From the University of Michigan-Flint’s Trump-proof safe safe, we hear news from Virginia Tech. Students have received an email entitled “Support & Community Today”.
“Many in our community, and among us, are waking up with fear, anxiety, concern, questions, and confusion among many other emotions,” begins the missive. It notes that “not every member of our community has felt they belong. And today, this may feel almost insurmountable.”
And then it gets really creepy: “I want you to hear clearly that you are loved. You deserve wellness. You deserve to thrive. You deserve community.”
You’d think any college with such a low opinion of their low-esteem student body would be laughed at. “All of your emotions are real,” the email continues. “And your decision is yours.”
And on it goes.
At Stanford University – motto: “The wind of freedom blows (Die Luft der Freiheit weht) – more students are being offered refuges.
It’s Day 1 in the World According to Donald Trump and already his fellow reality TV stars are feeling the aftershock. President Trump’s catchphrase – “Grab her by the pussy” – is all over the Daily Star.
“Cami Lee sexually assaulted: Big Brother star molested as boyfriend slept beside her,” says the paper.
Like most of you, we too have no idea who Cami Lee is. Helpfully, she recognises this and introduces herself.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m Cami Li, reporting live from Las Vegas. Think tatts, boobs, and more opinions than Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan put together.
Are her boobs larger than Morgan’s? Dunno. Is she tattier than Hopkins? Not sure? Is she cheaper to have write for your organ than both of them? Says Cami:
So, what could I possibly have to talk about? Well, a f*** load of s***.
If Cami is cheaper that Hopkins and Morgan, and paid by the word, swearing just cost her a couple of quid. She then goes into flashback mode. It’s a deeply unpleasant story.
I, for one, became more passionate about politics after these five (now infamous words) were splashed across the world, “grab her by the p****”.
Cami is in bed. A man is in her room. He is making unwelcome advances.
The freak of nature slips his hands under my jeans, caresses my butt, then tries to make his way to the motherland. He attempts to slide one finger, and for once, I am thankful I ate too much and am bloated with wine, as my jeans are too tight, with little room to move around.
Once he realises he wouldn’t get away with his perversion without waking me up, he retreats. While the ordeal may’ve lasted a few minutes, it has scarred me for an eternity.
After this alleged assault, Cami relates a bout of violence with the middle-aged “beast”. “My boyfriend punched him, knocked him to ground, then the door was slammed repeatedly,” she writes. “Open, close, open, close, open, close.” Next days the man seeks medical help for a broken eye-socket
Cami says she old the authorities but a lack of funds meant she was unable to pursue the matter further. “At that time in my life, I wasn’t financially able to retain a lawyer and fight this rich couple, so I had to hang my head in defeat and walk away,” she writes.
Cami concludes her tale:
Take a step back, look in the mirror, male or female, we’re the change the world needs to see. Women’s rights are human rights. There are too many Donald Trumps in this world.
In other unrelated news, we read that back in April,Daily Star owner Richard Desmond “cut his last remaining ties to the pornography industry, selling adult entertainment channels including Television X, Viewers’ Wives and Red Hot.”
Good for him. Those channels have not alway shown the good stuff.
A viewer of adult subscription channel Television X had complained after a baby’s legs were caught on camera for a few seconds in the background of a scene in which three women were simulating lesbian sex. The baby could also be heard out of shot, gurgling and crying, later in the scene, which was filmed in a bedroom for Television X’s Viewers’ Tapes programme.
The channel apologised.
This week you can watch on Channel X:
Sexual Predator: “Jay Romer came for the thrill of the hunt… to f*** his female prey. In his sexual underworld there are no rules, just his desire to ravage beautiful women… Through the urban London jungle Jason poses as a photographer to bang Michelle B. he acts as a barman to plough into Elizabeth Michelle Lawrence… He buries his thick **** into Evie’s tight hole while still looking for his next victim!“
Looks like women were victims before Trump came along.
Miley Cyrus has been crying. She’s upset with democracy and the choice made by tens of millions of people for allowing Donald Trump to become President of the USA. Other Americans are letting off fireworks and hoarding bottles for Mazel Tov cocktails should the street fighting demand it. As Miley Cyrus (singer; unelected) cries for a return to feudalism and monarchy – she should lament a Democrat Party too narrow and uninspiring to challenge Hillary Clinton; just as the weak GOP was too inept to stop Trump – Owen Jones is talking to Guardian readers about the horror of all that hope and change.
Donald Trump’s victory reflects a rightwing thriving in a vacuum. There must be a plan to counter that threat.
Well, yes. The Left is bereft of ideas and direction. It’s not all that into trusting people to forge their own paths and freedom of speech. The authoritative and censorious Left demands rules and laws to control people into doing ‘the right thing’.
Trump’s victory is one of the biggest calamities to befall the west and the effect is that every racist, woman-hater, homophobe and rightwing authoritarian feels vindicated.
After insulting everyone who voted for illiberal Trump and rejected enlightened Hillary Clinton – the woman seeking to “destroy” “bimbos” who accused her husband of sexual impropriety; who cheered for war; who played identity politics and lost to a man who played that game better; and who, yes, must certainly have been the victim of some degree misogyny in a country that likes its leading woman to be an unelected ‘Lady’ – packaging people in neat boxes and building a pyramid of desirables to deplorables – and lost – Jones suggests its time the Left wooed the people it’s portrayed as thick, racist and problems to be controlled and re-educated through therapeutic means.
