By Prince George’s County Ex-Pat
“Authorities say he is a male nearly 6 feet tall, weighing between 180 and 200 pounds. He is an unknown race, and was wearing a full face mask.”
Two students interviewed, and neither one's a white guy.
And the perps?
Negroes, obviously.
Had the perps been white, then the “reporter” would have said so.
Security guard in critical condition after being shot at UMUC in College Park
wjla.com
"It was a chaotic scene on the edge of campus. A security guard from the University of Maryland Inn and conference center was laying critically wounded in an ambulance…shot by gunmen fleeing with stolen safes. This was an attempted armed robbery, and robber..."
Tuesday, September 06, 2016
The Higher Learning: University of Maryland Shooting: Unarmed Security Guard Shot by Raceless Robbers is in Critical Condition
By Prince George’s County Ex-Pat
University of Maryland security guard in critical condition after shooting
By Dana Hedgpeth
September 6 at 8:33 A.M.
Washington Post
A security guard at the University of Maryland was shot early Tuesday near its College Park campus during a possible commercial armed robbery, university police said.
At least one suspect was still at large, they said.
Officials said the security guard was shot in the arm and taken to an area hospital, where he is in critical condition.
The incident happened around 2 a.m. near the University College campus, which is near the large campus for mostly undergraduate students at the University of Maryland College Park. UMUC has a hotel and conference center, which is used for meetings and some of its graduate and night classes.
Chief David B. Mitchell of the University of Maryland police department, said at a morning news conference that it is believed the two men went into the facility and stole some safes. Some of the safes, which police said were portable, were found tossed across the street.
Mitchell said it is not immediately clear how the two men got into the facility.
He said the security guard was not armed at the time of the incident. He described the guard as a “tremendous fellow,” whom the department knows. The guard’s name wasn’t released but Mitchell said he had worked at the facility for some time.
“We pray for his recovery,” Mitchell said.
University of Maryland security guard in critical condition after shooting
By Dana Hedgpeth
September 6 at 8:33 A.M.
Washington Post
A security guard at the University of Maryland was shot early Tuesday near its College Park campus during a possible commercial armed robbery, university police said.
At least one suspect was still at large, they said.
Officials said the security guard was shot in the arm and taken to an area hospital, where he is in critical condition.
The incident happened around 2 a.m. near the University College campus, which is near the large campus for mostly undergraduate students at the University of Maryland College Park. UMUC has a hotel and conference center, which is used for meetings and some of its graduate and night classes.
Chief David B. Mitchell of the University of Maryland police department, said at a morning news conference that it is believed the two men went into the facility and stole some safes. Some of the safes, which police said were portable, were found tossed across the street.
Mitchell said it is not immediately clear how the two men got into the facility.
He said the security guard was not armed at the time of the incident. He described the guard as a “tremendous fellow,” whom the department knows. The guard’s name wasn’t released but Mitchell said he had worked at the facility for some time.
“We pray for his recovery,” Mitchell said.
The Last Political Will and Testament of Phyllis Schlafly (Pat Buchanan)
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Trump and the Hillarycons
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Monday - September 5, 2016 at 10:47 p.m.
Buchanan.org
In 1964, Phyllis Schlafly of Alton, Illinois, mother of six, wrote and published a slim volume entitled “A Choice Not an Echo.”
Backing the candidacy of Sen. Barry Goldwater, the book was a polemic against the stranglehold the eastern liberal establishment had held on the Republican nomination for decades.
Schlafly went on to lead the campaign to derail the Equal Rights Amendment, which, with 35 states having ratified, was just three states short of being added to our Constitution.
Pro-ERA forces never added another state. Phyllis, who, at 20 was testing weapons at a munitions plant in World War II, shot it dead.
At 92, the founder of Eagle Forum has a new book out, published by Regnery. “The Conservative Case for Trump,” co-authored by Ed Martin of Eagle Forum and Brett Decker, argues that the Donald is an authentic conservative around whom every conservative should rally.
Yet, in making their cogent case, Schlafly and her co-authors raise questions that today bedevil the movement.
What does conservatism mean in 2016? Upon what ideas and issues, principles and policies, do conservatives still agree?
“In my father’s house there are many mansions,” the Bible tells us. So it is in the house divided that is the American Right.
Each of the chapters in “The Conservative Case for Trump” is devoted to Donald Trump’s stand on a major issue of the campaign. And on most of the issues selected, almost all conservatives agree.
Trump believes Antonin Scalia is the gold standard for Supreme Court justices and federal judges, and that among the indispensable cures for decrepit and failing public schools is competition from private, religious and charter schools.
A businessman and builder, Trump has confronted the onus of federal overregulation that stifles enterprise and kills jobs. With most conservatives, he believes in a U.S. military second to none.
Some Republicans, however, part with Trump on his contempt for political correctness, his refusal to observe strictures on debate laid down by our ruling elites, and his rejection of their claims to moral authority with his airy dismissals of their demands for apologies.
