Posts Tagged ‘Deportation’

More Lies about Brexit Funding the NHS from IDS

June 26, 2016

Ian Duncan Smith never fails to amaze me with his sheer mendacity. I know, I should be used to it by now. He lied for years as the head of the Department of Work and Pensions, sliming his way through questions of the number of people his policies had killed, refusing to answer freedom of information requests, dragging his heels when he was forced to comply, and giving wrong or misleading answers. He tried to have one of his constituents deported, when she went to see him about problems she was having with the DWP. And his CV is a tissue of lies of truly Jeffrey Archer-like proportions. He claims to have been a major in the army, but the evidence is he was ‘returned to unit’. He claims to have taken a degree at an Italian college, which doesn’t actually award undergraduate degrees. His lying at one time got so bad that I called him ‘Matilda’, from the heroine of the Hilaire Bellocq poem, ‘Matilda told such dreadful lies/ It made one gasp and stretch one’s eyes’.

But today on the Andrew Marr show he outdid himself. He even continued to lie even when Marr put up a photograph of the original statement.

Marr picked up IDS on his statement that the £350 million or so Britain paid annually to the EU would be paid to the NHS. Smiff denied it, saying that no, no, this was all wrong, the money would also go to farmers and others, and that they had said that the NHS would only be one of the areas which would receive money taken from Britain’s contributions to the EU. So Marr showed the original statement, from their campaign material. Smiff continued to lie that he’d ever said any such thing, to which Marr simply added that it had been put on the side of a bus.

Now I’ve thought before that I wouldn’t believe anything IDS said to the point where I’d seek a second opinion if he told me that the sky was blue and the grass green, or that London was the capital of England. Now Smudger has proven me absolutely correct. He continues lying even when the evidence to the contrary is right in front of him, pasted in three-foot high letters on the sides of buses. There’s a kind of grandeur in his inability to tell the truth. There was a book out a few years ago by Al Franken, an American political pundit, called, Lies and the Lying Liars, Who Tell Them. It’s about horrendous mendacity of American politics, but it clearly applies to Ian Duncan Smith. Truly, his lies are almost Nixonian in scope. If there was a ‘Goebbels Award for the Political Falsehood’, IDS would win it jointly with Tony ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ Blair’.

Advertisements

American Labour History: Film about the ‘Wobblies’

May 8, 2016

This is a fascinating film by the Women’s Film Preservation Unit about the I.W.W. The International Workers of the World, or ‘Wobblies’, as they were called, were a radical American Syndicalist trade union formed at the beginning of the 20th century. They were called ‘Wobblies’ apparently because some of the Chinese workers couldn’t pronounce the ‘R’ sound, and so when they tried saying the Union’s name, it came out sounding something like ‘Wobblies’. And the name stuck.

The film traces the union’s history, from its origins to eventual demise about the time of the First World War through the memories of a group of senior citizens – old blue collar workers – who had joined it and taken part in its struggles. The Wobblies believed in the eventual ownership and management of the means of production by the workers, and the abolition of the wage system. Beyond that, as one of these elders says, they weren’t sure. They were, however, inclusive in a way that the mainstream unions, founded by Samuel Gompers, weren’t. The American Federation of Labor was a craft union that wouldn’t take unskilled labourers. Following the racial bigotry of the time, they didn’t take Blacks either. But the Wobblies did. One of the speakers is a Black man, who tells how he joined the Union because they were the only union would take and defend Black people like himself. They also took and fought for women and immigrants. Another speaker is an elderly lady, who talks about how she joined the union, and the strikes she took part in. The Wobblies allowed their women members considerable freedom, and were pilloried for it. The lady recalls how one of the accusations was that the Wobblies pushed women to the front of the demonstrations and picket lines. She replied that they didn’t. They just didn’t keep them at the back. It was up to the women themselves where they went.

