Dan Phillips – Donald Trump is a Conservative Where it Counts Despite Middle-of-the-Road Positions on Other Issues

make america great again

via TraditionalRIGHT:

[. . .]

I attempted to explain Trump’s politics in a couple of past essays. His politics are really not as inscrutable as some believe. They just don’t fit tidily into our current Red and Blue boxes. Briefly, the key to understanding Trump’s politics is to focus on his economic nationalism. This has been a part of his rhetoric since he first became a public figure in the 1980s and is undoubtedly authentic. But Trump appears to view this as a common sense, tough minded position, not an ideological one. It is important to recognize that Trump is not an ideologue. His focus is on getting things done, and he is results-oriented. While he has long flirted with politics, he has not historically immersed himself in the conservative milieu, nor the liberal milieu for that matter. He has clearly tailored some of his current positions to fit the base of the party whose nomination he is seeking, such as gun control and abortion, but he has never donned the mantle of purist crusader for laissez-faire economics or government-slashing spending hawk because those positions would conflict with his economic nationalism and his focus on outcomes rather than pure principle.

Consider, for example, Trump’s past support of universal health care, a position often raised by his conservative critics. This was not likely a position he arrived at based on an ideological commitment to liberalism because that wouldn’t fit the known pattern. Rather it likely was an extension of his patriotic economic nationalism, something along the lines of “A great country like America can have a great health care system that takes care of all its citizens.” Remember that before the Affordable Care Act, universal coverage per se polled well. People just don’t seem to like the details when you attach a name to it, like HillaryCare or ObamaCare. The point being that Trump’s position on universal health care was likely not evidence of an ideological liberal disposition, but rather a roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-it-done outcome based approach. What the conservative box checkers need to understand is that a lot of the electorate is similarly non-ideological. They may lean one way or the other and viscerally identify with the Blue Team or the Red Team, but they are not dogmatic ideologues.

Trump’s positions and rhetoric place him firmly in the category of Middle American Radical (MAR), as are many of his supporters. He just happens to also be a billionaire. MARs are a well described and relatively large demographic. It’s curious that so many journalist and pundits have missed this relationship and are still struggling to characterize Trump. Liberal columnist Ezra Klein was one of the first to pick up on Trump’s particular policy mix in this article he wrote for Vox, about which I thought at the time, “In other words, what (late conservative columnist) Sam Francis was saying 20 years ago.” Liberal John Judis expanded on the idea in this essay for the National Journal. Judis cannot resist a little PC finger wagging, but beyond that it is an insightful piece. Of interest, I was informed by someone who was familiar with the relationship that John Judis and Sam Francis were friends despite their political differences, so this may be a reason for Judis’ insights.

As a MAR, his conservative critics are correct that Trump is not your typical cookie cutter “three-legs-of-the-stool” modern conservative ideologue, but the problem for them is that what modern conservatism has become is generally a mishmash of policy positions that are often internally contradictory and as a whole have very little to do with actually conserving anything. The MAR position of opposition to mass immigration and opposition to international “free” trade deals, for example, both of which Trump has seized upon with great success, are more conservative in actual effect, in the most basic sense of the word, than is any amount of babbling about the “invisible hand” of the marketplace and cutting marginal tax rates. Trump’s supporters sense this. “Make America Great Again,” is an inherently conservative, reactionary really, sentiment. It speaks of loss for the worse and a need to restore.

As Russell Kirk reminded us, conservatism is not an ideology or hodgepodge of policy issues. Rather, it is a disposition, the desire to conserve what is or else restore something that has been lost. The angry masses in Flyover Country who are supporting Trump look around and see middle class manufacturing jobs going south of the border or overseas and their neighborhoods changing from mass immigration, more people they and their children and their children’s children will have to compete with for jobs, and they want it to stop. Contrast this to Rep. Paul Ryan’s foolish statement that Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration “is not conservatism.” Well, actually, yes it is. What is not conservatism is throwing open the doors of your country to masses of new dissimilar immigrants, including groups that are known to be hostile to us. Only a muddle-headed modern conservative ideologue could miss which one of these positions expresses a truly conservative sentiment.

