Majorityrights News > Category: Liberalism

                             

The Himalayan Times, ‘Fact check: Greatest hits of a fact-challenged presidential campaign’, 05 Nov 2016:

WASHINGTON: At times it has seemed as though this presidential campaign was occurring in some alternate universe. Up is down, no means yes, day is night.

Donald Trump’s tweets, speeches, interviews, debate statements, news conferences and off-the-cuff remarks — that is, pretty much every utterance made during his waking hours — have been a source of hyperbole at hyper-speed. His misstatements have been so ubiquitous that Hillary Clinton’s slippery words often slithered right on by unnoticed.

Trump made pernicious use of fictional numbers, concocted certain events and both contradicted and mispresented his earlier self.

Clinton took actual facts and went beyond them, promising more than she can deliver, cherry-picking numbers and otherwise standing for the lawyerly Washington tradition of paying partial heed to reality while bending it to her advantage. Cautious by nature, she was most inclined to stretch facts to their snapping point when on the defensive about her email practices, which was often. Clinton’s defensive position, in essence: The dog ate my homework.

With Election Day finally, nearly upon us, some lowlights from both candidates:

For Trump, day is night

On Clinton’s approach to borders: “She wants to let people just pour in. You could have 650 million people pour in and we do nothing about it. Think of it. That’s what could happen.”

The facts: For this to happen, every other country in the Americas, from Mexico south to Chile’s southern tip, and a chunk of Canada would have to empty its entire population into the US.

But wait, there’s more.

Trump said that under Clinton, this could happen “in one week.”

This was no a slip of the tongue — at several events he’s spoken of 600 million coming in under Clinton; at another, 650 million. This doesn’t faintly resemble anything Clinton has proposed for the US (population 325 million).

Trump is riffing off of a leaked Clinton speech to bankers in which she spoke of her dream of a “hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” The remarks in context suggested an interest in free commerce, not necessarily the free movement of people. But no one is talking about packing whole populations from other Western Hemisphere countries into the US like sardines.

Numbers are always pliable in the political arena; for Trump they are often whatever he wants them to be. He routinely overstates the US trade deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, no matter how many times he’s called on it.

On the battle of Mosul, Iraq, and other operations against Islamic State militants: “Whatever happened to the element of surprise?”

The facts: Many generals agree with Trump that it is folly to tell ISIL that it is about to be attacked. But those are armchair generals. Real ones tend to see the value in pre-announcing a major offensive.

In the case of Mosul, signaling an assault in advance was a way for Iraqi forces to warn civilians in the city and to encourage a resistance movement to weaken ISIL before the battle began. Moreover, any element of surprise had been long lost; preparations for the battle began more than a year ago, with the US part in it under close scrutiny by Congress.

More broadly, Trump’s theory that secrecy should surround all such operations reflects a lack of understanding of how this battle against ISIL has developed over the past two years, as well as certain obligations to keep Congress informed. Basic decisions like when to assault Mosul are left to the Iraqi government, because it is the Iraqis who will have to govern the place when the fighting is done.

The US wants the Iraqis to own the Mosul problem – both militarily and politically — so they don’t repeat the mistakes that allowed ISIL to capture the city in the first place.

Mosul was the obvious last major target of an Iraqi counteroffensive against ISIL, whose ability to defend the city had been undermined by months of US airstrikes against its leaders and financial and military resources. Surprise was not an option.

When Clinton accused him of calling climate change a hoax invented by the Chinese: “I did not. I did not.”

When asked about telling people on Twitter to check out a sex tape: “It wasn’t ‘check out a sex tape.’”

The facts: On these and other occasions, Trump has blithely denied making statements he plainly made — even though he was caught on tape making them.

In a 2012 tweet, he wrote: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” He later claimed he was kidding, but he’s also repeated the claim that climate change is a hoax, and one that benefits China. In 2014: “Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!”

During this campaign, he also tweeted “check out sex tape and past” of former 1996 Miss Universe Alicia Machado, whom Clinton discussed in a presidential debate as an example of Trump’s derogatory comments about women.

Machado, a Clinton supporter, criticised Trump for body-shaming her by calling her “Miss Piggy” when she gained weight. Was there a sex tape? In a manner, yes. Machado was filmed in a 2005 Spanish-language reality show in bed with a man; no nudity is seen but she said they were having sex in the footage.

Trump: “I was against the war in Iraq, because I said it’s gonna totally destabilise the Middle East. … I was opposed to war from the beginning. … “I would not have had our troops in Iraq.”

The facts: Trump publicly supported the war before it started and praised its early progress. He’s insisted otherwise uncountable times, despite the record.

It’s true he wasn’t a cheerleader for the March 2003 invasion. For example, he said a few months before the war that the economy and North Korea were bigger problems. But that’s hardly opposition. In September 2002, he told Howard Stern on the radio, when asked if he would back an invasion, “Yeah, I guess so.” Days after the invasion, he said it “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”

Moreover, Trump offered support for a hypothetical invasion of Iraq in his 2000 book, suggesting he would favor a pre-emptive strike if Iraq were viewed as a threat to national security.

Trump did turn against the long-running war before many in Washington did. But that does not show the foresight he claimed when campaigning against Republican primary rivals who backed the invasion and when campaigning against Clinton, who voted in the Senate for the war. He was not against it when the decisions were being made about whether to start it.

Trump: “I watched when the World Trade Centre came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. … It was on television. I saw it.”

The facts: This early head-scratcher, from November 2015, helped set a pattern of tall tales that would continue through the campaign. It also fed into one of the signature insults of a campaign full of them — when Trump appeared to mock the disabilities of a New York Times reporter whose recollections from New Jersey after the 9/11 attacks did not support his own.

No video or other proof of large-scale celebrations of the falling towers by Muslims in New Jersey ever emerged.

Serge Kovaleski of the Times, who was working for The Washington Post in 2001, reported in the week after 9/11 that authorities in New Jersey detained and questioned “a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks.”

Kovaleski has a congenital condition that restricts joint movement. In a speech, Trump went after the “the poor guy, you oughta see this guy” — making jerking gestures and taking a mocking tone.

Trump later denied he was imitating Kovaleski and further claimed “I have no idea” who he is and didn’t know of his condition. But Kovaleski said he had met Trump repeatedly, in face-to-face face interviews and at news conferences, and “Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years.”

On why he continued to raise questions about Barack Obama’s country of birth even after the president produced his birth certificate in 2011: “Nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it.”

The facts: Trump himself continued to press false theories about Obama’s birthplace after they were debunked. His claim that the matter faded when the birth certificate came out belies his efforts to keep the myth alive.

“Was it a birth certificate?” he asked in a 2012 interview. “He was perhaps born in Kenya. Very simple, OK?” Trump said in 2014. “Who knows about Obama?” Trump asked in January 2016.

Clinton: The dog ate my homework

“For those of you who are concerned about my using personal email, I understand. And as I’ve said, I’m not making excuses. I’ve said it was a mistake and I regret it.”

The facts: She has made a variety of excuses on the way to a grudging acknowledgment that her use of a personal server and email for State Department business was wrong.

She’s said she used personal email because she wanted the simplicity of a single digital device, although it turned out she carried several devices. She said her email practices were “approved” when they were not — they merely had not been expressly prohibited at the time for the secretary of state.

She said she didn’t understand that material marked with a “c” that passed through her personal communications system meant it was confidential. She said other secretaries of state did it first. That’s partly true, but in a limited way and not with their own servers. She said she never passed on classified material in her system. The FBI found she passed on three email chains with information that had classified markings in the body of the emails; the State Department contended two of those chains held unclassified material.

On the Trans-Pacific Partnership: “I did say I hoped it would be a good deal.”

The facts: Clinton heartily supported the Pacific trade deal in speeches around the world as secretary of state; she did not merely hope it would turn out well. Clinton declared in Australia in 2012, “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.” Similar speeches elsewhere affirmed her belief that the deal, still under negotiation, was “groundbreaking,” ”exciting” and “embodied” 21st century standards.

That position became awkward if not untenable in her Democratic primary race against Bernie Sanders, a foe of the deal, and she turned against it. Her less-than-detailed explanation: The deal as finally negotiated did not measure up to her standards for protecting US wages, jobs and national security. Yet the final deal contains some of the strongest labor protections of any US trade agreement.

The subject became Exhibit A in the case made by critics that she lets political currents, instead of personal conviction, guide her.

A hacked email from Clinton adviser Joel Benenson may have inadvertently lent weight to that suspicion. “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?” he asked. “Sanders has simplicity and focus.”

Clinton: “I don’t add a penny to the national debt.”

The facts: Not true, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It estimates her increased spending in areas such as infrastructure, more financial aid for college and early childhood education, would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years. That is far less than their estimate for Trump, who they predict would add $5.3 trillion over 10 years. But it’s plenty more than a penny.

One for the road

Trump to Clinton: “You’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.”

The facts: The Islamic State group did not exist for almost all of Clinton’s adult life. She’s 69. ISIL is 4.

Figures compiled over 30 years:

Young black males, 4% of the population, commit half of all murders in America.

Don’t heed the trivializing girl argument that the problem with blacks is that they do not work. While that is true, to merely put your nose to the grindstone and work to prove yourself responsible, unlike them, and make a state function that permits of these circumstances is the epitome of naivete (of being a cuck).

We don’t have a black laziness problem, we have a Jewish, objectivist and black hyper-assertiveness problem, which imposes blacks, their cuckolding and violence upon us.

Example among the affliction -

DM, “Mother calls police on her son after he admits killing his pretty girlfriend and dumping her body in a lake”, 6 Aug 2013

Khambrel Hadley and Alyssa Oakes had only moved in together in May

They often fought, police even responded to one of the arguments and classified a domestic incident

Hadley was caught when he was reported as having stolen a neighbor’s car

A Florida mother made the toughest decision a parent can make Friday when she turned her son into police for murdering his girlfriend.

Shortly after Khambrel Hadley, 21, confessed to murdering girlfriend, Alyssa Oakes, 19, and told her where he dumped the body, his mother called 911 to report the crime. The alleged murderer was arrested later that afternoon, according to reports.

The doomed couple had moved into a Delano, FL., apartment just two months ago.

         
        Accused murderer: Khambrel Hadley (right) allegedly confessed to murdering girlfriend Alyssa Oakes (left) and dumping her body in a wooded area near a lake.

Hadley’s getaway was foiled when a neighbor called 911 to report his car stolen, according to WFTV, it didn’t take long for cops to finger Hadley as the thief.

Oddly enough, Hadley had been hanging out with a man who’s car he stole just the night before.

‘He was pulling out of the apartment complex when I saw him take off,’ the man told the station.

Police responded to Hadley’s mother’s 911 call by visiting the apartment he and Oakes shared, instead of finding the young woman, they found evidence of a struggle and what WESH called a ‘brutal’ murder.

Iranian, Mishcon de Reya, leads case to derail Brexit, claims racial harassment.

DM, “Top City law firm Mishcon de Reya who led the High Court bid to stop the PM triggering Brexit still won’t reveal the fat cats they’re working for”, 3 Nov 2016:

‘Hundreds’ claimed to have backed London law firm Mishcon de Reya

Litigator Kasra Nouroozi led ‘dream team’ who won in High Court today

Mr Nouroozi and others believed to have received threats from critics

The top law firm who derailed Brexit is still refusing to name the rich clients behind its ‘arrogant’ legal bid.

Former model Gina Miller, 51, was the face of the campaign but ‘hundreds’ of businesses, entrepreneurs and academics were claimed to be working with Mishcon de Reya.

British Iranian Lawyer Kasra Nouroozi, Mischon’s most senior litigator, is understood to have received threats and racist abuse for helping run the case.

Today the London firm was accused of ‘treason’ by Brexiteers saying they helped ‘trample’ over the will of the people.

A spokesman said today, aside from Mrs Miller, no clients will be named, adding: ‘We are pleased that the Court has upheld our client’s argument that Government does not have the power to trigger Article 50 under the Royal Prerogative’.

In July Mishcon launched action to ensure MPs have their say before Downing Street invokes Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty.

The Lawyer, ‘Brexit legal challenge: UK Government defeated and poised to appeal to Supreme Court,” 3 Nov 2016:

The UK Government has been defeated in the landmark Brexit High Court challenge over whether Article 50 can lawfully be triggered without a vote by Parliament.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas handed down the decision in the Royal Courts of Justice this morning.

His verdict read: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it.

“In the judgment of the court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers. The court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants.

“For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”

The Government will appeal the decision, with the appeal heading straight to the Supreme Court in early December. The case is understood to have been fast tracked following Prime Minister Theresa May’s pledge to trigger Britain’s exit from the EU next spring.

While Duda and Orbán’s invocation of the centrality of Christianity to the nationalist cause will be disconcerting to many of us more wise to the fact that it is a Jewish Trojan horse, we should be charitable enough to understand that it has been, and remains still, a culturally habituated way of saying “not Jewish.”

It is up to us to support native European nationalist efforts by pointing-out that this is a provisional distinction at best, albeit a 2,000 year old provision, which has had a way of binding nationalist masses and yoking their identity with Noahide laws (as Kumiko astutely observes) - thus, ultimately, to Jewish control if we do not successfully liberate ourselves from the false identity that is the “Gentile” (as GW astutely observes) - an “identity” which knows no distinction other than “the undifferentiated other” to Jews and its beholdenness to its Jewish forebears for its messiah and its law.

Enough sour grapes for now. There is certainly hope in Duda’s concordance with Orbán in furtherance of the Intermarium project on display at the commemoration of the 1955 Hungarian Uprising -

Visigrad Post, “Duda and Orbán against Brussels’ sovietisation”,  24 Oct 2016:

               

Hungary, Budapest – On Sunday, October 23, Hungary celebrated the start of the ’56 uprising. In front of the Hungarian parliament, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Polish President Andrzej Duda gave a strong speech against the current policy of the European Union, about Christianity and about the deep friendship between Poland and Hungary.

Polish President Duda greeting the crowd. MTI Fotó: Szigetváry Zsolt

In front of thousands of people gathered on the place Kossuth, in the center of Budapest, Hungarian PM Orbán and Polish President Duda made a speech welcomed by Hungarian and Polish citizens. President Duda first talked in front of the crowd. The Polish President started his speech by saying few words in Hungarian. Hungarians “have always been friends” and they can always rely on Poland, “even in difficult moments of the future,” said Andrzej Duda.

Poland is “proud and grateful” that it was able to provide aid to the Hungarian revolution, Duda said, and noted that his people had sent 44 tonnes of medicine and medical equipment as well as 800 litres of blood to Hungary shortly after the uprising broke out. “Poles are proud that the grandchildren of 1956 heroes have, symbolically, Polish blood in their veins”, the president said. In Hungary’s freedom fight “thousands died, but after some decades, finally, you recovered your freedom through much suffering and sacrifice,” Duda said. He also voiced his conviction that “through hard work both Poles and Hungarians will achieve the living standards of western societies”, reports Hungary Today.

Concerning the traditional friendship between the two countries, Duda said that they together “carry on the thousand-year-old Christian tradition in Europe”, and insisted that those traditions were just as important as freedom. “God bless Poland and Hungary, glory to the heroes of the Hungarian revolution,” Duda said concluding his address.

Viktor Orbán during his speech on Sunday, October 23

“Protect Brussels against Sovietisation”

Then, Prime Minister Orbán gave his speech. The European Union must not be turned into a “modern-age empire”; the community must not be replaced by a “United States of Europe”, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on Sunday. Viktor Orbán said that “freedom-loving peoples of Europe must save Brussels from Sovietisation”.

“We, Hungarians, want to remain a European nation, rather than become an ethnic minority in Europe,” Orbán insisted. “It is only our national independence that can save us from being devoured by an empire,” Orbán said, and argued that it was that very “national idea” that had saved Hungary from being integrated into the Soviet Union. As descendants of 1956, Hungarians “cannot let Europe cut the roots that had once made it great and also helped us survive communist oppression,” Orbán said. He added that Europe could not be “free, strong, and respectable without the revitalising power of nations and two thousand years of Christian wisdom”. The prime minister insisted that Hungary had chosen “the hard way” when it “preferred children of its own to immigrants, work to speculation, earning a living to becoming a slave of indebtedness, and protecting borders to surrendering”.

Hungarians will always fight for freedom and will achieve it “even in the most hopeless of situations,” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said at the state commemoration marking the 60th anniversary of Hungary’s anti-Soviet uprising of 1956. “We, Hungarians, have a talent for freedom, we have always known how to use it. He warned that freedom is “not a final state but a way of existence; just like swimming: you stop doing it and you will sink”. The question is always this simple: whether we decide on our own fate or other people,” he added. October 23 is a day on which Hungarians should be proud, the prime minister said.

History puts Hungary in the mainstream of disputes on the future of Europe every 30 years, the prime minister said. He argued that in 1956 Hungary attempted to “shift the Iron Curtain east of our borders”, then in 1989 the country opened its western borders “so that Germans could find a way to Germans”. And most recently, Hungary “had to close its borders to stop the influx of migrants from the south”, he said. Hungary will not falter “even if those whom we are trying to protect attack us from behind”; we have “the courage to face injustice… and Europe can always rely on us,” Orbán said.

TNO, “Italy: More Invaders than all 2015”, 25 Oct 2016:

More Africans have now invaded Italy this year than the total number who did so last year—and there are still over two months of 2016 to go.

Official figures show that over 153,000 nonwhite invaders have landed in Italy as of October 24, 2016. The figures were released following the landing of over 4,000 sub-Saharan invaders over the past weekend.

       

One of the invaders, Alhaji Kutubu Sankoh, from Sierra Leone, told an AFP reporter on the Norwegian ship, Siem Pilot, that he had left his home and set out for Europe after his father died of Ebola—raising the real possibility that the invaders are bringing that disease with them into Europe.

Meanwhile, residents in the northern Italian town of Gorino, Ferrara, successfully prevented the authorities from “placing” a number of invaders in their town by physically blockading all the public roads.

        Trump Endorsed Hillary, said that he liked both her and Bill very much.

Time, “In 2012, as Obama was running for re-election, Trump called Clinton “terrific” again in an interview with Fox News, saying she performed well as Secretary of State.”

Trump commending Hillary’s run for office, “likes her and her husband”

Trump: Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman, he told Greta Van Susteren. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.

Van Susteren: You said she’s out at the end of this term, do you think we’re going to see her again running for office?

Trump: I think so, assuming she’s healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she probably runs after the next four years, I would imagine.

Van Susteren: Do you support her?

Trump: I don’t want to get into this because I don’t want to get myself into trouble…

Van Susteren (interrupting): That’s why I asked you, to see if you’d get into trouble.

Trump: I just like her. I like her and I like her husband. Her husband made a speech on Monday at Mar-a-Lago (Palm Beach mansion owned by Trump) and it was very well received. He’s a really good guy and she’s a really good person and woman.

Trump’s hypocrisy indicates that the 2016 election is more characteristic of two sides of the same coin - a position that racialists used to be more wryly accustomed-to prior to the largely successful effort by the Republican party to co-opt White Nationalism. Recall Gov. George Wallace’s statement oft cited by WN, that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Party.”

In additional hypocrisy - 1998: Trump calls Paula Jones “a loser”, says that “she may be responsible for bringing-down a standing President (Clinton) indirectly.”

The Slatest, “Watch Donald Trump Call Paula Jones “a Loser” in 1998 Interview”, 9 Oct 2016:

Shortly before the second presidential debate started, Donald Trump held a jaw-dropping “news conference” with three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault (and a third whose accused rapist was represented by Hillary Clinton). One of those women was Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee who sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment.

Trump is now trying to portray himself as the champion for the women, yet he didn’t feel the same way in 1998. “Paula Jones is a loser, but the fact is that she may be responsible for bringing down a president indirectly,” Trump said in an interview with Chris Matthews on August 28, 1998. The interview took place mere days after Bill Clinton acknowledged he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

..and the “loser” is…

Jones had filed a lawsuit against Clinton, saying he had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her while he was governor of Arkansas. That suit was settled for $850,000 with no admission of guilt.

A bonus on what Trump used to think about Bill Clinton’s accusers is that he once pretty much said the only reason why the then-president got in trouble was because Lewinsky was ugly. “It’s sad because he would go down as a great President if he had not had this scandal,” Trump said in a 1999 interview with Maureen Dowd. “People would have been more forgiving if he’d had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were on a different level.

        ...Al Goldstein would have taken a lot less than a $850,000 pay-off.

        More, Trump has about-faced on “pro-choice versus pro-life” as well...

READ MORE...

Can the Daily Mail say “Muslim” ?

Is it so hard to say Islam? How about the fact that all of these rapists come from one notoriously Islamic area in Pakistan. Glossing over that fact by calling them “Asians” is an obvious obfuscation on the part of DM editors.

Mark Duell for MailOnline, 17 October 2016:

‘All white girls are good for is sex. They’re just sl*gs’: Eight members of ‘openly racist’ violent Asian sex gang raped and ‘sexually degraded’ three teenage girls in Rotherham.

WHAT WERE THE 8 GANG MEMBERS CONVICTED OF?

The jury retired to consider verdicts on October 11 and today convicted all eight gang members on all counts after deliberating for almost 18 hours.

Ringleader Sageer Hussain, 30, of Clough Road, Rotherham, was convicted of four rapes and one indecent assault.

Mohammed Whied, 32, of Psalters Lane, Rotherham, was found guilty of one count of aiding and abetting rape.

Ishtiaq Khaliq, 33, of Cherry Brook, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape and three indecent assaults.

Waleed Ali, 34, of Canklow Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape and one indecent assault.

Asif Ali, 30, of Clough Road, Rotherham, was convicted on one rape.

Masoued Malik, 32, of Bridgewater Way, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape, one count of conspiracy to commit indecent assault and one of false imprisonment.

Basharat Hussain, 40, from Goole, was convicted of one indecent assault.

And Naeem Rafiq, 33, of Clarendon Road, Rotherham, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit indecent assault and one of false imprisonment.

They were remanded in custody for sentencing on November 4.