They also recruited the immigrant workers that were then flooding into America as its population expanded massively to provide labour for its expanding economy. This was the period when logging began in the great wood and the railways were still being laid down across America. Workers were needed in factories, mills and docks. And so the Wobblies recruited Italians, Poles and other nationalities. These men and women too suffered tremendous prejudice and persecution for their membership of the union during the First World War, and particularly after the Russian Revolution. The Wobblies were persecuted as a revolutionary, ‘Communist’ organisation. There was a wave of xenophobia resulting in the ‘Palmer raids’, anti-immigrant police raids in which foreign workers were rounded up and deported. This was directed at the I.W.W., but the authorities frequently couldn’t find enough of them, and so just picked up foreign workers at random. It should come as no surprise that the Fascist Right in Britain in the interwar years also wanted similar raids against suspected foreign revolutionaries, or just plain foreigners, over here.

These were men and women, who had extremely rough lives, working immensely hard for poverty wages. The Black speaker describes what it was like to be a dock worker. Further on in the film, one of the other surviving workers, a White guy, was a lumberjack. He describes the appalling conditions he and the other men worked in. They were lodged in bunkhouses with no washing facilities and no mattresses on the bunks. The result was that they were riddled with lice and bedbugs. He also says that there was saying that you could smell a lumberjack before you could hear him, and you could hear him before you could see him. And the work itself was tough and dangerous. The same guy talks about the various bones he broke in accidents, including when he was crushed by a log and his entrails ‘were pushed out my tail-end’. He also shows the stump of one of his fingers, which he lost in another accident. At the camp, the dinner plates weren’t washed properly. They were nailed to the tables to stop them being stolen by bindlestiffs – migrant workers, who preyed on other tramps. They were simply hosed down after the meals were finished. Many of the workers were also farm labourers, picking fruit.

And in addition to the work, there was brutal repression by the police and management. The speakers describe armed police coming into break up the strikes, and the extreme violence used against picketing workers. Any excuse would do to get a striker into court. One of the ladies describes how she was arrested on a charge of using obscene language against one of the cops. Fortunately, she was acquitted when she told the judge, ‘You’re honour, I don’t use such language’. A week later the same cop asked her out. She turned him down, not surprisingly.

In addition to the violence from the police, there was the threat of the scab labourers recruited by management. These also came in with guns and police protection. As a result, strikes could explode into extreme violence, including gun fights. In one strike involving the dock workers, 127 people were shot to death or otherwise killed. In another incident, striking workers, who got on a boat to get to their workplace were fired upon by the management, leading to four deaths. The government became involved in many strikes, using tactics that would now be considered ‘Fascistic’. Or should be. The army were frequently called in to shoot and arrest them. During the First World War, the union left it a matter of individual conscience whether to oppose the War or not. Many did, including one who was sent to France. The reason presented for American intervention was that Europe – France and England – owed America money. So the Wobbly went down the line of American doughboys in the trenches asking them if the Europeans owed ’em anything personally. Of course they didn’t, though he describes some of the younger, more patriotic men getting angry. When the union went on strike, they were accused by the government of being collaborators with the Kaiser and the enemy. And when the Russian Revolution broke out in October 1917, they were accused of working for the Russians to bring America down. One of the ladies describes how striking men, including her husband, were rounded up by the army, and then taken to what seems like an internment camp out in the desert, loaded into freight cars with no food or water.

Much of the Wobblies’ membership came from migrant workers. In order to get to new jobs, these frequently travelled by freight train across the country looking for work. It was extremely hazardous. One of the workers describes the sadness of passing lit homes, while himself hungry. The train crew operated a racket, in which they’d charge the workers for their journey. This stopped when the union put in its own strong arm gang, who dealt out their own rough justice to them. Then there were the hijackers, who get on to a train to rob its passengers. These particularly targeted union organisers, as they frequently carried thousands of dollars worth of union fees with them. One of the tactics used against the trade unionists was to thrown them off the train, so that they fell under the wheels of the car. Again, the union was also capable of defending its members against them. When of these guys describes how they cut the letters I.W.W. onto the forehead and cheeks of a hijacker with a razor as a lesson.