[. . .]

Read more at TraditionalRIGHT. . . .

Advertisements

Paul Craig Roberts – Why World War III is on the Horizon

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FujTQilpuow/hqdefault.jpg

via Global Research:

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology called neoconservativism. The Soviet Union had served as a constraint on US unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neoconservatives declared their agenda of US world hegemony.  America was now the “sole superpower,” the “unipower,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world.

The Washington Post neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:

“We have overwhelming global power. We are history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new–a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a stagering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. Even Rome was no model for what America is today.”

The staggering unipolar power that history has given to Washington has to be protected at all costs.  In 1992 top Pentagon official Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which became the basis for Washington’s foreign policy.

Paul Wolfowitz

The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that the “first objective” of American foreign and military policy is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to US unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” (A “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s.)

The unilateral assertion of American power begin in ernest during the Clinton regime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq.  In 1997 the neoconservatives penned their “Project for a New American Century.”  In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, the neoconservatives sent a letter to President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.”  Neoconservatives set out their program for removing seven governments in five years.

[. . .]

To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. Putin’s responsible behavior, however, is misinterpreted by neoconservatives as a sign of weakness and fear.  The neoconservatives tell President Obama to keep the pressure on Russia, and Russia will give in.  However, Putin has made it clear that Russia will not give in. Putin has sent this message on many occasions.  For example, on September 28, 2015, at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, Putin said that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later Putin took command of the war against ISIS in Syria.

The European governments, especially Germany and the UK, are complicit in the move toward nuclear war. These two American vassal states enable Washington’s reckless aggression toward Russia by repeating Washington’s propaganda and supporting Washington’s sanctions and interventions against other countries.  As long as Europe remains nothing but an extension of Washington, the prospect of Armegeddon will continue to rise.

At this point in time, nuclear war can only be avoided in two ways.

One way is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington’s hegemony.

The other way is for an independent leader in Germany, the UK, or France to rise to office and withdraw from NATO.

That would begin a stampede to leave NATO, which is Washington’s prime tool for causing conflict with Russia and, thereby,  is the most dangerous force on earth to every European country and to the entire world.  If NATO continues to exist, NATO together with the neoconservative ideology of American hegemony will make nuclear war inevitable.

Read more at Global Research. . . .

James Kirkpatrick – Trump the Unstumpable Has Best Night Yet, But So Does Cruz as Rubio Wounded on Amnesty

https://i0.wp.com/s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/md/public/2015/12/16/gettyimages-501525464-1.jpg

via VDare:

The Republican Establishment must be on the brink of a nervous breakdown. Donald Trump appeared positively presidential tonight, speaking in a more solemn and grave tone then we are used to and not giving an inch to anyone. Incredibly, Jeb Bush took repeated shots at Trump and the Donald blew him out of the water without breaking a sweat. When Jeb said, “You can’t insult your way to the presidency” not once but twice, Trump acidly replied, “I’m at 42%, you’re at 3%.” He then mocked how Jeb has gone from center stage to the margins, laughing, “Pretty soon you’re going to be off the stage.” One almost feels sorry for poor Jeb.

The crowd was very anti-Trump but he didn’t even back down to them and he managed to bring them around. Interestingly, Trump won a great deal of applause when he said that “walls work – just ask the Israelis.”

The biggest story of the night for Trump was his pledge not to leave the GOP at the tail end of the debate. He managed to sound magnanimous. He won a great deal of applause for this statement from a once hostile crowd. It was like the end of Rocky IV.

It signifies two things. First, Trump is acting like a front runner and trying to unite the party around him. Second, Trump is disarming his critics by forcing them to associate with him as Republicans. Even Lindsey Graham, who spent most of the undercard debate taking shots at Trump, had to say he would support him if he was the nominee. What Trump is saying to the GOP is akin to Rorschach in Watchmen. “None of you seem to understand. I’m not locked in here with you, YOU’RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME.”

