Amazingly, he stated:

     "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and
there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of
mass destruction."

     [Trump vs. Bush: They Said There Were Weapons of Mass Destruction
And They Knew There Were None. They Lied, Real Clear Politics, February
13, 2016]

Trump has also supported friendly relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia
and supported an effort to achieve stability in the Middle East by
propping up the Assad government in Syria. Assad and Putin are very high
on the neocon hate list.

And Trump has given mixed signals on Israel, speaking about neutrality
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and avoiding money from the
Republican Jewish Coalition. His most recent speech on the topic, at
AIPAC, was intended to quell Jewish fears and mend fences, but the
Washington Post’s token (neo)conservative Jennifer Rubin [email
her]emphasized that this speech was recited from a teleprompter,
implying that it didn’t reflect his real views [Trumpkins and the Jews,
Washington Post, May 16, 2016]

Of course, Trump has received promises of support from Sheldon Adelson.
He also hired ex-AIPAC official Michael Glassner and other prominent
Jews to high positions in his campaign [Trump names Jewish financier,
fixer to major campaign positions, by Nathan Guttman, Forward, May 7, 2016]

But Trump has given no indication that he would appoint any neocons to
his administration. And, unlike George W. Bush, Trump is not a babe in
the woods, ready to be dominated by a coterie of neocons. This would
mean that the neocons would be deprived of their primary power base,
with no choice but to defect to the Democrats (from whence they came).

2.) Trump represents the undoing of elite consensus on immigration,
multiculturalism, and the moral imperative that white Americans become a
minority in a country they created. [...]

It’s not that Trump is bringing "fascism," it’s that there’s a chance he
might be bringing freedom for European-Americans. And for all their talk
of tolerance, that’s one thing the Culture of Critique will never allow.

(5) Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew - by David Horowitz

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/15/bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/

Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew

by David Horowitz

15 May 2016

While millions of Republican primary voters have chosen Donald Trump as
the party’s nominee, Bill Kristol and a small but well-heeled group of
Washington insiders are preparing a third party effort to block Trump’s
path to the White House.

Their plan is to run a candidate who could win three states and enough
votes in the electoral college to deny both parties the needed majority.
This would throw the election into the House of Representatives, which
would then elect a candidate the Kristol group found acceptable. The
fact that this would nullify the largest vote ever registered for a
Republican primary candidate, the fact that it would jeopardize the
Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, and more than likely
make Hillary Clinton president, apparently doesn’t faze Kristol and
company at all. This is to give elitism a bad name.

One would think that the Trump opponents would have substantial reasons
for pursuing such a destructive course. But examination of their
expressed reasons shows that one would be wrong. Their chief
justification for opposing Trump is that he is not a "constitutional
conservative" and in fact is "without principles" and therefore
dangerous. The evidence offered is that he has supported Democrats in
the past and changed his positions on important issues.

Yet in seeking a candidate to carry their standard, the Kristol group
has approached billionaire investor Mark Cuban, a figure uncannily
similar to Trump. During the presidential election year 2012, the
Hollywood Reporter noted that, "in February, billionaire sports and
media mogul Mark Cuban was seen hugging Barack Obama at a
$30,000-a-plate fundraiser for the president’s re-election bid." Cuban
was also a visible campaigner for Obama four years earlier. A fan of
Obamacare, Cuban wrote a column for Huffington Post just before the 2012
election titled, "I would vote for Gov. Romney if he were a Democrat."

Now it is true that Mark Cuban eventually had second thoughts about
Obama, and perhaps even about Democrats. But what these facts show is
that Kristol and his allies are willing to elect anyone but Trump, even
if they have even fewer principles than the man they hate.

A second charge against Trump is that his character is so bad (worse
than Hillary’s or Bill’s?) that no right-thinking Republican could
regard him as White House worthy. "I just don’t think he has the
character to be president of the United States," Kristol declared in a
recent interview:

     It’s beyond any particular issue I disagree with him on, or who he
picks as VP or something. The man in the last five days has embraced
Mike Tyson, the endorsement of a convicted rapist in Indiana… He likes
toughness, Donald Trump, that’s great, he likes rapists.

This would be fairly damning if the facts were as black and white as
Kristol presents them. But as anyone familiar with the sports world
would know, Mike Tyson had a dramatic change of heart following his
release from prison — rejected the life he had led, repented his past,
and committed himself to a course of humility and service to others.

Here is an online news summary of the transformation: "Former boxing
champ Mike Tyson has dedicated the rest of his life to caring for others
– because he considers himself a ‘pig’ who has ‘wasted’ so many years of
his life."

Tyson himself told Details Magazine:

     The first stage of my life was just a whole bunch of selfishness.
Just a whole bunch of gifts to myself and people who didn’t necessarily
deserve it. Now I’m 44, and I realize that my whole life is just a
f**king waste. ‘Greatest man on the planet’? I wasn’t half the man I
thought I was.

In an autobiographical best-seller, Tyson also conducted a searing
self-examination, which was condensed into a one-man Broadway
performance and HBO special. Whatever one thinks of Mike Tyson before or
after his conviction, one has to concede that he has made a serious
self-inventory and changed the way he sees himself and others. If
Kristol were serious about the politics of winning elections rather than
merely pontificating about them, he would have known these facts and
also recognized that Tyson is an icon to an important segment of the
voting population — one that is more likely than not to offer sincere
repenters a second chance.

Electorally speaking, Trump’s ability to win the endorsement of an
African-American sports champion is no small achievement. Nor is it an
isolated one. Trump has also been endorsed by Adrien Broner, a world
boxing champion in four weight classes, who is also African-American.

In addition to alleging that Trump is lacking in principles and
character, Kristol claims that the Republican candidate is a crackpot
conspiracy theorist, a disqualifying trait. Kristol’s evidence is a
remark Trump made on the eve of the Indiana primary suggesting that Ted
Cruz’s father might have something to hide about his alleged
acquaintance with Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Kristol wrote:

     Calling in to Fox and Friends, Donald Trump, as Politico summarized
it, "alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin
shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer
story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald
handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963."

The liberal writers at Politico can perhaps be forgiven for reporting
that the Enquirer only claimed that Oswald and the senior Cruz were
pictured together. The Enquirer actually published the picture.

"Here’s Trump in his own crazed words," Kristol continues:

     [Trump:] "His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Kennedy’s
being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What is
this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They
don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about
it. I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald
shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible."

Comments Kristol: "What’s horrible is a leading presidential candidate
trading in crackpot conspiracy theories."

