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. . . .


Obama Targets Trump, Says Candidate ‘Exploiting’ Blue-Collar Fears

via Fox News:

President Obama used a radio interview to accuse Donald Trump of “exploiting” economic woes to tap into voter “fear” and “frustration,” in some of his most direct criticism to date of the Republican primary front-runner seeking to replace him.

[. . .]

He said “particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck, you combine those things and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear.

“Some of it justified but just misdirected,” Obama said. “I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That’s what he’s exploiting during the course of his campaign.”

With this explanation, Obama appeared to acknowledge that the U.S. economy still has not turned around for many blue-collar workers – a theme that candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders, on the Democratic side, also are running on.

But the comments marked some of Obama’s most detailed criticism of Trump’s strategy in the Republican race.

Asked to expand on his claims – and speak to concerns in some corners that Obama is trying to change the country in an unwelcome way — Obama got into a contentious exchange with NPR’s Steve Inskeep that touched on the issue of race.

Obama suggested there are “certain circumstances around being the first African-American president that might not have confronted a previous president.” He also pointed to “specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I’m different, I’m Muslim, I’m disloyal to the country, etc., which unfortunately is pretty far out there and gets some traction in certain pockets of the Republican Party.”

Read more at Fox News.

DC Whispers – Trump & Cruz Refuse To Play Media’s WarGames…

via DC Whispers:

In the forty-eight hours prior to last night’s CNN Republican debate, the media repeated every hour on the hour how the Trump and Cruz campaigns appeared to be turning on one another.

Then came the debate, and both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz reduced that attempted media meme to a pathetic shambles.

The media wanted the two top GOP candidates to weaken one another, as did Marco Rubio who has seen his star fade somewhat in the last month as Cruz has enjoyed a significant surge in the latest polls.

Instead of focusing on Donald Trump, Ted Cruz turned his powerful and incisive rhetorical skills upon Mr. Rubio, catching both Rubio, the media, and the GOP Establishment by surprise. While Rubio held his own, most observers appear to feel Cruz ultimately won the back and forth battle. It was a battle the GOP Establishment wanted to see diminish Donald Trump, not Marco Rubio.

Ted Cruz refused to play along with their plans.

Read more at DC Whispers.

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


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


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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

TRUMP: … again…


BLITZER: Governor Bush, please.

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


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.


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.

[. . .]

Mark Zuckerberg-Backed Immigration Bill Would Allow Unlimited Muslim Immigration


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.

Media is Now Pumping Up Ted Cruz to Dilute Support for Donald Trump


In 2012, the media “pumped and dumped” one Republican primary candidate after another, presumably in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the nomination though the opposite could also be argued, that they wanted Mitt Romney in order for him to lose to Obama.

For the 2016 election, the media efforts to do the same to the current crop of candidates has only seemed to work for Ben Carson. The method has failed to raise other candidates such as Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina, and seems to be struggling to promote Marco Rubio.

So we today have a bunch of headlines that seem to advance Ted Cruz as the far-right candidate to compete with Donald Trump. It’s another pumping process intended to steal support from, and ultimately puncture, Trump’s continued upward momentum.

I like Ted Cruz and don’t think he would be a terrible president, and ideologically I agree with and mostly trust Cruz, and he is one of the few Republicans whom I would definitely vote for (as compared to a third party) if he wins his party’s nomination.  Nevertheless Cruz doesn’t compete with Trump.

Cruz is a legislator and a politician, and his leadership would reflect that. Cruz would politick rather than rule, and right now this country needs rule in order to restore sanity. I doubt that Cruz could impose his will on a mushy and divided government.

And I think this attempt to pump up Cruz to weaken Trump will ultimately fail, just like every other political trick against Trump has so far failed. To stop Trump, if he’s really on the side of conservative America, it looks like they’re going to have to kill him.

Ted Cruz increasingly looks like the man to beat in Iowa.

He’s rising in the polls, building on an already extensive field organization and locking down critical conservative endorsements.

Among the biggest yet came Thursday, when Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the conservative group Family Leader, came out for Cruz, citing what he sees as electability in Iowa and nationally.