Where to begin in bridging the chasm between the Left’s culturally superior elites and the people they deride? Get this for snooty:
Multiple factors explain this calamity. First: racism. The legacy of slavery means racism is written into the DNA of US society. The determined efforts by African Americans to claim their civil rights has been met with a vicious backlash. The exit polls suggest that Trump won a landslide among both male and female white non-graduates: only white women with degrees produced a majority for Hillary Clinton.
A vote for Trump is a vote for racism. Trump’s wife is an immigrant – and a female (she voted for him, right?) – over 30% of Latinos backed Trump – are they thick racists, too?
Centrists have an easy retort. OK, smug radical, if we’re not the answer, let’s hear you list the flourishing leftwing governments, describe how the left bridges its divide?
Stop portraying Trump voters as Untermensch.
And, of course, they have a point. The style and culture of the radical left is often shaped by university-educated young people (a group that includes me). They are a growing and diverse group; often they hail from modest backgrounds. But their priorities, their rhetoric and their outlook is often radically different to older working-class voters in small town England, France or the US. Both groups are critical to building a victorious electoral coalition, and yet they are, indeed, divided.
That must change. Unless the left is rooted in working-class communities – from the diverse boroughs of London to the ex-mill towns of the north, unless it speaks a language that resonates with those it once saw as its natural constituency, shorn of contempt for working-class values or priorities, then it has no political future.
And here’s the news: the things the knowing Left believe the working class care about are not what the working class care about. They want opportunity not patronage. They want freedom.
The Democratic electorate also believed that, with the election of an African-American President and the rise of marriage equality and other such markers, the culture wars were coming to a close. Trump began his campaign declaring Mexican immigrants to be “rapists”; he closed it with an anti-Semitic ad evoking “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; his own behavior made a mockery of the dignity of women and women’s bodies. And, when criticized for any of it, he batted it all away as “political correctness.” Surely such a cruel and retrograde figure could succeed among some voters, but how could he win?
They got lazy.
But what about women? In 2000, we were told that women feel uneasy about Hillary:
Mandy Grunwald—a consultant who worked closely with the Clintons in 1992, as media director of the campaign—notes that women in politics often make other women uncomfortable: “They feel threatened—they’re looking at a woman who is close to their age and has made totally different choices.” Hillary, she says, “forces them to ask questions about themselves and the choices they’ve made that they don’t necessarily want to ask.”
She forced them to wonder: is there only one woman the Democrat Party thinks good enough to be leader?
Maybe it’s just all about Hillary Clinton and what she epitomises? Let’s go back to 2000, when Peggy Noonan was making The Case Against Hillary Clinton. Daniel Finkelstein retells a moment from that book:
In January 2000 Hillary Clinton, First Lady of the United States of America, appeared on The Late Show and she did well. Laughing it up with the late-night TV host David Letterman she was relaxed and funny.
Then Letterman changed the subject. He was, he said, going to ask her some questions about New York. Since it was already clear she would be a candidate for the Senate for that state, she looked earnest. A mistake might cost her dear.
But she didn’t make a mistake. Sometimes she had to grope a little for an answer. Sometimes she pondered and appeared uncertain. But she didn’t make any errors. It was pretty impressive stuff. The next day, however, the reason for this straight-A performance became clear. She’d been given the questions in advance. The uncertainty had been an act.
Trust, eh. Hillary was neither worthy of trust not trusted the voters.
At the end, Trump, the Reality TV star, beat Hollywood Hillary.
To the University of Michigan-Flint, where fans of Hillary Clinton (who she?) can hide from the terrifying orange lunk (that’s President-elect Donald Trump) in a safe space. Counsellors are here to help.
The Washington Examiner has published an email it says was sent to students by Chancellor Susan Borrego, who noted:
“…there would be additional support for those traumatized by Donald Trump’s win. UM-Flint’s Ellen Bommarito LGBTQ Center, Women’s Educational Center and Intercultural Center will provide ‘safe spaces’ for anyone suffering from election loss… counseling is available.”
Counsellors for Trump! From the Rust Belt to the Trust (Conveyor) Belt, the therapy industries continue to boom under Donald. Your jobs are safe!
In addition, next Tuesday the “Diversity Council” will hold a “Post-Election Conversation.”
If that doesn’t make your spine shudder, you can pop along and have a diverse conversation with like minds. Who knows, Hillary Clinton might be in there, too.
According to the Safe Space Network: “A Safe Space is a place where anyone can relax and be able to fully express, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, religious affiliation, age or physical or mental ability.”
It’s an expansion of the golf club mentality, but one where every group gets their own room.
David Cohen notices that the media got it all wrong on Donald Trump:
As someone who has given decades to the media life, may I just say what a disgraceful job my fellow Scribes and Pharisees in the biz did this year. Rather than trying to explain, understand or sensitively report on the Trump uprising, they ran and ran and ran with a narrative based on their own set view. Now they stand revealed as total chumps. So really, if any soul-searching is to be done, it ought to start with this crowd of mountebanks.