Part of Trump’s populist appeal is that, by his rebellious stand, he appears to challenge the very legitimacy of the regime. Thus those most disgusted with the establishment cheer him loudest.
On immigration, Trump shares the alarm of a Middle America that sees its country being irretrievably altered by an invasion from across our border. He has no hesitancy in urging tough methods to secure the borders and send back those who disrespect our laws.
This offends the sensibilities of many Republicans. And, indeed, it contradicts a core dogma of the “conservatism” preached at The Wall Street Journal.
Years ago, when some of us first took up the border crisis, the Journal, under editorial page editor Robert Bartley, called for a new five-word constitutional amendment — “There shall be open borders.”
The Journal anticipated John Kerry who just told the graduating class at Northeastern University, “You are about to graduate into … a borderless world.” Is John Kerry a Wall Street Journal conservative?
Chapter two of Schafly’s book deals with Trump’s stance on the trade deals of recent decades — NAFTA, MFN for China, the South Korea deal and, the daddy of them all, the TPP.
Chapter title: “Rotten trade Deals.” Yet, all of these trade deals had the support of the Party of Bush I and Bush II.
Trump has spoken out against crusades for democracy, nation-building abroad and unnecessary wars — especially Iraq in 2003.
And what was the official “conservative” stand on Iraq in 2003?
William F. Buckley’s National Review attacked the libertarian and traditionalist right that opposed invading Iraq on such flimsy pretexts as — “unpatriotic conservatives” who “hate their country.”
“This is a binary election,” John Bolton is quoted in Phyllis’ book. “[N]ot voting” for Trump is “functionally … a vote for Hillary.”
Yet that is where some conservative and neocon columnists and scores of foreign policy veterans of the GOP, and ex-Presidents Bush I and II, and 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney are heading.
Three of Trump’s rivals for the nomination — Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and John Kasich — who held up their hand and pledged to support the nominee, appear about to dishonor their pledge.
But what is conservative about rendering aid and comfort to the presidential ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton?
As for the issues on where the right is split, interventionism is born of Wilson and FDR; noninterventionism is of Taft, Ike and Reagan.
Free trade as dogma comes out of the Party of Wilson and FDR, not the Party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
Ike sent a general to secure the border and send illegal immigrants home. Yet self-described conservatives like the Bushes and McCains join hands with the Clintons and Obamas to call for amnesty.
“The Conservative Case for Trump” is a splendid little book by the first lady of American Conservatism.
The Hillarycons now owe it to us to make their case.
See Hillary Clinton’s Second Violent Coughing Fit Yesterday, Aboard Her Plane—but All Questions About Her Health are a Conspiracy Theory! Just Ask CNN!
[Previously, at WEJB/NSU, on a previous Hillary Clinton coughing fit the same day:
“‘Conspiracy Theory’? Watch This Video of Hillary Clinton Suffering a Two-Minute-Long Coughing Fit Yesterday During a Stump Speech, and Tell Me She isn’t a Sick Woman; Not to Worry—NBC Nightly News and MSNBC News Covered for Her.”]
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
“‘Conspiracy Theory’? Watch This Video of Hillary Clinton Suffering a Two-Minute-Long Coughing Fit Yesterday During a Stump Speech, and Tell Me She isn’t a Sick Woman; Not to Worry—NBC Nightly News and MSNBC News Covered for Her.”]
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Conservative Giant Phyllis Schlafly Dies; She was 92
By Prince George’s County Ex-Pat
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly dies at 92
By Bradford Richardson
Monday, September 5, 2016
The Washington Times
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, best known as the leader of the opposition to the 1970s Equal Rights Amendment, died Monday at age 92.
Eagle Forum, the grass-roots organization Mrs. Schlafly founded and presided over until her death, said in an online statement that she had died at her home in St. Louis surrounded by family members.
“Rest in peace, Phyllis Schlafly. Wife, mother, grandmother, author, lawyer, tireless voice of grass-roots conservative activism,” said conservative columnist Michelle Malkin.
“A woman of valor, a formidable friend and adversary, an American patriot,” said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol.
A polymath and a political combatant whose adversaries included communists at the height of the Cold War and feminists emboldened by the sexual revolution, Mrs. Schlafly will best be remembered for almost single-handedly derailing the Equal Rights Amendment as it neared ratification.
The amendment was approved by Congress in 1972 and within a year was ratified by 30 states. But Mrs. Schlafly argued that it disadvantaged stay-at-home mothers compared with their working counterparts. She formed the Stop ERA movement and established state chapters dedicated to thwarting the amendment at the local level.
“Conspiracy Theory”? Watch This Video of Hillary Clinton Suffering a Two-Minute-Long Coughing Fit Yesterday During a Stump Speech, and Tell Me She isn’t a Sick Woman; Not to Worry—NBC Nightly News and MSNBC News Covered for Her
By Grand Rapids Anonymous
In a follow up, guess who DIDN'T mention one word of the coughing attack? If you said, “NBC’s Negro Nightly News”—you'd win today’s prize (Hall’s Cherry Cough Drops).
In fact, it was a full blown “assault on Trump” day, as first Andrea Mitchell and then, Katy Tur, took turns trying to boost HRC up and simultaneously reporting on new Trump whisperings-as fact, “She had a press conference on her airplane,” gushed Mitchell, without reporting that a coughing fit closed that show down prematurely.
Then Tur, with particular viciousness, had two minutes of Trump innuendo and opinion, all under the pretense of factual news.
Lesta Holt took the day off today, but the bias shown on a regular basis during this “news”cast did not.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 12:36:00 A.M. EDT
ZeroHedge
MSNBC Cuts Live Coverage As Hillary Has “One of the Worst Coughing Fits Ever” - Blames “Seasonal Allergies”
“Unfortunately for Hillary, her earlier coughing fit was not a lone wolf attack. Right in the middle of her ‘Russia-Trump Conspiracy’ lecture to reporters aboard her plane, she was forced to cut short her story by another ‘seasonal allergy” attack (odd, aboard was likely a heavily filtered air cabin), retreating to the safety of the front seats with the the reappearance of her African-American ‘handler’ once again. Upon her return she explained that ‘we went back and checked and this happens to me every Labor Day.’ Which seems odd... one assumes that any ill-timed meeting of world-leaders will have to take place in a hermetically-sealed room from now on...
GRA: You HAVE to check the video clip of her on the plane, talking, coughing, and then disappearing for the rest of the flight-not to be seen again, until landing. Damned strange cough.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:01:00 A.M. EDT
Monday, September 05, 2016
Obama Delivers on Vow to "Bankrupt" Coal Industry - Chart of Mining Job Losses is Staggering
By Reader-Researcher RC
www.zerohedge.com
"Turns out politicians do occasionally keep their promises....which, in this particular case, is really unfortunate news for America's coal miners."
I'm sure unemployed coal miners have plenty of time to ruminate about who they are going to vote for in November.
That, and apply for public assistance.
At Zero Hedge.
www.zerohedge.com
"Turns out politicians do occasionally keep their promises....which, in this particular case, is really unfortunate news for America's coal miners."
I'm sure unemployed coal miners have plenty of time to ruminate about who they are going to vote for in November.
That, and apply for public assistance.
At Zero Hedge.
Hillary Clinton Just Threatened to Attack Russia and the Media Didn’t Even Report on It
By A Texas Reader
Hillary Threatens War with Russia
www.prisonplanet.com
Paul Joseph Watson | And the media doesn...
Hillary Threatens War with Russia
www.prisonplanet.com
Paul Joseph Watson | And the media doesn...
The White Man Behaving Badly: When the Media Emphasize Race
By Reader-Researcher AL
As has been noticed many times, this article specifically mentions the race of the alleged perp and the victim.
NOT afraid to say a white man killed a black youth.
"White Supremacist Who Ran Over Black Teen"
A black man killing a white youth is a "man killed a youth".
The verbal altercation is mentioned. The police are trying to determine
EXACTLY what happened.
You do not need to know EXACTLY what happened and never can know, anyhow.
Always too the verbal altercation or the "argument." The whitey man killed the negro this time. Whitey should behave better.
White Supremacist Who Ran Over Black Teen Charged With Hate Crime
The Grio ^ | 09/03/2016
Free Republic
Posted on 9/5/2016 4:26:27 PM by BenLurkin
Russell Courtier, an ex-con with a long rap sheet and his girlfriend, Colleen Hunt, have been charged with murder for the hit-and-run that occurred in August. Larnell Malik Bruce Jr., 19, was hit and killed in the incident.
Speaking to reporters Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Don Rees said that Courtier is linked to the white supremacist group European Kindred, which has been described by Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the most feared white supremacist gangs in the Pacific Northwest.”
The victim, Larnell Malik Bruce Jr., was charging his cellphone at a Gresham 7-Eleven on August 10, just before midnight when the couple pulled up. Courtier was behind the wheel of his red Jeep Wrangler.
That is when the two men got into a verbal altercation. Police are still trying to determine exactly what happened but they say that the men did not previously know each other.
As has been noticed many times, this article specifically mentions the race of the alleged perp and the victim.
NOT afraid to say a white man killed a black youth.
"White Supremacist Who Ran Over Black Teen"
A black man killing a white youth is a "man killed a youth".
The verbal altercation is mentioned. The police are trying to determine
EXACTLY what happened.
You do not need to know EXACTLY what happened and never can know, anyhow.
Always too the verbal altercation or the "argument." The whitey man killed the negro this time. Whitey should behave better.
White Supremacist Who Ran Over Black Teen Charged With Hate Crime
The Grio ^ | 09/03/2016
Free Republic
Posted on 9/5/2016 4:26:27 PM by BenLurkin
Russell Courtier, an ex-con with a long rap sheet and his girlfriend, Colleen Hunt, have been charged with murder for the hit-and-run that occurred in August. Larnell Malik Bruce Jr., 19, was hit and killed in the incident.
Speaking to reporters Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Don Rees said that Courtier is linked to the white supremacist group European Kindred, which has been described by Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the most feared white supremacist gangs in the Pacific Northwest.”
The victim, Larnell Malik Bruce Jr., was charging his cellphone at a Gresham 7-Eleven on August 10, just before midnight when the couple pulled up. Courtier was behind the wheel of his red Jeep Wrangler.
That is when the two men got into a verbal altercation. Police are still trying to determine exactly what happened but they say that the men did not previously know each other.
Daddy Dearest: Black Man Arrested, Charged with Shooting His 11-Year-Old Daughter to Death After Her First Day of School
By A Texas Reader
Police: Father fatally shot 11-year-old daughter after her first day of school
www.fox4news.com
"Police in Tennessee say the father of an 11-year-old girl who was fatally shot in a suburb north of Nashville has been arrested."
Narcissist, Openly Lesbian Soccer star Megan Rapinoe Follows Colin Kaepernick, in Kneeling for Anthem
By Reader-Researcher RC
Soccer star kneels during anthem in nod to Colin Kaepernick
www.usatoday.com
"Outspoken soccer star Megan Rapinoe said, 'It's the least I can do. Keep the conversation going.'"
She needs to be tossed from a minaret.
US Women Led by a Lesbian and a Lunatic | The Z Blog
thezman.com
"Imagine if the US men’s soccer team went into the World Cup led by a wife beater and a flamboyant homosexual. The news, of course, would be all about the ..."
Soccer star kneels during anthem in nod to Colin Kaepernick
www.usatoday.com
"Outspoken soccer star Megan Rapinoe said, 'It's the least I can do. Keep the conversation going.'"
She needs to be tossed from a minaret.
US Women Led by a Lesbian and a Lunatic | The Z Blog
thezman.com
"Imagine if the US men’s soccer team went into the World Cup led by a wife beater and a flamboyant homosexual. The news, of course, would be all about the ..."
Is Hillary Clinton at Death’s Door?
By Grand Rapids Anonymous
ABC News just reported that Hillary had a five-minute coughing fit on stage today, while campaigning in Ohio.
Phlegm at 11.
ABC News just reported that Hillary had a five-minute coughing fit on stage today, while campaigning in Ohio.
Phlegm at 11.
The Treason of the Conservatives: They Have Pushed the Republic to the Edge of a Cliff, and Ruthlessly Fight Against All Attempts to Save It
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
I thank the old friend who sent me this, writing,
The Flight 93 Election
By Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016
Claremont.org
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
To ordinary conservative ears, this sounds histrionic. The stakes can’t be that high because they are never that high—except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon. Conservative intellectuals will insist that there has been no “end of history” and that all human outcomes are still possible. They will even—as Charles Kesler does—admit that America is in “crisis.” But how great is the crisis? Can things really be so bad if eight years of Obama can be followed by eight more of Hillary, and yet Constitutionalist conservatives can still reasonably hope for a restoration of our cherished ideals? Cruz in 2024!
Not to pick (too much) on Kesler, who is less unwarrantedly optimistic than most conservatives. And who, at least, poses the right question: Trump or Hillary? Though his answer—“even if [Trump] had chosen his policies at random, they would be sounder than Hillary’s”—is unwarrantedly ungenerous. The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues—immigration, trade, and war—right from the beginning.
But let us back up. One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.
But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.
Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’ and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion. That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the quoted phrases are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.
Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.
Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.
Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.
If your answer—Continetti’s, Douthat’s, Salam’s, and so many others’—is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it.
They will say, in words reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism—but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented! To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions—above all welfare reform and crime control—have been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism that still engulfs our every—literal and figurative—shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your (our) victories are short-lived.
More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?
Only three questions matter. First, how bad are things really? Second, what do we do right now? Third, what should we do for the long term?
Conservatism, Inc.’s, “answer” to the first may, at this point, simply be dismissed. If the conservatives wish to have a serious debate, I for one am game—more than game; eager. The problem of “subjective certainty” can only be overcome by going into the agora. But my attempt to do so—the blog that Kesler mentions—was met largely with incredulity. How can they say that! How can anyone apparently of our caste (conservative intellectuals) not merely support Trump (however lukewarmly) but offer reasons for doing do?
One of the Journal of American Greatness’s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.
As does, presumably, the argument that the stakes in 2016 are—everything. I should here note that I am a good deal gloomier than my (former) JAG colleagues, and that while we frequently used the royal “we” when discussing things on which we all agreed, I here speak only for myself.
How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.
All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.
A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.
It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.
So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys—and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil any more and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.
If you haven’t noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them. Call ours Hannibalic victories. After the Carthaginian’s famous slaughter of a Roman army at Cannae, he failed to march on an undefended Rome, prompting his cavalry commander to complain: “you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one.” And, aside from 2004’s lackluster 50.7%, we can’t win the big ones at all.
Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our “leaders” and “dissenters” bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten dogs have more thymos.
Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and Constitutional niceties. Because they are.
It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?
Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.” For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their “natural conservatism” at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will. But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!
This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.
Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.
Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.
Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?
Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say ... “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.
Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.
But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.
By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working lower middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.
Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.
And if it doesn’t work, what then? We’ve established that most “conservative” anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian sense objectively pro-Hillary. What about the rest of you? If you recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can’t stomach him, have you thought about the longer term? The possibilities would seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see … which, since nothing human lasts forever, at some point will give way to one of the other three. Oh, and, I suppose, for those who like to pour a tall one and dream big, a second American Revolution that restores Constitutionalism, limited government, and a 28% top marginal rate.
But for those of you who are sober: can you sketch a more plausible long-term future than the prior four following a Trump defeat? I can’t either.
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtú left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.
I thank the old friend who sent me this, writing,
There are a few links embedded in the original.
The Flight 93 Election
By Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016
Claremont.org
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
To ordinary conservative ears, this sounds histrionic. The stakes can’t be that high because they are never that high—except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon. Conservative intellectuals will insist that there has been no “end of history” and that all human outcomes are still possible. They will even—as Charles Kesler does—admit that America is in “crisis.” But how great is the crisis? Can things really be so bad if eight years of Obama can be followed by eight more of Hillary, and yet Constitutionalist conservatives can still reasonably hope for a restoration of our cherished ideals? Cruz in 2024!
Not to pick (too much) on Kesler, who is less unwarrantedly optimistic than most conservatives. And who, at least, poses the right question: Trump or Hillary? Though his answer—“even if [Trump] had chosen his policies at random, they would be sounder than Hillary’s”—is unwarrantedly ungenerous. The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues—immigration, trade, and war—right from the beginning.
But let us back up. One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.
But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.
Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’ and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion. That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the quoted phrases are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.
Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.
Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.
Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.
If your answer—Continetti’s, Douthat’s, Salam’s, and so many others’—is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it.
They will say, in words reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism—but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented! To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions—above all welfare reform and crime control—have been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism that still engulfs our every—literal and figurative—shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your (our) victories are short-lived.
More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?
Only three questions matter. First, how bad are things really? Second, what do we do right now? Third, what should we do for the long term?
Conservatism, Inc.’s, “answer” to the first may, at this point, simply be dismissed. If the conservatives wish to have a serious debate, I for one am game—more than game; eager. The problem of “subjective certainty” can only be overcome by going into the agora. But my attempt to do so—the blog that Kesler mentions—was met largely with incredulity. How can they say that! How can anyone apparently of our caste (conservative intellectuals) not merely support Trump (however lukewarmly) but offer reasons for doing do?
One of the Journal of American Greatness’s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.
As does, presumably, the argument that the stakes in 2016 are—everything. I should here note that I am a good deal gloomier than my (former) JAG colleagues, and that while we frequently used the royal “we” when discussing things on which we all agreed, I here speak only for myself.
How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.
All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.
A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.
It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.
So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys—and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil any more and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.
If you haven’t noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them. Call ours Hannibalic victories. After the Carthaginian’s famous slaughter of a Roman army at Cannae, he failed to march on an undefended Rome, prompting his cavalry commander to complain: “you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one.” And, aside from 2004’s lackluster 50.7%, we can’t win the big ones at all.
Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our “leaders” and “dissenters” bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten dogs have more thymos.
Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and Constitutional niceties. Because they are.
It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?
Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.” For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their “natural conservatism” at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will. But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!
This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.
Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.
Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.
Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?
Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say ... “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.
Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.
But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.
By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working lower middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.
Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.
And if it doesn’t work, what then? We’ve established that most “conservative” anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian sense objectively pro-Hillary. What about the rest of you? If you recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can’t stomach him, have you thought about the longer term? The possibilities would seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see … which, since nothing human lasts forever, at some point will give way to one of the other three. Oh, and, I suppose, for those who like to pour a tall one and dream big, a second American Revolution that restores Constitutionalism, limited government, and a 28% top marginal rate.
But for those of you who are sober: can you sketch a more plausible long-term future than the prior four following a Trump defeat? I can’t either.
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtú left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.
Sunday, September 04, 2016
Read About this Old Fool: 60-Year-Old White New Yorker Gets Suckered in Green Card Scam by Trinidadian Beauty Queen
By Reader-Researcher AL
At the New York Post.
Racist, Black Career Criminal, Raymond Lindsey Jr., 46, was Offered a Sweet Deal—Time Served (19 Months) for Assaulting a Policeman, Multiple Counts of Threatening to Murder Individual Policemen, but Chose to Roll the Dice, and Got Sentenced to 40 Years; Now, He Says He’s the victim of a “Conspiracy”!
When You’re Black, Life is a Win-Win Proposition: First, You Chase Automakers Out of Detroit, and Then Out of the Country; Now, Donald Trump is Pandering to Black Voters in Detroit, to Reward Them for Their Evil, and Exact “Retribution” Against Automakers for What Blacks Have Wrought!
By Reader-Researcher RC
“Detroit — Donald Trump says his proposed tariff on Mexican-built vehicles and parts would serve as ‘retribution’ against Ford Motor Co. and other automakers that move production south of the border.”
Trump: Tax on Mexican-built cars seeks “retribution”
www.detroitnews.com
"Donald Trump said his proposed tariff on Mexican-built vehicles would be 'retribution' against automakers that move jobs..."
Hmmong? Career Violent Criminal and Convicted Serial Rapist and Sex Slaver of Children, Thong Vang, 37, Shot Two Sheriff’s Deputies in Lobby of Fresno County Jail; Both Victims are in Critical Condition
By Reader-Researcher RC
“The suspect was identified as Thong Vang, 37, of Fresno, a convicted rapist with a long history of violent criminal behavior. Mims said he entered the lobby just after 8:30 a.m., saying he was there to visit someone. Vang tried to go to the front of the line…”
Armed felon critically wounds 2 officers in Fresno County Jail lobby
www.fresnobee.com
"Two Fresno County correctional officers were shot and critically injured during a shooting Saturday morning in the jail lobby. Officers Juanita Davila and Toamalama Scanlan were identified as the wounded officers, and a convicted rapist with a violent criminal past, Thong Vang, was identified as the shooter."
Monster Thong Vang: Even before he shot Fresno County Sheriff's Deputies Davila and Scanlan, no punishment meted out to him could possibly be considered "cruel and unusual." By the way, we at WEJB/NSU do not generalize about the Hmong, and exercise the greatest care in discussing them. We realize that not all Hmong are sex-slaving, serial rapists of children who moonlight as would-be cop-killers. Most are content to be otherwise law-abiding drug dealers and gangbangers.
The Canonization of Mother Teresa
By Nicholas Stix
Pope Francis sanctified Mother Teresa with the holiest words he knows: In the name of Marx, Engels, and Lenin…
Saturday, September 03, 2016
Donald Trump Grieves for the Philadelphia He Once Knew: "I Know the City so Well, Because I went to College Here, but It's Very Sad to See What's Going on Inside Philadelphia," the Wharton School Graduate Told the Inquirer in an Interview. "It's Gotten so Much Worse than When I was Going. It's Dangerous..."
By Reader-Researcher RC
Trump: "Sad to see what's going on inside Philadelphia"
www.philly.com
"Donald Trump said here Friday that Philadelphia reflects the dire straits of major American cities, leaving African Americans with poor schools, unsafe neighborhoods, and a lack of jobs."
Chicago is "gritty."
Philly is "vibrant."
'Nuff said.
Trump: "Sad to see what's going on inside Philadelphia"
www.philly.com
"Donald Trump said here Friday that Philadelphia reflects the dire straits of major American cities, leaving African Americans with poor schools, unsafe neighborhoods, and a lack of jobs."
Chicago is "gritty."
Philly is "vibrant."
'Nuff said.
Never Underestimate the Role of Pettiness in Human Affairs! CNN’s HLN Division Runs Story on Trump-Supporting Lawman Who Saved Life of Baby Whose Mother Locked Her in a Burning Hot Car, but Blurs Out the Trump Symbol on His T-Shirt!
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
A tip 'o the hate to Hotair.
Trump, Uncensored
Trump, Censored
Both videos published on Aug 31, 2016 by Becket Adams.
A tip 'o the hate to Hotair.
Trump, Uncensored
Trump, Censored
Both videos published on Aug 31, 2016 by Becket Adams.
Washington, D.C.: Two-Year-Old White Girl is Issued a Ticket for Littering!
By Prince George’s County Ex-Pat
2-year-old girl ticketed for littering in D.C.
"It all started with an envelope, found in an alley off West Virginia Avenue, in Northeast Washington. In that same alley, piles of garbage were left behind by illegal dumpers. The name on the envelope? Harper Westover, who’s just two years old. 'Put some comm..."
1710 W Virginia Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | Trulia
www.trulia.com
"Recently sold 671 sqft condo. Prepare for your home search with real estate comps and photos. View photos, get neighborhood trends, and see similar homes."
You know it was some low-level, Negro functionary, who wrote the citation.
Probably knew that Whitey lived there.
2-year-old girl ticketed for littering in D.C.
"It all started with an envelope, found in an alley off West Virginia Avenue, in Northeast Washington. In that same alley, piles of garbage were left behind by illegal dumpers. The name on the envelope? Harper Westover, who’s just two years old. 'Put some comm..."
1710 W Virginia Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | Trulia
www.trulia.com
"Recently sold 671 sqft condo. Prepare for your home search with real estate comps and photos. View photos, get neighborhood trends, and see similar homes."
You know it was some low-level, Negro functionary, who wrote the citation.
Probably knew that Whitey lived there.
Longtime Critic of Democidal Open Borders Complains, “To be an Immigration Restrictionist Today is to Reside in a Political Groundhog Day, Where Sensible Enforcement Strategies of Yesteryear Have Disappeared into a Black Hole”
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
To those familiar with, or who are members of the movement to save America through enforcing existing immigration laws, and restoring policies and laws that serve America’s vital interests, rather than those of plutocrats and foreign criminals, Brenda Walker. I’m proud to have rubbed elbows with Brenda as a longtime VDARE contributor (me, since 2004, she since, forever, i.e., 2000), at the occasional immigration policy conference, and to have religiously read her articles on immigration and crime, immigration and the environment, immigration and the abuse of girls and women since I’ve had a modem (2000), as well as her new beat, the elimination of American jobs through robotics.
She sent the following letter “a couple days prior to Trump’s immigration speech”:
Exit the way you entered
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES - - Thursday, September 1, 2016
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
To be an immigration restrictionist today is to reside in a political Groundhog Day where sensible enforcement strategies of yesteryear have disappeared into a black hole. According to the press (and Donald Trump), there are only two choices for dealing with illegal aliens: Round them up to be deported or allow the long-termers — those with anchor babies and lengthy periods of job thievery — to stay. Really?
Instead, why not turn up the heat on existing programs, such as e-Verify, to make illegals’ lives so difficult that they are forced to leave on their own, the same way they got here?
Mitt Romney was roundly criticized for suggesting illegals “self-deport.” Apparently it was too sensible a suggestion for mainstream media to abide. But Mr. Romney was right: Deportation expenses for job thieves shouldn’t fall on American taxpayers.
Behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner taught us that negative reinforcement reduces undesirable behaviors, but America’s current practice of rewarding illegals with jobs, food stamps and first-world healthcare trains them to sit and stay. Democrats apparently want culturally big-government foreigners to remain and vote.
After decades of permissiveness, the government must demonstrate seriousness about immigration enforcement if we are to ever again imagine ourselves as “a nation of laws.”
BRENDA WALKER
To those familiar with, or who are members of the movement to save America through enforcing existing immigration laws, and restoring policies and laws that serve America’s vital interests, rather than those of plutocrats and foreign criminals, Brenda Walker. I’m proud to have rubbed elbows with Brenda as a longtime VDARE contributor (me, since 2004, she since, forever, i.e., 2000), at the occasional immigration policy conference, and to have religiously read her articles on immigration and crime, immigration and the environment, immigration and the abuse of girls and women since I’ve had a modem (2000), as well as her new beat, the elimination of American jobs through robotics.
She sent the following letter “a couple days prior to Trump’s immigration speech”:
Exit the way you entered
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES - - Thursday, September 1, 2016
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
To be an immigration restrictionist today is to reside in a political Groundhog Day where sensible enforcement strategies of yesteryear have disappeared into a black hole. According to the press (and Donald Trump), there are only two choices for dealing with illegal aliens: Round them up to be deported or allow the long-termers — those with anchor babies and lengthy periods of job thievery — to stay. Really?
Instead, why not turn up the heat on existing programs, such as e-Verify, to make illegals’ lives so difficult that they are forced to leave on their own, the same way they got here?
Mitt Romney was roundly criticized for suggesting illegals “self-deport.” Apparently it was too sensible a suggestion for mainstream media to abide. But Mr. Romney was right: Deportation expenses for job thieves shouldn’t fall on American taxpayers.
Behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner taught us that negative reinforcement reduces undesirable behaviors, but America’s current practice of rewarding illegals with jobs, food stamps and first-world healthcare trains them to sit and stay. Democrats apparently want culturally big-government foreigners to remain and vote.
After decades of permissiveness, the government must demonstrate seriousness about immigration enforcement if we are to ever again imagine ourselves as “a nation of laws.”
BRENDA WALKER
A Heartbreaking Performance of a Heartbreaking Song: Harry Belafonte Singing “Scarlet Ribbons”
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
I know. You don’t have to tell me. But that’s what compartmentalization is for. Otherwise, you’d only be able to enjoy a work of art, if you knew nothing about its creator or performer. I study not only politicians and writers, but artists, too, and so much of the time, to know them, is to hate them.