The other big story was Ted Cruz who was so smooth and polished it sometimes came off as annoying, but navigated the parries and thrusts as skillfully as an Olympic fencer. The moderators tried to bait Cruz and Trump into attacking each other, but they didn’t go for it. We can expect Trump will continue to poke at Cruz on the campaign trail, but for this debate, the old alliance held strong. As the Official Conservative Movement, including the likes of the Family Research Council and seemingly talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are now coming out for Cruz, Cruz thinks he can unite the conservative movement. Trump is counting on his own supporters to stay loyal and pick up moderates and first time voters as he continues to troll the media. Neither one wants to go to all out war just yet.

But Cruz (along with Rand Paul) unloaded on Marco Rubio, who was finally, finally asked about amnesty. Cruz effortlessly disarmed Rubio’s attempts to tie him as a supporter of amnesty and painted Rubio as a pawn of Chuck Schumer. This is the first time someone has landed a real punch on Rubio in any debate.

However, Cruz’s record is not perfect. One small concession, sadly missed by many, is that Cruz had to nod when Rubio charged Cruz wanted to triple the number of H1-B visas. This is a very bad sign Cruz is still beholden to some of his donors and is an ideological captive of the “legal immigration good, illegal immigration bad trap.”

[. . .]

Read more at VDare

Transcript of the Dec. 15 Republican Debate in Las Vegas

https://i1.wp.com/ww3.hdnux.com/photos/42/61/66/9117078/3/920x920.jpg

For all you masochists out there. . .  I certainly can’t take watching or even reading much of these awful debates any longer. But here is the link to the transcript, for reference if nothing else:

via Time.com:

[. . .]

BLITZER: Mr. Trump, you recently suggested closing that Internet up, those were your words, as a way to stop ISIS from recruiting online. Are you referring to closing down actual portions of the Internet? Some say that would put the U.S. in line with China and North Korea.

TRUMP: Well, look, this is so easy to answer. ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, and it was our idea. What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they’re doing.

You talk freedom of speech. You talk freedom of anything you want. I don’t want them using our Internet to take our young, impressionable youth and watching the media talking about how they’re masterminds — these are masterminds. They shouldn’t be using the word “mastermind.” These are thugs. These are terrible people in ISIS, not masterminds. And we have to change it from every standpoint. But we should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. And we can do that if we use our good people.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump.

So, are you open to closing parts of the Internet?

TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don’t want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet. Yes, sir, I am.

BLITZER: Thank you.

[. . .]

JOSH JACOB, COLLEGE STUDENT: I’m Josh Jacob from Georgia Tech. Recently Donald Trump mentioned we must kill the families of ISIS members. However, this violates the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants in international law.

So my question is, how would intentionally killing innocent civilians set us apart from ISIS?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Mr. Trump.

TRUMP: We have to be much tougher. We have to be much stronger than we’ve been. We have people that know what is going on. You take a look at just the attack in California the other day. There were numerous people, including the mother, that knew what was going on.

They saw a pipe bomb sitting all over the floor. They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.

When you had the World Trade Center go, people were put into planes that were friends, family, girlfriends, and they were put into planes and they were sent back, for the most part, to Saudi Arabia.

They knew what was going on. They went home and they wanted to watch their boyfriends on television. I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: Donald, this has got…

BLITZER: Governor Bush. Governor Bush.

BUSH: This is another example of the lack of seriousness. Look, this is — this is troubling because we’re at war. They’ve declared war on us and we need to have a serious strategy to destroy ISIS.

But the idea that that is a solution to this is just — is just crazy. It makes no sense to suggest this. Look, two months ago Donald Trump said that ISIS was not our fight. Just two months ago he said that Hillary Clinton would be a great negotiator with Iran. And he gets his foreign policy experience from the shows.

That is not a serious kind of candidate. We need someone that thinks this through. That can lead our country to safety and security.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Mr. Trump.

TRUMP: Look, the problem is we need toughness. Honestly, I think Jeb is a very nice person. He’s a very nice person. But we need tough people. We need toughness. We need intelligence and we need tough.

Jeb said when they come across the southern border they come as an act of love.

BUSH: You said on September 30th that ISIS was not a factor.

TRUMP: Am I talking or are you talking, Jeb?

BUSH: I’m talking right now. I’m talking.

TRUMP: You can go back. You’re not talking. You interrupted me.

BUSH: September 30th you said…

TRUMP: Are you going to apologize, Jeb? No. Am I allowed to finish?

BLITZER: Just one at a time, go ahead…

TRUMP: Excuse me, am I allowed to finish?

BLITZER: Go ahead, Mr. Trump.

TRUMP: So…

BUSH: A little of your own medicine there, Donald.

TRUMP: … again…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Governor Bush, please.

TRUMP: I know you’re trying to build up your energy, Jeb, but it’s not working very well.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: One at a time.

TRUMP: Look, look, look. We need a toughness. We need strength. We’re not respected, you know, as a nation anymore. We don’t have that level of respect that we need. And if we don’t get it back fast, we’re just going to go weaker, weaker and just disintegrate.

We can’t allow that to happen. We need strength. We don’t have it. When Jeb comes out and he talks about the border, and I saw it and I was witness to it, and so was everyone else, and I was standing there, “they come across as an act of love,” he’s saying the same thing right now with radical Islam.

And we can’t have that in our country. It just won’t work. We need strength.

BLITZER: Governor Bush.

BUSH: Donald, you’re not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency. That’s not going to happen.

(APPLAUSE)

And I do have the strength. Leadership, leadership is not about attacking people and disparaging people. Leadership is about creating a serious strategy to deal with the threat of our time.

BUSH: And I laid out that strategy before the attacks in Paris and before the attacks in San Bernardino. And it is the way forward. We need to increase our military spending. We need to deal with a no- fly zone in Syria, a safe zone. We need to focus on building a military that is second-to-none…

BLITZER: Thank you.

[. . .]

Pat Buchanan – Will Elites Blow Up the GOP?

https://i0.wp.com/www.longisland.com/site_media/associated-press/images/obama-sign-education-law-rewrite-power-shift-states-121015.jpg

via Creators.com:

[. . .]

Moreover, the old establishments are dead. Conservatives killed the GOP establishment in 1964. The Vietnam War and George McGovern killed the Democratic establishment in 1972.

What is left are elites, collectives of officeholders past and present, donors, lobbyists, think-tankers angling for jobs, party hacks and talking heads.

What the Republican collectivity has to realize is that it is they and the policies they produced that are the reason Trump, Carson and Cruz currently hold an overwhelming majority of Republican votes.

It was the elites of both parties who failed to secure our borders and brokered the trade deals that have de-industrialized America and eviscerated our middle class.

It was the elites of both parties who got us into these idiotic wars that have blown up the Middle East, cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of dead, and tens of thousands of wounded among our best and bravest.

That Republican elites would sit around a dinner table on Capitol Hill and discuss how to frustrate the rising rebellion against what they have done to America, and decide among themselves who shall lead us, is astonishing.

To borrow from the Gipper, they are not the solution to our problems. They are the problem.

Could we face something like the election of 1860, where the Democratic Party split between essentially liberal and conservative factions, paving the way for victory of Lincoln and the radical Republicans, a victory that immediately led the United States into Civil War?

If the establishment Republicans would rather destroy themselves in order to destroy what remains of traditional White America, then I’d rather my people fight and die in civil war than wither away in a wisp of dust.

History is full of fighters who lost their wars but ultimately won their countries. But history quickly forgets those who silently surrendered without a fight.

 

Mark Zuckerberg-Backed Immigration Bill Would Allow Unlimited Muslim Immigration

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_ku-xlarge/1494079858212669866.jpg

via WND via Breitbart:

In January of 2015, a handful of Senators quietly introduced new legislation in Congress that would allow for virtually unlimited Muslim immigration into the United States – lifting caps entirely on several categories of visas favored by immigrants from Muslim countries.

The Mark Zuckerberg-backed legislation, S.153, is called the Immigration Innovation Act (or I-Squared), and it has taken on new significance following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino. Those attacks were only possible due to Muslim immigration: Syed Farook is reportedly the child of Pakistani immigrants, and his jihadi bride, Tashfeen Malik, was reportedly born in Pakistan.

The I-Squared bill is significant for a second reason. One of the Senators who introduced the bill is also running for President: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). And several of Rubio’s most prominent financial backers are among the bill’s boosters.

I-Squared would expand five major visa categories used by Muslim migrants: the F-1 foreign student visa, green cards for foreign students, green cards for their family members, the H-1B foreign worker visa, and the H-4 spousal visa.

[. . .]

Rubio’s decision to push such an extraordinary expansion of Muslim migration is consistent with several other high-profile actions he has taken during his Senate career. Rubio’s Gang of Eight bill, for instance, contained multiple provisions to expand Muslim migration. As Daniel Horowitz has explained, “section 3405 (page 693) [of the Gang of Eight bill]… created an entire new pipeline for refugees.” Horowitz declared, “In totality, this bill would have created endless avenues for this president to bring in an unlimited numbers of Islamic immigrants from the most volatile corners of the world.” Rubio—who has not retreated from a single policy provision in the Gang of Eight bill—recently doubled down on his support for this refugee language.

Rubio has also recently called for admitting Syrian refugees into the United States and helped vote down a Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) amendment to pause immigration from over 30 Muslim countries with jihadist movements.

[. . .]

Rubio’s campaign theme, “A New American Century,” employs a euphemism commonly used to describe demographic transformation brought on by immigration. For instance, the immigration lobbying firm chaired by Rupert Murdoch and Bob Iger is called the “Partnership for A New American Economy.” The National Journal has launched “The Next America” project to chronicle America’s becoming a majority-minority country. The White House’s immigration initiative is called the “New Americans Project.” And the Latino Victory Foundation and the “National Partnership for New Americans” recently launched the “New American Democracy Campaign” to get as many immigrants as possible to vote.

Read more at Breitbart.

Matt Parrott – White Identity Politics vs. Libertarianism

https://i1.wp.com/s3-origin-images.politico.com/2015/08/21/20150821_donald_trump_alabama_lede_gty_1160.jpg

. . . So, in summary, identity politics are good when they’re against straight, white men and they’re bad when they’re for them? Got it. Funny how Reason, National Review, and so many others devolve into hysterical SJW tumblr blogs when race comes up. It’s jarring that just a few years ago, the neocon establishment were fighting like hell to drive back the libertarian entryists, and now the libertarians are their only hope against a tsunami of outright white nationalism.

[. . .]

It’s the identity, stupid! Just as Bill Clinton managed to steal the momentum from Bush Sr. back in 1992 by having a better grasp of what actually mattered to voters at that time, Donald Trump has managed to steal the momentum from his son Jeb by tapping into what actually matters to contemporary voters: identity. The strong network of taboos and tribulations awaiting those who speak up for White folks ensures that it remains in the realm of signals and dog whistles, but you can’t enforce a taboo against feeling feelings.

Katrina, the hurricane which broke the levees in New Orleans has a name and receives the blame. But the actual cause of the flood and mayhem was decades of neglect, malinvestment, political ineptitude, and natural processes of sedimentation and erosion. The hurricane which broke the levees against White identity politics in America has the biggest name of all and will receive all of the blame. But the levee was going to break one way or another, under the weight of decades of neglect, malinvestment, political ineptitude, and demographic processes weighing on White Americans.

Ben Domenech and the rest of his libertarian minions can’t kill us and won’t co-opt us, because he’s playing by 20th Century political rules. American politics have gone tribal, and the only hope for libertarians at this point is to drop the abstractions and look for ways to tap into the organic individualism unique to the Western mind. With the exception of some paid guest speakers, libertarianism is just some stuff White people like. The paradox for libertarians is that Trump’s para-fascist campaign can and will deliver the freedom, liberty, and small government that Ron Paul and his anti-White, “anti-racist” son can only promise.

Read more at TradYouth

Office of Refugee Resettlement is a Revolving Door for Federal Contractors Who Profit from Immigration

https://i0.wp.com/www.resettlement.eu/sites/icmc.tttp.eu/files/New%20Picture.png

Selfish, short-sighted traitors profit from the displacement of the American population with immigrants.  These traitors include business-owners who want cheap labor and who bankroll office-holders (many who call themselves conservative), Democrats who want more votes, or supposedly humanitarian organizations whose boards make a tidy sum for their “good deeds”.

More and more, I think that this country will get nothing more than what we deserve.

Before I get to ORR chief Bob Carey’s letter to governors, a little background on the revolving door for new readers (also go here to our recent fact sheet for general overview of program):

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees chooses most of our refugees.  The US State Department admits them and Homeland Security screens them (as best they can).  The State Department PRM (Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration) contracts with nine supposedly non-profit group contractors*** to resettle them through about 312 subcontractors (at one point the State Department was throwing the number 350 around) to most US states.

PRM is overseen by Anne Richard who was a former vice President of contractor—International Rescue Committee.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is in the Dept. of Health and Human Services and is the major dispenser of your money to the contractors through myriad federal grants.

The present director of ORR is Robert Carey who came over from one of the nine contractors (wait for it!)—International Rescue Committee (IRC)—where he served as a vice President.  His predecessor at ORR was Eskinder Negash who had come over from another contractor the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants.

Negash has since returned to a perch at his former employer—US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI).

[. . .]

Contractors enter government and become the dispenser of your tax dollars and then they leave government when administrations change and become the recipients of your tax dollars—and around and around they go!

[. . .]

***Nine major federal contractors which like to call themselves VOLAGs (Voluntary agencies) which is such a joke considering how much federal money they receive:

Rush Limbaugh: Trump’s Supposed New Consideration for a Third Party Run is More Media Manipulation

Most of the transcript covers Limbaugh’s questions and speculations as to why the Establishment Republicans hate Trump so much. But he also answers a caller who is worried about news that suggests Trump is again thinking of running as an independent despite having signed a pledge in which he promised not to do so.

And so now Trump is saying that they’re attacking him, and it’s the media that is saying Trump could change his mind, Michael.  Trump has not, to my knowledge. Unless there’s a story out there I’ve missed, Trump has not specifically said he would renounce the deal.  He’s just complained about the way he’s being treated and that this was not part of the deal, and the media has taken it from there suggesting Trump could change his mind.  And the whole idea of Trump going third party… Here’s an example.

I happen to have this in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers right here. It’s TheHill.com.  “Trump Resurfaces Idea of Third-Party Run — Donald Trump is again raising the possibility that he might run for president as a third-party candidate, suggesting that the Republican Party is not meeting its end of their loyalty ‘deal.’ Responding to reports that independent super-PACs are planning attack ads against his candidacy, the billionaire Republican front-runner tweeted on Monday: ‘@WSJ reports that @GOP getting ready to treat me unfairly — big spending planned against me. That wasn’t the deal!'”

That’s all Trump has said, Michael.

It’s the Drive-Bys hoping that it means he would go third party.

Read more at RushLimbaugh.com

Chuck Baldwin – What is a Neocon?

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/extremist_profile_images/SPLC-Extremist-Files-Chuck-Baldwin-1280x720.jpg

The word “neocon” has become a common term in our political lexicon. However, I don’t think most conservatives truly understand its definition.

First, people need to understand that many neocons call themselves “conservative” on domestic social issues. Not all neocons are truly conservative on these issues–some aren’t. But many neocons DO trumpet themselves as socially “conservative.” These folks like to identify themselves as “pro-life” or “pro-family” or “pro-defense” or “pro-limited government,” etc. But these titles are mostly meaningless.

At this point, it is imperative that we understand how politicians in Washington, D.C., operate. Here is a quick primer: Congressional leaders know which congressmen and senators are controllable–and most of them are. Only a handful of our federal congressmen and senators are “untouchable.” My guess is less than 100 out of the 535 House members and U.S. senators are truly NOT controlled–and that includes liberals and conservatives. [. . .]

[. . .] Second, please understand that the fundamental goal of those elitists who control the neocons is GLOBALISM. For the most part, these people care absolutely nothing about domestic social issues. It doesn’t matter to them one whit whether a congressman is pro-life or pro-choice; whether he or she is “pro-family” or pro-gay marriage; whether he or she is identified as a conservative or a liberal. These issues don’t even enter the mind of a globalist. They have but one goal: GLOBALISM. Accordingly, everything they promote promotes globalism. EVERYTHING! Never forget that! [. . .]

[. . .]

Pro-International “Free Trade” Deals

From NAFTA to TPP, these so-called “free trade” deals are nothing more than international loopholes that discriminate against the manufacturing jobs and labor class of individual countries and favor the billionaire class that conducts business internationally.

[. . .]

Pro-Illegal Immigration

The great goal of globalists is to blur or even eliminate national borders. National borders, and the laws that protect them, are VERY burdensome to multinational traders. National borders restrict globalists in their pursuit of international wealth. They envision a global economy with a global government in place to protect that global economy. Individual nationhood is an obstacle to that goal.

[. . .]

• Pro-war
NOTHING rings the cash register for globalists like war. War helps to replace recalcitrant national leaders who refuse to give international financiers carte blanche in their countries. War helps to redraw national boundaries that favor the global economy. War brings HUGE profit windfalls to the military-industrial complex that is mostly in bed with high-paying globalists. War causes citizens in free countries to accept more governmental authority (which ALWAYS includes an international component) over their affairs that would never be the case in peacetime. War is also the perfect solution to resolve the economic problems of a sinking financial system.

[. . .]

Pro-Police State

Freedom is anathema to globalists; an armed citizenry is anathema to globalists. In order for globalism to succeed, people must be restrained. They must be surveilled. They must be regulated. They must be controlled.

[. . .]

• Pro-Deficit Spending
Neocons support deficit spending. In this, they are far worse than overt liberals. For example, liberals in the Democrat Party want to tax-and-spend, while neocons in the Republican Party want to borrow-and-spend. Between the two, deficit spending is worse because it gives the federal government (and the globalists who influence and leech off them) unlimited spending–and thus unlimited profits. Beyond that, the inevitable result of unrestrained spending is WAR: globalists’ biggest cash cow of all. They win coming and going.

Read more at NewsWithViews

Marco Rubio Releases Florida GOP Charge Card Statements

rubio-pinocchio

There is a reason why I think this story is pertinent news while the Ben Carson attack story about his supposedly lying about a West Point scholarship is not.

Rubio has shown that he does a lousy job with his own personal finances. He isn’t alone in this. Most people have made stupid financial mistakes with their own money. However, Rubio is running for president, not his local city council. We should expect him to be a little wiser than our disorganized neighbor who calls in sick to work every week and is smothered in unreasonable debt because of his credit cards and oversized McMansion.

And the Establishment would have us elect this Pinocchio puppet for president.

Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign released 22 months of charge card statements on Saturday that show the candidate made $7,243.74 in personal purchases in 2005 and 2006 on a Florida Republican Party charge card.

The announcement comes as Rubio is under greater scrutiny for his personal use of the American Express charge card, which he said was secured under his personal credit in conjunction with the state’s Republican Party. Some of Rubio’s previous charge card statements have emerged, but the release on Saturday provides the first look at his purchases for the period from January 2005 through October 2006 when he led the campaign operation for Florida House Republicans.

Read more at CNN

Dan Phillips – The Stupid Party Elevates Paul Ryan

paulryan

In the midst of this rebellion in the heartland, the Republican Party keepers of the flame insisted on anointing Paul Ryan as Speaker, after their original choice crashed and burned, but Ryan could not be more wrong on these two issues at the heart of the base’s uprising.

Ryan is a hard core amnesty supporter. By Republican standards he is an “extremist” on the issue. He also supports virtual open borders with regard to legal immigration, a policy that not only would perpetuate the problems of unemployment, underemployment and stagnant wages that already plague us, but would guarantee that the Republican Party will become a permanent minority party, virtually irrelevant on the national stage, within a few election cycles. Talk about the Stupid Party. Many of them appear to not be able to do basic math.

On globalist managed trade deals (To call them free trade deals is a scandalous misuse of language.), Ryan is again the worst of the worst. Ryan is not just a casual supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the legislative gimmickry of fast track that enabled it. He co-authored (along with faux populist Sen. Ted Cruz, I might add) a blatant piece of apologia for fast track and the TPP in the Power Elite … err I mean … Wall Street Journal before said power elite ramrodded the fast track abomination through Congress. Way to represent the peeps there, GOP.