Still wondering why Ukip is so reluctant to let go of Nigel Farage? The Herald reports:
Ukip leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans has suggested judges should face the prospect of being sacked by MPs in the wake of the Article 50 case in the High Court.
Ukip wants politicians to have control over the judges? What lunacy.
She warned about judges increasingly intervening in political decisions and suggested the judiciary should face being grilled by a Commons select committee with the power to recommend sacking them.
What a terrible idea. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy.
The fundamental concept of judicial independence came into being in England and Wales in 1701 with the enactment of the Act of Settlement. This statute formally recognised the principles of security of judicial tenure by establishing that High Court Judges and Lords Justice of Appeal hold office during good behaviour. Appropriate and formal mechanisms had to be in place before a judge could be removed.
Before 1701 senior judges held office at the sovereign’s pleasure and there are many examples of judges being removed from office for failing to decide cases in accordance with the wishes of the King or Queen. Since the Act of Settlement it has only been possible to remove a senior judge from office through an Address to the Queen agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
But, yeah, better to let the MPs decide on their own who is fit to uphold the law as they see it. We trust our MPs implicitly, don’t we? That question to you, Nigel Farage.
I will only accept Brexit on MY terms says Jeremy Corbyn as he tells Theresa May he’ll force a spring election if she doesn’t agree
Brave, isn’t he. Trouble is, of course, that Corbyn’s terms are not worth a jot because Labour will be thrashed in a General Election.
The BBC adds:
Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would block the triggering of Article 50 if Mrs May did not guarantee access to the single market.
So we get a General Election. May wins a landslide. Labour get a new leader. The country gets an effective opposition. The will of the people is done and the country leaves the EU. As May writes in the Telegraph:“The people made their choice, and did so decisively. It is the responsibility of government to carry out their instruction in full.”
Jeremy Corbyn gives Theresa May ultimatum: Agree to Labour’s Brexit terms or I’ll force election in spring
Corbyn says access to the single market should be a red line for the Government.
He says: “Sorry, but we live in a democracy and the Government has to be responsive to Parliament. It’s not my timetable so it’s up to her to respond.”
Mr Corbyn’s bottom lines are:
UK access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market.
No watering down of EU workplace rights.
Guarantees on safeguarding consumers and the environment.
Pledges on Britain picking up the tab for any EU capital investment lost by Brexit
Government has to be responsive to Parliament. And Parliament has to be responsive to the will of the people. We voted to leave the EU.
The idea bveing that don’t vote and get Predient Trump. Do vote and gt PResident CLinbton. Or, better, yet, just take a bus and tell the driver to take you back in time to when the US President had gravitas and the people’s trust.
The ruling on article 50 is a huge opportunity. It would not be anti-democratic to try to stop what many other countries see as economic suicide.
It would not be undemocratic to prevent a democratic vote. Got it?
Stephen Phillips,Tory MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has stepped aside. In an open letter he writes:
The campaign to give parliament the right to determine our future relationship with the EU is not about reversing the referendum result. Nor is it about subverting the will of the British people, or having a second bite of the cherry. It’s about the sovereignty that I and others cherish, a sovereignty that resides principally in the House of Commons and in its ability, when given the opportunity, to inform and direct the government of the day.
And did you get that, peeps? Westminster gets to make the final decision on Brexit. Parliamentary sovereignty was earned the hard way to ensure the will of the people won the day. Parliament should not be bound by the rule of the monarch. Parliament should support and ensure the will of the people. If MPs now subvert the vote, what purpose do they serve?
Do you trust MPs, like Paul Flynn (Labour MP for Newport W), who opined, “The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as Boaty McBoatface…
The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as the vote which chose to name a state-of-the art ship Boaty McBoatface (it was named RRS Sir David Attenborough instead).
Ah, TV’s Voice of God, Sir David, who opined:
The veteran broadcaster, 90, said the decision about the future of the UK should have been left to MPs who could have voted on behalf of the electorate. Attenborough said allowing the public to vote on the monumental decision earlier this year has created a “mess”. In an interview with Emily Maitlis for Radio Times he said: “I mean, that’s why we’re in the mess we are with Brexit, is it not?
“Do we really want to live by this kind of referendum?”
Nick Clegg is a LibDem MP. You need to carry that idea in your head as Clegg talks about Brexit in the Guardian:
Melton Mowbray pork pies, stilton cheese and British-made chocolate such as Cadbury’s could be under threat from Brexit, the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has warned.
Speaking to a food and drink industry conference on the impact of leaving the European Union, Clegg said it was possible that European rivals would start producing lookalikes to British foodstuffs if they lost the legal protection from imitation offered by EU rules.
The French will start producing fake bars of sugar-rich CHOMP in a devious Brexit-fed plot to wean their population off delicious chocolate and onto junk food. Bulgarians will be free to make blue cheeses and serve them in bell-shaped pots.
It’s carnage, readers!
“Outside the EU they won’t enjoy the appellation bestowed on those products and I would have thought other countries would take advantage of that pretty quickly and put products into the European market that directly rival those protected brands,” Clegg said.
And sell them to, what, holidays Brits? Maybe Bulgarians can cook up a Marmite copy and sell it back to us cheaper.
The wife of the Deputy Director of the FBI got a wad of campaign donations from Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
The embattled director of the FBI has been accused of covering up evidence of Donald Trump’s links to Russia while inflicting severe damage on Hillary Clinton, as Democrats hit back in a growing scandal involving her email server.
Having links to Russia is a crime?
Harry Reid, the Democrat leader of the Senate, accused James Comey of “a disturbing double standard” and, in a remarkably forthright letter, said he regretted supporting a man who he once believed was “a principled public servant.”
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and several conservative attorneys and legal scholars held a private forum last month in which they harshly criticized FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation just eight days before Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing his bombshell decision to review new emails in the probe. The event, billed as a discussion on “The Law after Comey’s decision,” featured several speakers including Mukasey, who served in the George W. Bush administration, hammering Comey over the legal precedent he set in concluding the email probe three months ago without charging Clinton with a crime.
FBI Director James Comey stressed in his letter to Congress Friday that investigators don’t know how significant the new emails may be. But even if they don’t implicate the Democratic presidential nominee, their mere existence could call into question testimony Abedin gave months ago about the email system.
FBI records reflect that she told investigators “that she lost most of her old emails as a result of the transition.”
During a June 28, 2016 deposition with the conservative Judicial Watch, Abedin also swore she looked for and turned over all devices she thought contained government work to the State Department.
“I looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned – returned – gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents,” Abedin said. “And gave them devices and paper.”
Why would she have 600,000 emails on a compute she shared with her dick pics husband?
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
Let us turn the magnifying glass on them for a change, by sorting through the hacked personal emails of John Podesta, who has been a Washington power broker for decades….
I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.
So the FBI has found more emails from Hillary Clinton’s secret server. Apparently 1,000-odd emails were found as part of the Anthony Weiner investigation.
Emails, eh. You can accidentally (on purpose) wipe your own emails but the trouble is if they were sent, then they sit on the recipients server; if you received them, they’re on the sender’s electronic log book. These emails were on Weiner’s laptop.
Mrs Weiner, Huma Abedin, works for Hillary. She and Anthony are estranged.
What have the FBI found?
Mrs Clinton was supposed to have handed over all evidence relating to her use of a private email server – something she instigated in 2009, when she was appointed secretary of state. The Weiner investigation shows she did not.
Career politician misspeaks the truth. Read all about it!
In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said the emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, which law enforcement officials said was an F.B.I. investigation into illicit text messages from Mr. Weiner to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. Mr. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, is married to Huma Abedin, the top aide.
The Guardian says the emails have nothing to do with Clinton:
Anthony Weiner takes center stage in presidential race about men’s sex lives
About men’s sex lives? Or about a woman who wants to be President lying?
It remains to be seen just what is in the emails, although whether Hillary sent emails with confidential content herself, or directed, or simply allowed her closest aide, Huma Abedin to forward such emails to her outside unsecured email address (where they subsequently ended up on Anthony Weiner’s notebook), is what this latest case will be all about and how it will be defended and prosecuted in the media, by the water coolers and perhaps, in court.
Howie Carr considers the (lack of) evidence in the Boston Herald:
Before he toppled over from the vapors, Paul Krugman called to cancel his nomination of FBI Director James Comey for next spring’s Profiles in Courage award for having the “courage” to broom the obstruction-of-justice rap against Hillary Clinton.
I’m not a big James Comey fan, to say the least. My feeling is, if you want to hide something real good, just stick it in one of his law books. He’s proven he’ll leave no stone unturned, except the one Hillary Clinton is hiding under.
But let’s be real. A bottom feeder like Comey would never have taken this high-stakes gamble if there were any way he could have kept sweeping the dirty laundry under the rug.
What they’ve already turned up from Carlos Danger’s cellphones obviously ain’t about yoga schedules and Chelsea’s wedding plans. Of all people, Comey knows what happens if you take a shot at these people and miss. Ken Starr, anyone?
As he says: “I Did Not Have Classified Relations With That Woman, Mrs Clinton.”
Even a fool like Trump can milk this.
Expect to hear more of Trump’s words two months ago:
“I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told?”
Why did the Democrats go with Clinton? It looks like a massive error.
Baroness Jenny Tonge has been suspended by the Liberal Democrats. Yes, we know, some news there that Tonge and the LibDems still exist. And when you hear the story you might suppose that Tonge has been auditioning for membership to the un-anti-Semetic Labour Party.
Today, a LibDem spokesperson tells media: “The party has suspended the membership of Jenny Tonge. We take her comments very seriously and have acted accordingly.”
Suspended. Not kicked out. Put on hold. That’s how big a deal anti-Semitism is nowadays among the elite. It is not their problem. Of course, nothing is fact. As the Guardian states: “Jenny Tonge quits Lib Dems after suspension for alleged antisemitic comments.”
Tonge noted on Facebook:
“In the course of the evening one member of the audience made a ‘rant’ against Israel quoting some very confused history which I confess I did not hear or understand! I then called the next member of the audience and moved on. The contribution was ignored by the audience after a few claps of relief! Apparently this is my sin! I am at last free of being told what I must and must not say on the issue of Palestine, lest it offends the Israel lobby here, who like to control us, as they do in the USA.
“They are trying to destroy the Labour Party with spurious accusations of antisemitism and now they have set their sights on the Lib Dems. I have never been antisemitic, and never will be. I am anti-injustice and that is why I criticise the Israeli government’s flagrant disregard for international law and human rights in the Occupied territories of Palestine and Gaza.”
The story goes that earlier this week Baroness Tonge hosted an event in the House of Lords run by the Palestine Return Council. The events was part of a campaign for Britain to apologise for the 1917 Balfour Declaration that led to the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine.
The Jewish Chroniclenotes: “Attendees applauded when another member of the audience claimed that “if anybody is antisemitic, it’s the Israelis themselves.”
The paper adds:
Last week Baroness Tonge published a letter online which she said she had sent to The Guardian. In the letter, she discussed the Home Affairs Committee’s report on antisemitism, saying: “It is difficult to believe that a 75% increase in antisemitism it reports, have [sic] been committed by people who simply hate Jewish people for no reason.”
An audience member was applauded after suggesting that Hitler only decided to kill all the Jews after he was provoked by anti-German protests led by a rabbi in Manhattan. The speaker… said that in the 1930s Rabbi Stephen Wise, whom he described as a heretic, “made the boycott on Germany, the economic boycott… which antagonised Hitler, over the edge, to then want to systematically kill Jews wherever he could find them”.
The speaker went on:
“As opposed to . . . make Germany free of Jews, a Jew-free land. He became a madman after this boycott. Judea declares war on Germany. In Manhattan they had 100,000 people marching in the economic boycott in 1935, it was the same heretic rabbi who caused that.”
The speaker also said that Rabbi Wise told the New York Times in 1905 that there were “six million bleeding and suffering reasons to justify Zionism”. He urged the audience to note the number. This famous quotation is regularly used by Holocaust deniers to suggest that the figure of six million Jews later killed by the Nazis was a myth.
Another audience member opined:
“Chaim Weizmann [a founder of Israel] did a confidence trick back in 1917/1918. He made the British establishment think that world Jewry had power that it just didn’t have. The trouble is, 100 years on, I am not talking about world Jewry, I am talking about that segment which we called the Zionist movement, has that power and it has that over our own parliament.”
David Collier notes on his blog: “This is the transference of classic antisemitic tropes, from the hand of the Jew to the hands of the Zionist.”
The Times adds: “Lady Tonge made no attempt to challenge the provocative comments.”
David Aaronovitch observes:
“Ten years ago the baroness did the old one about Jewish financial power in the form of “the pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. She got a reprimand from her party leader for it. Six years ago it was the ancient blood libel (Jews kill gentiles for their blood or body parts, see also under Shylock), when she demanded an inquiry into absurd allegations that an Israeli aid mission to Haiti was harvesting organs from Haitians. She lost a front bench job for that.”
And no, she was not booted out of the LibDems. He conbtinues:
Before she resigned, Baroness Tonge was suspended, not expelled, from her utterly complacent party. Because actually many people don’t care that much about antisemitism any more. They say they do, but they don’t. They cluck but secretly they think antisemitism isn’t really a problem, that Jews are generally rich and can look after themselves and that — one way or another — they probably have it coming.
Lady Tonge, the Liberal Democrat peer, is calling for Israel to set up an inquiry to disprove allegations that its medical teams in Haiti “harvested” organs of earthquake victims for use in transplants…
Attacking Israel’s policies is one thing; insinuating that the army of the Jewish state is stealing organs or – as the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published last year, that the IDF was killing Arabs for their organs – is to repeat what antisemites were saying about the Jews in the darkest periods of history. A blood libel, in short.
One hundred and seventy years ago, the Damascus blood libel shocked the world. On 5 February 1840, Father Thomas, the superior of the Capuchin house in Damascus, and his Muslim servant disappeared. The local Jews were immediately accused of murdering the two for the intention of using their blood for making Passover Matzot. Several Jews were arrested and tortured, and some of them died, not before producing “confessions”.
The Guardian says:
The peer has a long track record of making trenchant criticisms of Israel. In 2004, when she was an MP, she was sacked from the frontbench by then party leader Charles Kennedy after she suggested that she would become a suicide bomber if she was Palestinian. At the time, Israel had endured repeated suicide bombings carried out by Palestinians during the second intifada. She was made a peer the following year.
In September, the Sunday Times noted:
A PROMINENT peer is considering defection to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party after “a lifetime” in the Liberal Democrats. Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”.
We know there is no anti-semitism in Labour because Jeremy Corbyn commissioned an investigation led by Shami Chakrabarti, and she found only a “minority hateful or ignorant attitudes and behaviours”.
Hatred of Jews was bundled in with all other forms of racism. Chakrabarti has since become a Labour peer and shadow attorney general. As Nick Cohen muses: “Can’t think of anyone who has destroyed her good name as thoroughly as Shami Chakrabati has? Paying for peerage would’ve been less shameful.”
Today a committee of MPs says there is anti-Semitism in Labour. The Home Affairs Select Committee says Corbyn has failed to display “consistent leadership”. Corbyn’s acquiescence to bigots has aided the spread of “vile attitudes” towards Jewish people.
But isn’t Corbyn just the head of a group that do the same, a representative of the liberals who turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism, who consider disliking Jews an acceptable part of normal, polite dinner-party chatter? The enlightened don’t like Jews. So what?
Corbyn’s Labour Party has “consistently and effectively to deal with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic”, says the MPs’ report.
Are they right? The Anti-Semitism in the UK report says (via the BBC):
Labour MP Luciana Berger received more than 2,500 abusive tweets in three days in 2014
Since walking out of the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth has reported more than 25,000 incidents of abuse
Police-recorded anti-Semitic hate crime in England and some parts of Wales increased by 29% between 2010 and 2015, compared with a 9% increase across all hate crime categories
A fifth of British Jewish people responding to an Institute for Jewish Policy Research study had experienced at least one anti-Semitic harassment incident during the last year, with 68% of incidents taking place online
What says Corbyn?
“The report’s political framing and disproportionate emphasis on Labour risks undermining the positive and welcome recommendations made in it.
“Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of anti-Semitic incidents come from far-right sources and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest anti-Semitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour Party…
“Under my leadership, Labour has taken greater action against anti-Semitism than any other party, and will implement the measures recommended by the Chakrabarti report to ensure Labour is a welcoming environment for members of all our communities.”
“Clearly, the Labour leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate anti-Semitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people… The result is that the Labour Party, with its proud history of fighting racism and promoting equal rights, is seen by some as an unwelcoming place for Jewish members and activists.”
The promotion of the human rights activist Shami Chakarbarti to Labour lawmaker shortly after she penned a report clearing Labour of institutional anti-Semitism has “thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent,” read the Home Affairs Committee report.
Taking a peerage undermined the integrity of her own inquiry into racism in the Labour Party. She was ennobled after her recommendations absolved Jeremy Corbyn of any responsibility. The report acknowledges Mr Corbyn’s history of campaigning against racism but condemns his inability to recognise the unique nature of post-war anti-Semitism. In recent years, anti-Semitism has operated under the cover of anti-Zionism, to the point that denial of the right of Israel to exist can be a way of articulating hatred for Jewish people. The report concludes that failure to see this and to take action has helped create a “safe space” for anti-Semites in Labour.
Hillary Clinton has to do nothing to win the US Presidential race to the bottom. The media are obsessed with reality TV creation Donald Trump and accusations that he molested women. But what about those leaked emails, the ones WikiLeaks has published about Clinton?
First a few words about the sex. Jonah Goldberg is impressed by the double standards: “I honestly can’t get my head around the fact that Hillary Clinton’s closing ‘argument’ in this election is sexual harassment. Bill Clinton’s lifelong enabler has managed to turn this topic into a deadly weapon against a Republican nominee. This is like Godzilla turning public safety into a winning issue in the Tokyo mayoral race.”
And now for those emails on Hillary’s secret server that got wiped – whoops!
Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”
Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.
…Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.
But the big bangs are to do with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In 2008 Hillary was vying with Obama to be the Democrat Party’s presidential nominee. Her team produced a list of “negatives” to attack her rival.
One of these “negatives” as to accuse Obama of being a Muslim.
According to Tom Matzzie and Paul Begala, two Democratic consultants advising the 2008 polling effort by Progressive Media USA, it was simply an effort to test Obama’s vulnerabilities in a potential general election against John McCain.
Begala and Matzzie told CNN that the group also tested arguments against Clinton, a claim that is backed up by a separate hacked email available on WikiLeaks as Document ID 2187.
“This is Campaigning 101,” said Matzzie, an Obama supporter in 2008 who was the president and executive director of Progressive Media USA. “You test the vulnerabilities of your candidate — something (Republicans) should have done for Donald Trump.”
The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances.
What did Hillary Clinton say at the last debate? Oh, yes: “They they go low, you go high.” But not as high as Obama, allegedly.
Donald Trump is mired in sex stories.The Telegraph says Trump is the subject for “sexual assault allegations”. These are “claims made by women against the Republican presidential nominee”.
Trump has not been accused of rape. Others have been such as Bill Clinton, aka Mr Hillary Clinton.
Roll up voters and tell the world which sexist old man do you dislike the most.
The latest accusation levelled at Trump appears in the The New York Times. Jessica Leeds alleged on camera thatMr Trump “grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt in the first class cabin on a flight to New York in or around 1980”. Rachel Crooks alleges Trump “kissed me directly on the mouth” in 2005 outside the elevator in Trump Tower in Manhattan. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that,” she says.
The New York Daily News adds that Trump the “perv” “had eyes for a 10 year old girl”.
Trump is a peado?
Donald Trump, exposed Wednesday as an alleged serial groper, once said he’d spotted his future girlfriend on an escalator — when she was only 10.
He was older:
The would-be sexist-in-chief made the stomach-turning joke in 1992 when “Entertainment Tonight” taped a Christmas special in Trump Tower. Trump, then 46, makes a brief appearance and asks a group of 10-year-old girls if they’re going to take the escalator, according to the footage, reported by CBS News Wednesday. One girl pipes up with a happy “Yes!”
“I’m going to be dating her in 10 years,” Trump leers. “Can you believe it?”
Leers. Or jokes?
Is any of this stuff going to make his supporters think again about giving Trump their vote?
Donald Trump’s gutter talk about women shows yet again that he is bad news. The problem is that Hillary Clinton is far worse. Trump’s talk is indefensible. But Hillary Clinton’s actions as secretary of state, carrying out the Obama administration’s foreign policies, have cost many lives in many places, including the American ambassador and others killed in Benghazi.
Is this Trump stuff – emerging at the 11th hour – a good way to bury bad news about Hillary’s missing emails and her record?
Women have a right to be offended by Trump’s words. But women have suffered a far worse fate from Secretary Clinton’s and President Obama’s actions. Pulling American troops out of Iraq, despite military advice to the contrary, led to the sudden rise of ISIS and their seizing of many women and young girls as sex slaves.
A message from one of these women urged the bombing of ISIS. She said she would rather be dead than live the life of a sex slave. Some women who tried to commit suicide and failed have been tortured for trying…
Make no mistake about it. Neither party has a good candidate for president. The choice is between bad and disastrous.
And the scary things, the horrific things that Donald Trump says, Hillary Clinton has already done. Whether it’s massively deporting immigrants, whether it’s threatening nuclear warfare. …
Put it this way: I will feel horrible if Donald Trump is elected, I will feel horrible if Hillary Clinton is elected, and I feel most horrible about a voting system that says: Here are two deadly choices, now pick your weapon of self-destruction.
Bill Clinton “rape” protesters were pushed and shoved during two Florida rallies on Tuesday.
Clinton was speaking in Fort Myers, Florida Tuesday afternoon when a man wearing a “Hillary for Prison” t-shirt began shouting “rapist” as Clinton was talking.
America – how did you get to this? How weak can this election get? Policies are rarely mentioned. Clinton says she goes high when Trump goes low. Oh, puh-lease. She has focused on Trump’s behaviour and character. She wants us to believe all the accusations made against boorish Trump – but when they were made against her husband she smeared the accuser. Hillary does not go high. Hillary says millions of Americans are “deplorable” and “irredeemable”.
It’s hard to know which of Trump or Clinton is least likeable and shames America most.
Presidential Tat Watch spots this “Donald Trump Paddle Ball” on sale at the Gagosian’s Benefit for Clinton, Art For Hillary.
Designed by New York sculptor Elliott Arkin, the wooden paddle features a likeness of Donald Trump’s face. The mouth is open. The idea is that you smack the red rubber ball into Trump’s pie hole.
Arkin’s work references Koons’s Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer paddle ball game from 2000. “I often use existing contemporary works to satirize. Since Koons has made that print of the Mona Lisa for this event, I thought his Rudolph paddle ball was a natural fit for Trump,” he says.
Konn’s Mona Lisa repo costs Clinton fans – get this – $50,000.
To even things up, Arkin has also made a Hillary Clinton Flash Drive an 8 megabyte flash drive in the shape of a miniature Clinton. You pop off Clinton’s noggin – decapitate it, if you will – and reveal the device.
Whether the data storage device contains any data, like emails, say, or has been accidentally wiped clean by forces unknown is unsaid.
We’re still all waiting for the anything in Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails – released by WikiLeaks – to besmirch her reputation for being economical with the actualité (surely ‘a titan of truth’ – ed) . Of course, thousands of Clinton’s emails handled by a private server she maintained while in the top tiers of government were acciedntally destroyed. But something is seeping out. ZeroHedge says the State Department and the Clinton Campaign might be tighter than Vladimir Putin’s forehead:
Now, courtesy of the latest leak by Wikileaks, which earlier today released another 2,000 emails by Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, we may have stumbled on evidence of collusion between the State Department and the Clinton Campaign itself. In an email from close Hillary’s confidant Heather Samuelson, also known as “the Clinton insider who screened Hillary’s emails”, we learn the intimate details leaked by Samuelson regarding a FOIA request submitted previously by Judicial Watch regarding Bill Clinton speeches, which shows that virtually entire process was being “translated” over to Hillary’s campaign.
Who is Heather Samuelson? Politico noted on September 2015:
Hillary Clinton chose a former campaign staffer who followed her to the State Department to make the initial determination about which of her emails should be preserved as federal records, according to closed-door testimony by Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, a GOP source told POLITICO.
Why not preserve all of them?
Heather Samuelson, a lawyer and 2008 Clinton campaign staffer, worked under Mills and Clinton’s attorney David Kendall to sift through her ex-boss’ messages. She helped separate those that were purely personal, which were not turned over to the State Department, from those that were work-related.
The Daily Caller adds:
Most importantly, as we reported previously, Samuelson received DOJ immunity in exchange for turning over the laptop she used during the review of Clinton’s emails in 2014.
Here’s a question for Britons who want to abolish the monarchy: Trump or Clinton? And after them you most likely get their kids.
He’s back! The str of ‘thirdeaglebooks’ is a Donald Trump supporters. He’s written a song for Don. As the blurb says, this is the “unofficial” campaign song for the 2016 Trump-Pence Republican Presidential ticket. The official song will find this impossible to beat.
Take it away…. William Tapley (co Prophet of The End of Times)
We know all about Donald Trump and TV host Billy Bush sharing a “locked-room” chat during which the tsunami-haired bricks-and-golf tycoon advised randy males to “Grab her by the pussy“? But why are we hearing about this now?
Is Trump’s exposure linked to media bias? Rupert Murdoch’s Heat Street says NBC is part of the problem:
More to the point, why hasn’t all this terrible audio already surfaced? At any point in the last year, when there was still time to deprive Trump of the GOP nomination, did NBC brass ask Apprentice producer (and Trump friend) Mark Burnett for a look into his archives? Or were they complicit in allowing Trump to cruise to the GOP nomination when they knew there was likely evidence in Mark Burnett’s basement that could disqualify him?
Reality TV is a cut and paste job. The amount of stuff edited out would fill a silo. But is it right to blame the messenger? The Mail has been blaming the victim.
There are clear lines of accountability here – to NBC News Chairman Andy Lack and NBCU CEO Steve Burke. Did these executives just look the other way for many months while a former employee whose bad behavior was well-known got closer and closer to the White House? And did they place the career of Billy Bush – reportedly being groomed to replace Matt Lauer on the hugely profitable Today program – ahead of the US presidency? That sounds absurd, but this is the twisted world of network television and NBC has some explaining to do.
The Guardian 2008: “Another casualty of the internet age: Obama’s speechwriter is caught in a compromising position with a cardboard Hillary.”
NBCNighty News host Brian Williams “misremembered” being aboard a helicopter hit and downed by two rockets and small arms fire fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Williams had been on a different Chinook. “I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”
People at NBC are fallible. People make mistakes in wartime.
Glenn Reynolds adds:
HE WAS A DEMOCRAT WHEN HE MADE THOSE REMARKS, SO IT WAS OKAY. IT’S ONLY WHEN HE SWITCHED PARTIES AND BECAME GOP NOMINEE THAT THE REMARKS TURNED DISGRACEFUL.
Back then he wasn’t in or standing for public office.
How do we tell the story of reality TV star Donald Trump telling gibbering TV host Billy Bush “Grab her by the pussy“? The British news has made Trump’s “crass” comment (Express) the lead news story. Bigger than mass murder in Syria, desperate migrants and bellicose Russia is Trump’s “sex boast” (The Observer).
The Mirror looks at more pressing issues.
Trump is a story. The reality TV creation is news because he’s said something pathetic and is cheap to produce.
But should one comment scupper Trump’s White House bid?
Nick Kristoff opines in the NYTimes: “In fairness to Trump, other senior men in politics and business — John Kennedy and Bill Clinton come to mind — also sometimes showed a sense of entitlement toward young women.”
The digging for dirt begins.
Said Gennifer Flowers: “I just know what Bill told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know. ‘He said Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had.’”
In the Washington Post, we read:
Trump, facing a GOP exodus from his campaign and apparently desperate to change the subject, just retweeted two tweets from an account featuring the name of Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who publicly alleged in 1999 that Clinton had sexually assaulted her two decades prior. In both tweets, the Broaddrick account reiterates her accusation that Clinton raped her and accuses Hillary Clinton of enabling him.
Then, the country was presented with proof, incremental and suggestive at first, overwhelming and indisputable by the end of the decade, that Bill Clinton was an irrepressible and irresponsible sexual predator, at least by the moral and evidentiary standards established by feminist activists and the press corps that loves them. And, rather than face the consequences of applying their own principles consistently, they prostrated themselves to the Oval Office. Gloria Steinem raced to the pages of the New York Times to advance the “one free grope” rule. Susan Estrich, Susan Faludi, and countless other professional feminists defenestrated their principles in a desperate attempt to defend Clinton.
And can we blame the woman seen in the film when Trump went full frat house?
To the Mail it is not Trump’s ugly comment that could cost him the White House – it is elegant TV soap actress Arianne Zucker, a woman who diplomatically dealt with TV host Billy Bragg’s pathetic comments as to which of he or Trump she’d sleep with.
The obsession with Trump, the close monitoring of his every utterance, has reached the point that his political and media foes have – ironically – become important generators of support for him. Every time they tell Trump ‘you can’t say that’, he says it. Every time they demand an apology from Trump, he doubles down on it. Just by defying the strictures of political correctness, and not caving when challenged, Trump can look authoritative and daring.
We keep reading that Republicans have deserted Trump. Will his supporters care? No. Trump has turned the election into a referendum on the political establishment. Clinton should be miles ahead in the polls. Why isn’t she? Seen as untrustworthy by many, her policies should be more than ‘I’m not Trump’. Remember Bernie Sanders, who said failing to vote Hillary will lead to “more drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels.”
The Republican nominee Donald Trump spoke for 75 minutes and for most of his speech, he outlined a laundry list of every conceivable fear he could conjure. Radical Islam, immigration (legal, illegal, Mexican, Muslim, whatevs), stagnant wages, rising violence in the streets, and really terrible trade deals were among the litany.
The US Presidential campaign has a long way to run.
And like so much in Trump and Clinton’s lives, it is a race to the bottom.