One of the workers also describes how they managed to get a free ride at management’s expense. The company hired a whole load of scab workers and was paying for them to travel by train. So the Wobblies got on too and began busily recruiting them. Those that didn’t, were thrown off, so that by the time they all arrived, nearly everyone on the train was a Wobbly. Which naturally made the management furious. The lumberjack also describes the ‘stand-up’ strikes that frequently did more harm to the company than the sit-down strikes. These were basically go-slows, or work to rules, where the workers went into the forests for work, but either vanished, or did as little as possible. And the former dockworkers describe how the union supported starving workers with soup kitchens, and that after they won the dispute, the leaders organised a banquet for the workers.

The Wobblies declined after the War as a result of police and state repression, and from ideological divisions in the union itself between Communists and Anarchists after the Russian Revolution. Many members felt that they ought to be trying to start a revolution in America. They were sympathetic to the Russian Revolution, and argued that the Russians had finally done it while they talked about it. The former lumberjack describes how the debates between the revolutionary and anti-revolutionary factions got so heated, that debates would frequently end in fist fights.

Although the memories of the former workers are at the heart of this movie, this isn’t simply a staid film of rather boring talking heads. Along with the speakers themselves are contemporary archive footage, newspaper headlines, and anti-Wobblie propaganda cartoons, including an animated sequence which I think may well have been from them, rather than being a contemporary film, though I might be wrong. It also includes dramatic recitation of some of the words of the Wobblies themselves. It begins with the voice of Wobblies being questioned about their country of origin, all giving various answers which avoided ‘America’, but in line with their belief that they were all indeed the Industrial Workers of the World. It also includes some of the words of the American capitalists against whom the I.W.W. were pitched in battle, and these are very ugly. One industrialists stated that the man who did not pay his workers below the minimum wage level, robbed his shareholders. Forget Dave Cameron’s and his Republican counterparts’ in America smooth words about the Tories being ‘for hardworking people’: this is the true, brutal face of capitalism.

The film’s also enlivened considerably by the songs of the Wobblies themselves. The Union was known for its songs, and many of the workers interviewed describe keeping their song books with them, or singing during the strike to keep their spirits up. Some of these are beautiful pieces of American folk song, often with a wry humour, like ‘Hooray, I’m a Bum’. I don’t agree with some of the anti-religious sentiment in a couple of these, though I can see why they were written. They were produced at a time when many towns passed laws against street orators, with the exception of the Salvation Army. The Wobblies themselves used to set up meetings in the streets to recruit new members, with the speaker himself standing on a soapbox. The police would arrest them while leaving the Sally Ann speakers alone. And so there developed a vicious rivalry between the two organisations for speaking pitches. Looking through the music credits, I saw that one of the arrangements was sung by Peggy Seeger and England’s own Ewan MacColl, the father of British pop singer Kirsty, and writer of the classic ‘Dirty Old Town’.

It also uses paintings of some of the strikes, presumably created by the workers themselves. These are naturally naïve in style, but nevertheless constitute valuable pieces of folk art from one of America’s most notorious outsider groups.

This is a fascinating, harrowing, exuberant movie about a labour group that is little known over this side of the Atlantic. Looking down the list of comments on the Youtube page, one of the commenters remarked that this is the type of history that’s been removed from the official version. Indeed it is. It’s the type of history that at one time would have made it onto Channel 4 or possibly PBS in the Land of the Free. Now you’re only likely to see it either on BBC 4, or at your local arts cinema.

Germany, the Rise of the Nazis and the Commemoration of the

March 30, 2016

Terror Topography

I think yesterday was Holocaust Memorial Day, when the world, or at least, Europe gathers to remember Hitler’s extermination of the Jews in the hope that the commemoration of this most appalling of atrocities will never be repeated. There was a piece about on the radio today, in which one woman pointed out that Hitler felt he could go ahead with it with impunity because the Allies in the First World War had made no move to prevent or protest against the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks. Hitler himself asked, ‘Who remembers the Armenians?’ And so the world remembers the Holocaust in order to prevent it ever recurring.

I’ve blogged a lot about Nazi crimes and atrocities in eastern Europe in the past few days. As I said, I’m not trying to stir up resentment against the Germans, but to show how authoritarian Britain and the other countries are going as our constitutional freedoms are sacrificed in the interests of national security and the surveillance state. I’ve also blogged about the Nazi persecution and mass-murder of the Slav peoples of eastern Europe, particularly because Fascism and the Far Right is also growing over there. No-one with any self-respect should have anything to do with any Fascist or Nazi party, and especially not the Slav peoples, such as Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians and Russians. After the Nazis had conquered their countries, the Nazis intended to deport them from an area extending from part of Poland into the Ukraine and Russia. 30 million Slavs were to be slaughtered, and the rest were to work as slave labourers cultivating agricultural produce for their German masters. About seven million people were rounded up to work as slave labourers in Germany, while another seven were forced to work for the occupying Nazis in their countries. Himmler compared the process to the Western European occupation and colonisation of Africa. He declared that eastern Europe ‘was our Africa, and the Slavs are our negroes’.

I don’t believe that the rise of the Nazis was inevitable, or that it was the natural culmination of German history. Indeed, in the 19th century there was less anti-Semitism in Germany than in France or England, and some of the pseudo-scientific elements of Nazism – the perverted racial theory and eugenics, were part of the general intellectual climate in the West at the time. The Nazis boasted that they had invented nothing. They based their own eugenics legislation on contemporary American laws intended to prevent the biologically unfit from breeding, while their 19th century predecessors in the various anti-Semitic organisations also based their demands for legislation separating Jews and gentiles on American laws governing Chinese immigrant workers.

Nor did all Germans quietly acquiesce as the Nazis seized power. In the last democratic elections held before the Nazi seizure of power, the Nazis themselves only won 44% of the vote. They only gained a bare majority through their alliance with the Nationalists, who only polled 8%. And this was after a campaign of intimidation throughout Germany and the banning of the German Communist Party, the KPD. The mainstream German Socialist party, the SPD, continued to resist the Nazis until the very end. They only lost a single seat, and ended up with 120 in the German parliament. The Catholic Centre Party, another of the major pillars of the Weimar coalition governments, actually increased the number of seats they held by three to 73. In the end, however, it was only the SPD, which voted against the Enabling Act. Otto Wels read out the SPD’s gave the party’s farewells to the previous era of Human Rights and humanity and gave its good wishes to political prisoners and the enemies of the regime, who even then were being rounded up and put in the camps. The address’ conclusion ran:

At this historic hour, we German Social Democrats pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and Socialism. No Enabling Law can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible. You yourself have declared your commitment to Socialism. The Socialist Law [of 1878] did not succeed in destroying Social Democracy. From this new persecution too German Social Democracy can draw new strength. We send greetings to the persecuted and oppressed. We greet our friends in the Reich. their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage with which they maintain their convictions and their unbroken confidence guarantee a brighter future.

There have been problems after the War with the persistence of Neo-Nazi groups, like the National Democratic Party and the German Republican Party. There has also been the injustice that many Nazis did escape and were not prosecuted for their crimes against humanity. And one of the complaints by some foreign writers was that the collective guilt about the Nazi past made many Germans unwilling to discuss it with their children, leaving some unprepared when they encountered it and its legacy.

On the other hand, the Germans have enacted legislation to protect democracy against the rise of totalitarianism. Under the terms of the Basic Law, the Grundgesetz, the only parties and political movements which are permitted are those which recognise the basic principles of democracy. And it has been invoked to ban neo-Nazi movements, most notably in the 1970s when it was used to outlaw the National Democrats. And there have been exhibitions and books discussing the Third Reich, its rule through fear and intimidation, and commemorating its victims.

One such is the book at the top of the page, Topographie des Terrors: Gestapo, SS und Reichssicherheitshauptamt auf dem >>Prinz-Albrecht-Gelaende<< Eine Dokumentation, ‘Topography of Terror: Gestapo, SS and Reich Security Main Office at the >>Prinz-Albrech-Site<< A Documentation (Berlin: Verlag Wilmuth Arenhoevel 1988)'. This was published as part of an exhibition following negotiations about the redevelopment of the site and the commemoration of its past as the headquarters of the Nazi security organisations in 1979/80. Mike brought my copy of the book back with him when he went there with his old college.

The book has the following chapters:

Introduction.
1. Headquarters of the SS State: Addresses and Institutions.
2. History of that party of the City and the Building.
2.1 A quite district on the City’s Edge (1732-1880)
2.2 The Quarter’s Career.
2.3 Departure and Crisis

3. Institutions of Terror
3.1. The Reichsfuhrer of the SS and his Reich
3.2. Seizure of Power and Early Terror
3.3 The Secret State Police
3.4 The Reichfuhrer-SS’ Security Service
3.5 Reich Security’s Main Office
3.6 ‘House Prison’ and Political Prisoners (1933-39)
3.7 ‘Protection’.
3.8. Concentration Camps.

4. Persecution, Annihilation, Resistance
4.1 The Fate of the German Jews 1933-38.
4.2 The Fate of the German Jews 1939-45
4.3 The Fate of the Gypsies.
4.4. Nazi Rule in Europe – Poland
4.5 Nazi Rule in Europe – the Soviet Union
4.6 Nazi Rule in Europe – Other Countries
4.7 Political Resistance and ‘House Prison’ (193945)

5. From Destruction to Rediscovery
5.1 Bombs and Rubble
5.2 The First Year after the War.
5.3 History Made Invisible.
5.4 The Return of the Repressed.

6. Appendix
6.1 Bibliography
6.2. Abbreviations
6.3 Lists of Texts
6.4 Lists of Illustrations
6.5 Register of Names.

Among the illustrations are the following pictures of the Reich’s atrocities.

Concentration Camp Labour

Forced labour at Neugamme Concentration Camp

Roll Call Sachsenhausen

Roll-call at Sachsenhausen concentration camp.

Deportation of Gypsies

Gypsies being deported.

Kaunas Pogrom

Pogrom initiated by members of Einsatzgruppe A in Kaunas/ Kowno.

In addition to the well-known opponents of the regime, many ordinary Germans also risked their lives to rescue the Jews. Some 5,000 Jews survived in Berlin after being hidden by gentile friends and neighbours. One Jewish woman left this memoir of how she was hidden by a Germany lawyer.

I was constantly sent for by the Gestapo. In 1942 these interrogation sessions became even more threatening and therefore went underground. In the middle of May 1942 I went to Silesia and stayed in several places without officially registering myself. I lived in Breslau, Gleiwitz, Hindenburg, in the countryside and Spahlitz (in the district of Oels). It was here that I remained hidden for months at the house of a German lawyer … (Later after I was arrested this brave amn had another Jewish woman hidden in his house)…

(Wiener Library, Eye Witness Accounts, PIIc, no. 153. In D.G. Williamson, The Third Reich (Harlow: Longman 1982) p. 95.

The horrors of the Third Reich need to be remembered, but so too does the heroism of the people, who did their level best to stop, and at least save those they could from its barbarism.

Vox Political on the Degrading Lack of Toilet Facilities in Jobcentres

March 29, 2016

Just when you think the Tories and the DWP can’t get any lower in their degrading treatment of the unemployed and disabled, they do. I should no longer be amazed at how mean-spirited, vindictive and spiteful the DWP can be. Their head, the recently departed Ian Duncan Smith, after all went off and tried to see if he could get one of his own constituents deported after she came to him asking for assistance with benefit problems, partly due to the fact that she was foreign-born. The lady in question had always worked, and was certainly not a ‘benefit-scrounger’, skiver, or whatever other insult IDS and his minions like to throw at people on benefits.

In this article, Mike points out that there are no public toilets in Jobcentres. Nor are there separate spaces provided for people, who need to inject medication, like diabetics with insulin. There’s also a problem of not enough space for wheelchairs. Claimants may, at staff discretion, be allowed to use the private toilet facilities in the Jobcentre, depending on the layout of the building, safety, and the willingness of the staff to escort them. When they staff aren’t willing to assist claimants or other members of the public, who need to use the facilities, the result is that those people can be humiliated. This occurred when one disabled lady with a weak bladder ended up wetting herself in public when staff refused to help her.

See Mike’s article at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/03/29/the-embarrassing-reason-the-dwp-wont-get-the-sick-and-disabled-back-to-work/

Mike points out that discretionary facilities don’t pass the Human Rights test. He also quotes Samuel Miller, a friend of his blog, who also points out that if the Tories were serious about installing toilet facilities, they could have used some of the £100,000 they spent last year vainly trying to challenge appeals.

I’ve discussed before about how Tory policy towards the unemployed and disabled is based on the principle of ‘less eligibility’. This was one of Thatcher’s much lauded ‘Victorian values’. It was the idea that in order to motivate the unemployed into finding work, public relief must be made as hard and as humiliating as possible. It’s one of the reasons the government has inserted the clause stating that you must be actively looking for work, constantly grill you about whether you have been looking for jobs on the farcical ‘Universal Jobmatch’ website, and now have ‘work coaches’, who are there to harangue you into getting a job, as well as seeking to find a variety of excuses, no matter how petty, to have the poor and desperate thrown off benefit. These have included sanctioning people for arriving late, even when they have excellent excuses, such as they have been seriously ill in hospital, or have had to take their children to school. Or even, in one incredible case, where someone was only a few minutes late for the interview. I’m pretty sure that the DWP would deny it, but it seems very clear to me that the refusal to provide public toilet facilities is part of this programme to create a very regimented, authoritarian atmosphere of control over the claimant, right down to the basic bodily functions.

Secular Talk: Donald Trump Makes Up Numbers on Medicare, Republicans Fail to Tackle Him on Real Issues

March 6, 2016

In this piece from Secular Talk, Kyle Kulinski discusses how Trump was caught out making up the numbers for the amount the American government spends on drugs for the Medicare programme during the Republican presidential candidates’ debate. Trump claimed that because the Medicare administrators were forbidden to negotiate over the prices with the drug companies, the government was paying vastly exorbitant prices for the drugs. He claimed that once this restriction was lifted, about $300 billion could be cut from the budget. Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, pointed out that in fact the government only spent $78 billion on Medicare.

Kulinski points out that Wallace is correct to show how Trump is making up the figures, but states that this attack on Trump is misdirected. Trump is actually right. The American government is forbidden from negotiating with the drug companies over the costs of pharmaceuticals, with the result that the American tax-payer does pay too much for drugs. So the average voter will still be impressed with the general point Trump’s making. Just like they are when Trump says he’ll stop the corporations from going abroad, and keep jobs in America. Average American voters will support this, and they won’t be impressed with the policy’s dismissal by rival candidates like Ted Cruz, who sneer at it for not being serious. Just like they have a sneering attitude to spending money on Medicare on the pretext that the government must balance the budget, and so the poor must do without, and starve. He points out that it’s the same when Trump says he’ll spend more on American infrastructure. It’s a popular policy with ordinary voters, but not with the rest of the Republicans, so they lose to him here.

Trump’s rivals in the Republican party choose to attack him on the weakest points, because they secretly agree with his core policies, horrendous as they are. They like the idea of Torturing terrorist suspects, and deporting millions of immigrants. They like the idea of banning Muslims from the US. And so they mount only weak attacks on what are actually his strongest policies, like saving money by buying drugs cheaply. And the result is that Trump storms past them in the polls.

Secular Talk on How the New York Times Saw Hitler’s Anti-Semitism as ‘Political Cleverness’

March 6, 2016

This is another extremely interesting and very relevant piece from Secular Talk. Kulinski discusses how someone went back to the first mention of Adolf Hitler in the New York Times. The newspaper first mentions the future Fuehrer in an article of Tuesday, 21st November 1922. The piece astonishingly hails Hitler’s anti-Semitism as an astute electoral tactic, designed to get the votes of the German uneducated masses, who would be otherwise unable to grasp the subtle complexities of his real policies. The article confidents expects that once Adolf was in power, he’d drop the anti-Semitism, or wouldn’t carry out what he was threatening to do.

