NeoCon Jew Bill Kristol Says “White Working Class Should Be Replaced By Immigrants”


Here is the Tribe member, and neo-con, Bill Kristol suggesting that the lazy white working class be replaced by immigrants. Despite his fears, it is very unlikely that his remarks will have any significant negative consequences for him. If he had expressed comparable contempt for Jews, however, his career would have ended instantaneously.

Kristol was one of the most hardcore never-Trumpers, constantly predicting that “Peak Trump” had been reached and hatching plots to stop him. Bill’s father, Irving Kristol, was the founder of neo-conservatism. It is reported that, as a child, Irving Kristol had been taught by his Rabbi to spit whenever he passed a church.


People are worried Trump will stop climate progress. The numbers suggest he can’t

The outcome of the U.S. presidential election injected uncertainty into last week’s climate negotiations in Marrakech – but how large is the potential for disruption of global climate progress? Recent news coverage points to conclusions at both extremes. Only by reviewing the numbers can we distinguish the signal from the noise.

First, let’s consider the limited scale of countries’ current pledges relative to overall emissions reductions needed to keep the global mean temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a target for the Paris climate agreement. While countries’ pledges are expected to lead to flattening growth in annual emissions globally out to 2030, they are far from the more than 50 percent drop in emissions needed by 2050 to keep on track for the 2 C limit. Even before the election, commitments had to be ratcheted up. This remains true today.    

However, current commitments are also expected to drive substantial clean energy innovation. This near-term energy innovation is critical to encourage countries to set more ambitious, longer-term emissions targets.

For example, in a renewables-focused scenario, we estimate that by 2030, globally-installed wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) capacity could grow by factors of nearly 3 and 5, respectively, under current commitments. Electricity costs from these technologies could fall by 25 percent and 50 percent. Significant cost reductions are possible in these and other clean energy technologies, such as stationary energy storage, from the private research and development, economies of scale, and learning by doing that accompanies growing markets. History has shown that rapid and sustained improvement can result.

Furthermore, changes in U.S. federal policy alone can only have a limited effect on global emissions reductions and clean energy expansion under the Paris agreement, when we consider state action and changes already set in motion in the private sector.

In the electricity sector, if U.S. states continue pursuing their existing renewables portfolio standards (RPS) – and if China, the European Union, India, and other countries stay on track to meet their emissions targets under the Paris agreement – then changes to U.S. federal policy may only result in a 2 percent reduction of global solar PV and wind power capacity in 2030. This number represents a scenario without the US Clean Power Plan (CPP), and with only state-level RPS contributions of 45 to 53 gigawatts of new solar photovoltaic and wind capacity by 2030. This amounts to roughly 60 percent of the new solar PV and wind capacity expected under the CPP. This figure is a low estimate because it does not include federal tax credits with bipartisan support, other state-level incentives, or locations where wind (and even solar) is becoming cost-effective without government incentives.

In the transportation sector, federal fuel economy standards have already initiated changes to the vehicle fleet, with effects that will persist throughout a one- or two-term presidential administration. Most manufacturers have incorporated the Environmental Protection Agency’s light duty vehicle standards, approved in 2012, into their plans up to the 2019 model year. Fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles, expected to reduce that sector’s emissions by 25 percent, were carefully crafted with industry input to be technologically feasible and cost-effective.

Additionally, 37 states and the District of Columbia provide incentives for purchasing hybrid and electric vehicles, and 10 states (representing one quarter of all miles driven) have voluntarily adopted California’s stricter vehicle standards. These state policies create a guaranteed market that will drive innovation and further reduce prices for low-emissions vehicles across the country. (Several low-emissions personal vehicles that meet the U.S. 2030 target are already cost-competitive.)

The emissions impacts of changes to U.S. federal policy are more difficult to assess. Many factors will play a role, such as the shares of natural gas and coal in the electricity sector, as well as energy efficiency investments that drive down demand. However, we estimate that the U.S. can achieve the majority share of its original 2025 emissions reduction target even with federal policy changes. More ambitious state policies would further compensate for changes at the federal level.

On the basis of these numbers alone, it’s clear that the United States will continue to contribute to clean energy market expansion and emissions reduction even with changes to federal policy. Additionally, several states are well positioned to increase their clean energy ambition to keep the U.S. mostly on track to meeting its near-term clean energy commitments, and to keep longer-term emissions goals – not yet implemented in policy – within reach.

Moreover, many countries are likely to stick to their climate plans. China, which represents more than one third of the expected solar PV and wind capacity growth between now and 2030, has indicated it plans to do so. The EU commitment looks strong as well. The demand created in China, the EU, and India – together accounting for over 50 percent of global solar PV and wind capacity additions by 2030 – argues for companies to stay competitive in these markets.

In purely economic terms, there are arguments for moving ahead with climate and clean energy policies. Much innovation in wind and solar is expected through local installation experience. The international competitiveness of Danish firms in off-shore wind due to experience supported by national policies is well documented. In the U.S., the growth of the solar and wind industry is increasingly entangled with individual states’ economic development, regardless of their support for climate policy.

The United States must aggressively reduce its emissions for global climate change mitigation to be successful, and should contribute its fair share to clean energy research – but over the course of one or two terms, a Trump administration alone cannot halt global progress. Even if U.S. federal policy is diminished, individual states are well equipped to take up the slack. Moral and ethical considerations aside, self-interest should induce national, state, and local governments and companies to step forward to compete in clean energy markets, rather than hold back until the next U.S. president is elected.

Jessika E. Trancik is an associate professor of energy studies in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Email: Magdalena M. Klemun and Morgan R. Edwards are graduate students in the Trancik Lab at MIT, who contributed to this piece. Other members of the Trancik Lab also contributed to the analysis.

Prehistoric People Decorated With Cave Lion Pelts

Some 16,000 years ago, prehistoric humans ventured deep into the La Garma cave in Spain to perform sacred rituals. Guided by lanterns made of animal fat, they navigated hundreds of feet through dark caverns and around thick stalagmites until they reached one of their circular stone huts, each of which had a horse skull at its center.

Though archaeologists don’t know what religious ceremonies took place inside the huts, they think they now understand a piece the décor: a cave lion pelt, perhaps used as either a rug or a roof.

Edgard Camarós, an archaeologist at the Catalan Institute of Human Paleoecology and Social Evolution in Spain, and his colleagues discovered nine fossilized claw bones belonging to the extinct Eurasian cave lion, a beast larger than an African lion but without the mane, while exploring the ritual site. They reported their findings Wednesday in the journal PLOS One.


Eight of the nine cave lion toe bones found in the Upper Paleolithic cave site. CreditMarian Cueto

In the many years that he, his wife Marián Cueto and their colleagues have spent exploring the vast caverns, they had uncovered more than 30,000 bones, most of which belonged to horses and goats. Mixed among all those bones were the cave lion claws, the only remnants from the beast.

“It was very strange to find only the claws,” said Dr. Camarós. “Everything you have inside this cave was a thing humans introduced to it.”

La Garma is like a time capsule into the lives of the people from the Upper Paleolithic era, according to Dr. Camarós. For thousands of years it had remained untouched, so everything inside looked exactly like it had when the ancient people performed their rituals.

Since the only cave lion remains that the team found inside the cave were claws, Dr. Camarós said, that most likely meant that the prehistoric people brought only the lion’s claws into the cave. For his team the question became, ‘Why would Paleolithic people only bring lion claws into the cave?’

“Our interpretation is that the claws were attached to the skin of the lion,” Dr. Camarós said. “You know those horrible carpets which people have in their house, the bear carpets with the claws and head? This would be very similar but without the head, just the claws and the pelt.”

He thinks that the prehistoric people may have skinned cave lions with their claws intact, and either placed the pelts over huts to make a tent or laid them on the floor. Then, after thousands of years the skin and fur disintegrated, leaving behind only the fossilized claw bones.

To support their hypothesis the team points to markings they found on the claws. Each claw has a similar pattern of scrapes and scratches that seemed to have been made by human tools. The patterns led the team to believe that the early humans were well acquainted with the lion’s anatomy and knew exactly where to cut to sever the skin from the tendons and ligaments.

Though the researchers are not sure how this cave lion died, Dr. Camarós thinks it was hunted by early humans. He said that the findings strengthen the idea that humans hunted cave lions, and he speculated that humans should potentially be considered as a possible factor in the species’ extinction, around 14,000 years ago.


Dust swirled and jackhammers pounded outside the Bonwit Teller building in Manhattan as undocumented immigrants tore apart the façade. It was June 5, 1980, and a sense of bitterness hung over the work site that afternoon; paychecks were often weeks late, but since the Poles didn’t have legal status in the United States, there was little they could do about it.The exterior they were destroying was an architectural masterpiece—bronze, platinum, hammered aluminum, glazed ceramic and tinted glass that shimmered like jewelry. Many New Yorkers had hoped the grandest portion would survive; curators from the Metropolitan Museum of Art had asked the developer to carefully remove the two bas-relief sculpture panels so they could be restored and put on public display. But that afternoon, the laborers, acting on orders from the developer, smashed the 50-year-old art deco panels into a rubble of stone, pebble and dirt. Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week The desecration horrified Manhattan’s art community, but the developer, a brash 34-year-old named Donald Trump, dismissed the criticism—pretending to be his own spokesman, “John Barron,” as he talked to reporters by phone. Saving the panels would have cost him $32,000 each, he said, and delayed work for a few days on his $100 million project, Trump Tower. Besides, he declared, he knew more than the curators—the panels had no artistic merit and little financial value.This incident from long before Trump became a household name is an ideal exemplar for his business career, in which he has repeatedly left bitterness and ruin in his wake. His destructive behavior—spurred by recklessness, arrogance and an unslakable thirst for vengeance—has victimized cities, businesses, investors, partners, even members of his family.Trump is now completing his biggest and most astonishing demolition: tearing down the Republican Party. Since the disclosure of a recording earlier this month in which Trump demeans women and boasts of sexually assaulting them, the GOP presidential nominee has vowed to make his campaign a scorched-earth mission. He now speaks of vast conspiracies against him involving bankers, the media and politicians, while raging against Republicans who have pulled away from his toxic campaign, ripping open chasms between his zealous supporters and the GOP. Win or lose on November 8, Trump, whose campaign did not respond to Newsweek requests for comment about this article, will leave the Republican Party as damaged as those art deco panels were 36 years ago.
To anyone who has watched Trump over the past four decades, none of this is a surprise. His presidential campaign is built on the claim that he’s a brilliant businessman worth $10 billion who turns every challenge into success, but Trump is none of those things. Instead, he was born into an exceedingly wealthy family and tried to build upon his father’s success with ever-riskier ventures, and by any rational measure, he failed again and again.He’d have done better if he’d never gone into business. In 1982, Trump reported to New Jersey regulators a personal net worth of $321 million, built largely on his father’s connections, as well as loans and guarantees for bank credit. Two years later, a Trump lieutenant testified that his worth had not changed much. In 2004, in reviewing his application for a loan, Deutsche Bank concluded he was worth $788 million. Trump now makes the highly dubious claim that he is worth $10 billion; Forbes estimates that the real number is $3.7 billion. That’s a lot of money, to be sure, but suppose Trump had never done any deals and instead sold all of his assets back in 1982 and invested them in a fund based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. With dividends reinvested, he would have increased his wealth to $535 million by 1985. By 2004, his personal wealth would have increased to $5.9 billion. And three years ago, he would have exceeded what he claims to be worth now by more than $1 billion; today, he would be worth more than $13 billion, just under three times the Forbes estimate.

In other words, if the Republican nominee had done nothing but mow his lawn for the past 35 years, he would be a dramatically wealthier man than he is today. The huge bonus in that scenario: Thousands of people would not have been ridiculed, ripped off or otherwise have suffered from encounters with Donald J. Trump.Demolition ManDonald Trump loves to put his name on buildings, but there are no hospital wings named for him. No museums have a piece of artwork with a plaque reading “A Gift of Donald J. Trump.” No buildings at the University of Pennsylvania bear his name, even though he constantly cites his graduation from its Wharton School as a sign of his intelligence. (Contrary to Trump’s suggestion, he attended the school for only two years as an undergraduate and did not obtain a degree from Wharton’s far more prestigious graduate business program.)Trump bears little resemblance to prominent billionaires such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg or Charles Francis Feeney, who have dedicated huge sums of their wealth to aiding the less fortunate. There is no evidence that Trump has done much of anything to make the world a better place; what he has left behind is some buildings, along with a lot of wreckage and rancor.

Trump regularly cheats at golf, even revising his scorecard after a match to transform defeat into victory, according to two people who have played with him. He persuaded an elderly couple who ran a Florida antique store to let him “try out” two valuable pieces, then refused to return or pay for them, according to someone close to the Trump family. He bought expensive jewelry at Bulgari on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, then colluded with the store to have empty boxes supposedly containing his purchase shipped out of state so he could dodge New York sales tax, court records show. After dragging a buddy through years of litigation, Trump told the man he had filed the suit only because he was angry the friend had not given him enough public credit for his success, according to a person who witnessed the conversation.When business executives came to his office, Trump bragged about his current wife, Melania, and showed them nude photographs from her modeling days, two bankers say. Trump encourages staff at the Trump Organization to tell him the faults of co-workers who are standing there, creating a vicious corporate environment, a former executive says. His niece and nephew sued him, alleging Trump used his influence over his then-demented father to rewrite his will and cut out his brother’s side of the family. Enraged by the suit, Trump reneged on a family commitment to pay the medical bills for his nephew’s sick baby. (They settled under confidential terms.)There are no names attached to those stories because the sources all know the Republican nominee strikes out viciously over any perceived criticism. They all asked to remain anonymous for fear that Trump would drag them to court or try to damage their careers. They know that is one of Trump’s greatest skills : bullying, threatening and suing anyone who criticizes him and cowing most of them into silence.He showed his willingness to harm others for his personal benefit early in his career. Using those undocumented Polish workers in 1980 for the razing of the Bonwit Teller building, for example, was deemed part of a civil conspiracy to defraud a union pension fund, a federal judge in New York later ruled.

Another example emerged the following year. Trump purchased an old hotel and adjacent apartment building for redevelopment on Central Park South, one of the toniest streets in Manhattan. A little more than 100 tenants occupied the rent-controlled apartments, but Trump launched a campaign to drive them out, according to court documents filed by city and state officials. He filed a barrage of what the city called “nuisance suits” against the residents. He cut off their heat and hot water. He tried to move homeless people into empty apartments to annoy or even frighten the residents. He decreased security for the building, and over those 18 months, the number of burglaries in the building skyrocketed.Trump scoffed at complaints from residents and the government, publicly disparaging occupants of the apartments as pampered millionaires—a claim he made with no information to back it up. Instead, the court proceedings showed that many of the residents were elderly or middle class. In 1986, with the legal proceedings dragging on, Trump finally abandoned his plans to tear down the apartment building, and the residents were allowed to remain.During that five-year battle, Trump also destroyed a football league. He had been unable to purchase an NFL team—it’s unclear exactly why—so he bought one in the fledgling United States Football League. The idea for the USFL was simple: America had a passion for football and the NFL didn’t play in the spring, so that’s when the USFL would stage its games.The USFL got off the ground in 1983. The timing could hardly have been better. The NFL was still recovering from a players’ strike in the fall of 1982 , and ESPN, a cable sports network, had recently launched, creating a demand for more programming, one that industry analysts expected would grow dramatically. There were 12 teams in the upstart USFL. ABC Sports and the USFL agreed to a two-year broadcast contract worth about $20 million; that was followed by a contract with ESPN. John Bassett, an owner of the Tampa Bay Bandits who gained a reputation as the USFL’s visionary, said he planned to have the league grow slowly. The owners would take losses for a while—as they would from investing in any promising startup—but in seven or eight years, Bassett said, the USFL would be on par with the NFL and have the money to compete for the best players.

After the first USFL season, Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals from an Oklahoma oilman. And with that, Bassett’s plan unraveled. Trump proclaimed that spring football was stupid. Bassett cautioned that competing against the NFL in the same season would kill the fledgling league, but Trump dismissed Bassett’s warning. “If God wanted football in the spring,” he said, “he wouldn’t have created baseball.”Rather than holding down costs, Trump began spending wildly for star players, offering so much money that he set off a salary spiral in the NFL and the USFL, one that eventually drove up the price of tickets to cover the massive expense. Trump also decided to add cheerleaders, holding tryouts in the basement of Trump Tower and selecting a number of underage girls for the job.In 1986, Bassett was dying of brain cancer and struggled to control the brash new owner. Through browbeating, cajoling and intimidation, Trump persuaded the other teams to abandon the spring league concept and play in the fall. He and his supporters sent lawyers into court, arguing that the NFL operated an illegal monopoly. A jury eventually agreed but awarded the USFL just $1 in damages—an amount that, under antitrust rules, had to be trebled to $3.The USFL appealed and, as part of its legal strategy, did not start playing again that spring. When the Supreme Court let the judgment stand, the USFL collapsed. Hundreds of people—players, announcers, executives, cheerleaders and others—lost their jobs.

Ugly, Incomprehensible Fights“I love to have enemies,” Trump once said. “I fight my enemies. I like beating my enemies to the ground.”He uttered these words in 1989, about the same time he was in a series of pointless battles: with other billionaires, with midlevel executives, with nobodies whose lives he destroyed just because he could.The ugliest—and most incomprehensible—fight involved a New York billionaire named Leonard Stern, who had turned a pet supply company into a real estate and media empire. The two men had been friendly enough until the spring of 1988, when one of Stern’s magazines, 7 Days, published a fairly innocuous article about Trump Tower, which contained a comment that resale prices on apartments were not as strong as their marketing suggested. This was hardly a surprise, as former Trump Tower residents had already publicly stated they had lost money on their resales.Although the comment was true, it infuriated Trump, who wrote to Stern, saying, “I just read a highly inaccurate and biased story in 7 Days by an obvious Trump hater—it is a disgrace.” Trump soon followed up with a note to David Schneiderman, president of Stern Publishing, which owned 7 Days, announcing a mass-plaintiff lawsuit brought by virtually everyone living in every Trump property, all of whom (he claimed) were outraged by the little-noticed comment in a little-read publication. While he was not keen on bringing litigation, Trump wrote, he could not hold back the hordes of apartment owners eager to sue and so decided to join them.Trump dropped the threat when he read a subsequent 7 Days article that included a compliment for his then-wife, Ivana, and the role she had played in redecorating his Plaza Hotel. He never explained why the infuriated (and unnamed) Trump apartment owners no longer cared about the damage supposedly done by the first piece.But he remained paranoid about a documentary on Trump financed by Stern and suddenly dragged his fellow billionaire’s wife into the crossfire. Someone planted gossip in the New York Daily News that Allison Stern was incessantly calling Trump’s office, pleading for a date. Trump then confirmed the article, saying, “We spoke. I wasn’t interested.” The Sterns considered suing but decided it wasn’t worth the effort. Allison Stern publicly dismissed Trump’s story as “absurd” and “the product of a juvenile mind.”Stern was not the last billionaire Trump tried to hurt. After Trump opened casinos in Atlantic City, he developed an intense hatred of Steve Wynn, a far more successful gambling industry executive. Trump decided to persuade Dennis Gomes, the president of Wynn’s Golden Nugget hotel and casino in Las Vegas, to break his contract and come work for the Trump Taj Mahal. Wynn sued Trump in a Nevada state court, which found that the current GOP nominee had been driven to poach Gomes out of “personal animosity” for Wynn.The super-wealthy, like Stern and Wynn, often walked away from Trump’s rages relatively unharmed. But those of lesser means were sometimes crushed for simply doing their jobs.In 1990, Marvin Roffman was a little-known analyst working at second-tier investment company called Janney Montgomery Scott. He specialized in appraising the financial prospects of the Atlantic City gaming industry. That spring, Trump’s biggest and by far most expensive casino, the Trump Taj Mahal, was set to open, and The Wall Street Journal examined its prospects. It called Roffman, who said the Taj would benefit from the publicity surrounding its opening but predicted it would struggle afterward. “Once the cold winds blow from October to February, it won’t make it,” Roffman told the paper. “The market just isn’t there.”Enraged, Trump faxed a letter to Janney Montgomery Scott, blasting Roffman’s statement as an “outrage.” He demanded a public retraction or that the firm fire Roffman, whom he called “an unguided missile.” Unless it did as he demanded, Trump wrote, he would launch a “major lawsuit.”Pressured by his company, Roffman faxed Trump a letter of apology the next day, saying the Journal had taken his words out of context. But after thinking about it overnight, he sent another letter retracting his apology. One day later, the investment company fired Roffman.Not satisfied, Trump continued to publicly berate Roffman. He told the New York Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Barron’s, Fortune and others that Roffman was untalented. He also told the Inquirer that he had saved Roffman’s job six months earlier. Trump delivered the worst—and a false—accusation to Vanity Fair, accusing Roffman of blackmail and fraud, claiming the analyst used to beg him to purchase securities through him, “with the implication that if I’d buy stock he’d give me positive comments.”In the end, however, it was Trump who looked like the fool. Before launching the Taj, he should have consulted Roffman, who later confidentially settled his lawsuit against Trump and won a $750,000 judgment against Janney Montgomery Scott. And Roffman was right about the Taj: In November 1990—one month after Roffman had predicted Trump’s casino would start to struggle—the Taj filed for bankruptcy. And with that collapse, brought about by Trump’s hubris and incompetence, he destroyed the jobs of far more people than just one smart industry analyst.Big, Bad Bets and DebtsIn November 1988, Trump gave the public a chance to let him wipe out their savings when he offered $675 million in junk bonds sold through Merrill Lynch. He raised the money to buy the Taj from Resorts International and rebuild it; despite his promise to use only bank borrowings, the lenders would not hand over enough cash. Investors wouldn’t either, unless Trump paid a lot of interest. So to sell his bonds, Trump agreed to a rate of 14 percent, far higher than the 9 percent yield at the time on investment-grade corporate bonds.Even that was not enough to pay for the crazy casino of Trump’s dreams. The bond prospectus estimated the cost of building and operating the Taj over the next 15 months was $805 million, covered with a $75 million cash contribution from Trump; the rest of the money would come from a Trump credit line and other loans. Trump did not disclose in the filing that he was also guaranteeing hundreds of millions of dollars of loans on real estate properties, which might undermine his ability to tap into his credit. And he spent money on a fight with homeowners whose land he wanted so he could build a larger parking lot for the casino.Trump knew the success of the Taj and the gambling houses he had previously built—the Trump Castle and the Trump Plaza—could mean the difference between Atlantic City’s rebirth or destruction. He also knew that lots of people would suffer along the way. “People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car,” Trump said. “Local businesses will suffer because they’ll lose dollars to the casino.” He was right. As he built his casinos, Atlantic City was ripped apart. Unemployment soared, hundreds of restaurants went out of business, and dry cleaners and specialty shops disappeared.With the future of the city, its residents and investors at stake—and with Trump’s finances spread perilously thin—the market reasonably believed that he, like any smart businessman, would focus on stabilizing his gaming empire. Instead, Trump dashed headlong into other businesses he knew nothing about, borrowing another $380 million to buy the Eastern Shuttle (renamed the Trump Shuttle), taking a run at purchasing a department store chain and even announcing a $7.5 billion takeover bid for American Airlines.When his three top casino executives died in a freak helicopter crash in late 1989, Trump took over direct management of that business. A short time later, the value of his junk bonds tanked, and Wall Street firms such as Salomon Brothers put “sell” recommendations on them. The many people who had purchased Trump’s bonds on his breezy assurances were losing fortunes.With the financial condition of his casinos getting steadily worse, Trump launched a purge of executives, replacing some of them with people who were clearly unqualified for their new jobs. Trump then publicly ripped the top officers he’d axed and refused to honor some of their severance agreements. Other executives decided to quit; they were no longer willing to tolerate Trump’s erratic leadership. The chief financial officer of the Taj, Donald Wood, was taken from the building in a stretcher after suffering from exhaustion and dehydration in April 1990; Trump fired him two days later.In June 1990, the firings continued. Trump turned over the assets of the airline to his banks, putting more than 500 people out of work, according to court records. The banks also forced Trump to sell his yacht and put him on a budget. The Queens-born mogul stiffed contractors for the Taj whom he owed $35 million but insisted the disaster would only make the public love his brand more. “I think it has greatly enhanced it,” he said.In November 1990, the Taj went bankrupt. The bondholders who had been promised high interest were forced to swap a large portion of their investment for half of the equity in the casino—a far riskier holding. Trump, however, walked away relatively unscathed. Banks let him borrow another $65 million and forgave his personal guarantees on loans, all to avoid a complete implosion of the Trump empire, one that would have taken many of his lenders down with him.