“This is a guy that’s been very consistent in principles, in communications, and his campaign has shown ability to slowly gain ground and build momentum, and appears to have great staying power,” he told POLITICO. “I don’t see his numbers going down, I see them going up.”

Cruz’s Iowa surge is coming at the expense of Ben Carson and other Republicans seeking a share of the state’s considerable evangelical vote. And with Cruz leading the field in a Monmouth University Iowa poll released this week, rivals are suddenly confronted with a new level of urgency in their efforts to stop the Texas senator from building early-state momentum that could carry him through the South Carolina primary next year and into March 1, when seven other Southern states will go to the polls.

The Vander Plaats endorsement came in the midst of a fruitful week for Cruz, which included national endorsements Wednesday from the National Organization for Marriage and from Richard Viguerie, a prominent conservative voice and the founding father of political direct mail.

Read more at Politico.

DC Whispers – Obama Dragged To Address Terror Threat, “Kicking & Screaming”

[. . .]

Immediately after the San Bernardino terror attack, the President of the United States was said to be initially interested in the events to the point of outright excitement for the opportunity to once again make a call for enhanced federal gun control measures – which he did.

Within hours of the attack it became clear to federal officials that Islamic terror played an integral role.

Once that was known, Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm is said to have “waned considerably.” And then when the L.A. FBI office went public with calling San Bernardino a terrorist attack, both Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett went into “warpath mode.”

Jarrett’s displeasure was apparently first to make itself known. She was outraged the FBI had done so without first getting prior approval from her. Jarrett was said to be particularly concerned with the proximity of the FBI’s terror designation and the president’s quick words on calling for more gun control measures soon after the actual San Bernardino terror attack.

[. . .]

Ultimately it was Valerie Jarrett who apparently informed the President he would be giving a primetime address on Sunday evening. This decision was based almost exclusively on fears the White House was quickly losing control of the narrative, and was in fact suggested by a handful of trusted Mainstream Media figures devoted to the Obama White House’s well-being.

A small battle was waged by several White House advisers and consultants regarding both the tone and content of the President’s Sunday evening commentary. In the end, as usual, Jarrett’s opinion is said to have won out. There would be brief mention of terrorism, ISIL, and the President’s ongoing efforts to keep Americans safe. Then the speech would focus almost entirely on the need for gun control and a caution to Americans not to engage in anti-Muslim rhetoric or action. (a warning that had been outlined earlier by Attorney General Lynch who called anti-Muslim sentiment her “greatest fear”)

Mr. Obama was willing to swallow the bitter pill of admitting a terrorist attack had taken place inside of the United States, but only after Valerie Jarret had the call for gun control and pro-Islamic rhetoric be made the more dominant part of the relatively brief primetime address.

Read more at DC Whispers.

Kevin MacDonald – Survey Data Justifies Trump’s Statement on Muslim Exclusion

Trump panic, complete with Hitler salute

The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).

The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the “global Jihad (64% disagree).

The Sun (2015): Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS.

Support for Sharia is important because, as Trump notes, “Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.” From Trump’s press release:

Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.

In a sane society, this would be common sense. Indeed, in Trump’s speech at Mt. Pleasant, SC (~30’00”), he noted that even 1% would be unacceptable. Quite right. The usual estimates are that there are 5–8 million Muslims in the US, so if 1% were potential terrorists, that would mean there are thousands of potential jihadists and Muslims who hate America. So why import more? But of course the numbers are much higher given the above survey results indicating around 20–25% support for Jihad against America by American Muslims. And one must assume that the survey’s are conservative estimates because I suspect quite a few Muslims would want to conceal such attitudes from pollsters. The religion of peace and all that.

The reaction of the media and political class has been apoplectic outrage, but I don’t know of any that deal with the survey results on Muslim attitudes — the crux, after all, of Trump’s argument. This CNN fluff piece on Muslims (“shattering misperceptions”) completely fails to deal with survey results on Muslim attitudes. CNN had a reporter at Trump’s Mt. Pleasant, SC speech yesterday. She was obviously hostile and incredulous about Trump’s recent comments, but couldn’t find anyone in the crowd who agreed with her. Whatever else one might say about Trump’s comments, they are not going to erode his base. msbnc

In fact, Trump’s Muslim comments might add to his base. The reporter talked with a young White man who, perhaps because he knew he was on TV, was obviously reluctant to endorse Trump’s latest proposals. But in the end he said he agreed. I think that a lot of Americans are like this guy. They know things are wrong and that our present policy is dangerous, corrupt, and opposes their interests. But there are large inhibitions about saying things they know to be politically incorrect. They hesitate because it’s a new thing for them, and maybe they are worried about a call from the SPLC to their employer. But it becomes easier when you are in a crowd of Trump supporters. The barriers and inhibitions break down. And that is terrifying to the powers that be.

Read more at the Occidental Observer.

Rush Limbaugh – Read The Art of the Deal to Understand What Trump’s Doing


CALLER: Look, Rush, what Donald Trump is doing — what he talks about — is what he talks about in The Art of the Deal. These Grahamnesty, establishment GOP and media types should know Donald Trump is about business —

RUSH: You see?

CALLER: — and it’s what he wrote in The Art of the Deal.

RUSH: This is fabulous.

CALLER: What he’s leading with is a bombastic offer.

RUSH: This is absolutely great. George, thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the service that you just performed. Let me explain to you what it is. George here is a Trump supporter. You know what that means? George supports Trump. George has undertaken to understand as much about Trump as he can. One of the things he’s done is he’s read Trump’s book called The Art of the Deal. What does Trump talk about constantly in this campaign?

He’s gonna do great deals. We got stupid leaders doing bad deals, doing dumb deals, but he’s gonna do the best deals this country’s ever had made. He’s the best dealmaker; he’s the best negotiator. And everybody just sits around and goes, “What a braggart. What a bunch of bombast.” And they either laugh at it or they condemn it or what have you. But old George here probably knows something that most in the establishment, the ruling class, don’t know, because they haven’t read Trump’s book.

They wouldn’t stoop to such depths!

They wouldn’t be seen reading Trump’s book!

Right in The Art of the Deal Trump says, if you’re serious in a negotiation about wanting something — and, by the way, being serious is the only time to enter into it — and if there’s something dead certain you’ve gotta have, you have got to start out with the most outrageous position. The opener has got to be so outrageous that the compromise is exactly what you want. The opener is the most outrageous demand that you can make. So what old George is doing here is extrapolating Trump’s negotiating skills and his technique with his political statements.

And old George here is convinced that Trump isn’t really gonna deport every Muslim, and he really isn’t gonna keep every Muslim outta here. But he thinks Trump wants to wake everybody up. He thinks Trump does have some pretty serious ideas, and to get there, he’s gotta start out with one of these outrageous things. So that when Trump backs off of it is when he appears reasonable, which is when you can finally make the deal with him. It’s a strategy.

Trump is bringing his business acumen to politics. That’s something that politicians don’t have: business acumen, many of them. And so they don’t recognize it, and they don’t understand it. So what would be the manifestation of this? How would this manifest? Okay. Well, let’s go back and remember when Trump said that he’s gonna deport every Mexican. Every illegal Mexican that’s here is gonna get sent back. “They’ve gotta go,” he keeps saying. “They’ve gotta go back. They gotta go back.”

His own son, Eric Trump, said just yesterday or the day before, “My dad believes in amnesty if it’s earned. Once they’re sent home, they can come back if they’ll do so legally.” That’s what his own son says the plan is. Trump hasn’t said it. Well, maybe he even has, in certain ways. The point is that all of this bombast and all of this outrageousness is owning the media. It is shaping the media day. The media day is being determined by what Trump is saying, where Trump is, what people’s reactions to Trump are. He owns it.

As you just heard, more coverage than the entire Democrat presidential campaign, all those candidates combined. He has over twice the amount of news coverage that the media’s own candidate, Hillary Clinton, is getting. And this is why I’ve been dancing around the edges of this theory I’ve been working on since late last week about the phenomenon of this campaign is that Trump owns the media and it’s the media following along like puppy dogs. And wherever he goes, they are there. And whatever he says, they cover it. And the more out…

As far as he’s concerned, the more outrageous, the better. It calls attention to the point that he’s making, and he ends up being the only person occupying his position. He’s got no competition. Everybody else — everybody — is saying the exact the same thing, but none of them are saying what Trump is saying. So just in a political sense here, as I sit back literally objectively watch this rather than get all bent out of shape and emotionally attached to all this and just sit here and study it, it is literally fascinating. I have never seen anybody own the media like this.