Kulinski draws the obvious parallel with Trump today. He makes the point that he doesn’t like comparing Trump to Hitler, as Hitler was one of the worst people ever. He feels a little more comfortable comparing Trump to Mussolini. But here the parallels between Trump and Hitler then are entirely correct and fitting. There is today a tendency to shrug off Trump’s intentions of deporting 11-12 million illegal immigrants, building a wall with Mexico, and banning all Muslims from entering the US as just a rhetorical strategy for gaining votes from the Republican electoral base, which Trump, like Hitler on the Jews, has no intention of honouring once he’s in power. And that’s before you get to his comments about bringing back torture ‘even if it doesn’t work’, and killing the families of terrorists, including women and toddlers. Kulinski advises not to take the chance. ‘If you do take the chance, it doesn’t work out very well’.

Secular Talk: Alabama Republican Won’t Support Trump Because He’s a ‘Serial Adulterer’

March 2, 2016

In this piece from Secular Talk, Kulinski discusses the Alabama Representative, Mo Brooks, and the reason he gave why he would not be supporting Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for the presidency. Brooks stated that he would not give his backing to the Coiffured Caudillo, as Trump was a ‘serial adulterer’ and that was not an honourable stance. Now Kulinski states that the accepts the wider point – that Trump is dishonest and untrustworthy. But he also shows how it’s a weird attitude, considering the horrendous policies Trump is actually advocating. These are:

* A ban on Muslims entering America. He’s tried to soften this a bit, and make it sound less terrible than it actually is by saying that it’s only going to be temporary ‘until we find out what’s going on.’

* The deportation of 11-12 million illegal immigrants, many of whom are productive and have jobs.

* To use torture, ‘even if it doesn’t work’, thus violating the Eighth Amendment against ‘cruel and unusual punishments’, and violating international law and human rights legislation.

* To target the families and relatives of terrorists, not just terrorists themselves. People, who have not been convicted of a crime, and who are just being targeted because of who they’re related to. Again, this is a war crime that violates international law.

* To overturn free speech and the First Amendment by strengthening the libel law so he can sue his critics.

* Keeping wages low, and thus American workers poor.

Instead of not supporting Trump, because of the substance of his polices, Brooks and by implication the other Republicans, who think similarly, because the substance of Trump’s policies are terrible and oppressive, Brooks instead is upset because of Trump’s serial marital infidelities.

Now I can’t say I’m thrilled at somebody boasting of their multiple marriages and adultery becoming president, although in Britain, so many MPs have been caught in sex scandals that by now I’m just about used to it. At one point under John Major there seemed to be yet another scandal every other week, when a politician’s career spectacularly imploded because he either had a mistress or was secretly gay and paying rent boys. But The real danger here, and the true reasons Trump should not get the support he wants, is because of the reasons Kulinski described: he’s a threat to Americans’ lives and freedom. He should not be let near the White House.

The Young Turks: Mexicans Make Pinatas of Trump

December 27, 2015

This is quite an old story from the end of June this last year, 2015. Trump doesn’t just hate Muslims. He also wants to build a wall to stop Mexicans coming in, and deport them as well. So the people immediately south of the border have had their symbolic revenge. Dalton Ramirez, a maker of piñatas, has made one in the image of Donald Trump. Pinatas are the figures filled with sweets that Mexicans bash during religious festivals. And Donald Trump is now the favourite in the land of the Aztecs.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6evQnKO-CU

Well, it had to come, and when it did, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Trump Jokes About Killing Journalists, Mocks Disabled Reporter

December 23, 2015

This is another excellent report from The Young Turks showing just what kind of low-life scum Donald Trump is. In this segment, Cenk Uygur talks about a Trump rally, in which the all-American Fuehrer in waiting talks about how he hate the press with a passion, but would never kill them, although … no, he’d never kill them. It comes after Trump was interviewed over the phone by a couple of presenters of one of the American news shows, who asked him how he felt about Putin liking him. Wasn’t he uncomfortable about this, considering Putin had killed journalists.

Trump didn’t seem bothered by the question, or by the fact that Putin has murdered journos. First of all, he dismissed the question with an airy statement that it was ‘leadership’. Then when pushed on the point, he said cavalierly, ‘Well, we’ve done things as well’. Indeed we have. Decent people are ashamed of them, and fight so that they don’t happen again. This means that by and large they don’t vote for idiots like Trump. Then finally the pair of presenters asked a leading question, ‘But you don’t approve of killing journalists’. Trump finally admitted that he didn’t.

As Uygur points out, killing journalists isn’t something you joke about. It’s about as an un-American as you can get. He states that The Turks have also done their fair share of criticising the press. They’ve done it, in order to make them better. The Right does it in order to destroy the press, so that you can’t see what they’re doing.

For some reason, Trump seems keen to defend Putin from the charge of killing journalists. He waves off the allegations with the statement that ‘some people say some things, others say different’. Or words to that effect. In fact, there’s abundant evidence and little doubt that Putin has killed journalists. There’s a whole chapter on Putin’s murder and beating of journalists in John Kampfner’s Freedom for Sale: How We Made Money and Lost Our Liberty (London: Simon & Schuster 2009).

Also telling is the jeering and mockery Trump metes out to a New York Times journalist. The man is disabled, and suffers from a condition which seems to make his muscles and limbs twitch and move strangely. So Trump does a sneering imitation of these movements. Yeah, he’s at that level. We’re back to the vile playground insults about ‘flids’ and ‘spastics’ I remember when I was growing in the ’70s. I’m really sorry to use these terms here, as I know it must make some of my disabled readers blood run cold, reminding them of some of the terrible insults they endured at school. Or just any kid, who was bullied in school anyway, as that was one of the favourite playground sneers. But it shows the puerile, bullying level of this man.

Uygur states that Trump attacks the journalist, because he contradicted Trump’s statement that the Muslims in New York were cheering en masse at the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. The journo was actually there, in the area of town where all this is supposed to have taken place, at the time it was supposed to have occurred. He stated categorically that while some may have done, he didn’t see it, and there was no mass cheering by the Muslims in the area. So Trump’s a liar. Not that that should be news to anyone.

Uygur then wonders what Trump is going to do next. He wants Muslims shut out of America, 11 – 12 million Latinos deported, and those Muslims that remain resident in the US to carry identification. And the danger is people don’t think he’ll do it. He points out that when Hitler came to power, millions of Germans didn’t think he’d win, or if he did, that he’d actually do everything he said he would. But he did. And the result was the systematic genocide of millions of innocents.

Here’s the video:

Trump’s a dangerous lunatic, and unfit to lead a great nation like America.

Cameron Refuses to Ban Trump

December 11, 2015

Donald Trump’s is now so toxic because of his hatred of immigrants, and specifically Muslims, that yesterday the Labour Party and the SNP called on Cameron to ban him from coming to Britain. They weren’t alone. There’s also an online petition to ban him. Yesterday’s I reported that 300,000 people had signed it, and its high point, six people were signing the petition every minute. With those members, it has passed the number required to be debated in parliament.

So what has been Cameron’s response?
Done the usual, and ignored popular opinion, stating that he won’t ban Trump for coming to Britain.

I can’t say I’m surprised. There has always been a vicious current of racism in the Tory party, and my guess is that much of the Tory right is at least sympathetic to Trump. The I reported that just about all of UKIP agreed with him about stopping Muslim immigration, and a quarter of the British public in general, with 2/3 believing it was inappropriate. My guess is that the Tories will want to play on those figures, just as they made much of New Labour’s supposed racist hostility to Whites in promoting coloured immigration.

But there are plenty of precedents under the law for preventing Trump coming to Britain. The Home Secretary has the right to stop anyone entering the country, who might be a threat to Britain’s peace. And this has been used to ban card carrying racists. In the 1960s it was used to ban the-then head of the American Nazi party, Lincoln Rockwell, from entering Britain. It didn’t do much good, as the NF smuggled him into the country in a suitcase, but I think he might have been deported soon after.

Under Blair, it was used to prevent a string of Muslim anti-western firebrands and bigots from coming to Britain, as well as Michael Savage, an extreme right-wing American talk radio host. Savage has been accused of being a White supremacist and anti-Semite, and, in my view, with justification. So if he wasn’t allowed in, why should Trump?

And anti-racist Americans don’t want Trump in their country either. I found this meme on 1000 Natural Shocks (over 18s only).

Deport Trump

So if liberal Americans don’t want Trump in their country, and I really don’t see why we should allow him in ours.