The entire Trump casino empire then tumbled into bankruptcy court. Trump slashed more jobs, investors lost more money, and the economy in Atlantic City worsened as unemployment surged.By 1992, enough of the wreckage had been cleared away that some of the outstanding bonds began to recover, climbing to about 70 percent of their original value. Delighted, Trump telephoned financial reporters to brag that his investors’ losses weren’t as terrible as they had seemed. “These prices just prove people love me,” he told The New York Times . “People love Donald Trump.”Three years later, Trump sold stock in his newly formed Trump Hotel and Casino Resorts, which owned all three of his Atlantic City casinos and another casino he had started in Indiana. He insisted the stock trade under the ticker DJT—his initials. As chairman of the company, Trump maintained a 41 percent stake, which was worth about $400 million when the stock hit its all-time high of $29.25 a share—less than a year after going public.Under Trump’s leadership, however, the company was unprofitable every year, and by the end of his time as chairman, it had lost more than $1 billion. By 2004, the stock was selling for 65 cents a share, and the company fell into bankruptcy; people who had put their faith in the Trump name lost more than 90 percent of their investment. During the same time, those who owned funds based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index more than doubled their money. Even in the greatest stock market ever, and in a business regularly described as a license to print money, Trump left only wreckage in his wake. And investors in Trump hotels saw nothing but losses.On the other hand, Trump did just fine for himself. Even as his company’s stock price was collapsing and annual losses were piling up, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that during his years as chairman, more than $60 million poured from the public company into Trump’s pockets.This is the dirty secret behind Trump’s allegedly miraculous financial recovery. What he told the public was a fable: that he had fought his way back with perseverance and skill. In truth, he did it by snatching huge fistfuls of cash from a company that was wiping out the savings of millions of people.The Great-American SchemeThe typical business contract lists names and job titles, or perhaps just identifies the companies involved. These documents rarely contain boasts, but that is what is on the first page of a 2004 confidential contract drawn up by Trump, a copy obtained by Newsweek shows. The other party to the deal was listed as SimDag-RoBEL LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation. Trump identified himself as the “worldwide renowned builder and developer of real estate who enjoys the highest reputation in these fields among others.”Those words might have stroked Trump’s ego, but no one else was ever supposed to see them. As a term of the contract, both sides were forbidden from ever revealing its existence. And for good reason—Trump was trying to keep up a façade of success.By then, most of the smart money had given up on Trump. To get a new personal credit line, he could no longer rely on handshake deals or personal guarantees with Chase Manhattan, as he once had. Instead, financial records obtained by Newsweek show, in 2003 he turned to the Cayman Islands’ branch of UBS, the Swiss bank. For that loan, however, he had to put up a large number of assets as security, including a portion of his interest in Trump World Tower, all of his investments in a Paine Webber brokerage account, mortgage notes and numerous other securities and property. Soon almost all financial institutions were passing on his deals, other than Deutsche Bank—and in a few years, he would default on a $640 million construction loan from it. The stock and bond markets, where every investor who had ever placed faith in Trump lost money, were closed to him. A fund financed by the billionaire George Soros agreed to invest in a Trump development once — but only once. A private equity firm, Colony Capital, backed out of a Trump project, forcing the Trump Organization to self-finance. Wall Street and financial institutions worldwide all knew that, as a businessman, Trump was a disaster.So Trump went in another direction , rebuilding his reputation on television. Beginning in 2004, around when his public company fell into bankruptcy, Trump began playing the role of a successful businessman on the NBC reality show The Apprentice. Unless it read the financial news religiously, the public could not know that this portrayal of Trump was a farce.The success of The Apprentice gave new credibility to Trump, which appealed to people looking to buy apartments and even products. That’s why Trump got into the business of selling his brand, letting other companies and developers use his name on their products for a substantial fee. The Trump steaks, the Trump water, the vodka, the chocolates, the mortgage company—all were attempts by Trump to make money off his name because he had few other financial options. In 2004, he also decided to launch Trump University, a for-profit education company that collapsed amid allegations it had defrauded thousands of people. Two class actions by former Trump University students are proceeding in California; a third case has been brought in New York by the state’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman.The 2004 contract with SimDag-RoBEL was for another deal placing Trump’s name on someone else’s product—this time on what was promised to be a Florida condominium apartment building. SimDag-RoBEL was developing the project and paid for the right to call it Trump Tower Tampa. The contract required SimDag-RoBEL to comply with “Trump Standards,” which the document described as “the level of quality and luxury” associated with premier buildings like Trump Tower in New York City. However, the contract said, SimDag-RoBEL, using its “commercially reasonable judgment and discretion,” would be the sole arbiter of whether the building met those standards. Trump would not need to obtain financing, or handle or inspect any of the development work. Instead, he just needed to pose for pictures and cash the checks—$2 million for the initial license fee, plus an additional share of up to 25 percent of all sales.Executives made every effort in the marketing materials to make potential buyers believe Trump was developing the Tampa building. The first sentence of a press release, dated January 10, 2005, read, “Donald J. Trump announced today plans for a 52-story, ultra-luxury condominium in downtown Tampa, Florida to be called Trump Tower Tampa.” The release said the building “will be Mr. Trump’s first project” on the Gulf of Mexico. It also quoted Mayor Pam Iorio saying, “I appreciate Mr. Trump’s investment in Tampa.”