JFK did not own the media like this.

Bill Clinton did not own the media like this.

Nobody has ever owned the media like Trump.

Read more at RushLimbaugh.com.

DC Whispers – French Reporters Stunned At Obama’s Ignorance: “He is an Asshole! An Asshole!”

Now it appears some among the Climate Summit’s host-nation French media were just as outraged by Barack Obama’s glaringly ignorant commentary regarding how mass shootings only happen in the United States – and said those words while standing on a stage in Paris less than two weeks after that city saw hundreds of its citizens gunned down and blown up by Muslim terrorists in a mass shooting attack.

“The president appeared tired, bored, and then made comments that had some reporters glancing at one another as if to say, “Did he really just say that?”

Here once again is video of Mr. Obama veering wildly off the road of common sense or basic decency when he appears to initially deny the recent and terrible tragedy of the Paris terrorist attacks in favor of once again attacking gun rights in America:

It is said that following what was at times a painfully slow, slouching, and seemingly disinterested performance by President Obama, some among the French media were heard repeatedly using the words, “Connard!” and “Trouduc!” to describe their feelings regarding Mr. Obama’s bizarre commentary – phrases rather specific to a certain part of the human anatomy.

Read more at DC Whispers.

Why Hasn’t Rand Paul Inherited His Father’s Success?

Rand Paul campaigned with his father in Iowa ahead of the 2012 caucuses, where Ron Paul finished a strong third. His son has struggled to hold on to his father's supporters.

Oddly enough, the NPR article seems to have it partially correct.

Personally, I supported Ron Paul enthusiastically in 2008 and less so in 2012. But by 2015, times have changed.

Constitutionalism is a lost cause today.  We’ve endured almost seven miserable years of domination by a vile president and a Democratic Party who have undermined our constitution at every step to undermine our society along every front. Supposed conservatives have won election after election, but the few who have tried to work within and uphold the constitution have failed miserably from enemies both inside and outside of the party.

How can one side who plays by the rules defeat the other side who constantly cheats, especially when the referees and even some of the first team’s members are working on the side of the cheaters?

There is only one way to defeat such people: by sheer, brute force.

And Rand Paul’s message of libertarianism not only won’t cut it, it would seem to reinforce the social disasters of homosexual marriage and legalized drugs and even worse forms of degeneracy that are plaguing us today.

via Free Republic via NPR:

Four years ago, libertarians were an important force in the Republican presidential race. In the campaign for the 2012 nomination, Ron Paul was routinely drawing big crowds on college campuses.

He made a strong third-place showing in Iowa’s important first-in-the-nation caucuses. Even though he failed to win the 2012 nomination, his supporters continued to organize, drawing attention to their small-government beliefs and taking over control of much of the Republican Party of Iowa for a time.

Many observers thought so-called “liberty movement” candidates might have an edge in 2016. But for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the heir apparent to the liberty movement in Iowa, that hasn’t panned out.

[. . .]

In a campaign year that has seen so much outsider success, Strawn, the GOP strategist and former Iowa party chair, says it’s surprising the Paul brand hasn’t had more resonance. He calls Ron Paul, who was known for pushing back against the party establishment, the “original outsider.”

“I called it in 2012, as I would encounter some of these individuals around the state, that it was really the ‘rage against the machine vote,’ ” Strawn said. “They were just angry; didn’t want anything to do with the political class, the political establishment — they wanted to burn it down and figure out how to build it up later. Now you have some other candidates that are talking like that on the Republican side.”

Four years later, there are even more Republican voters who want to burn the system down. And unfortunately for Rand Paul, there are lots of bigger personalities with more fiery messages promising to do just that.

Read more at NPR.

Dan Phillips – People Who Value Decorum and Courtesy Scorn Trump’s Brashness and Aggression


. . . Certain political commentators, of which Murray is an example, undertake their commentary in a very high minded and serious manner, and they likewise take the political process very seriously. For these folks, Trump, who does not play by the normal rules of decorum, is an affront to the process and should be opposed on those grounds alone. Opposition to Trump seems to be to them a defense of the very system, and if it signals anything it is this seriousness and respect for the process aspect as much as anything else.

This sort of visceral opposition to Trump could come from the left, the right or the center. I believe it reflects to some extent the old money vs. new money distinction, both actually and metaphorically. While Trump did not come from a poor family, his family wasn’t that rich, so Trump behaves like new money – the brashness, the ostentatiousness, the conspicuous consumption, etc. As I mentioned in another article, I think a lot of Trump’s presentation and appeal is that he is in essence just a guy from Queens who made good for himself, and who may still have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Trump’s Flyover Country supporters see a kindred spirit who happens to be a billionaire, but for those significantly concerned with propriety, they see an intolerably boorish lout. 

While this opposition could come from all points on the political spectrum, it presents a particular dilemma for high minded sorts of a traditionalist and conservative bent. Traditionalists and conservatives have always placed great emphasis on manners and codes of behavior, for good reason. Such things foster good order and are inherently conservative in the most basic sense of the word.

Read more at TraditionalRIGHT

Matt Parrott – White Identity Politics vs. Libertarianism


. . . 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

Full Text of the Federal Threat Letter Sent to States that Refuse Syrian “Refugees”


Resettlement of Syrian Refugees

Dear Colleague Letter 16-02

Published: November 25, 2015

Dear Colleague,

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) remains committed to serving some of the world’s most vulnerable people, those seeking refuge in the United States. ORR’s role, which is a collaborative effort with you, the states, local governments, resettlement agencies and community-based organizations, is to help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency and integration as quickly as possible after they arrive in the United States so they can begin new lives free from war, persecution and conflict.

We appreciate the continued strong commitment that many state and local leaders have expressed for the U.S. resettlement program and pledge to work with all states implementing the President’s plan to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States in FY 2016.

ORR is aware that state and local leaders, including some governors, have expressed concern about the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. In light of these concerns, we note that the resettlement process begins with the work of our federal agency partners in screening and vetting refugees. All refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States, a multi-layered and intensive screening and vetting process involving multiple law enforcement, national security, and intelligence agencies across the Federal Government. Syrian refugees are subject to even more precautions than other refugees. It is the most robust screening process for any category of individuals seeking admissions into the United States, and it is only after admission that ORR and our partners in resettlement begin our work.

The Refugee Act of 1980 requires states to provide “assistance and services . . . to refugees without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §1522(a)(5). Through the state plan process, states and ORR agree on the resettlement activities in each state. Consistent with the Refugee Act, state plans must include an assurance that “assistance and services funded under the plan will be provided to refugees without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion.”  45 CFR §400.5(g).  States must certify that their state plan is current and continues in effect each fiscal year.  See 45 CFR §400.4.

States that continue to use ORR funding must ensure that assistance and services are delivered without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion. States may not deny ORR-funded benefits and services to refugees based on a refugee’s country of origin or religious affiliation. Accordingly, states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees.  Any state with such a policy would not be in compliance with the state plan requirements, applicable statutes, and their own assurances, and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension or termination.  In addition to these authorities, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, prohibits discrimination on the bases of race and national origin in all programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Thus, it is not permissible to deny federally funded benefits such as Medicaid or TANF to refugees who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.

ORR is committed to ensuring that all refugees receive the assistance and services vital to achieving their potential in the United States and becoming self-sufficient, integrated members of our communities. You play an important role in the refugee resettlement program. We will continue to consult with you closely in the implementation of the program and to allay any concerns you may have about the program. We look forward to continuing our partnership with you.

Robert Carey, Director
Office of Refugee Resettlement

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


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

The Washington Post Article from 2001 that Verifies Trump’s Claim of Muslims in NJ Who Celebrated 9/11


Or somewhat verifies anyhow. No reference to “thousands and thousands”, but a bit of rhetorical exaggeration isn’t unusual for a presidential candidate.

via Canada Free Press, via HotAir.com, via Twitter, via the Washington Post:

In Jersey City, an urban enclave of 240,055 people that is home to one of the largest Arab populations among U.S. cities, members of that Middle Eastern community said they are being unfairly targeted and misunderstood by the FBI.

“First of all, I think the people [convicted] of the bombing of the World Trade Center were innocent. . . . The Muslims are an easy way out, especially when you don’t know who committed the act,” said Essam Abouhamer, director of the Altawheed Islam Center. “The message of Islam is to be peaceful with yourself and others.”

Hasam Ibrahim, 37, who came to the United States 16 years ago from Egypt and owns a limousine company in Jersey City, said he and others in similar circumstances moved here in search of better lives and are proud to be Americans.

“It is impossible,” he said of suggestions that a terrorist cell in or around Jersey City may have helped plot the deadly attacks last week. “People here from the Middle East just want to work and have good lives. I love the United States. I eat in the United States. I earn money in the United States, and my children go to schools in the United States. A lot of people in this Arab community feel like me.”

Investigators said at least two of the hijackers, Nawaq Al Hamzi and Salem Al Hamzi, are believed to have had addresses in Wayne and Fort Lee. They apparently rented a mail box in Fort Lee, at Mail Boxes Etc.

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

Read more at the Washington Post

Pro Libertate – Donald Trump’s Presidential “Heel Turn”


While I cautiously support Trump, I can’t help but find the base simplicity of his sentences somewhat irritating. His rhetoric often lacks depth. Perhaps some of this can be explained by his history at the WWE.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign makes perfect sense once it is understood to be the political equivalent of what is called a “heel turn” in professional wrestling.

In 2007, before becoming a “reality TV” star in his own right, Trump was cast by World Wrestling Entertainment for a major role in an extended storyline that culminated in Wrestlemania 23. The climax of that pay-per-view event was a proxy battle between wrestlers representing Trump and WWE Chairman Vince McMahon. The victor would shave the loser’s head in the center ring.

A standard-issue bout of scripted, artfully choreographed mayhem ensued, during which Trump executed a cheap-shot, blind-side tackle of McMahon. After Trump’s surrogate emerged victorious, he gleefully inflicted a humiliating tonsure on his rival – the only authentic injury inflicted during the entire affair.

Every pro wrestling persona embodies a marketable “angle.” The WWE character called Donald Trump © was a narcissistic billionaire blowhard who was supposedly tough enough to do what was necessary to bring down the “establishment.” Although he was clearly the fan favorite, Trump didn’t choose to be a “face” – that is, a good guy –because “heels” are always more popular.

Eight years later, Trump has resurrected his WWE character for use in the Republican presidential primaries, which are every bit as farcical as– albeit immeasurably more harmful than — the steroid-saturated soap opera called pro “wrestling.”

Read more at Pro Libertate

DC Whispers – Trump Dominates Latest Poll – Leads All Candidates By 20+ Points

Not that polls are worth much. But it’s always nice to see that Trump hasn’t sunk because of his latest outrage.

He was supposed to be forced out of the race long ago according to Establishment Republican plans, and yet Donald Trump not only remains, he remains leading the GOP nomination race – and by a wide margin.

Time Frame: NOV 13, 2015NOV 17, 2015 (5 Day Rolling)

November 17, 2015

  • Businessman Donald Trump 36%
  • Surgeon and author Ben Carson 14.6%
  • Fla. Sen. Marco Rubio 11.5%
  • Tex. Sen. Ted Cruz 7.8%
  • Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush 6.8%
  • Wouldn’t vote 6.7%
  • Ken. Sen. Rand Paul 4.0%
  • Former Sen. candidate and business executive Carly Fiorina 2.9%
  • Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee 2.9%
  • Ohio Gov. John Kasich 2.5%
  • NJ Gov. Chris Christie 2.3%
  • Former Penn. Sen. Rick Santorum 0.8%
  • La. Gov. Bobby Jindal 0.6%
  • Former NY Gov. George Pataki 0.4%
  • SC Sen. Lindsey Graham 0.3%
  • Former Va. Gov. Jim Gilmore 0.0%

A twenty-point lead over your nearest competitor less than 90 days before actual primary voting begins is undeniably significant.

To emphasize that fact, it should be noted you can add together the support of the next three candidates COMBINED and it still reflects a number that is less than Trump’s current support among Republican voters.

Read more at DC Whispers

  • July 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
%d bloggers like this: