The Great Wall of America​​


I just had some thoughts on how President Donald Trump might build his proposed ‘Great Wall’ along the U.S.-Mexican Border…

  • Modelled on the voter registration ‘Freedom Rides’ of the 1960s (and mobilised by a vast social media effort), President Trump’s new ‘Freedom Riders’ would consist of millions of American volunteers who journeyed from every state in their country down to the U.S.-Mexican border, set up camp along its entire length and helped to build the ‘Great Wall of America’ under the supervision of construction experts
  • Fuelled with a Woodstock-like festive spirit, each of the participants in this effort would have their names permanently engraved in the section of wall to whose construction they had contributed in a manner similar to the names of fallen soldiers etched on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C.
  • Non-participants in its construction could also have their names engraved on the wall by paying a fee that would help to defray some of its construction costs
  • Upon completion President Trump’s ‘Great Wall of America’ would take its place alongside sacred national monuments like Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial and the Statue of Liberty (as well as the world’s great attractions like the Giza Pyramid, the Great Wall of China, the Eiffel Tower and Stonehenge) as a tourist attraction in its own right and not just some mundane ‘security barrier’
  • This epic national effort would infuse the participants with the same festive sense of purpose which fuelled the voter registration drives of the 1960s and could actually help to bring people together

You’re welcome.


Can Justice Create Jobs?


Could President Donald Trump Grant African-Americans Reparations For Slavery – And Make The Europeans Pay For It? And could this prove to be one of his biggest job creators?

While it’s recognised that the United States Treasury has insufficient funds with which to pay African-Americans the trillions of dollars they are owed in legal damages for the atrocities they endured during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, there is little to prevent the incoming Trump Administration from providing such reparations as are due in the form of a tax exemption for all African-American slave descendants for a period of 40 years or so – and redress any budget deficit through the imposition of a tariff on US imports from every nation that was a party to this barbarous human traffic (such as France, Portugal, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands and others).

Such an innovative reparatory measure – let’s call it the ‘U.S. Redemption Act’ and term any multilateral pact with the aforementioned countries the ‘Atlantic Redemption Agreement’ – could become the Trump Administration’s legislative successor to President Ronald Reagan’s commendable Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (which granted an official apology along with reparations payments to the Japanese-American victims of WWII-era internment) and would likely encounter far less resistance than previous compensatory proposals which envisaged hefty cheque awards to slavery’s plaintiffs.

Furthermore, this revolutionary endeavour could potentially boost economic growth by providing African-Americans with additional disposable income that would likely be ploughed back into the U.S. economy through the purchase of domestic-made goods, thus fuelling America’s manufacturing sector and helping to create new American jobs – a key Trump campaign promise. In this way reparations for slavery could end up making as significant a contribution to the growth of the U.S. economy as that made by slave labour itself.

The ‘Redemption Act’ and its associated ‘Atlantic Agreement’ would represent significant gestures of atonement for the horrors inflicted by the trade in African slaves and would likely do more to bridge America’s racial divides than anything hitherto undertaken since the Republic’s founding. And, for his efforts, President Trump could earn recognition as the most significant occupant of the White House since Abraham Lincoln.

And what could be a more fitting event at which to announce this historic initiative than on the occasion of President Trump’s 2017 inauguration?

The Death of General Organa?


“So, you have a twin sister. Your feelings have now betrayed her, too. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. Now his failure is complete. If you will not turn to the Dark Side then perhaps SHE will…” – Darth Vader, ROTJ (1983)

If (as I previously theorised after watching The Force Awakens) General Organa is the real villain of the new Star Wars trilogy – and whose identity as the Morgan le Fay-like enchantress and evil puppet-master of the Galaxy was set to be revealed either in Episode VIII or IX – the tragic and untimely death of actress Carrie Fisher could have seismic implications for the trajectory of the new saga’s entire storyline – and for Disney’s bottom line. It may have also created an exciting new possibility for the development of her character which could transform the significance of the recently-released Star Wars standalone film, Rogue One.

Since Princess Leia (as well as Peter Cushing’s Grand Moff Tarkin) appears in Rogue as a CGI character, what if that “CGI-ness” (for want of a better term) were somehow incorporated into her character to become an integral part of who she is? This would allow for the development of a Palpatine/Sidious-like duality to her role and would permit Lucasfilm to avoid having to cut Organa scenes (as has been reported) or undertake expensive re-shoots for either Episodes VIII or IX.

It would also mean that the decision to feature Leia and Tarkin as CGI characters in Rogue wasn’t necessitated by mere technical considerations but that their CGI incarnations in that film were integral to who they both are in the Expanded Universe and key to the roles they may yet play in their respective galactic futures.

By retaining Princess Leia/General Organa in the storyline and making these two incarnations of her character into a Palpatine/Sidious-like ‘alter ego’ in which the Princess/General is continually interchanging between her fleshly and CGI personae, the entire Star Wars universe could be potentially transformed and create new possibilities for the development of other iconic characters through the rest of the saga.

In this way, not only does Disney (and its Lucasfilm unit) save (and make) money but they introduce new elements into the narrative that help it endure for future generations.


As a boxing fan who has hosted the world’s greatest prize fights at your world-class hotels, we are appealing to you, President Donald J. Trump, to pardon heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson.
Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion of the world, is long overdue a pardon. Johnson paved the way for boxers like Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson. But he was the victim of Jim Crow justice and was wrongfully convicted by an all-white jury in June 1913 under the Mann Act for dating a white woman.
This unjust prosecution ultimately tarnished his legacy and ended his career. But Senator Harry Reid and Senator John McCain have taken up this issue and are working towards a pardon. We appeal to you, President Trump, to support their effort.
Johnson was born the son of former slaves in Texas and in his career as a boxer he broke the rules of the segregated Jim Crow era by fighting and beating a white boxer. But he also dated white women – eventually marrying one. This infuriated many southern bigots and in 1913 authorities sentenced him under the Mann Act to a year and a day in prison for crossing state lines in the company of a white girlfriend.
The Mann Act (named after Congressman James Robert Mann) was a law passed on 25th June 1910. In its original form the anti-prostitution law prohibited white slavery and the interstate transport of females for immoral purposes. However, its ambiguous definition of ‘immorality’ allowed selective prosecutions of the kind inflicted on Jack Johnson.
This unjust prosecution ultimately tarnished Jack Johnson’s legacy. Pardoning Mr Johnson will not only correct a grave injustice but will boost your popularity with African-American voters and help to ensure your successful re-election in 2020. #PardonJackJohnson

Farrakhan To Endorse Trump?


LOUIS FARRAKHAN TO OFFICIALLY ENDORSE DONALD TRUMP IN ATLANTA ON SUNDAY? – Rumours sweeping Chicago suggest that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is planning to officially endorse DONALD TRUMP for the US Presidency at his ‘Holy Day of Atonement’ event in Atlanta this Sunday (October 16). This shock announcement is expected to shake up the US election by swinging significant African-American support behind the GOP candidate.

Mr Farrakhan’s endorsement of Mr Trump is expected to have a major impact on the HIP HOP community, many of whose leading rap artists admire Mr Farrakhan and hang on his every word. Many of these artists are personal friends of Mr Trump and privately favour him over Hillary Clinton but have been reluctant to make their sympathies known for fear of facing an anti-Trump backlash from their black fanbase. Mr Farrakhan’s endorsement of Mr Trump could embolden these artists to publicly embrace the GOP candidate and this, in turn, could trigger an unstoppable FLOOD of black (and Hispanic) support deserting Mrs Clinton for the Trump Campaign, thus turning her White House dream into a November nightmare…
WHY MIGHT LOUIS FARRAKHAN ENDORSE DONALD TRUMP? – It would be impossible for Louis Farrakhan to oppose Donald Trump on the grounds that Mr Trump is ‘racist’ since the GOP candidate has never expressed bigoted sentiments about any ethnic group that come within a thousand miles of the “all whites are devils/Jews are bloodsuckers/Malcolm X deserved to die” racist and homicidal vitriol that Mr Farrakhan routinely spews at his rallies. Mr Farrakhan is infinitely more racist than Mr Trump has ever been and Mr Farrakhan’s own role in inciting the cold-blooded murder of Malcolm X is immeasurably worse than any role Mr Trump may have played in the incarceration of the Central Park Five:

Indeed, Mr Farrakhan’s vicious anti-white racism makes a mockery of black media personalities like Tavis Smiley, Roland Martin, Al Sharpton, Cliff Kelley and Rock Newman (and countless regular black Americans) – all of whom have variously denounced Mr Trump as a ‘hate monger’ and ‘racial arsonist’ while fawning like schoolgirls over a genuine bigot like Mr Farrakhan and venerating him as an ‘elder statesman’:

Furthermore, Mr Farrakhan has previously expressed admiration of the fact that Mr Trump is self-financing his own presidential campaign and is not controlled by Zionist lobbies and special interests in quite the way that Hillary Clinton is. In addition, Mr Trump’s credentials as a businessman are compatible with Mr Farrakhan’s own efforts to advance an ‘economic empowerment’ agenda, however bogus, among black Americans:

On those grounds alone it would be impossible for Mr Farrakhan to withhold an endorsement of Mr Trump, a man whose real estate enterprise is a role model of the property-ownership to which Mr Farrakhan pays lip-service and whose Trump Organisation currently employs more African-Americans than the Nation of Islam has in its entire history. Mr Farrakhan may thus find himself compelled to endorse Mr Trump if only to shore up his own credibility as a ‘black leader’ and avoid going down in history as the biggest blabber-mouth and waste of space Black America ever produced:

The New Malcolm X


If Bill Clinton earned the moniker ‘America’s First Black President’ with his 1992 saxophone-playing appearance on the Arsenio Hall Show, Donald Trump let rip his Inner Negro when he mic-dropped Crooked Hillary Clinton multiple times during their second debate, whether it was his “you’d be in jail” quip or his “Honest Abe” put-down. If being ‘black’ transcends ethnicity and defines a certain kind of ‘swag’, chutzpah and disdain for authority (witness the near-universal opprobrium he has earned from the GOP establishment and mainstream media), Mr Trump just became the baddest and ‘blackest’ man in America since Malcolm X. The man is a total rock star. Not even Louis Farrakhan (or Snoop Dogg, for that matter) comes close. Mr Trump, a white man, has performed a truly stupendous feat of identity politics by becoming the de facto standard bearer of ‘blackness’ in America today. And with his ‘jail’ jibe propagating across the web in a kaleidoscope of ‘Thug Life’ iterations, we may well come to look back on this as the moment when WASP became the New Black and a viral Vine decided an election.

Perpetrating the Fraud


“You been misled. You been had. You been took…”

– Malcolm X, 1964

During their debate at Hofstra University, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton accused Republican opponent Donald Trump of perpetuating a ‘racist myth’ that America’s ‘first black president’ – Barack Hussein Obama – was not, in fact, an American. In the process of levelling this false charge Mrs Clinton laid bare her own mendacity in a manner that took the breath away.

Since launching his bid for the White House, both Mr Obama and the Democratic Party have perpetrated a fraud on the world by suggesting that Mr Obama, who is biracial, is a ‘black man’ and that his 2008 presidential election was a tribute to the ‘inclusiveness’ of the Democratic Party and represented a milestone that would have been impossible were Mr Obama to have sought nomination by the ‘racist’ Republican Party.

At no time has anyone explained just why it was that a biracial individual like Mr Obama, who was abandoned in childhood by his black Kenyan father and wholly raised by his white American mother and grandparents, would later perform a bizarre volte face as an adult and embrace his father’s heritage as a mode of self-identification. What possible explanation could anyone offer for Mr Obama’s decision to throw the white heritage to which he owed his upbringing under the bus in adopting the ethnicity of a father who was not only absent from his early life but was reportedly abusive towards his mother?

The only explanation for this conduct lies in the basest and most calculating of political expediency. Mr Obama long ago figured that by self-identifying as a ‘black man’ he could ‘make history’ and command the global stage (and the history books) in a way that would never have been possible were he to have done so either as a ‘white man’ or as a bland ‘biracial’. For only by being ‘black’ would it be possible for him to craft the false narrative that he would later ride all the way to the Oval Office in order to assume his place in history as ‘America’s first black president’ given that a certain George Washington had already foreclosed any possibility of his ever becoming America’s first white one.

Mr Obama has since spent the last eight years passing himself off as something he, in fact, isn’t. The truth remains that America has yet to elect its first black president in the person of a candidate both of whose parents are not just black but are also descended from slaves. But such has been the desperation with which America has sought to overcome its racial past that the country has been willing to embrace Mr Obama as a symbol of that overcoming no matter how false that was. And the eight years of his presidency, far from putting the country’s painful history behind her, has rubbed salt into its wounds and brought it to a perilous climax.

Mr Obama is not now nor will he ever be a ‘black American’ in the same sense in which those who are descended from slaves are. And just as few would claim that an Irish-American of Western European origin shares the same history of genocidal victimisation (at Turkish hands) as an Armenian-American of Eastern European extraction, the suggestion that a half-Kenyan, half-Caucasian of East African lineage somehow shares a common heritage of racial persecution with the Black American descendants of West African slaves is an ahistorical fraud of the first order. West Africans have no more in common with their East African compatriots than do Western Europeans have with their Eastern European counterparts.

Ascribing anti-black racist motivations to Mr Trump for his quest for the birth certificate of the biracial son of a Kenyan immigrant and white Kansan (as Mrs Clinton sought to do during their Hofstra debate) is therefore every bit as absurd as imputing anti-Armenian prejudice to someone investigating the bona fides of an Irishman. Especially since no ‘birther’ movement ever arose in response to the presidential candidacies of the four black Americans (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes and Herman Cain) who preceded Mr Obama and whose White House bids were wholeheartedly embraced by Mr Trump.




President Barack Obama has insisted that his refusal to use the expression ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ is motivated by a desire not to malign the religion of Islam nor legitimise the claims of jihadi terrorists to represent the Muslim faith. And yet in spite of repeated requests by Arab and Muslim rulers that Western leaders like himself eschew the use of expressions like ‘ISIS’ in referring to the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi terror group (and instead replace them with the derogatory term ‘Daesh’), President Obama continues to defy this simple request with his insistence on referring to these killers as ‘ISIL’ (an acronym for ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’) which is an expression these animals embrace, gives them aid and comfort and co-signs their spurious claims to represent Islam.

Donald Trump has hinted darkly that there appears to be “something going on” in this peculiar behaviour by the American president. And nowhere was this more evident than in Mr Obama’s recent press conference with the new British prime minister, Theresa May, and during which she made a point of referring to the Baghdadi gang as ‘Daesh’ while Mr Obama stubbornly clung to his ‘ISIL’ fetish.

So what exactly is going on, Mr Obama? The expression ‘Daesh’ is a term which the Baghdadi group detests. It is an expression which your own Secretary of State, John Kerry, employs. It is increasingly used by other leaders in the international coalition confronting these barbarians. And, above all, it involves none of the prejudicial references to Islam about which you feign concern nor any validation of Baghdadi’s claims to lead the Muslim ummah.

So why won’t you join the rest of the world in landing the ‘Daesh’ epithet on these homicidal bastards? Or, as Mr Trump has put it, what the hell is going on?

Showdown at the Hofstra Corral



On Monday, Sept. 26, 2016, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., Donald Trump is going to utterly OBLITERATE Hillary Clinton in the first of three scheduled Presidential Debates. Since announcing his candidacy over a year ago, Trump has submitted to countless more TV interviews, partaken of countless more debates and held countless more press conferences in which he has been exposed to countless more questions than has Clinton. He has been subjected to disruptions, protests and hecklers at his rallies like no previous presidential candidate. These encounters have enabled him to perfect his comebacks, put-downs and zingers to an artform. There is simply NO WAY for Hillary to catch up, bridge the gap or compensate for the comparative lack of practice. Trump has been sharpened into a finely-honed rhetorical instrument by his exposure to endless adversarial interrogation by the (heavily-biased) news media. He will arrive at the debate arena with far more confidence and preparation than his rival.

And he will make MINCEMEAT of her.