So it might be, if Trump were actually putting forward a conspiracy
theory. But what we have here, obviously, is not a theory but some
Trumpian campaign mischief — not dissimilar in form to his earlier
suggestion that because Ted Cruz was born in Canada, he might not be
able to actually run for president even if he were to win the
nomination. These were both campaign tricks — dirty tricks if you like —
to throw a rival off balance and gain an advantage.

Were they dirtier than publishing nude photographs of Trump’s wife
during the Utah primary or publishing a false story that Ben Carson was
quitting the race on the eve of the Iowa primary, as the Cruz campaign
did? Do they justify sabotaging a Republican run for the presidency and
potentially electing Hillary Clinton?

Kristol is aware that his strategy risks electing an Obama loyalist, and
he attempts to neutralize the objection by claiming that Trump is
himself an Obama clone whose policies would be no different:

     [T]here is a president whose policies Donald Trump’s would in fact
resemble: Barack Obama. No intervention against dictators? Check. No
action to prevent mass slaughter? Check. Another reset with Putin’s
Russia to break what Trump calls the "cycle of hostility"…? Check.
"Getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on
creating stability in the world?" Check! Trump’s agenda turns out to be
Obama’s all-too-familiar agenda of national retreat masked by a rhetoric
of America First bellicosity.

This is pretty shabby stuff. Contrary to Kristol, far from being a
non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against dictators
in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in
Libya, which Kristol supported, has created two million refugees,
hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state. One might
suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order.
Trump’s readiness to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as
Obama’s strategy of retreat and surrender.

Contrary to Kristol’s assertion, Trump is not opposed to all
interventions against dictators. He has promised to do what it takes to
destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and destroying
its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in
Syria and Iraq. Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass
slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.

As for Trump proposing "another re-set with Putin’s Russia," there was
no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting a serious re-set — a
re-set from strength — would seem reasonable and prudent, and would
hardly be a repeat of Obama’s policies. It would be just the opposite.

"Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on
creating stability in the world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol
suggests. Obama’s intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim Brotherhood in
power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama
sided with the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the
Middle East. These acts, together with Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and
waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability
throughout the region.

"Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a
foreign policy any true constitutional conservative would support —
unless that conservative was driven by an irrational hatred of Trump.
Finally, Trump’s promise to put American interests first and restore
respect for America through rebuilding American strength can only be
described as a "national retreat" by a very unprincipled — and careless
— individual.

All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the
consequences Kristol and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk
by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided America’s mortal
enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and
the freedom to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver
the lethal payloads. Trump has promised to abandon the Iran deal, while
Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported this
treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.

I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in
the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by
having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in
Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered — Iran,
the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas — have openly sworn
to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first),
whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To
weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their
annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying
her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound
as to not be easily forgiven.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/breitbarts-renegade-jew-disgrace/

(6) NYT editor Jonathan Weisman brands Trump supporters anti-Semitic;
some reply he's trying to deceive the Goys

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/20/trumps_supporters_unleash_anti_semitic_attack_on_new_york_times_editor/

Saturday, May 21, 2016 05:01 AM EST

Trump’s supporters unleash anti-Semitic attack on New York Times editor

Jonathan Weisman simply tweeted out someone else's opinion piece on
Trump bringing fascism to America

Sophia Tesfaye

Objective political observation: Donald Trump has drawn a lot of support
from Americans happy to express their anti-Semitic views online.

Let’s observe the most recent evidence.

Last week, GQ reporter Julia Ioffe filed a report with the D.C. police
department over the anti-Semitic threats that she received online and on
her voicemail after writing a profile of Trump’s wife. This week,
Melania Trump essentially shrugged off the abuse from her husband’s
supporters with old-fashioned victim blaming.

She provoked them," Trump told Du Jour magazine.

On Wednesday, right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro made a stunning
admission in the National Review.

"I was wrong," Shapiro wrote, explaining that before Trump’s candidacy
he incorrectly assumed claims of anti-Semitism in America to be overblown:

     I’ve spent most of my career arguing that anti-Semitism in the
United States is almost entirely a product of the political Left. I’ve
traveled across the country from Iowa to Texas; I’ve rarely seen an iota
of true anti-Semitism. I’ve sensed far more anti-Jewish animus from
leftist college students at the University of California, Los Angeles,
than from churches in Valencia. As an observer of President Obama’s
thoroughgoing anti-Israel administration, I could easily link the
anti-Semitism of the Left to its disdain for both Biblical morality and
Israeli success over its primary Islamist adversaries. The anti-Semitism
I’d heard about from my grandparents — the country-club anti-Semitism,
the alleged white-supremacist leanings of rednecks from the backwoods —
was a figment of the imagination, I figured.

     I figured wrong.

     Donald Trump’s nomination has drawn anti-Semites from the woodwork.

Finally this week, New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman attempted to
call out anti-Semitism among Trump supporters on Twitter, only to
immediately be flooded with anti-Semitism by Trump supporters on
Twitter. Go figure.

On Thursday, Weisman alluded to Melania’s dismissal of the anti-Semitism
surrounding her husband’s campaign while pointing out that, bizarrely,
in this Year of Trump, billionaire Jewish American businessmen Sheldon
Adelson and former KKK head David Duke are cheering for the same candidate:

     Melania Trump says @juliaioffe provoked vile antisemitism. Klan all
in & Adelson urges Jews to back @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/7wFJwVFOSt

     — Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) May 19, 2016

Weisman also tweeted out an opinion piece from The Washington Post by
Robert Kagan, titled, "This is how fascism comes to America." Here is a
relevant excerpt: advertisement

     This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and
salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but
with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac
‘tapping into’ popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire
national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or
simply out of fear — falling into line behind him

Trump’s anti-Semitic supporters swarmed shortly thereafter:

     Flabbergasted that antisemitism in the Trump voter ranks isn't
getting more attention, at least from the @RJC. https://t.co/qt5uI5bUIb

     — Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) May 19, 2016

     @Rusted_Ovum Care to explain?

     — Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) May 19, 2016

     @jonathanweisman What ho, the vaunted ashkenazi intelligence,
hahaha! It's a dog whistle, fool. Belling the cat for my fellow goyim.

     — CyberTrump (@Rusted_Ovum) May 19, 2016

     @jonathanweisman @AriFleischer do you wish to remain hidden, to be
thought one of the goyim by the masses?

     — CyberTrump (@Rusted_Ovum) May 19, 2016 [...]