Read more at traditionalRIGHT

G.W. Thielman – How To Fix Conservatives’ Single Women Problem

Thielman1

Thielman makes way too much out of the human sex ratio here, where females outnumber men in the U.S. only very slightly. Nevertheless, there is no question that there is a concerted and increasingly successful effort to impose matriarchy here.

What are conservatives to do in order to keep winning elections? Thielman proposes that the best way to win over the government-dependent single woman class is to pander to them even more than the Left does.

I found this article tough to wade through.  Too many trees and not enough forest.  It does make one think though, however, even if I disagree with much of the premise and the conclusions.

Second, societies with low sex ratios, or many more women than men, alter men’s mating strategies away from aggressive acquisition for long-term commitment towards more casual sexual encounters. With men less motivated to offer access to the wealth they’ve accumulated in exchange for erotic favors, women—in order to gain access to resources for sustenance and comfort—must either rival each other for prospective husbands, or gain independent livelihood. [. . .]

[. . .] In 1902, Vladimir Lenin published a pamphlet to advocate creating a political party as a vanguard to revolution. It was titled “Chto delat’?,” usually translated as “What is to be done?” That is the question for the NISAs of our time. Without coaxing the proverbial Julia away from Uncle Sugar Daddy, conservatives and libertarians cannot hope to persuade enough voters towards restoring our economic fortunes or the rule of law in this generation. Given the electorate’s inexorable despondency, our best options depend on finding answers to the Julia dilemma.

Two suggestions are offered. First, we should voluntarily assist these single mothers through charities and other private agencies. Second, because such women lack the knowledge to ground philosophical principles, we ought to convey stories about the adverse effects of intrusive government.

Read more at the Federalist

Joseph Farah – Romney Confirms: Independent News the Problem

Maybe it’s better that Romney lost. Right now, at least our people know that we have an enemy in the White House.

“There was a time when we all got the news with the same facts, if you will,” he said. “We had three networks we watched for the evening news. Most of us got newspapers. Everybody in the middle class got a newspaper, so we got the same facts whether we agreed or not with them.”

Romney bemoaned the fact that more people “get their news on the Web” and “they tend to read those things which they agree with.” He said people are “not seeing the other side” and “not even getting the same facts” while “we have commentators” on left-leaning and right-leaning cable news channels “who are hyperbolic in expressing their views on issues.”

“There are some in our party who think the best approach is throwing bombs,” he said. “The problem with bomb throwing so far is that most of the bombs have landed on our own team. That doesn’t help.”

It’s hardly surprising that Romney believes these things.

However, it’s worth noting to whom he made these admissions.

Who is David Axelrod?

He was Barack Obama’s chief political strategist in 2008 and 2012. After Obama won in 2008, Axelrod was appointed as senior adviser to the president. He left that post in 2011 to become senior strategist for Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. Today he is a senior political commentator for CNN.

Read more at WorldNetDaily

Senate Passes Debt and Spending Hike in Dead Of Night

via Infowars.com

Boehner’s mission is accomplished. Now he can make millions as a lobbyist.

“This deal represents the worst of Washington culture,” said Rep. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and presidential candidate who’d vowed to lead the filibuster, but who saw his efforts fall short to what he called an “unholy compromise between right and left.”
The bill cleared on a 64-35 vote, with just 18 Republicans joining all Democrats in backing the bill.

President Obama said the deal will “break the cycle of shutdowns and manufactured crises” that he and Congress have been through the last few years.

The debt increase, meanwhile, amounts to far more. Judging by recent borrowing, the 16-month debt holiday would work out to more than $1 trillion in new borrowing — or $13 billion for each hour Congress considered the bill.

Friday morning’s votes split the Republican presidential candidates, with Mr. Paul and Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz opposing it and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a prominent war hawk, backing it.

Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who’s running for Democrats’ nomination, also voted for it.

Read more at the Washington Times

  • December 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
%d bloggers like this: