Majorityrights News > Category: Immigration and Politics

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.

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.

South West Forum: White British Nationalists, Max Musson, Ian Fotheringham and Jez Turner.

Paradise Island, A Parable by Max Musson which discusses the advantages of in-group preference.

TNO, “White British: Minority within 50 Years” 2 Nov 2016:

Mass nonwhite immigration, explosive immigrant birth rates, and declining white reproduction will have ethnically cleansed white people in Britain into minority status within the next 50 years, new statistics have confirmed.

A new report has revealed that white populations in towns and cities are dwindling at record levels and in many cases have halved over the past ten years alone.

       
A street scene in London, near the iconic “Gherkin” building in the background.

The report, issued by a UK government adviser on “community cohesion,” Prof. Ted Cantle, and Eric Kaufmann, Prof. of Politics at Birkbeck College, said that many towns and cities, such as Birmingham, Leicester, Slough, Luton, Bradford, and London, have seen areas develop where the white British population is “increasingly dwindling” as minorities increase.

Professor Cantle cited the Yorkshire town of Blackburn as one of the most segregated towns in Britain, whose Whalley Range area is now 95 percent Asian.

According to the report, the white population of England has dropped to 79 percent of the total, down from 86 percent just ten years ago.

The city of Slough has seen its white population drop from 58.3 percent to 34.5 percent;

Birmingham from 65.6 percent to 53.1 percent;

Bradford from 76.0 percent to 63.9 percent;

Leicester from 60.5 percent to 45.1 percent;

Luton from 64.9 percent to 44.6 percent;

Blackburn With Darwen from 76.0 percent to 66.5 percent;

Coventry from 78.3 percent to 66.6 percent;

Brent from 29.4 percent to 18.0 percent;

Tower Hamlets from 43.1 percent to 31.2 percent;

Newham from 33.6 percent to 16.7 percent;

Hounslow from 55.7 percent to 37.9 percent; and

Redbridge from 57.2 percent to 34.5 percent—all in once decade, from 2001 to 2011.

All these figures are, the report fails to point out, already more than five years old, so the situation in 2016 is likely to be as much of a gap again, compared to 2011.

Amy Weiss, Kadzik, lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta.

Zero Hedge, “John Podesta’s Best Friend At The DOJ Will Be In Charge Of The DOJ’s Probe Into Huma Abedin Emails” 31 Oct 2016:

Now that the FBI has obtained the needed warrant to start poring over the 650,000 or so emails uncovered in Anthony Weiner’s notebook, among which thousands of emails sent from Huma Abedin using Hillary Clinton’s personal server, moments ago the US Justice Department announced it is also joining the probe, and as

AP reported moments ago, “vowing to dedicate all needed resources to quickly review the over half a million emails in Clinton case.”

In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.

         

Just the Facts @JTF_News

#BREAKING Senior DOJ official sends letter to lawmakers responding to request for more information about email review.#8days 9:36 PM - 31 Oct 2016     99 99 Retweets 67

So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically influenced Department of Justice and the FBI.

And yet, something felt odd about this.

Kadzik… Kadzik… where have we heard that name?

Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, ”Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary’s Benghazi Hearing” in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony?

It was Peter Kadzik.

In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton’s Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.

For those who missed it, this is what we reported previously:

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.

   
    The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant.  The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.

  Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. In another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement “is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.” As one former U.S. Attorney told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“The kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.

Kadzik’s role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable. Kadzik has helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta’s, and thus the Clinton Foundation’s inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”

Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky. In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time. “He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.

Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”

The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.

Kadzik’s current role

In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.

But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.

In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”

DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”

It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis’ questions.

Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.

Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.

Finally, it is also worth noting that Kadzik’s wife, Amy Weiss, currently at Weiss Public Affairs worked on the 1992 Clinton/Gore Campaign as a Press Secretary, and Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee, and a White House Deputy Assistant to the President/Deputy Press Secretary to President Bill Clinton.

* * *

And now it seems that Kadzik will be in charge of the DOJ’s “probe” into Huma Abedin’s emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the DOJ will find “anything” of note.

       
Amy Weiss, Peter Kadzik, with lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta.

Trump’s “New Deal”: Ethnonationalism for blacks, proposition nationalism for you, gentile other - what else is new?

Trump’s “New Deal” promises massive assistance to blacks on the basis of their race - what else is new?

Blacks are the only group for which Donald Trump has proposed a plan of help on the grounds of their race/ethnicity.

What else is new? This only further ensconces their status as quasi feudal lords: a people of privilege, a people of a different set of laws, a people whom we cannot discriminate against, of enhanced penalties for crimes against them (“hate crime” laws), a people whom we must hire, a people whose children we must pay for (and try to) educate - with knowledge for which we sublimated, endured pain and indifference and ridicule to acquire, while they, the blacks, have been pampered and lavished - a people whom we must serve.

We are their servants…not because they add value to our lives - quite the opposite (they take away from us vastly, markedly in regard to EGI) but because they are backed by terror - the intimidation of their bio-power, hyper-assertiveness, aggression, violence, destruction and Jewish machination.

This is to say nothing of the trillions in welfare, government handouts and programs, while their advocates demand “reparations” from generations who had nothing to do with their oppression in history but have in fact been penalized hideously for it - to the point of societal and national displacement, rape, murder and genocide.

Donald Trump is the kind of cowardly sell-out who has aided and abetted this circumstance.

“Trump’s New “Deal”, shafting the goyim of the world on behalf of blacks.

Bloomberg, “Donald Trump proposes new deal for black Americans”, 27 Oct 2016:

Today I want to talk about how to grow the African American middle class and provide a New Deal for black America.

That deal is grounded in three promises

1) Safe communities

2) Great education

3) High paying jobs

My vision rests on a principle that has defined this campaign right from the beginning.  You’ve seen where we’ve come from and where we are right now.  It’s called ‘American first’.

Every African American citizen in this country is entitled to a government that puts their jobs, wages and security first.

One of the greatest betrayals has been the issue of immigration.

Illegal immigration violates the civil rights of African Americans.

That’s what’s been happening (applause).

No group has been more economically harmed by decades of immigration than low income African American workers.

I will also propose tax holidays for inner city investment; a new tax incentive to get foreign companies to relocate in blighted American neighborhoods; and they will do that. it will be worthwhile; it’s called incentive - they will do it.

I am very humbled, beyond words, to be the nominee of the Party of Abraham Lincoln, a lot of people don’t know that, its the party of Abraham Lincoln.  And it is my highest and greatest hope that the Republican party can be the home in the future and forever more for African Americans and the African American vote; because I will produce and I will get others to produce; and we know for a fact it doesn’t work with the democrats; and it certainly isn’t going to work with Hillary.

And so Donald Trump’s agenda to rope implicit White Nationalists back into the Republican proposition nationalism - a naivete seized upon for the Jewish race mixing agenda - suckering “the Alternative Right” with dog whistles to anti-PC, has become apparent, all but explicit.

Trump’s New Deal: ethno-nationalism for blacks - the only group proposed help on basis of race/ethnicity - proposition nationalism for gentile others, a.k.a., the goyim.

“That deal” is grounded in three promises

1) Safe communities - can only be done relatively, with partial success only, through a Giuliani type active policing - a burden and social expense which would not be necessary in a White ethnostate.

2) Great education - can only be done at a terrible cost to non-blacks - we must (try to) educate them - with knowledge for which we sublimated, endured pain and indifference and ridicule to acquire, while they, the blacks, have been pampered and lavished, to do nothing but indulge themselves and have offspring - a people whom we must serve.

3) High paying jobs - they already have that: blacks are vastly over represented in government jobs that are easy, well paying, with good benefits, reasonable hours, vacation time and overtime pay available for those want it. As for the corporations, there is no more coveted and lavished employee than a black from privileged education and of those precious few at the higher end of the bell curve to round out their quota and non-racist credentials. Disobey at the price of being sued and otherwise maneuvered into the loss of your enterprise ...while government contracts are set aside for black businesses and private contracts are compelled to use black contractors as well.

So what else is new?

Donald must not try breaking those promises of privilege, promises granted in cowardice to the hyper-assertive, hyper-aggressive, rioting, Jewish lawyer backed black American populace.

But we are supposed to hate: Mexicans, who are either White, close to White, identify and assimilate as such, or more AmenIndian, benign and minding their business where not helpfully industrious; we are supposed to resent and penalize Asians ..so that they can remain the labor force to pay for black and Jewish privilege.

Yes, sure, Trump is playing 57 dimensional chess, so are his supporters - right.

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.