Farage: 'You can beat Washington'. Trump: 'November 8 is our chance to redeclare American independence'  (1) Jews versus Trump - Israel Shamir (2) For the establishment, Trump's billions mean nothing; they treat him like a bum (3) African Americans: Donald Trump’s Lincolnesque Moment - David Horowitz (4) Nigel Farage to Trump Rally: ‘You Can Beat the Pollsters… You Can Beat Washington’ (5) Trump joins Farage: 'November 8 is our chance to redeclare American independence' (6) The Media Vendetta Against Trump - Eamonn Fingleton (7) Trump: the Unemployment statistics Lie  (1) Jews versus Trump - Israel Shamir  From: "Israel Shamir adam@israelshamir.net [shamireaders]" Subject: [shamireaders] Jews versus Trump - my new article for you   The Secret of Identity Politics, by Israel Shamir  UNZ Review  JULY 26, 2016  The Jews can be a formidable enemy: devoid of scruples, they hunt in packs. Like aunts in P G Wodehouse’ fiction, they do not stoop to fair play: they go for the jugular. The hunt for disobedient leaders is their favourite national sport; and woe to a politician who crosses their path. They occupy commanding heights in the US media and finance and they can undermine politicians susceptible to pressure.  Luckily, they can be defeated. Powerful and cunning, Jews are not demonic and possess no magical superhuman powers. They are a force among many forces. Time and again they reached the pinnacle of power and were dislodged. This may happen to them in the US, as well.  It will not be the end of the world, nor the end of history, neither the end of the Jews. Only the Jewish dream to end history will end, at least for a while, while the world will go on. For their attitude is not all bad; they are needed; just their dominance became too total. For America and mankind to thrive, it must be rolled back, not eliminated.  The best politicians are those who succeed in repulsing a concerted Jewish action without giving an inch AND without antagonising the Jews too much. FDR and JFK, even Richard Nixon did it, so can Donald Trump.  The Donald succeeded in doing just that in the affair of the six-pointed star. He was attacked; ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt Trump to apologize. "He should just admit the offense and apologize," Greenblatt said in an interview on "CNN Tonight". "I think this would satisfy all of the public – on the right and the left, Democrats and Republicans."  Trump refused to apologise. He insisted that the star is just a star. He even took his staff to task for removing the offending image. He did not restore it, true, but he volubly scolded an easy-to-bend assistant. This ability to withstand pressure is the most encouraging feature of Mr Trump.  Just compare him with Jeremy Corbyn who took the bait and began to apologise, expel his supporters and demonstrate that he is unable to withstand Jewish pressure. It did not help him at all, the attacks on him grew exponentially.  Trump did not apologise, for it would never satisfy the Jewish appetite for apologies. They always fish for an apology, and an apology always makes them ask for more, and more. The ADL, the notorious organisation that spied on activists, ran its own spies and provocateurs, is the leading tool in this endless search for apology. Refuse apology, otherwise you invite more pressure for more apologies.  There is a long list of things Jews would like him to apologise for:  (1) Trump tried to avoid denouncing David Duke for as long as he could; (2) he has said nothing about the racists and anti-Semites; (3) he refused to criticize the anti-Semitic trolls who hounded journalist Julia Ioffe after her magazine portrait that Trump’s wife Melania did not like and (4) he has said nothing about the vicious anti-Semitic social media bombardment of any Jewish journalist who happens to write a bad word about him; (5) he has refused to let go of the slogan "America First" even though he must surely realize by now that it carries a specific anti-Semitic historical connotation; (6) he repeatedly lauds tyrants and dictators that are problematic for Jews, including Benito Mussolini and Saddam Hussein; (7) and he himself has been known to release the occasional anti-Semitic remark, including his assertion to the Republican Jewish Coalition, that Jews won’t support him because they can’t control him because they can’t buy him with money.  This list of Trump’s failings with Jews (by an American Jew called Chemi Shalev) is intentionally humiliating in precluding any chance for rapprochement between the Jews and Trump.  Trump has no chance with Jews anyway, not for a lack of trying. Surely he is not an "antisemite" (a silly word of no meaning, just like "fascist"). Stephen Sniegoski convincingly proves that Trump is rather a philo- than anti-Semite.  Trump’s kids married to Jews, his son-in-law is not only a rich Jew but (1) a son of a convicted Jewish swindler, (2) synagogue goer and (3) a newspaper owner, (4) publishing anti-Trump smear jobs, meaning he is a proper pukka Jew Trump is as pro-Israel as they make them. Actually, my friends who are Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank hope and pray for his victory. Sniegoski carefully debunks all other accusations against Trump as an enemy of Jews, and he does it compellingly.  Trump has no chance with the Jews, because he wants to change the order of things while the Jews are perfectly satisfied with the way things are. Perhaps you do not like that the US is flooded with immigrants, that so many Americans became poor, that students are indebted forever, that industries went abroad, that bankers are awash with money while the workers are impoverished. But for Jews, this is fine. This is exactly what they want, and this is what they have.  A prominent American Jew, <http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.732745> Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie explained that much in an article in the Haaretz newspaper: Trump’s policies are beside the point. He would like to change things, he will fight the supremacy of the Supreme Court with its inbuilt Jewish majority, and Jews are for things being the way they are, perhaps even more so. Indeed every possible step of President Trump will run into the Supreme Court. This is a body where an unelected (Clinton-appointed) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg already declared she will fight him tooth and claw. That is the body that gave you gay marriages, unlimited immigration and other liberal joys. Sooner or later Trump will have to borrow a page from President Erdogan’s book and deal with them, if he is to achieve anything: unless, surely, they will refrain from action.  The Jews will give 90 per cent of their vote to Hillary Clinton, predicts Yoffie. This is to be expected: the brave Jewish anti-Zionist Jeff Blankfort wrote of the "actual owners of the Democratic Party, the American Jewish Establishment". Yes, Jews vote for Democrats. They gave 80 per cent of their vote to Barack Obama. By comparison, the old masters of the US, WASPs, gave Obama just 34 per cent of their vote. If they were still at the helm, there would be no President Obama, no destruction of Syria and Libya, there would be fewer immigrants and the life of an average American would be better. Oh, perhaps there would not be an order allowing boys to pee in girls’ bathrooms if they feel girlish. Big loss.  The problem is that the Jews have much more than just their votes at their disposal. One of their mighty tools is the Google, their joint venture with the CIA. This works overtime and offers twenty million hits for "Trump Hitler", seven times more than the Bing search engine. Google’s search function delivers results related to Donald Trump when users search for Adolf Hitler. The search "When was Hitler born?" generated not only the expected information on Hitler, but also a Donald Trump image and link. Jewish-owned media produces much anti-Trump trash.  But the people do not believe them anymore. Even such a pleasant guy as Bernie Sanders in the end gave up the fight and endorsed Crooked Hillary. Now people know the Jews are a force for status quo, and they want to change it.  For this purpose, a simple rhetorical device called Identity Politics should be dismantled. It is an enemy device made by a Gramsci blueprint in order to delegitimise the working class.  Identity politics is an extension of Jewish tactics, or perhaps Jewish tactics is a particularly loathsome form of Identity politics. A Jewish bankster defends himself by accusing his adversaries of antisemitism. This is so simple and useful, that many other groups copycatted the trick. The protected groups form a coalition under the Dem Party umbrella, while the Dem Party is doing the will of the Jewish establishment, as we noted above.  Identity politics have been enforced as the ultimate truth in the US. The protected groups are attacked for what they are, according to this concept, while unprotected suffer for what they do. This distinction is pure sophism: were the Japanese in Hiroshima incinerated for what they are (Japanese) or what they did (pretty much nothing)? If we disagree with Jewish politics, is that because of what they are or what they do?  Identity politics forbid us to generalise regarding the protected groups. You can’t say anything less than complimentary about Jews, for they are all so different. Well, 90% vote for the status quo is not a sign of variety. You can’t say anything at all about gender groups for they are what they are, like Lord Almighty. Indeed "white", "male" and "Christian" are the only identities you may freely and gratuitously abuse in the US.  Consider the Catholic Church in the US. The Jews demanded an apology from the Church, and they got it. Afterwards, they continued their fight against the church unabated. In a recent attack on the VP candidate Mike Pence, the Jews made a lot of mileage from his attempt to allow Christians to refuse service to same-sex couples. They compared this attempt with Ku Klux Klan of old and with discrimination of Jim Crow days, when they had signs "Don’t let the sun go down on you here" and "Whites Only After Dark." Everything goes to smear the church – and the PC rules do not defend it, like they do not defend the white workers of Detroit.  The Jews hate the church like the Turkish generals hate the mosque. For this reason they are so upset with Trump’s idea of limiting non-Christian immigration. It is not that they like Muslims: surely they do not, but they like to use Muslims to fight the Church.  Instead of saying "We Jews do not like to see Christian signs for Christmas" they prefer to say "Muslims do not like…" This is not even true: Muslims do celebrate Christmas, as anyone can witness in Bethlehem; but it sounds better.  Here is anecdotal evidence. I receive daily email with the Boston Globe headlines and suggested articles. Invariably their "Recommended for you" section begins with an anti-Church article published 14 (fourteen) years ago. Recommended for you JAN. 6, 2002 | PART 1 OF 2 Church allowed abuse by priest for years  I wonder why they think it is necessary for me to read an old antiquated anti-Christian abuse? Would they ever suggest I re-read a story of Bernie Madoff? Or a story of a Jewish terror attack on King David Hotel with its hundred victims? I do not think so.  It is not the first time ever that the Jews have acted in concert and against majority wishes. A great politician should know how to deal with them. Such a politician was Vladimir Lenin. In 1913, when his party struggled with the consolidated Jewish group called the Bund, he <http://www.israelshamir.net/Left/Left1.htm> wrote "Dear comrades, if we shall keep mum today, tomorrow the Jewish Marxists will ride on our backs". This advice is as relevant today as ever.  (2) For the establishment, Trump's billions mean nothing; they treat him like a bum   Could Trump Pull Off A Post-Party Coalition?  by Tyler Durden  Aug 19, 2016 2:00 AM  Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted Op-Ed at SputnikNews.com,  Hillary Clinton, Queen of Chaos, Queen of War, Golden Goldman Girl, for all practical purposes is by now the official bipartisan candidate of US neocons and neoliberalcons alike.  Certified add-ons include Wall Street; selected hedge funds; TPP cheerleaders; CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) interventionists; media barons; multinational corporate hustlers; in fact virtually the whole exceptionalist US establishment, duly underwritten by the bipartisan, mega-wealthy 0.0001%.  That does leave Donald J. Trump in the astonishing position of egomaniac billionaire outsider who somehow dreams he can game the whole system on his own, moved by his inexhaustible chutzpah.  It’s under this dynamic that Trump has been demonized with medieval fervor by US corporate media. His non-stop motormouth – and motortweet – certainly does not help, conveying the impression he’s in the business of antagonizing multitudes non-stop. For the establishment, his billions mean nothing; he’s treated like a bum. He may be impervious to empathy; on the other hand that kind of treatment keeps earning him widespread sympathy among the angry, semi-destitute, non-college educated white masses. A US industrial renaissance?  Underneath all this sound and fury, something else is (quietly) going on. Powerful business interests discreetly supporting Trump – and away from the media circus — are convinced he’s got the road map to victory. The question is whether he may be able to tame his erratic behavior to seal the deal.      His key message, according to these backers, must revolve around the destruction of US industries by rigged currencies, and the "destruction of the wages of American workers by importing illegal cheap labor from dollar-a-day wage nations."  And that comes with an all-important military angle as a surefire selling point. As Trump’s backers outline it, "the Pacific Ocean cannot be used for transporting the vital and essential components of our military industrial complex, for in the event of war with Russia or China their advanced silent submarines equipped with advanced anti-ship weapons will block all of our ocean transport, collapsing our military industrial production in any war with catastrophic consequences. These component factories for Intel and others must be repatriated at once through currency adjustments or tariffs."  So Trump should hammer the message that all new bank credit must be tied to rebuilding destroyed US industries, "either by ending currency rigging or applying tariffs." Bank credit, Trump backers argue, "should not be used for currency manipulation, or for cash settlement market rigging. There should be no bank credit for speculation and absolutely none for hedge funds. Let’s wipe these speculative vehicles out by huge taxes on short-term trading profits, ending tax concessions on borrowing, and ending all bank credit for speculation. Let these people go to do real work."  That, in a nutshell, explains Wall Street’s visceral aversion to Trump – from the Bloombergs to the Lloyd Blankfeins. Anyone familiar with Wall Street knows every market, commodity and indexes are rigged by cash settlement manipulations. As a New York-based Trump backer puts it, "This alone is sufficient reason to support Donald J. Trump. We should make the Carl Icahans and George Soroses do real work by taxing away their speculative profits. We need Henry Fords in this nation who create and build industries, and not Wall Street looters, where they rig everything as in 2008 then used their political power over bought politicians for bailouts, after throwing tens of millions of American out of their homes."  According to this road map, which is already on Trump’s desk – but no one knows whether he read it in full, or will implement it – fighting illegal immigration and rigged currencies side by side would create nothing less than an industrial renaissance in the US to rebuild the devastated Detroits. Essentially, the road map calls for replacing millions of illegal immigrants with millions of unemployed US citizens; Trump’s backers consider the real unemployment rate to be a whopping 23% today, based on the 1955 Bureau of Labor Statistical Methodology, "and not the rigged statistics of today."  The bottom line is this road map calls for Trump, if elected, to create a cross-party, or trans-party coalition – as once happened in the House and Senate when Jesse Helms on one side and John Conyers and Chuck Schumer on the other side actually did real business.  This all implies Trump should become well versed in the national economy ideas of Friedrich List – whose tariff-protected Zollverein League was essentially the founding method of Prussia to build the German nation.  Some of the above has already filtered out in Trump’s announced economic agenda. Now comes the hard part for a man with an exceedingly short attention span who gets into the groove by tweets and sound bites; to coherently sell the plan without picking up unnecessary fights along the way. But Vlad has already won it anyway Polls at the moment seem to be pointing to a Hillary landslide. Trump’s backers though "would not rely on the polls. Everything is rigged."  And then there’s the all-enveloping "Russian aggression" hysteria. Hillary went as far as equating President Putin to Hitler. Trump insists he’s ready to do business with Moscow – starting with a joint operation to end ISIS/ISIL/Daesh for good.  Why bother? The Stupidity-o-Meter as applied to US mainstream media has gone on interstellar overdrive anyway – as the presidential election winner has already been christened: it’s – who else? – the omniscient Vladimir Putin.  A business source familiar with the designs of the real Masters of the Universe cuts seriously to the chase: "As far as Russia is concerned, the issue is decided from above, and that is where the battle has been. The decision is above Hillary and Donald, and Hillary will be ordered to create a rapprochement if she is elected, if that is what is decided. If Trump wins, it is easy; and if he doesn’t, then the fact he brought it up will be used as a catalyst for policy changes toward Russia. The fight is behind the scenes now."  As much as currency rigging "will be ended, as we already saw Jack Lew give out the orders to Germany and Japan", a new geoeconomic map – possibly under Trump — would swing towards the end of the oil price war as well. As a Trump backer puts it, "this is a national objective of the United States, as a higher price will make the United States energy independent. This is part of the significance of the Trump revolution."  According to a source close to the House of Saud, Saudis and Russians are already involved in tortuous pre-negotiations on the possibility of engineering an oil price around $100.00 a barrel; "There should be enough mutuality of interest between the Saudis betrayed by the US under the neocons, and to be destroyed by the neocons eventually, and the Russians who can prevent that."      An end to the oil price war may be something the Pentagon won’t be able to argue about. As a Trump backer notes, "it is in the vital interest of the military-industrial complex to achieve complete energy independence, and repatriate all its military industries to the shores of the United States."  Compared to the current, 24/7 mud-wrestling match, all this may seem straight from Alice in Wonderland. There’s no evidence such an ambitious – and contentious – agenda can be sold to movers and shakers from JP Morgan to the Koch brothers. Trump creating a cross-party, trans-party or even post-party movement will only succeed if substantial players in the Power Elite are behind it, and there are no signs of this happening.  What proceeds relentlessly is a massive disinformation campaign – a ghastly remix of those good ol’ Cold War anti-USSR avalanches. The Clinton Media Machine is even vilifying Michael Flynn, former head of the DIA, who supports Trump. Trump was conceptually right when he said Obama and Hillary were the founder and co-founder of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. That’s exactly what Flynn admitted in that notorious interview when he stressed that the expansion of the phony Caliphate was a "willful decision" taken in Washington.      The bottom line, as it stands, is that Trump is not raising enough cash to offset the formidable Clinton cash machine. Now comes the time when he must really take no prisoners to gain maximum exposure – while trying to sell the road map outlined above, one tweet at a time.  And of course there will be a surprise – October and otherwise. Nothing has been decided – yet. Disraeli’s Coningsby was never more appropriate; "So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."  (3) African Americans: Donald Trump’s Lincolnesque Moment - David Horowitz   Donald Trump’s Lincolnesque Moment  A landmark in the emergence of a new Republican Party.  August 19, 2016  David Horowitz  Today in Dimondale Michigan Donald Trump gave what was not only the best speech of his campaign but a speech that will one day be seen as a landmark in the emergence of a new Republican Party – a party finally returning to its roots as the party of Lincoln. If this sounds like hyperbole ask yourself what other Republican leader in recent memory has addressed America’s African American communities in this voice:      The African-American community has given so much to this country. They’ve fought and died in every war since the Revolution. They’ve lifted up the conscience of our nation in the long march for Civil Rights. They’ve sacrificed so much for the national good. Yet, nearly 4 in 10 African-American children still live in poverty, and 58% of young African-Americans are not working. We must do better as a country.  I refuse to believe that the future must be like the past.  Trump’s Dimondale speech was a pledge to African Americans trapped in the blighted zones and killing fields of inner cities exclusively ruled by Democrats for half a century and more, and exploited by their political leaders for votes, and also used as fodder for slanders directed at their Republican opponents. This was his appeal:      Tonight, I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen in this country who wants a better future. The inner cities of our country have been run by the Democratic Party for 50 years. Their policies have produced only poverty, joblessness, failing schools, and broken homes. It is time to hold Democratic Politicians accountable for what they have done to these communities. It is time to hold failed leaders accountable for their results, not just their empty words.  Time to hold the Democrats responsible for what they have done. For twenty years I and many others on the right have waited for Republican leaders to do just this. Until now we have despaired of seeing this happen in our lifetimes. But here is Trump articulating the very message we have been waiting for - support for America’s inner city poor – a message that should have been front and center of every Republican campaign for the last fifty years.  Trump: "Look at what the Democratic Party has done to the city of Detroit. Forty percent of Detroit’s residents live in poverty. Half of all Detroit residents do not work. Detroit tops the list of Most Dangerous Cities in terms of violent crime. This is the legacy of the Democrat politicians who have run this city. This is the result of the policy agenda embraced by Hillary Clinton…. The one thing every item in Hillary Clinton’s agenda has in common is that it takes jobs and opportunities from African-American workers. Her support for open borders. Her fierce opposition to school choice. Her plan to massively raise taxes on small businesses. Her opposition to American energy. And her record of giving our jobs away to other countries."  Tying the fight to liberate African Americans and other minorities from the violent urban wastelands in which Democrats have trapped them to his other proposals– secure borders, law and order to make urban environments safe, jobs for American workers, putting Americans first – these are a sure sign that Trump has an integrated vision of the future towards which he is working. Call it populism if you will. To me it seems like a clear-eyed conservative plan to restore American values and even to unify America’s deeply fractured electorate.  I love this line: "America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future." Yes African Americans and other Americans too are suffocating under the racism of the Democratic Party which takes African Americans for granted and lets the communities of the most vulnerable sink ever deeper into a maelstrom of poverty and violence without end.  Trump being Trump offers this constituency that has turned its back on Republicans for half a century this deal maker: "Look at how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic Control. To those hurting, I say: what do you have to lose by trying something new?’  In the boldest imaginable way, Donald Trump is doing what Republicans have been talking about doing for a generation but have failed miserably to achieve – creating a "big tent" and opening up the party to new constituencies, in particular to minority constituencies. The fact that at the moment he is nonetheless distrusted by minorities is partly the result of his flamboyant carelessness with language during his extemporaneous riffs, but mainly because of the vicious distortions of his words and character his unscruplous Democratic enemies and their media whores. These progressives pretend to care about African Americans but are content to let generations of inner city minorities and their children live blighted lives so long as they can be bussed to the polls every November and cast the votes that keep them in power.  Not to forget the #NeverTrumpers on the Republican side. These defectors are among the loudest slanderers, smearing Trump as a racist and a bigot when he is obviously the very opposite of that. In fact, when you look at what Trump is actually saying and actually doing, Never Trumpism appears as the newest racism of low expectations. To turn their backs on Trump conservatives must write off the inner cities and their suffering populations, regarding them as irredeemable, and unpersuadable, while leaveing them to their fate. Fortunately there is a large constituency in the Republican Party that resonates to Trump’s message of a new Republican Party and a new hope for all Americans - white and non-white – who have been left behind. ==  About David Horowitz  [For Frontpage editor Jaime Glazov's essay on David Horowitz's life and work, click here.]  David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from "red-diaper baby" to conservative activist that George Gilder described as "the first great autobiography of his generation."  Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and author of many books and pamphlets published over the last twenty years. Among them: Hating Whitey; Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left; The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America; and The End of Time.  Horowitz is now publishing The Black Book of the American Left, a multi volume collection of his conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. Culture Wars, the fifth volume of this projected nine volume work, has just appeared. (For information on The Black Book of the American Left, click here.) His new book, Progressive Racism, was published by Encounter Books in April, 2016.  (4) Nigel Farage to Trump Rally: ‘You Can Beat the Pollsters… You Can Beat Washington’   by Raheem Kassam24 Aug 20166,482  Jackson, Mississippi – UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage addressed a 10,000+ strong crowd at the Coliseum in Jackson, Mississippi, telling them to "put on their walking boots" and urging them to form their own "People’s Army" to defeat the U.S. political establishment.  Mr. Farage – who led his party (UKIP) to victory in the 2014 European Parliamentary elections, to a whopping 4m votes in the 2015 UK general election, and mostly importantly, to Britain voting to leave the European Union in 2016 – has used the "People’s Army" moniker to describe his party’s supporters for years.  Introduced by Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump, he told the crowd that UKIP and Brexit campaigners had defeated the UK political establishment including the big banks, the corporations, the political classes, the pollsters, and the "liberal elite" by talking to people about controlling their country, their borders, and having self-respect for themselves.  He hit out at U.S. President Barack Obama, who visited Britain during the campaign and threatened to send the country "to the back of the queue" for a trade deal with the United States if Britain voted for Brexit.  Mr. Farage has previously called Mr. Obama "despicable" and said he refused to repeat his behaviour by telling Americans how to vote.  But echoing his words from an earlier interview with Breitbart London, Mr. Farage said: "I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me. In fact, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if she paid me!"  The crowd, massively receptive to Mr. Farage’s comments, cheered repeatedly when he mentioned how they too could defeat the political status quo.  Breitbart London understands that Mr. Farage met Mr. Trump at a fundraising dinner earlier in the evening, where they discussed Brexit and how Mr. Farage led Britain out of the European Union.  And Mr. Farage mentioned "Project Fear" – the tactic used by the establishment to threaten Britons with economic collapse, with depression, and even with war if Britain left the EU.  Former Prime Minister David Cameron’s name prompted boos from the crowd in Jackson.  Mr. Trump hailed Mr. Farage as the man behind the Brexit campaign, stating after his speech, "What a job he did… against all odds".  UPDATE – Editor’s Note: Farage’s speech has caught the attention of the Huffington Post, which set its home page lead to a picture of him and Trump with the headline "Bannon’s Bigots" — a reference to Stephen K. Bannon, the temporarily departed Executive Chairman of Breitbart News who currently serves as CEO to the Trump campaign. The story linked to the headline does not mention Bannon; he must really be in their heads over there!  (5) Trump joins Farage: 'November 8 is our chance to redeclare American independence'   Nigel Farage Joins Donald Trump To Assail Hillary Clinton  The architect of Brexit drew parallels with Trump's anti-establishment character and immigration positions.  25/08/2016 12:18 PM AEST  JACKSON, Miss. - Nigel Farage, a key figure in the successful campaign to get Britain out of the European Union, lent his support to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday, saying Trump represented the same type of anti-establishment movement that he masterminded in his own country.  Farage appeared with Trump before a cheering crowd of thousands at a rally in Jackson, Mississippi. Farage partly based his Brexit drive on opposition to mass immigration to Britain that he said was leading to rapid change in his country.  His appearance came as Trump sought to moderate his own hardline stance against illegal immigration. In remarks broadcast on Wednesday, Trump backed further away from his vow to deport millions of illegal immigrants, saying he would be willing to work with those who have abided by U.S. laws while living in the country.  Trump summoned Farage on stage in the middle of his appearance, shook his hand and surrendered the microphone to him.  Farage said he would not actually endorse Trump because he did not want to repeat what he called President Barack Obama’s meddling in British affairs when Obama urged Britons to vote to stay in the EU.  "I cannot possibly tell you how you should vote in this election. But you know I get it, I get it. I’m hearing you. But I will say this, if I was an American citizen I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me," Farage said.  "In fact, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if she paid me," he added.  Trump has sought to align himself with the Brexit movement, noting he had said before the June 23 referendum that Britons should vote to leave. He visited one of his golf courses in Scotland the day after the vote and boasted that he had predicted the outcome and called it a sign his own campaign would be successful.  Trump has since tumbled in national opinion polls and is fighting to remain competitive with Democratic rival Clinton with little more than two months to go until the Nov. 8 election.  "November 8 is our chance to redeclare American independence," Trump said, borrowing a phrase Farage used during the Brexit campaign. ‘FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY’  Farage drew parallels between the Brexit movement and the support Trump has received from many Americans who feel left behind by Washington.  "They feel people aren’t standing up for them and they have in many cases given up on the whole electoral process and I think you have a fantastic opportunity here with this campaign," he said.  Trump’s comments on immigration came in the second part of an interview conducted on Tuesday with Fox News anchor Sean Hannity. They signaled a further softening in his immigration position as he tries to bolster support among moderate voters and minority groups.  Trump, who defeated 16 rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in part based on his opposition to illegal immigrants, said he would not permit American citizenship for the undocumented population and would expel lawbreakers.  To qualify to remain in the United States, Trump said, illegal immigrants would have to pay back taxes.  "No citizenship. Let me go a step further - they’ll pay back taxes, they have to pay taxes, there’s no amnesty, as such, there’s no amnesty, but we work with them," Trump said.  "But when I go through and I meet thousands and thousands of people on this subject, and I’ve had very strong people come up to me ... and they’ve said: ‘Mr. Trump, I love you, but to take a person who’s been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and their family out, it’s so tough, Mr. Trump,’" Trump said. "It’s a very hard thing."  Trump said he would outline his position soon.  "Well, I’m going to announce something over the next two weeks, but it’s going to be a very firm policy," Trump told WPEC, a CBS affiliate in West Palm Beach, Florida.  Trump’s new position seemed to resemble in some respects the failed 2007 reform push by former Republican President George W. Bush. That effort offered a way to bring millions "out of the shadows" without amnesty and would have required illegal immigrants to pay a fine and take other steps to gain legal status.  (Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by Peter Cooney)  Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.  (6) The Media Vendetta Against Trump - Eamonn Fingleton   The Press’s Vendetta Against Trump Is Real and Unscrupulous  Here’s the Smoking Gun  Eamonn Fingleton  August 19, 2016  Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press’s version of countless Trumpian controversies lately?  Take, for instance, the Kovaleski affair. According to a recent Bloomberg survey, no controversy has proven more costly to Trump.  The episode began when, in substantiating his erstwhile widely ridiculed allegation that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed a 2001 newspaper account in which law enforcement authorities were stated to have detained "a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." This seemed to settle the matter. But the report’s author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred. Trump’s talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he alleged, was an exaggeration.  Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had bowed to political correctness.  So far, so normal for this election cycle. But it turned out that Kovaleski is no ordinary Trump-dissing media liberal. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed.  For Trump’s critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if disturbing, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking a disabled person.  Trump pleaded that he hadn’t known Kovaleski was handicapped. This was undermined, however, when it emerged that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower. Trump was reduced to pleading a fading memory, something that those of us of a certain age can sympathize with, but, of course, it didn’t wash with Trump’s accusers.  In responding directly to the charge of mocking a disabled person, Trump commented: "I would never do that. Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I’m a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press’s chagrin, many of Trump’s acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies his tough-guy public image), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. Even if he really is the sort of unspeakable buffoon who might mock someone’s disability, he surely has enough political smarts to know that there is no profit in doing so in a public forum.  There has to be something else here, and, as we will see, there is. Key details have been swept under the rug. We will get to them in a moment but first let’s review the wider context. Candidate Trump’s weaknesses are well-known. He is unusually thin-skinned and can readily be lured into tilting at windmills. His reality-television persona is sometimes remarkably abrasive. His penchant for speaking off-the-cuff has resulted in a series of exaggerations and outright gaffes.  All that said, if he ends up losing in November, it will probably be less because of his own shortcomings than the amazing lengths to which the press has gone in misrepresenting him – painting him by turns weird, erratic, and downright sinister.  What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump’s to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America’s desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house."  On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America’s trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton’s trade woes, click here.  Trump’s hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations.  The standard Adam Smith/David Ricardo case for free trade, long considered holy writ in Washington, has in the last half century become ludicrously anachronistic.  Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal’s wine? But, while Smith’s case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters.  For nations intent on improving their manufacturing prowess (and, by extension, their standing in the world incomes league table), a key gambit is to manipulate the global trading system. Japan and Germany were the early leaders in intelligent mercantilism but in recent years the most consequential exemplar has been China.  In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how.  While such an arrangement may promise good short-term profits (nicely fattening up those notorious executive stock options), the trade-deficit-plagued American economy is immediately deprived of badly needed exports. Meanwhile the long-term implications are devastating. In industry after industry, leading American corporations have been induced not only to move jobs to China but to transfer their most advanced production technology. In many cases moreover, almost as soon as a U.S. company has transferred its production secrets to a Chinese subsidiary, these "migrate" to rising Chinese competitors. Precisely the sort of competitively crucial technology that in an earlier era ensured that American workers were not only by far the world’s most productive but the world’s best paid have been served up on a silver salver to America’s most formidable power rival.  Corporate America’s Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place.  Almost alone in corporate America, the Detroit companies have hitherto baulked at shipping their Chinese-made products back to the United States but their resolve is weakening. Already General Motors has announced that later this year it will begin selling Chinese-made Buicks in the American, European, and Canadian markets. It is the thin end of what may prove to be a very large wedge.  Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post. (A good account, however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.)  For the mainstream press, the big nation-defining issues count as nothing compared to Trump’s personal peccadillos, real or, far too often, imagined.  This brings us back to Kovaleski. Did Trump really mean to mock a handicapped person’s disability? On any fair assessment, the answer is clearly No. As the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital exonerating evidence.  The truth is that Trump’s frenetic performance bore no resemblance to the rigid look of arthrogryposis victims. Pointing out that Kovaleski conducted no on-camera interviews in the immediate wake of the Trump performance, Catholics 4 Trump has commented:      Shouldn’t the media have been chomping at the bit to get Kovaleski in front of their cameras to embarrass Trump and prove to the world Trump was clearly mocking his disability? If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have done and we all know it. But the media couldn’t put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they’d have no story…..But, if they showed video of Trump labeled "Trump Mocks Disabled Reporter," then put up a still shot of Kovaleski, they knew you, the viewer, would assume Kovaleski’s disability must make his arms move without control.  According to Catholics 4 Trump, in the same speech in which he presented his Kovaleski cameo, Trump acted out similar histrionics to portray a flustered U.S. general. Meanwhile, on another occasion, he used the same wildly flapping hand motions to lampoon Ted Cruz’s rationalizations on waterboarding. Thus as neither the flustered general nor Ted Cruz are known to be physically handicapped, we have little reason to assume that Trump’s Kovaleski routine represented anything other than an admittedly eccentric portrayal of someone prevaricating under political pressure.  Perhaps the ultimate smoking gun in all this is the behavior of the Washington Post. On August 10, it published a particularly one-sided account by Callum Borchers. When someone used the reader comments section to reference the alternative Catholics 4 Trump explanation, the links were deleted almost immediately. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the Post’s hidden agenda suddenly stood revealed for all to see:      This demonstrates that the Washington Post is aware of evidence existing that contradicts their conclusions, and that they are willfully attempting to conceal it from their readers. If Borchers and WaPo were honest and truly wanted to report ALL of the evidence for and against and let the readers decide, they would have to include the video of Kovaleski and the video of Trump impersonating a flustered General and a flustered Cruz. Any objective report would include both evidence for and against a certain interpretation of the Trump video.  What are we to make of the various other press controversies that have increasingly dogged the Trumpmobile? For the most part, not much.  One recurring controversy concerns how rich Trump really is. The suggestion is that his net worth is way short of the $10 billion he claims.  He has come in for particular flak from the author Timothy O’Brien, who a decade ago pronounced him worth "$250 million tops." Although O’Brien continues to pop up regularly in places like the Washington Post and Bloomberg, his methodology has been faulted by Forbes magazine, which, of course, has long been the ultimate authority in such matters.  What can be said for sure is that even the best informed and most impartial calculation can only be tentative. The fact is that the Trump business is private and thus not subject to daily stock market assessment.  There is moreover a special complication almost unique to the Trump business — the value of his brand. In Trump’s own mind, he seems to think of himself as a latter-day Cesar Ritz – albeit he projects less an image of five-star discretion as high-rolling hedonism. That the brand is a considerable asset, however, is obvious from the fact that he franchises it to, among others, independent real-estate developers. That said, it is an intangible whose value moves up and down in the same elevator as The Donald’s personal standing in global esteem.  All that said, in a major assessment last year, Forbes editor Randall Lane put Trump’s net worth at $4.5 billion. Although that is way short of Trump’s own estimate, it still bespeaks world class business acumen.  Another controversy concerns the country of origin of Trump campaign paraphernalia. After he disclosed that his ties were made in China, his criticism of America’s huge bilateral trade deficit with China was denounced as hypocrisy.  Again there is less here than meets the eye. It is surely not unprincipled for someone to argue for laws to be changed even while in the meantime he or she continues to benefit from the status quo.  Warren Buffett, for instance, has often suggested that tax rates should be raised for plutocrats like himself. In the meantime, however, he continues to pay lower rates than many of his junior staff and nobody calls him a hypocrite. By the same token, many Ivy League-educated journalists privately criticize the legacy system under which their children and the children of other graduates of top universities enjoy preferential treatment in admissions. Few if any such parents, however, would stand in the way of their own children cashing in on the system. Should they?  Perhaps Trump’s most egregious experience of press misrepresentation was sparked when he archly urged Russia to hack into Clinton’s personal server to discover her missing emails. "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press!"  This was sarcasm laid on with a trowel but the press, of course, wasn’t buying it. Yet it is not as if sarcasm is new to American politics. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln had a famously sarcastic tongue and the press laughed along with him. When someone complained of Ulysses Grant’s drinking, for instance, Lincoln rushed to the defense of the Union’s most successful general. "Can you tell me where he gets his whiskey," Lincoln asked. "Because, if I can only find out, I will send a barrel of this wonderful whiskey to every general in the army."  Then there was Harry Truman, the man who declared himself in search of a one-handed economist. When he was not making fun of dismal scientists, he found plenty of other opportunities for caustic wit. After he was presented with the Chicago Tribune’s front page saying "Dewey Defeats Truman," for instance, he commented: "I knew I should have campaigned harder!"  As for Trump, his wit is clearly a major draw with the ordinary voters who flock to his meetings. Yet little of it is ever recycled in the press. In the case of the Russia hacking joke indeed, many commentators were so humorless as to mutter darkly about a threat to national security. At Slate, Osita Nwanevu interviewed a lawyer to see what could be done to arraign Trump on treason charges. (The answer was nothing.) Meanwhile at Politico, Nahal Toosi and Seung Min Kim reported that Trump’s crack had "shocked, flabbergasted, and appalled lawmakers and national security experts across the political spectrum." They quoted Philip Reiner, a former national security official in the Obama administration, describing Trump as a "scumbag animal." Reiner went on to comment: "Hacking email is a criminal activity. And he’s asked a foreign government – a murderous, repressive regime – to attack not just one of our citizens but the Democratic presidential candidate? Of course it’s a national security threat."  Countless other examples could be cited of how the press has piled on in ways that clearly make a mockery of claims to fairness. All this is not to suggest that Trump hasn’t made many unforced errors. His handling of the Khizr Khan affair in particular played right into the press’s agenda. As Khan had lost a son in Iraq, his taunts should have been ignored. By challenging Khan, Trump was charging the cape, not the matador. The matador, of course, was Hillary, and she was actually highly exposed. Trump, after all, could have simply confined his riposte to the fact that but for her vote, and the votes of other Senators, the United States would never have entered Iraq, and Khan’s unfortunate son would still be alive.  Where does Trump go from here? Although it is probably too late to get the press to fall into line in observing traditional standards of fairness, Trump can make it harder for the press to deliver cheap shots.  He needs to stake out the high ground and get a serious policy discussion going. The debates should help but the first one is still more than a month away. In the meantime one strategy would be to compile detailed, authoritative reports on trade, immigration, and other key issues. While such reports would not reach everyone, in these days of the internet they would find a useful readership among an influential, if no doubt relatively small, cadre of thoughtful constituents. They could thus work indirectly but powerfully to change the tone of the campaign. Certainly such an initiative would be hard for the mainstream press simply to ignore – and even harder completely to misrepresent.  (7) Trump: the Unemployment statistics Lie   Jobs Report: Donald Trump Joins Economic Experts Who Say The Official Unemployment Rate Is Inaccurate  By David Sirota @davidsirota On 08/10/16 AT 8:36 AM  When Donald Trump on Monday questioned the accuracy of the federal government’s glowing employment reports, it may have seemed like another unsubstantiated outburst from a famously loose-with-the-facts candidate. But in this case, he was joining a bipartisan chorus of businesspeople, economists and lawmakers who say the monthly employment report is an artificial portrait deliberately airbrushed by statisticians to make the jobs picture look better than it really is.  Last week, the Obama administration’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy added 255,000 jobs in July, and that the official unemployment rate had remained at 4.9 percent — the lowest it has been since early 2008. In a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, Trump derided the report, calling it "one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics."  Though Trump didn’t say so, the larger criticism of the unemployment rate revolves around how it counts — and doesn’t count — the jobless. Today, the official unemployment rate counts only those actively seeking a job. It doesn’t count those who have dropped out of the official labor force either because they have not been able to find a job, or because they are working part-time and cannot find full-time employment.  "In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities," wrote the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute on its website, which calls for a more comprehensive unemployment rate. "This is due to the existence of a large pool of ‘missing workers’ — potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these ‘missing workers’ are not reflected in the unemployment rate."  The group argues that there are now 2.3 million "missing workers" — a number that, if counted by BLS, would bump the official unemployment rate up to 6.2 percent. Unemployment Rate & Jobs Added/Lost in the US | CareerTrends  Others such as private equity executive Leo Hindery argue that even that figure grossly understates unemployment in America. A longtime Democratic Party economic adviser and fundraiser, Hindery has since 2006 published a monthly email to lawmakers, congressional staff and activists that compiles data from BLS and the Census Bureau and then adjusts to arrive at what he says is a more accurate view of the unemployment situation.  In his latest dispatch, Hindery points out that there are 2 million so-called "marginally attached workers," which BLS defines as those who "were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months." There were also another 5.9 million "part time of necessity" workers — those he says are "unable to find full-time jobs or who’ve had their hours cut back." If those workers were counted, official unemployment rate would be 9.7 percent, as BLS itself acknowledges. Add another 4.3 million who say they want work but haven’t sought employment, and Hindery says the real unemployment rate in America is 12.1 percent.  That figure, he says, tracks a relatively recent trend in which there are as many uncounted unemployed or underemployed workers as those counted in the official unemployment figure.  "The difference between the real and official unemployment rate had for years after the second World War never been more than about 30 percent, even in recessions," he told International Business Times-. "So if your official unemployment rate was 5 percent, in real terms it might be, say, 7 percent, which isn’t great, but won’t kill your economy. What happened in the two-year lead up to the 2007 recession, though, is that for the first time the ratio went to 1-to-1 — so if your unemployment rate was 7 to 8 percent, it was really 14 to 16 percent. And that’s a huge change."  "They Made A Pact With Themselves And With The Devil"  Trump’s criticism of the latest job report quickly politicized employment statistics, but that's nothing new. Hindery, for instance, asserted that the current method of counting the jobless was a political decision made by both political parties right after World War II.  "Both parties sat down and basically said if we ever tell the American people the truth about the employment rate, things could get ugly for whichever one of us is in power," he said. "So they made a pact between themselves and with the devil to not count everyone."  In more recent times, the tabulation of employment statistics has changed — and has been a source of political controversy.  In 1994, for instance, federal officials revised the way it counted "discouraged" workers — those who want to work but have given up looking. In a research paper about the change, one BLS official noted that "The number of discouraged workers was much smaller after the 1994 redesign because the definition for the group was tightened."  In late 2002 — amid a recession — President George W. Bush’s administration discontinued the Labor Department’s mass layoff report, prompting Democrats to accuse the White House of suppressing negative economic news. Democrats managed to restore the regular report for a decade, but it was eliminated again in 2013 by the Obama administration as part of a budget-cutting sequestration agreement with congressional Republicans. With President Obama championing the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, the budget deal also followed through on the Obama administration’s previous proposal to cut a BLS unit that helped track the job-loss effects of trade deals.  Two years after that agreement, 19 House Republicans co-sponsored legislation called the "Real Unemployment Calculation Act" that would mandate the federal government include more jobless workers in its official unemployment rate. In doing so, it would address what Gallup CEO Jim Clifton has said is the big problem with the current rate.  "There's no other way to say this," he wrote. "The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie."   -- Peter Myers Australia website: http://mailstar.net/index.html  |
Archives‎ > ‎