Majorityrights News > Category: U.S. Politics

        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...

Breitbart, ” New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Urges Other Potential Victims To Go Public”, 20 Oct 2016:

Las Vegas — Speaking in a Breitbart News video exclusive interview, Leslie Millwee, the former local television news reporter from Arkansas who claims she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton in 1980, is urging other potential sexual assault victims of the former president to go public.

“I encourage anyone else that went through a similar situation that I did to come forward because these people need to be held accountable for their behavior,” Millwee stated.

Millwee was asked by this reporter whether she is afraid now that she has gone public.

She replied:

“I’m afraid because I know the moral compass and the lack of integrity that I feel the Clintons have. I think there’s been no accountability by the media for many of the illegal things that they have done. No one seems to hold them accountable for their behavior. And am I afraid they will try to do something to me? Of course I am. But I’m also willing at this point. This needs to be said…

“And Hillary is just as culpable as he is in the fact that she helped him cover this up for all those years and harass the women that were raped victims and victims of sexual harassment. So, am I afraid? A little bit. But I am more afraid not to tell the truth and not to bring this to light.”

Millwee told her story for the first time in a Breitbart News exclusive interview published on Wednesday. She claims she was assaulted by Clinton on three separate occasions in 1980.

Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her in a small, isolated television editing room while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax.

After these alleged sexual assaults, Millwee claims, Clinton showed up at her apartment and knocked on her door for several minutes while trying to talk his way inside.  She says that Clinton departed after she purportedly refused to respond.

ANTIMEDIA, “What Everyone is Missing About the Wikileaks Podesta Emails” -  By Alice Salles 17 Oct 2016:

With WikiLeaks’ massive dump of emails tied to John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton who now serves as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, most news outlets focused on Podesta’s link to Mrs. Clinton, the current Democratic presidential candidate. But what few noticed is how Podesta’s emails may help us learn how President Barack Obama may have picked individuals for his top administration positions.

According to the emails published by WikiLeaks, Podesta, a former counselor to President Barack Obama who, in 2008, served as co-chair of Obama’s transition team, received an email on October 6, 2008, from Michael Froman, the current U.S. trade representative. At the time, Froman was a top executive at Citigroup.

Just a month before the election, an email from Froman with the subject “Lists” carried three attachments: A list of “African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, … plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates;” “a similar document on women;” and an outline of 31 cabinet-level positions, how they “might be put together,” and who would fill them.

In the email, Froman reassures Podesta the lists “will continue to grow, … but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.”

But looking back, it’s clear that at least the cabinet list ended up being the most valuable document, considering that most of the names “scoped out” by Citigroup’s Michael Froman went on to be picked by the Obama administration.

As explained by the New Republic:

“The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, et al.”

While this email was sent on October 6th, the exchanges between Podesta and Froman suggest the lists had been floating around long before that, proving that, as many had long suspected, this was just the tip of the iceberg; we now know executives were pulling the strings long before Obama was even elected.

Up until that point, candidate Obama had advertised himself as an anti-corporatist candidate, promising he would arrive at the White House and rid Washington of the “revolving door curse.” Nevertheless, Obama apparently set his promise aside before he was even elected, allowing a top Citigroup executive to pick the top names of his administration long before said executive joined his transition team.

With more revelations coming from the massive WikiLeaks’ dump, this small footnote seems to be getting little attention from mainstream media. This is, perhaps, because it paints President Obama in a bad light. Regardless, it’s important to note that what many call crony capitalism is alive and well in Washington and that the Democratic candidate from 2008 — much like the Democratic candidate of 2016 — may have promised to stand firm against big corporations and their influence while in office, only to act completely differently behind the curtain.

Yes, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is a disaster. But he’s not that different from Mrs. Clinton.

And as we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, the old batch of Democratic top leaders and cronies continue to run the show, propping up the same politicians of yesteryear whose promises have already been broken repeatedly and whose policy positions remain flexible, just waiting for the highest bidder. Will we fall for it this time?

Hillary Leaks: Pick Your Outrage

Breitbart 17 Oct 2016:

“Obama and Eric Holder Launch PAC for ‘Fairer’ Redistricting Maps”

President Barack Obama plans to team up after he leaves office with former Attorney General Eric Holder to launch a new political action committee to press for redistricting reform.

According to Politico, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee was “developed in close consultation with the White House” and that Obama himself has identified with the group.

“American voters deserve fair maps that represent our diverse communities—and we need a coordinated strategy to make that happen,” Holder said in a statement. “This unprecedented new effort will ensure Democrats have a seat at the table to create fairer maps after 2020.”

Democratic leadership in statehouses and congress is being decimated by Obama’s policies. The president routinely complains about gerrymandering, saying that is making things unfair for Democrats across the country.

In August 2015, Obama discussed at length his feelings on a system that he suggested was rigged to favor Republicans.

“I think political gerrymandering has resulted in a situation in which — with 80 percent Democratic districts or 80 percent Republican districts and no competition, that that leads to more and more polarization in Congress, and it gets harder and harder to get things done,” he said during an interview with NPR.

During his State of the Union address in 2016, Obama called for an end of the current boundaries, suggesting that the political map was rigged to favor extreme candidates.

”We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters and not the other way around,” he said, vowing to “travel the country to push for reforms” to make it easier for people to vote.

The Dark Side of Self Actualization

..illustrating the inherent instability of the right -

The reflexive reversal of Derek Black - precociously showing early signs to be a leader of White Nationalism, he has done a 180: he renounces anti-Semitism, studies Islamic culture, calling for empathy for this culture which “was advanced of European culture” at a time when Europe was a backwater; says that he agrees with Hillary Clinton’s positions in 97%; claims that he does not believe in the White genocide meme that he helped to popularize because “race is a false concept anyway.”

That comes along with an array of cultural Marxist concepts that he now subscribes-to.

Derek Black pictured Sept. 25, 2016. “It’s scary to know that I helped spread this stuff, and now it’s out there,” he told a friend, alluding to the ideology he once promoted. (Matt McClain/Washington Post)

The Washington Post, “The white flight of Derek Black”, 15 Oct 2016:

“The leading light of our movement,” was how the conference organizer introduced him, and then Derek stepped to the lectern.

“The way ahead is through politics,” he said. “We can infiltrate. We can take the country back.”

[...]

He never used racial slurs. He didn’t advocate violence or lawbreaking. He had won a Republican committee seat in Palm Beach County, Fla., where Trump also had a home, without ever mentioning white nationalism, talking instead about the ravages of political correctness, affirmative action and unchecked Hispanic immigration.

He was not only a leader of racial politics but also a product of them. His father, Don Black, had created Stormfront, the Internet’s first and largest white nationalist site, with 300,000 users and counting. His mother, Chloe, had once been married to David Duke, one of the country’s most infamous racial zealots, and Duke had become Derek’s godfather. They had raised Derek at the forefront of the movement, and some white nationalists had begun calling him “the heir.”

Now Derek spoke in Memphis about the future of their ideology. “The Republican Party has to be either demolished or taken over,” he said. “I’m kind of banking on the Republicans staking their claim as the white party.”

A few people in the audience started to clap, and then a few more began to whistle, and before long the whole group was applauding. “Our moment,” Derek said, because at least in this room there was consensus. They believed white nationalism was about to drive a political revolution. They believed, at least for the moment, that Derek would help lead it.

“Years from now, we will look back on this,” he said. “The great intellectual move to save white people started today.”

[...]

“It’s been brought to my attention that people might be scared or intimidated or even feel unsafe here because of things said about me,” he began. “I wanted to try to address these concerns publicly, as they absolutely should not exist. I do not support oppression of anyone because of his or her race, creed, religion, gender, socioeconomic status or anything similar.”

The forum post, intended only for the college, was leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which kept a public “Intelligence File” on Derek and other racist leaders, and the group emailed Derek for clarification. Was he disavowing white nationalism? “Your views are now quite different from what many people thought,” the email read.

Derek received the message while vacationing in Europe during winter break. He was staying with Duke, who had started broadcasting his radio show from a part of Europe with lenient free-speech laws. “The tea party is taking some of these ideas mainstream,” Duke said on a broadcast one morning. “Whites are finally coming around to my point of view,” he said another day, and even if Derek now thought some of what Duke said sounded exaggerated or even alarming, the man was still his godfather. Derek wrote back to the SPLC from Duke’s couch.

“Everything I said (on the forum) is true,” he wrote. “I also believe in White Nationalism. My post and my racial ideology are not mutually exclusive concepts.”

[...]

But the unstated truth was that Derek was becoming more and more confused about exactly what he believed. Sometimes he looked through posts on Stormfront, hoping to reaffirm his ideology, but now the message threads about Obama’s birth certificate or DNA tests for citizenship just seemed bizarre and conspiratorial. He stopped posting on Stormfront. He began inventing excuses to get out of his radio show, leaving his father alone on the air each morning to explain why Derek wouldn’t be calling in. He was preparing for a test. He was giving those liberal professors hell. Except sometimes what Derek was really doing was taking his kayak to the beach, so he could be alone to think.

He had always based his opinions on fact, and lately his logic was being dismantled by emails from his Shabbat friends. They sent him links to studies showing that racial disparities in IQ could largely be explained by extenuating factors like prenatal nutrition and educational opportunities. They gave him scientific papers about the effects of discrimination on blood pressure, job performance and mental health. He read articles about white privilege and the unfair representation of minorities on television news. One friend emailed: “The geNOcide against whites is incredibly, horribly insulting and degrading to real, actual, lived and experienced genocides against Jews, against Rwandans, against Armenians, etc.”

“I don’t hate anyone because of race or religion,” Derek clarified on the forum.

“I am not a white supremacist,” he wrote.

“I don’t believe people of any race, religion or otherwise should have to leave their homes or be segregated or lose any freedom.”

“Derek,” a friend responded. “I feel like you are a representative of a movement you barely buy into. You need to identify with more than 1/50th of a belief system to consider it your belief system.”

He was taking classes in Jewish scripture and German multiculturalism during his last year at New College, but most of his research was focused on medieval Europe. He learned that Western Europe had begun not as a great society of genetically superior people but as a technologically backward place that lagged behind Islamic culture. He studied the 8th century to the 12th century, trying to trace back the modern concepts of race and whiteness, but he couldn’t find them anywhere. “We basically just invented it,” he concluded.

“Get out of this,” one of his Shabbat friends emailed a few weeks after Derek’s graduation in May 2013, urging Derek to publicly disavow white nationalism. “Get out before it ruins some part of your future more than it already irreparably has.”

Derek stayed near campus to housesit for a professor after graduation, and he began to consider making a public statement. He knew he no longer believed in white nationalism, and he had made plans to distance himself from his past by changing part of his name and moving across the country for graduate school. His instinct was to slip away quietly, but his advocacy had always been public — a legacy of radio shows, Internet posts, TV appearances, and an annual conference on racial tactics.

He was still considering what to do when he returned home to visit his parents later that summer. His father was tracking the rise of white nationalism on cable TV, and his parents were talking about “enemies” and “comrades” in the “ongoing war,” but now it sounded ridiculous to Derek. He spent the day rebuilding windows with them, which was one of Derek’s quirky hobbies that his parents had always supported. They had bought his guitar and joined in his medieval re-enactments. They had paid his tuition at the liberal arts college where he had Shabbat dinners. They had taught him, most of all, to be independent and ideological, and to speak his beliefs even when doing so resulted in backlash.

He left the house that night and went to a bar. He took out his computer and began writing a statement.

“A large section of the community I grew up in believes strongly in white nationalism, and members of my family whom I respect greatly, particularly my father, have long been resolute advocates for that cause. I was not prepared to risk driving a wedge in those relationships.

“After a great deal of thought since then, I have resolved that it is in the best interests of everyone involved to be honest about my slow but steady disaffiliation from white nationalism. I can’t support a movement that tells me I can’t be a friend to whomever I wish or that other people’s races require me to think of them in a certain way or be suspicious at their advancements.

“The things I have said as well as my actions have been harmful to people of color, people of Jewish descent, activists striving for opportunity and fairness for all. I am sorry for the damage done.”

He continued to write for several more paragraphs before addressing an email to the SPLC, the group his father had considered a primary adversary for 40 years.

“Publish in full,” Derek instructed. Then he attached the letter and hit “send.”

Don was at the computer the next afternoon searching Google when Derek’s name popped up in a headline on his screen. For a decade, Don had been typing “Stormfront” and “Derek Black” into the search bar a few times each week to track his son’s public rise in white nationalism. This particular story had been published by the SPLC, which Don had always referred to as the “Poverty Palace.”

“Activist Son of Key Racist Leader Renounces White Nationalism,” it read, and Don began to read the letter. It had phrases like “structural oppression,” “privilege,” “limited opportunity,” and “marginalized groups” — the kind of liberal-apologist language Don and Derek had often made fun of on the radio.

“You got hacked,” Don remembered telling Derek, once he reached him on the phone.

“It’s real,” Derek said, and then he heard the sound of his father hanging up.

For the next few hours, Don was in disbelief.

[...]

Later that night, Don logged on to the Stormfront message board. “I’m sure this will be all over the Net and our local media, so I’ll start here,” he wrote, posting a link to Derek’s letter. “I don’t want to talk to him. He says he doesn’t understand why we’d feel betrayed just because he announced his ‘personal beliefs’ to our worst enemies.”

[...]

Late this summer, for the first time in years, he traveled to Florida to see them. At a time of increasingly contentious rhetoric, he wanted to hear what his father had to say. They sat in the house and talked about graduate school and Don’s new German shepherd. But after a while, their conversation turned back to ideology, the topic they had always preferred.

Don, who usually didn’t vote, said he was going to support Trump.

Derek said he had taken an online political quiz, and his views aligned 97 percent with Hillary Clinton’s.

Don said immigration restrictions sounded like a good start.

Derek said he actually believed in more immigration, because he had been studying the social and economic benefits of diversity.

Don thought that would result in a white genocide.

Derek thought race was a false concept anyway.