Trump was not putting any money into Tampa; he was just taking cash out of it. But apartment buyers started putting down large deposits for their condominiums that same year. It was not until May 2007, when Trump sued SimDag-RoBEL for failing to pay him all of his licensing fees, that the apartment buyers discovered they had been deceived. SimDag-RoBEL failed to complete the building, and the people who put down the deposits sued everyone involved, including Trump.That suit exposed the beauty of Trump’s scam: He had slapped the Ferrari name on a Chevy. Unless the apartment buyers spent hours at the closing reading the lengthy apartment purchase agreement or hired a lawyer to review it, there was no way to know they were the victims of a bait-and-switch. In response to the suit, Trump pleaded innocence—it wasn’t his building, after all.The scam worked, again and again. Trump Hollywood failed, and the real estate mogul blamed Jorge Pérez, the developer who had paid to use his name. Trump International Hotel and Tower Fort Lauderdale fell into foreclosure, and 30 buyers lost $100,000 each. But this was not his fault, Trump said. The same thing happened with the Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico, which—though it attracted dozens of buyers who posted $32 million in deposits—never amounted to more than a hole in the ground. Again, Trump denied responsibility. Building after building, failure after failure, hundreds of millions of dollars lost. Each time, the buyers sued, saying they had been tricked into believing that Trump was the developer. And each time, Trump pointed to the fine print of the contracts, told the courts the buyers should have read them more carefully, and walked away. Potentially hundreds of people lost tens of millions of dollars while Trump pocketed huge sums through his licensing fees.Trump’s career has been much of the same kind of scam. He demands applause and annihilates those who refuse to give it. He preens about successes he obtained only by destroying the wealth, careers and reputations of other people. He takes credit for the victories of others and denies any blame for his many failures. In his impulsive pursuit of self-aggrandizement, his victims are legion.And now he vows to do to America what he did to them.

People Over 40 Should Only Work 3 Days A Week, Experts Claim

If you are over 40 and thinking that your ability to focus and remember facts is deteriorating, your work could actually be to blame.

Recent research by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research found that, whilst working up to 30 hours a week is good for cognitive function in the over 40s, any more than that causes performance to deteriorate.

In fact, those who worked 55 hours a week or more showed worse cognitive impairment than those who were retired or unemployed and didn’t work at all.

The study looked at 3500 women and 3000 men aged 40 and over, and made them complete cognitive function tests whilst their performance at work was monitored.

Their ability to read words aloud, recite lists of numbers and match letters and numbers in speed trials was monitored throughout the test, known as the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey (Hilda). The author of the test, Professor Colin McKenzie, said that both ‘thinking’ and ‘knowing’ were important indicators. Reading tests is the ‘knowing’ part of ability, whilst ‘thinking’ captures memory, abstract and executive reasoning.

Whilst some intellectual stimulation is thought to be good to retain cognitive function in later life, with brain puzzles such as Sudoku and crosswords credited with sustaining brain power in older people, excessive stimulation works the other way.

Professor McKenzie told The Times that many countries are aiming to raise the retirement age, forcing people to work for longer as they will be unable to claim benefits until later. He believes that the degree of work may have an important bearing on this.

The degree of intellectual stimulation may depend on working hours. Work can be a double edged sword, in that it can stimulate brain activity, but at the same time working long hours can cause fatigue and stress, which potentially damage cognitive functions.

He believes that part time work may be beneficial in retaining brain function in middle aged and older people. Should those who can afford to do so reduce their hours, then? And is the type of work you do a factor?

You would think that a job you love which is less stressful would be less damaging on your stress and fatigue levels. The Hilda survey doesn’t look at the type of work and how that affects results, so this is something to bear in mind.

Professor McKenzie reasons, “It’s very difficult to identify the causal effects of the type of work on cognitive functions. People may be selected into certain occupations according to their cognitive abilities.” Certainly, high stress factor jobs with long hours in competitive, demanding fields will play havoc with a person’s health in general.

As most people have to go on working after 40, or even return to work after a break to have a family or for other personal reasons, taking care of your health, maximizing your down time and taking restful holidays becomes more important. Professor McKenzie says that, “Working full time – over 40 hours a week –  is still better than no work in terms of maintaining cognitive function, but it is not maximizing the potential effects of work.”

A balance seems to be needed, then, especially as the government are planning to bring in full time work requirements until that age of 67.

What do you think? Do you feel that a reduction in hours would be beneficial?

Flu Deaths Keep Mounting In People Vaccinated Against the Flu (GOOD!!!)
by D. Samuelson of

A death from the flu shot might appear on your local media, like it did in 2015, for Katherine McQuestion, a 26-year-old healthcare worker from Wisconsin.

Of course, the media makes sure an uneducated stooge from the health department gets on TV to say, well, yes, that’s just an aberration that the person died. But it’s not.

The flu vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in the U.S.

Health Impact News reports, “Once every 3 months the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines meets and the DOJ issues a report ofcases settled for vaccine injuries and deaths . . from 8/16/15 to 11/15/15 there were 150 cases adjudicated . . .63 of the 84 cases were for injuries and deaths from the flu vaccine, making the flu vaccine the most dangerous vaccine in the U.S., harming and killing more people than all the other vaccines put together.”

The people that are dying were healthy, happy people before the flu shot.

Natural News writes, “Chad Rattray, a 37-year-old . . . from Spokane, Washington . . . followed the advice of health authorities in getting a flu shot. Instead, he fell deathly ill. [Then, he] died from the flu.

“. . . Five -year-old Kiera Driscoll . . . died from cardiac arrest due to influenza A. Kiera had recently gotten a flu shot as well, and after developing a severe cough and fever was rushed to a clinic and given steroids and put on a nebulizer. . . Kiera died of the very same flu strain for which she was vaccinated.

“. . .Fourteen-year-old Amber Grey, like the others, is reported to have been in optimal health prior to the jab. Like Kiera, Amber tested positive for influenza A. Prior to her death, the same strain was found in the flu vaccine. She suffered a severe bacterial infection and pneumonia in the days prior to her passing.”


Someone Encouraged People to Kill Feminists at University of Toronto (VERY GOOD!!!!)

And told people where they could rent a gun to do it.
An unidentified person posted threatening comments against feminists at the University of Toronto, The Daily Dot reports.

The comments were posted on local city guide website under the screenname Kill Feminists, after which some were captured on Instagram on September 5 and then tweeted to local police. They were then later reposted in what appears to be their full-length versions on Reddit.

It reads:

Next week when a feminist at the University of Toronto tries to ruin your life with false sex rape allegations, rent a gun from a gang and start firing bullets into these feminists at your nearest Women’s Studies classroom.

The feminists who act rude to you at the University of Toronto should be shot to death and the remaining survivors tied to a tree with their throats slit with a dull knife.

You have nothing to lose. Go into the nearest Sociology or Womens Studies classroom next week, and fire bullets into the Professor’s head and spray bullets all over the room until all the feminists are dead.

If a female student or professor acts lewd in the classroom and disrespects you at the University of Toronto. You can rent a machine gun at Jarvis.

Walk into the classroom and fire a bullet in the feminist professor’s head and proceed to spray bullets all over the classroom until all the slutty women are killed.

If you need any guns to kill any feminists at the University of Toronto next week, there is a gang at Jarvis who is renting guns for $40 a day.
Several women’s studies classes were canceled Monday and the Toronto Police say they are investigating but have identified “no credible threat” to the school, though they’re right to be concerned, given that in 1989, a man killed 14 women claiming he was “fighting feminism.”

The University of Toronto Education Workers Women’s Caucus has issued a statement on their website saying, “Violence that seeks to silence feminist voices cannot and will not succeed in its goals. Though some of us may choose to cancel classes to ensure the safety of our students and colleagues, these ideas will continue to be taught, debated, and theorized by some of the greatest minds at UofT.”

They also held a rally September 14 to “show that Toronto is a feminist town; that women must be able to go to class without fearing for their lives; that feminist ideas of equity are essential to building a just society.”

People Rising Up Against the Jew World Order (VERY GOOD!!!)

• Resurgence of nationalism across globe could herald new era of freedom.

By Ronald L. Ray —

For 100 years and more, the political elites and secret string-pullers of government were happy to have the intellectually myopic masses of thedoltocracy voting and marching behind them into the New World Order (NWO). But no more.

In country after country, the populace is awakening to the elites’ open assault on traditions, history, and values—upon Western civilization. Leading the advance toward tyranny, the chattering classes of corrupt politicians and simpering, servile pundits felt confident of their strength. But faced with the peaceful anger of nationalists and populists, our “betters” have decided democratic voting isn’t so swell.

For centuries, the culture destroyers have chipped away at the foundations of Christian and white civilization. They have used and abused us at every level. Now that a significant number of people are awake to the reality in America and abroad and seek to break the cycle of abuse, the internationalist cabals have panicked and becomeincreasingly extreme—and just plain nutty—in their efforts to maintain control.

James Traub is a contributing editor of Foreign Policy and member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Following the Brexit vote, Traub penned a commentary forForeign Policy titled, “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses.” This cultural communist wants the phony “right” and “left,” which internationalists created for purposes of controlled opposition, to rejoin as “the sane vs. the mindlessly angry” and “to form a different kind of center, defendingpragmatism, meliorism, technical knowledge, and effective governance.” Blah, blah, blah.

That’s right. You are a mindless animal to the plutocratic poohbahs. How dare you reject the wonderful, beneficent improvements brought by multicultural “diversity,” total globalization, loss of national identity, cultural and moral decay, and the impoverishment of the middle and working classes. You are, says Traub, “ignorant.”

Despite the huge numbers of young people seeking a return to tradition and the values that built Western civilization, Traub pushes the Big Lie that opponents of the NWO are just elderly whites angry at losing their comfortable past. Far from recognizing reality, he tries to create a false one. Yet, with faulty logic, he still wants nationalists to join up with the destructive globalist forces they oppose. Huh?

Across the Big Puddle, the nattering Belgian nabob, David Van Reybrouck, asserts, in a translation provided by The Guardian, that Brexit proves popular elections are dangerous to modern “democracy.” So long as people were apathetic but trusted the traitorous politicians, elections were great, he writes.

Now that they want to throw off the twin yokes of banksterism and bureaucratic globalism, popular “passion and distrust” must be deprived of a political voice.Citibank warns that likely referenda in Italy, Hungary, and elsewhere are highly “risky.”

Van Reybrouck shrieks that Brexit was unprecedented and allegedly destabilizing. So many laws will have to be changed, he frets. Forgetting the powerful, positive effects of popular referenda in 1930s Germany, Van Reybrouck wants to end all popular elections. Instead, tiny, “randomly selected,” tightly controlled and carefully propagandized focus groups would be permitted to advise the bureaucratic bullies and “vote” for the latest NWO nonsense.

Freedom’s “death by committee” would thereby be ensured. This is not just a European Union event, either. It is also well under way in the United States, as unelected regional planning councils—think “commissariats”—and “intergovernmental cooperation” committees are handed increasing control over the functions of governance. Trotskyite tyranny is what Van Reybrouck really wants.

Andy Serwer, Yahoo Inc.’s finance editor-in-chief, concurs. “We’re suffering the consequences of too much democracy,” he whines. Popular referenda, which 26 U.S. states permit, upset the financial pharaohs and loosened their stranglehold on themasses. At state and national levels, this is insufferable, he whimpers. Rather, we should just trust the politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers. They are the “experts,” apparently by the mere fact that we elected the politicians.

The NWO has been flanked by those it thought it controlled and is in momentary disarray before the nationalists and populists on two continents. The Establishment must not be permitted to rest or entrench.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Kissingers of the world—armchair generals all—hate us, our history, and our culture. They would enslave us or destroy us—no matter which.

Friends, it is you, your children, your homes, your religious faith and personal freedom, your nation and civilization that the internationalists despise and would subject to their diabolical dominion. They will not stop, so we must not.

Our battle cry must be “Pro aris et focis”—“For altars and hearths!” For God, country, and family! Raise the black flag. No retreat. No surrender. No quarter to the enemies of our Christian, European-American civilization. Victory lies not in the comfort of the present day. Ahead to victory.

As Thomas Paine wrote, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

People who attend religious services live longer, new study suggests

NEW YORK (JTA) — All those people urging you to go to synagogue more may have a point.

A new study suggests that people who consistently attend religious services may live longer than those who don’t.

In an article published in the June issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, four Harvard University researchers analyzed data collected from 75,534 women over 16 years, between 1996 and 2012. They found that those who attended more than one religious service each week had a 33 percent lower risk of premature death.

Twice-weekly attendance corresponded to a 26 percent lower risk, and less than once a week meant 13 percent lower risk.

“Religion and spirituality may be an underappreciated resource that physicians could explore with their patients, as appropriate,” the study concluded.

Out of the 75,534 women who self-reported information, the majority were Christian. 1,700 were Jewish.

“Because of the [comparably] small number it would be difficult to look at them separately and see if the results differ [for Jews],” the study’s senior author, Tyler VanderWeele, an epidemiology professor at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told JTA in an email.

But VanderWeele pointed to an article from 2007 focused solely on Jews that echoes his findings. The study of 1,811 Jewish Israeli men and women over the age of 70 found: “Synagogue attendance is seen to promote survival mainly through its function as a source of communal attachment and, perhaps, as a reflection of spirituality as well.”

The Harvard study statistically ruled out the possibility of reverse causation — that healthy people go to church more than unhealthy people. Some variables, including social support and a tendency not to smoke, contributed to the correlation between religious service attendance and longevity, but didn’t account for it.

“This suggests that there is something powerful about the communal religious experience,” VanderWeele told The New York Times on Sunday. “These are systems of thought and practice shaped over millennia, and they are powerful.”

New Tech Firm Will Transfer People’s Consciousness Into Robots

An Australian startup tech company have announced plans to work on a way of transferring a person’s consciousness into a robots body so that people can continue to live after their bodies have died.

Tech firm Humai’s CEO Josh Bocanegra says the company wants to “bring you back to life after you die”, claiming that the company are:

“using artificial intelligence and nanotechnology to store data of conversational styles, behavioral patterns, thought processes and information about how your body functions from the inside-out.”

“This data will be coded into multiple sensor technologies, which will be built into an artificial body with the brain of a deceased human. Using cloning technology, we will restore the brain as it matures“. reports:

In an interview with Australian Popular Science, Bocanegra said: “We’ll first collect extensive data on our members for years prior to their death via various apps we’re developing.” After death, the company will cryogenically freeze members’ brains until the technology is fully developed, at which point the brains will be implanted into an artificial body.

“The artificial body functions will be controlled with your thoughts by measuring brain waves. As the brain ages we’ll use nanotechnology to repair and improve cells. Cloning technology is going to help with this too.”

Bocanegra believes, somewhat optimistically, that his company will be able to resurrect the first human within the next 30 years. At the moment, Humai only has four staff but it is looking to recruit more members over the coming months.

A lot of what Humai says is pretty vague when it comes to precise details, and the company seems to be relying on a lot of scientific breakthroughs being made in the near future.

Bocanegra, meanwhile, doesn’t come from a scientific background. He describes himself as “a serial entrepreneur, technology visionary and internet marketer” on his website. Before he started Humai, Bocanegra set up an Airbnb-Meets-OKCupid dating app called LoveRoom that lets two people live together for a week to see if they would be romantically compatible.