     For those who sent kind thoughts, thank you. Antisemites, thank you
for showing yourselves. No more retweets. My work is done for the day.

     — Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) May 19, 2016

(7) Trump realizes that to win Election he must gain Jewish support by
backing Israel - Peter Beinart

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.717837

Trump and the Absurdity of America’s Israel Debate

He pretends to care about Israel, and the American Jewish Establishment
pretends that he’s a respectable candidate for president.

Peter Beinart

May 04, 2016

[...] Trump realizes that running for president requires convincing the
American Jewish establishment that he will give the Israeli government
near unconditional support. Other candidates dress this up in
high-minded language about how Israel shares America’s democratic values
and serves as a vital ally in the struggle against terrorism. Trump’s
approach is more blunt: You Jews want to know I’m pro-Israel? Here are
Greenblatt, Friedman and Cohen. They all work for me. They’re all Jews.
They’ll tell you whatever you want to hear. If they don’t, just let me
know. I can easily find more.

It’s kind of refreshing. Most campaign discussions of Israel are a
farce. Trump is just admitting it. At a recent J Street event, Stephanie
Schriock, president of Emily’s List, which raises money for Democratic
women candidates, explained how, when she served as finance director for
congressional candidates, she developed their positions on Israel:

"Before you went to the Jewish community [to raise money], you had a
conversation with the lead AIPAC person in your state and they made it
clear that you needed a paper on Israel. And so you called all your
friends who already had a paper on Israel — that was designed by AIPAC -
and we made that your paper. This was before there was a campaign
manager, a policy director or a field director because you have got to
raise money before you do all of that. I have written more Israel papers
that you can imagine. I am from Montana. I barely knew where Israel was
until I looked at a map, and the poor campaign manager would come in, or
the policy director, and I’d be like, ‘Here is your paper on Israel.
This is our policy.’ That means that these candidates who were farmers,
school teachers, or business women, ended up having an Israel position
without having any significant conversations with anybody…when I look
back at it, it’s shocking."

But it doesn’t shock Donald Trump. Trump, after all, does deals. And
when it comes to Israel, the deal is clear: He tells the American Jewish
establishment what it wants to hear. In return, the American Jewish
establishment treats him like a respectable presidential candidate. It
does so even though he’s sowing hate against America’s most vulnerable
religious minority, and even though he barely pretends to know anything
about the Jewish state, let alone the Palestinians.

Europe and the United Nations keep trying to undermine America’s
monopoly over Israeli-Palestinian relations. How dare they? If elected,
Donald Trump — aided by Greenblatt, Friedman and Cohen — will have
things well in hand.

(8) Trump Names Jewish Financier, Fixer to Major Campaign Positions

http://forward.com/news/national/340165/trump-names-jewish-financier-fixer-to-major-campaign-positions/

Nathan Guttman

May 7, 2016

Unlike his likely rival in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary
Clinton, Donald Trump has not appointed an official liaison to the
Jewish community. But he is building a team of advisors that features
several new Jewish individuals in addition to the employees who have
thus far advised him on Jewish issues.

Earlier this week Trump put Michael Glassner, currently serving as
deputy campaign manager, in charge of preparations for the Republican
nominating convention. In addition, Trump named Steven Mnuchin, a Wall
Street financier, to serve as his national finance chairman.

The two Jewish advisers will join several other members of the Jewish
community filling key roles in the Trump campaign, including Jason
Greenblatt and David Friedman, two lawyers who are consulting Trump on
issues relating to Israel, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has
emerged as one of Trump’s close confidants in the campaign. Donald Trump
talks to Jewish reporters on April 14, 2016. Donald Trump Doesn’t Know
What To Call the West Bank Josh Nathan-KazisApril 14, 2016

Glassner, according to a Politico report will be Trump’s front man in
preparation for the Cleveland convention, which will test the
candidate’s ability to unite the Republican Party.

A former AIPAC regional director, Glassner was an adviser to
presidential campaigns of several Republican candidates. His last
political stint was in 2008, when he managed Sarah Palin’s vice
presidential campaign.

"I don’t think there can be any question about [Trump’s] steadfast
support for Israel," Glassner said in a February interview with Jewish
Insider.

"I would not be working here if I didn’t believe that that was held by
the candidate himself. It’s very important to me, very important to him
and the country."

Mnuchin, a hedge fund manager and former Goldman Sachs partner assumed
the position of national finance chairman this week.

Mnuchin’s political donations have favored Democratic candidates. He
also contributed $7,000 to Hillary Clinton’s previous senatorial and
presidential campaigns. After leaving Goldman Sachs Mnuchin founded
OneWest Bank Group and has financed many high-budget Hollywood films.

His father, Robert Mnuchin is a Jewish philanthropist and art collector.

Trump’s search for advisers, though in unofficial roles, on issues
relating to Israel, led him to two Jewish business associates. Jason
Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew who in his day job serves as Trump’s
executive vice president and chief legal officer, was asked by the
presumptive nominee to advise him on Israel issues though he does not
have extensive ties with players on the Israeli – Palestinian scene.

Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer, is known for his close ties with the
settler community in the West Bank. He heads the American Friends of Bet
El Institutions, which raises money for project in the settlement and is
a regular columnist in Arutz Sheva, a right wing radio outlet. In his
columns, Friedman has been a harsh critic of President Obama’s policy
toward Israel.

Nathan Guttman is the Forward’s politics reporter. Reach him at
guttman@forward.com, and follow him on Twitter @nathanguttman

(9) Trump Whistles His Dogs - Gilad Atzmon

From: bronek <bronekc@me.com> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:04:20 -0400

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/11/1/trump-whistles-his-dogs

Trump Whistles His Dogs

November 01, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli Jew

By Gilad Atzmon

In her recent Washington Post Article, Jewish academic Cheryl Greenberg
makes one valid observation. Trump’s criticism of the Jews is far more
subtle than his disapproval of other groups and identities (Mexicans,
Muslims, Women etc).  Though Trump is not known for pulling his punches,
when it comes to the Jews, Trump chooses his words very carefully.
Trump, according to Greenberg, is so careful "that it’s not clear that
Trump himself fully understands the implications of what he’s saying." I
guess that the Jewish academic couldn’t restrain herself from looking
down at the Goy candidate.

Greenberg sees Trump as a puppet-master who controls his audience by
means of ‘dog whistling’.  "Trump’s references to money, bankers and
international conspiracies appear to be deliberate anti-Semitic dog
whistles, and his alt-right supporters recognize (and celebrate) that."

Greenberg elaborates on her observation, "first of all, dog whistles
serve when overt expressions are not an option; they communicate to
those who are familiar with the conspiracy theories but maintain
plausible deniability." According to Greenberg, when Trump wants to
communicate a message about the Jews, he uses an indecipherable code
intelligible only to half of the Americans... Greenberg and the ADL.

If Greenberg is correct, if Trump says ‘international Bankers’ but
really means Jews, then both the Republican candidate and half of the
American people are fearful of the Jews. They must very well understand
what a confrontation with Jewish institutions may entail. They know
that, in America, criticism of Mexicans, Women, and Muslims is a kosher
territory but even a subtle criticism of Jews may cost them dearly. One
may wonder, how did this happen? What is the substance of that magical
power that empowers half of Americans to speak in codes when they think
about Jews?

Greenberg seems to raise the right question just to come up with the
wrong answer.  "Why would anti-Semitism not be an overt option, while
racism, sexism, and xenophobia are?"

"Americans are less willing to accept blatant anti-Semitism than
racism,"  Greenberg’s answers.

What Greenberg really wants to say is that Americans can be racists and
can say whatever they like about whoever they want. But when it comes to
Jews, they refrain.  Americans do know very well the geography of the
boundaries of correctness. Jewish power is for them a taboo, at least
momentarily. America and Americans are fully aware of the enormous power
that is bestowed in the hands of just a few Jewish oligarchs within the
  ubiquitous industries of media, finance, politics, and culture.

America would have loved to dissolve the situation peacefully but it
can’t.  Jewish power can’t be contained or suppressed because we are not
even allowed to allude to it, let alone point it out.

Jewish power is defined as the power to silence criticism of Jewish
power.  Jewish power, as such, is a ticking timebomb. It is a unique
form of self-destructiveness.  The history of the Jews proves this
point. Time after time it is Jewish power that sets the path towards a
glamorous Jewish golden age that leads to the most severe tragic
consequences.

The Jewish phobia of anti semitism is not driven by fear of the gentile.
It is actually the other way around. The Jewish fear of antisemitism is
the result of Jews being fearful of their own might. Jews tend to
recognise that there is something in themselves that evokes animosity
from others. This is the true meaning of the Jewish "Pre Traumatic
Stress Syndrome". It is the acceptance that from here forward, things
can only get worse. Many Jews see in Trump’s popularity a symptom of a
fatigue of their own power. They interpret the nostalgic yearning for
‘America being great’ as a pining for a Christian past. Something that
predates Goldman Sachs’ and Soros’ dominion. The Jewish aggression
towards Trump can be realised as an expression of Jewish guilt. Yet,
Trump himself has very little to do with it. He married his daughter to
a Jew. He trades with Jews, he loves Israel. He is almost as Jewish as
the Clintons.

Greenberg is optimistic. For her, Trump’s popularity is "the final
gasping of white supremacy".  His voters - pretty much half of the
American people - are dogs reacting to a man with a whistle. I am not as
optimistic as Greenberg. I think that exploring such contempt towards
half of the American people in the name of a vague progressive mantra is
a very dangerous game. It suggests to me that progressives have reached
a state of complete detachment.

(10) Trump accuses Hillary of colluding with international bankers to
undermine the nation and control the world

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/26/donald-trumps-conspiracy-theories-sound-anti-semitic-does-he-even-realize-it/

Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories sound anti-Semitic. Does he even
realize it?

His xenophobia is usually blunt, but not when it comes to Jews.

By Cheryl Greenberg

October 26

Cheryl Greenberg is the Paul E. Raether distinguished professor of
history at Trinity College and the author of "Troubling the Waters:
Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century."

Donald Trump is not known for pulling his punches. Sexist? He boasts
about groping women and agrees that his daughter Ivanka is a great
"piece of ass." Racist? Mexicans are "rapists" and can’t be trusted to
make just legal decisions. Immigrants? They’re "bad hombres" who traffic
drugs and slaughter innocent American citizens on the streets. Muslims?
Exclude them all or face a bloodbath. Hillary Clinton threatens gun
ownership? "Second amendment people" might be able to do something about
that.

In the past few weeks, Trump has begun leveling accusations that smack
of anti-Semitism, too, but much less openly than the xenophobia he has
directed at other groups all through the campaign. The conspiracy
theories Trump has been talking up recently play on long-standing tropes
used against Jews for decades or even centuries, and the echoes are
unmistakable for many of Trump’s alt-right followers and for Jews who
are familiar with the history of anti-Semitism. But his language veils
the bigotry in a much more subtle way than when Trump talks about
Mexicans or Muslims — so much so that it’s not clear that Trump himself
fully understands the implications of what he’s saying.

Shortly after Republicans started to disavow Trump over his 2005 remarks
about women, the candidate began blaming his troubles on a conspiracy by
Clinton and her allies in the media and global finance. Clinton, he
said, is colluding with international bankers to undermine the nation
and control the world. She pretends to help working-class people and
black people, but she is really exploiting them for her own benefit.
"Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the
destruction of U.S. sovereignty to enrich these global financial powers,
her special interest friends and her donors," Trump announced in West
Palm Beach, Fla. The press is also complicit, he argued in that same
speech: "The most powerful weapon deployed by the Clintons is the
corporate media, the press." All these are old canards straight out of
the phony "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," conspiracy theories about
wealthy, international Jewish bankers plotting to destroy the nation and
take over the world, controlling politicians with their wealth or
through the power of the media that they dominate (the "Jew York Times"
is a commonplace in neo-Nazi parlance). These Jews exploit poor and
vulnerable people for their own nefarious ends while pretending to be
allies. The only missing assertion is the blood libel. Clinton can be
understood as either a closet Jew (like Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
according to anti-Semitic claims in the 1930s and 1940s) or a patsy of
the worldwide Jewish cabal, which uses unwitting non-Jews to advance its
agenda.

[Donald Trump is wicked. As a rabbi, I had to protest his AIPAC speech.]

Trump’s alt-right followers, who have demonstrated their embrace of his
overtly bigoted positions with blasts of racist and xenophobic tweets,
shouts at rallies, and discussions on their websites, have certainly
understood the anti-Semitic implications of these particular
allegations. The stunning recent rise of anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish
journalists, politicians, performers and others, as well as the violent
threats against their lives and their families, has made that clear. In
the past few days, a new Nazi-inspired expletive has been reported at
Trump rallies: "Lügenpresse!" (lying press), which The Washington Post
has noted is a "common slogan among .?.?. members of xenophobic,
right-wing groups." There is no evidence Trump’s rallies are producing
significantly more anti-Semites — the number of people who hold "deeply"
anti-Jewish views has hovered in recent years between 12 to 17 percent
of the U.S. population. But there is a danger that like racists, those
who already hold bigoted positions against Jews now feel emboldened to
act or be more outspoken about their beliefs.

But unlike his other incendiary remarks, Trump’s anti-Semitic assertions
are implied rather than stated openly. When challenged, as he was this
summer over an image of Clinton superimposed over a pile of money and a
six-pointed star, later shown to have come from anti-Semitic web forums,
Trump denied any anti-Semitism and took the post down. When criticizing
his coverage in the New York Times, Trump explicitly and repeatedly
identified the ethnicity of Carlos Slim, the "very rich Mexican" who is
a part-owner of the paper, but he never mentioned that a Jewish family
has controlled it for generations. If this is anti-Semitism, it is far
more subtle than his sexism and racism. What’s going on?

Trump’s references to money, bankers and international conspiracies
appear to be deliberate anti-Semitic dog whistles, and his alt-right
supporters recognize (and celebrate) that. Trump is not inventing these
conspiratorial ravings on the fly during rallies but reading them from
prepared remarks. His chief adviser, Steve Bannon, headed Breitbart News
— which has leveled racist and anti-Semitic accusations in the past — so
maybe it is not surprising that they have surfaced in Trump’s campaign.
But the fact that they are dog whistles instead of overt expressions of
anti-Semitism may tell us other important things about Trump and about
public attitudes.

[The Breitbart alt-right just took over the GOP]

First of all, dog whistles serve when overt expressions are not an
option; they communicate to those who are familiar with the conspiracy
theories but maintain plausible deniability. Why would anti-Semitism not
be an overt option, while racism, sexism and xenophobia are?

One reason for this may be that Americans are less willing to accept
blatant anti-Semitism than racism. Even the Anti-Defamation League,
whose mission is to identify and fight anti-Semitism, made this point:
"Fortunately, most Americans will never personally experience the most
[overt expressions of anti-Semitism] .?.?. the hate crimes, assaults,
and serious damage to property. That is because the United States is a
country in which hate-motivated behavior is not tolerated by the
majority of citizens." Trump’s alt-right advisers may have concluded
that alienating this group by explicitly targeting them might cause more
harm than good. Or perhaps Jew-bashing doesn’t promote Trump’s political
agenda the way anti-Muslim pronouncements do.

And it may also be that Trump doesn’t understand his accusations as
being anti-Semitic. Rather, he embraces conspiracy theories that
dovetail with his accusations against Clinton, conspiracies rooted in an
anti-Semitic history that delights his racist followers but that on
their face appear to have their own legitimacy. Trump wants to emphasize
Clinton’s "crookedness," her coziness with international bankers, her
embrace of open trade and more open borders, her willingness to sell out
American interests, her control of the media. So he willingly seizes on
attacks offered to him that make these claims, oblivious of their
origins in historic anti-Semitism. He wants to argue that Clinton does
not have working people’s interests or African Americans’ interests at
heart, and so he embraces a conspiracy theory that accuses her of
undermining poor communities for her own economic advantage without
realizing that this stereotype of the greedy Jewish landlord or merchant
was a staple of anti-Semitic rhetoric. That all these accusations are
traditional anti-Semitic slurs either doesn’t occur to Trump or doesn’t
matter to him. His style is to blame others for his failures and to
portray ideas that conflict with his as existential evils. These
conspiracies, conveniently received by the alt-right as anti-Jewish even
without any explicit Jewish references, fit the bill.

My own guess is that Trump is not personally anti-Semitic (in the way
that he clearly is, by contrast, sexist). His daughter converted to
Judaism to marry a Jewish man of whom Trump seems genuinely fond and who
has major influence in the campaign. The wife of Trump’s son Eric is
Jewish; Donald Jr.’s wife is Jewish on her father’s side. Trump has
Jewish friends and business colleagues. Rather, I believe that he knows
so little about the history of anti-Semitism that he doesn’t even
realize the links. Once he is challenged on it, he digs in and becomes
defensive (I should never have taken down that six-pointed star!) but he
doesn’t double down on his attack the way he has when accused of bigotry
against other groups.

That the anti-Semitism is unintentional on his part doesn’t make it any
less dangerous. By invoking these conspiracy theories without naming
Jews, anti-Semitic ideas are introduced without fanfare into the
mainstream political conversation while sending encouragement to those
white nationalists who fully understand their implications. And so
anti-Semitic sentiment and activity rises without anything explicit
being said. It serves as a warning that dangerous beliefs can be
transmitted even unwittingly if the opportunity presents itself.

Whether Trump is intentional about spreading anti-Semitism is, of
course, largely beside the point. Like his more overt expressions of
racism, sexism and Islamophobia, Trump’s anti-Semitic comments have made
such conversation acceptable again. As a historian, I know that
blatantly racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic public comments by public
officials (particularly but not exclusively in the South) were
commonplace until the 1960s. I never thought I would hear it today. As a
Jew and an American, I am both afraid and ashamed. And I worry this
recrudescence of bigotry will long outlast the election.

But I am also, oddly, optimistic. The widespread public revulsion at
Trump’s comments — not just his anti-Semitism but his xenophobia,
anti-Mexican rants, hatred of Islam, racism, sexism, his mocking of the
disabled — is one data point. As is the stunning collapse of his
political support by Americans of virtually all political, religious,
gender and racial groups, and the fact that most Trump supporters
spewing hate on social media do so anonymously. All that suggests that
the majority of Americans — unlike 50 years ago — no longer find such
views acceptable. I don’t want to minimize the very real fear and danger
these sorts of threatening statements create. But if we take the longer
view, this may well be simply one of the last gasps of white supremacy.

(11) What To Do If Hillary Wins - Brother Nathanael Kapner

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1161

What To Do If Hillary Wins

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

November 5, 2016 ©

A TERRIBLE DREAD, Dear Diary, has crept over me with the thought that
Clinton could be elected president on Tuesday.

Sometimes it feels like a deep depression and other times a feeling of
defeat.

The Jews will win big with Hillary. They were by her side in Arkansas,
and have owned her ever since they made her senator from New York.
Political careers go nowhere in New York unless you sell your soul to
the Jews.

And although Trump is up to his ears in Jews, (for starters, his
daughter Ivanka married into the powerful Kushner real-estate dynasty),
he still has a huge ego.

That means if Trump feels like he’s being pushed around or threatened by
Jews, his ego won’t allow him to cower. That’s a plus when dealing with
treachery and intrigue. Jews aren’t called the children of the devil for
nothing.

And besides, Trump’s a maverick, and his proposed End The Offshoring Act
is a troublesome issue for Jewish Wall Street…who will push Congress not
to act on it, or add so many legal conditions that it is rendered
toothless and useless.

Jewish finance owns Clinton and you can kiss your jobs goodbye forever
if she’s elected.

Jewish Wall Street also owns the arms companies and you can kiss peace
with Russia goodbye if Killary wins.

And any FBI investigation into her Clinton Foundation and emails will
hit a brick wall if she gets in with a Clinton-loyal DOJ starting at AG
on down.

Speaking of on down, Wiener is just a metaphor for getting screwed over
by Jewish money and media power. Clinton gets a pass and everyone else
gets the shaft.

A DEEPER DESPONDENCY kicks in if Hillary’s elected president.

And that’s the specter of Bill Clinton occupying the Devil’s House once
again.

For while Hillary is hosting LGBT dinners, Bill will be banging on every
young intern he can get behind the devil’s doors.

Which brings me to my point, what to do if Hillary gets in:

1. Leave the country. (Not practical)

2. Go off-grid. (A no-go in JewSA’s police state)

3. Engage in civil disobedience. (Chertoff and friends at DHS will snuff
it out in a minute)

4. Throw a blanket over your head and earplugs in your ears for you’ll
be hearing Hillary screeching for 4 more years.

WELL, THE OPTIONS don’t look good. Best to resign ourselves to the
destruction of America under Hillary: morally, spiritually,
economically, and demographically.

And best to circle the wagons in your traditional churches, because
Christianity is the new counter-culture.

But, wait, there is something we can do. We can build bomb shelters like
we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis, following the infamous Bay of Pigs.

For this political pig, Hillary Clinton, will do the bidding of George
Soros and her billionaire Jewish donors, to bring on a nuclear war with
Russia.

It’s called "population reduction," "getting even," and "satisfying a
grudge." Jews don’t take defeat in the Middle East vis-a-vis the Russian
intervention in Syria lying down.

But bomb shelters, dear diary, could be our only and last defense.

From: bronek <bronekc@me.com> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:51:16 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Palestinians petition UK apology for Balfour declaration;
Obama  non-Veto at UNSC

Hi Peter,

Balfour is essentially responsible  -in many ways-  for today’s millions
of Muzzies desiring residence in Mother Europe’s home. Peter, in 1919,
at the Paris Peace Conference, the Greeks had made some amazing
advances. Suggestion: look at the map of that era, when Greeks appeared
to even be able to take Constantinople. Peter, even the once great Greek
port of Smeryna was in their hands.

Peter, Balfour fought the French and British diplomates, for zyd goals.
According to him, assisting Greeks would mean taking troops and supplies
away from the effort to give the zyds a homeland in Palestine. Peter,
this is no secret. Many have written about this. Peter, there’s a wealth
of info on this. Without Balfour today there would be no zyd homeland,
no current Middle East never-ending wars and there would have been no
Saddam Hitler "endangering America…"  Peter, when Balfour was dying he
told his family that the greatest thing he ever did in his life was to
create a zyd state… People who have not read up on Balfour have missed
out on learning about much of EuroMan’s civilizational failures, due to
certain networking within EuroMan’s home...

(12) Americans can deal a decisive blow to the rule of the Masters of
Discourse - Israel Shamir

From: "Israel Shamir adam@israelshamir.net [shamireaders]"  Date: Fri, 4
Nov 2016 09:04:25 +0200

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/i-envy-you/

I envy you

by Israel Shamir

I envy you, American citizens. I do not care about your military might,
nor for your supreme currency, the US dollar. I envy your chance to deal
on 11/8 a decisive blow to the rule of the Masters of Discourse. Though
the Masters control the entirety of world media, and they decide what
people may think and say from Canada to Hong Kong, only you, American
citizens, can defeat them. This is a great chance, a unique opportunity
not to be missed.

The Masters of Discourse can be defeated. They are not stronger than any
ruler of past. Trump has a great quality making him fit for the task: he
is impervious to labels and libels. He had been called everything in the
book: anti-Semite, racist, women hater, you name it. And he still
survived that flak. Such people are very rare.

We know he is against the Masters because every newspaper is against
him. I never saw a similar onslaught but once, in Russia in 1996. Then
President Yeltsin, an old drunkard who had brought Russia to collapse,
had to run for his second term. His popularity was next to zero. Two per
cent of Russians intended to vote for him. And then the oligarchs turned
on their propaganda machine. Yeltsin’s competitor Gennady Zyuganov, a
mild church-going post-communist, had been presented like a Hitler of
his days. All the Russian media of the day belonged to oligarchs, and
all of it participated in the onslaught. Zyuganov surrendered.

Perhaps he won the election, but he congratulated Yeltsin with his
victory. It was said that he was threatened with assassination unless…
Others say he was bribed. I do not exclude both explanations, but for
sure the might of united media can crush a timid man.

In the days of the Jewish Temple, there was a Magrepha, a wind
instrument able to produce diverse and frightening sounds. There is no
agreement among the scholars about what sort of thing it was. Whenever
it sounded, people were scared.

The media of our days is a new Magrepha. If all of its outputs are
united, they produce a terrible roar.

Yes, the onslaught of the media upon Trump had been exceedingly unfair,
but he survived it. What is even more important, you survived it. It
does not matter what the polls say: they say what the newspapers tell
them to say. Even people answer the polls according to the media
prognoses: they are shy of saying they would vote for a man who … But at
the moment of actual vote, they do what they know is right for them. Not
for transgenders, not for Muslim brokers, not even for single mothers,
but for themselves.

You have a very good chance to win, and to defeat the witch and her
supporters. We learned that the British people voted for Brexit, though
all the media said that proposal had no chance. But we also learned from
Brexit, that nothing is over until it is over. The Masters of Discourse
will try every trick to steal the elections, and only their fear of
armed rising may finally force them to acknowledge their inevitable defeat.

We know that in 2015, when Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime
Minister, was afraid of losing the elections, he revealed that the
American intelligence has some superior software which allows them to
falsify the elections. Perhaps, but he won despite this magical
software, despite Obama’s wrath.

Even in Israel, that favorite son of the Masters, the Masters are hated.
The New York Times is always speaking good about Israel, but still
Israelis do not like the newspaper. Nobody likes them, nobody likes an
old aunt who tries to tell us what we can say and what we can’t. If
Netanyahu could win, Trump can win twice.

After the first debate of Trump and Clinton, people said: She won! But
we shall vote for him. This was a very encouraging sign. Indeed every
woman worth its salt would win an argument with her husband or
son-in-law, let alone a pretender. That is the way we are made. The
story of sirens enforces the belief that if you listen to a woman, she
will bewitch you. Sirens actually ate the bewitched sailors; our
womenfolk do not go to such extremes, but they can cause us a lot of
trouble.

Trump seems to be almost pure of heart and deed, as even extremely
prejudiced media could not find anything really incriminating about him
but bragging about having his way with women. I shall not recount so
many proven accusations against Hillary. All of that can be found in the
emails revealed by Julian Assange and his great Wikileaks team. The
media kept mum about it, but the secrets can’t be kept forever.

There are many practical things Donald Trump will be able to fix. He can
return industries home, he can return American GIs home from four ends
of the world, he can improve lot of working men. But he surely will set
all of us free from the annoying bondage of the Masters. Just for that
reason, go and vote, for yourself and for millions of us who aren’t
entitled to.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

(13) Last Stand of the Angry White Man: Trump Will Win - Michael Moore

From: chris lancenet <chrislancenet@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016
04:28:31 +0900 Subject: 5 Reasons

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Why Trump Will Win

MICHAEL MOORE

Friends:

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I gave it to you straight
last summer when I told you that Donald Trump would be the Republican
nominee for president. And now I have even more awful, depressing news
for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November. This wretched,
ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to
be our next president. President Trump. Go ahead and say the words,
‘cause you’ll be saying them for the next four years: "PRESIDENT TRUMP."

Never in my life have I wanted to be proven wrong more than I do right now.

I can see what you’re doing right now. You’re shaking your head wildly –
"No, Mike, this won’t happen!" Unfortunately, you are living in a bubble
that comes with an adjoining echo chamber where you and your friends are
convinced the American people are not going to elect an idiot for
president. You alternate between being appalled at him and laughing at
him because of his latest crazy comment or his embarrassingly
narcissistic stance on everything because everything is about him. And
then you listen to Hillary and you behold our very first female
president, someone the world respects, someone who is whip-smart and
cares about kids, who will continue the Obama legacy because that is
what the American people clearly want! Yes! Four more years of this!

You need to exit that bubble right now. You need to stop living in
denial and face the truth which you know deep down is very, very real.
Trying to soothe yourself with the facts – "77% of the electorate are
women, people of color, young adults under 35 and Trump cant win a
majority of any of them!" – or logic – "people aren’t going to vote for
a buffoon or against their own best interests!" – is your brain’s way of
trying to protect you from trauma. Like when you hear a loud noise on
the street and you think, "oh, a tire just blew out," or, "wow, who’s
playing with firecrackers?" because you don’t want to think you just
heard someone being shot with a gun. It’s the same reason why all the
initial news and eyewitness reports on 9/11 said "a small plane
accidentally flew into the World Trade Center." We want to – we need to
– hope for the best because, frankly, life is already a shit show and
it’s hard enough struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. We
can’t handle much more bad news. So our mental state goes to default
when something scary is actually, truly happening. The first people
plowed down by the truck in Nice spent their final moments on earth
waving at the driver whom they thought had simply lost control of his
truck, trying to tell him that he jumped the curb: "Watch out!," they
shouted. "There are people on the sidewalk!"

Well, folks, this isn’t an accident. It is happening. And if you believe
Hillary Clinton is going to beat Trump with facts and smarts and logic,
then you obviously missed the past year of 56 primaries and caucuses
where 16 Republican candidates tried that and every kitchen sink they
could throw at Trump and nothing could stop his juggernaut. As of today,
as things stand now, I believe this is going to happen – and in order to
deal with it, I need you first to acknowledge it, and then maybe, just
maybe, we can find a way out of the mess we’re in.

Don’t get me wrong. I have great hope for the country I live in. Things
are better. The left has won the cultural wars. Gays and lesbians can
get married. A majority of Americans now take the liberal position on
just about every polling question posed to them: Equal pay for women –
check. Abortion should be legal – check. Stronger environmental laws –
check. More gun control – check. Legalize marijuana – check. A huge
shift has taken place – just ask the socialist who won 22 states this
year. And there is no doubt in my mind that if people could vote from
their couch at home on their X-box or PlayStation, Hillary would win in
a landslide.

But that is not how it works in America. People have to leave the house
and get in line to vote. And if they live in poor, Black or Hispanic
neighborhoods, they not only have a longer line to wait in, everything
is being done to literally stop them from casting a ballot. So in most
elections it’s hard to get even 50% to turn out to vote. And therein
lies the problem for November – who is going to have the most motivated,
most inspired voters show up to vote? You know the answer to this
question. Who’s the candidate with the most rabid supporters? Whose
crazed fans are going to be up at 5 AM on Election Day, kicking ass all
day long, all the way until the last polling place has closed, making
sure every Tom, Dick and Harry (and Bob and Joe and Billy Bob and Billy
Joe and Billy Bob Joe) has cast his ballot?  That’s right. That’s the
high level of danger we’re in. And don’t fool yourself — no amount of
compelling Hillary TV ads, or outfacting him in the debates or
Libertarians siphoning votes away from Trump is going to stop his mojo.

Here are the 5 reasons Trump is going to win:

Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit.  I believe Trump is
going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the
rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states – but each of them have
elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now
finally elected a Democrat). In the Michigan primary in March, more
Michiganders came out to vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that
the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead of Hillary in the latest
polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race
be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s
because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped
to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to
hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies
that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump
stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary,
he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with
their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would
slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United
States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of
Michigan, and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force
them to stop making their iPhones in China and build them here in
America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big victory
that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich.

 From Green Bay to Pittsburgh, this, my friends, is the middle of
England – broken, depressed, struggling, the smokestacks strewn across
the countryside with the carcass of what we use to call the Middle
Class. Angry, embittered working (and nonworking) people who were lied
to by the trickle-down of Reagan and abandoned by Democrats who still
try to talk a good line but are really just looking forward to rub one
out with a lobbyist from Goldman Sachs who’ll write them nice big check
before leaving the room. What happened in the UK with Brexit is going to
happen here. Elmer Gantry shows up looking like Boris Johnson and just
says whatever shit he can make up to convince the masses that this is
their chance! To stick to ALL of them, all who wrecked their American
Dream! And now The Outsider, Donald Trump, has arrived to clean house!
You don’t have to agree with him! You don’t even have to like him! He is
your personal Molotov cocktail to throw right into the center of the
bastards who did this to you! SEND A MESSAGE! TRUMP IS YOUR MESSENGER!

And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64
electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to
carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from
Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll nevervote for Hillary Clinton), and
then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida.
He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will
happen in November.

The Last Stand of the Angry White Man. Our male-dominated, 240-year run
of the USA is coming to an end. A woman is about to take over! How did
this happen?! On our watch! There were warning signs, but we ignored
them. Nixon, the gender traitor, imposing Title IX on us, the rule that
said girls in school should get an equal chance at playing sports. Then
they let them fly commercial jets. Before we knew it, Beyoncé stormed on
the field at this year’s Super Bowl (our game!) with an army of Black
Women, fists raised, declaring that our domination was hereby
terminated! Oh, the humanity!

That’s a small peek into the mind of the Endangered White Male. There is
a sense that the power has slipped out of their hands, that their way of
doing things is no longer how things are done. This monster, the
"Feminazi," the thing that as Trump says, "bleeds through her eyes or
wherever she bleeds," has conquered us — and now, after having had to
endure eight years of a black man telling us what to do, we’re supposed
to just sit back and take eight years of a woman bossing us around?
After that it’ll be eight years of the gays in the White House! Then the
transgenders! You can see where this is going. By then animals will have
been granted human rights and a fuckin’ hamster is going to be running
the country. This has to stop!

The Hillary Problem. Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And
before we do, let me state, I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I
think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t deserve. But her vote for
the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again.
To date, I haven’t broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a
proto-fascist from becoming our commander-in-chief, I’m breaking that
promise. I sadly believe Clinton will find a way to get us in some kind
of military action. She’s a hawk, to the right of Obama. But Trump’s
psycho finger will be on The Button, and that is that. Done and done.

Let’s face it: Our biggest problem here isn’t Trump – it’s Hillary. She
is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is
untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not
really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s
why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next
she’s officiating a gay marriage. Young women are among her biggest
detractors, which has to hurt considering it’s the sacrifices and the
battles that Hillary and other women of her generation endured so that
this younger generation would never have to be told by the Barbara
Bushes of the world that they should just shut up and go bake some
cookies. But the kids don’t like her, and not a day goes by that a
millennial doesn’t tell me they aren’t voting for her. No Democrat, and
certainly no independent, is waking up on November 8th excited to run
out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president
or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn’t
there. And because this election is going to come down to just one thing
— who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the polls
— Trump right now is in the catbird seat.

The Depressed Sanders Vote. Stop fretting about Bernie’s supporters not
voting for Clinton – we’re voting for Clinton! The polls already show
that more Sanders voters will vote for Hillary this year than the number
of Hillary primary voters in ’08 who then voted for Obama. This is not
the problem. The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the
average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to
somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what’s called a
"depressed vote" – meaning the voter doesn’t bring five people to vote
with her. He doesn’t volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the
election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked why she’s
voting for Hillary. A depressed voter. Because, when you’re young, you
have zero tolerance for phonies and BS. Returning to the Clinton/Bush
era for them is like suddenly having to pay for music, or using MySpace
or carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They’re not
going to vote for Trump; some will vote third party, but many will just
stay home. Hillary Clinton is going to have to do something to give them
a reason to support her  — and picking a moderate, bland-o, middle of
the road old white guy as her running mate is not the kind of edgy move
that tells millenials that their vote is important to Hillary. Having
two women on the ticket – that was an exciting idea. But then Hillary
got scared and has decided to play it safe. This is just one example of
how she is killing the youth vote.

The Jesse Ventura Effect. Finally, do not discount the electorate’s
ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy
themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all
alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society
where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses,
no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit. You
can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do
anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you
can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And
because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken
political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they
agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just
because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make
mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you’re standing on
the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would
that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love
being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just
to see what that might look like. Remember back in the ‘90s when the
people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor?
They didn’t do this because they’re stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura
was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just
because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the
country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor —
and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a
sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump.

Coming back to the hotel after appearing on Bill Maher’s Republican
Convention special this week on HBO, a man stopped me. "Mike," he said,
"we have to vote for Trump. We HAVE to shake things up." That was it.
That was enough for him. To "shake things up." President Trump would
indeed do just that, and a good chunk of the electorate would like to
sit in the bleachers and watch that reality show.

(Next week I will post my thoughts on Trump’s Achilles Heel and how I
think he can be beat.)

Yours, Michael Moore

(14) US election may follow the path of Brexit; but Globalists won't
accept defeat

From: "Griffiths, Aaron" <Aaron.Griffiths@hylcjv.com.au> Date: Fri, 4
Nov 2016 05:28:12 +0000

Farage did a good job. However, the Anglo-American globalists will not
change their 6,000 year-old goal just because a few million Brits voted
at a referendum. There is too much at stake. They have never listened to
the people's will to date, so if they miraculously started bending to
the people's will it would go against historic trends. However, the
Brexit vote forced the globalists to go to court, a petty imposition
that they may not have planned for. The British people will lose this
war, even though they won the little June battle. I think the same may
happen with the US election, however I fear that the battle will not be
as polite/legal as the British. I fear that the battle may go violent,
as Soros & Co unleash their leftist, atheist, nihilist forces on the
American streets.

(15) Trump victory will reinforce Brexit, free America from Globalists,
as Brexit freed UK

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 21:46:53 +0000 Subject: Forward: Birds of same
feather From: "penninecottage@hush.com" <penninecottage@hush.com>

My humble opinion is,  just as we in the UK seemed to have had  no  luck
nor blessings since we were subjugated to the EU- (initially  tricked by
a preliminary EEC/Common-Market which led, over the  years, to a full
blown political union of which the British people  were neither
consulted/ gave permission to be ruled by such foreign  & undemocratic
system) -America likewise has been blighted by the  administrations  of
the Clinton and Bush families, with Obama being  a continuation of the
two with Obamacare thrown in as an extra  treat/trick. Therefore the
ascendancy -hopefully-as President - of  Mr Trump will break this 25
years jinx/neo-con-ism. Kindest from pennine

Yes, a Trump victory will reinforce the Brexit vote.

(16) George W. Bush embraces Hillary Clinton at Nancy Reagan funeral,
March 11, 2016

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 21:46:53 +0000 Subject: Forward: Birds of same
feather From: "penninecottage@hush.com" <penninecottage@hush.com>

https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/george-w-bush-
hugs-hillary-at-nancy-reagan-funeral.jpg