I know. You don’t have to tell me. But that’s what compartmentalization is for. Otherwise, you’d only be able to enjoy a work of art, if you knew nothing about its creator or performer. I study not only politicians and writers, but artists, too, and so much of the time, to know them, is to hate them.
Arrest New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio! Communist Politician Celebrates Breaking of Federal Law; Claims It is a “Fiction”
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Hire more illegals: Blas
By Michael Gartland
2 Sep 2016
New York Post
[Via PressReader.com; no direct link that I could find.]
Mayor de Blasio thanked a Brooklyn man Thursday for hiring illegal immigrants [sic] and derided the nation’s immigration policies as “fiction.”
The mayor told the man, who had called into de Blasio’s show on WNYC radio, that “the entire government looks the other way all the time” when it comes to undocumented immigrants [sic].
The supermarket owner had said he was worried his employees were not legal.
“If someone is willing to work hard for you, you’re going to hire that person,” de Blasio responded.
[N.S.: He only says that because he knows the illegal alien in question is a non-white. Hard-working whites don’t count as human, in his book, unless they’re communists, like him.
There is no such thing as “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented immigrants.” Only people who entered through legal poets of entry with valid, legal visas and/or passports count as immigrants. The ludicrous phrase “undocumented immigrants” was invented by an illegal alien activist or a media operative. Under American immigration law, if one is not an (legal) immigrant, one is an illegal alien or a visa overstayer.]
Hire more illegals: Blas
By Michael Gartland
2 Sep 2016
New York Post
[Via PressReader.com; no direct link that I could find.]
Mayor de Blasio thanked a Brooklyn man Thursday for hiring illegal immigrants [sic] and derided the nation’s immigration policies as “fiction.”
The mayor told the man, who had called into de Blasio’s show on WNYC radio, that “the entire government looks the other way all the time” when it comes to undocumented immigrants [sic].
The supermarket owner had said he was worried his employees were not legal.
“If someone is willing to work hard for you, you’re going to hire that person,” de Blasio responded.
[N.S.: He only says that because he knows the illegal alien in question is a non-white. Hard-working whites don’t count as human, in his book, unless they’re communists, like him.
There is no such thing as “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented immigrants.” Only people who entered through legal poets of entry with valid, legal visas and/or passports count as immigrants. The ludicrous phrase “undocumented immigrants” was invented by an illegal alien activist or a media operative. Under American immigration law, if one is not an (legal) immigrant, one is an illegal alien or a visa overstayer.]
Friday, September 02, 2016
4 Illegal Alien Teenaged Girls (Plus One Other Invader) Killed, 27 Injured After Van Carrying Migrants Crashes Near Texas-Mexico Border
By A Texas Reader
4 Teen Girls Killed, 27 Injured After Van Carrying Migrants [sic] Crashes Near Texas-Mexico Border
"Five people were killed and 27 others were injured Tuesday when a van they were travelling in hit a curve and flipped over about 70 miles from the Texas border, according to Mexican media reports."
They'd still be alive if there was not the lure of an open border.
After all there are no fence jumpers at Fort Meade, home to the NSA.
U.S. Army Cyber Command - Home
"Our Mission. United States Army Cyber Command and Second Army directs and conducts integrated electronic warfare, information and cyberspace operations as ..."
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland | The United States Army
"The official homepage of Fort George G. Meade, Md., the nation's preeminent center for information, intelligence and cyber."
4 Teen Girls Killed, 27 Injured After Van Carrying Migrants [sic] Crashes Near Texas-Mexico Border
"Five people were killed and 27 others were injured Tuesday when a van they were travelling in hit a curve and flipped over about 70 miles from the Texas border, according to Mexican media reports."
They'd still be alive if there was not the lure of an open border.
After all there are no fence jumpers at Fort Meade, home to the NSA.
U.S. Army Cyber Command - Home
"Our Mission. United States Army Cyber Command and Second Army directs and conducts integrated electronic warfare, information and cyberspace operations as ..."
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland | The United States Army
"The official homepage of Fort George G. Meade, Md., the nation's preeminent center for information, intelligence and cyber."
The Speech: Donald Trump’s Complete, Wednesday, August 31, 2016 Speech on Immigration, Uncut (Video and Transcript)
[Of related interest, at WEJB/NSU: “Surrender by Any Other Name: Donald Trump’s Big Immigration Speech: ‘There Will be No Amnesty’ = There Will be an Amnesty.”]
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
A tip ‘o the hate to Sundance at The Last Refuge.
0:02 / 1:15:53
Full Speech: Donald Trump Immigration Speech in Phoenix, AZ (08/31/2016) Donald Trump Arizona Rally
Complete Transcript
- August 31, 2016 -
Donald J. Trump: Address on Immigration
Thank you, Phoenix. I am so glad to be back in Arizona, a state that has a very special place in my heart.
I love the people of Arizona and, together, we are going to win the White House in November.
Tonight is not going to be a normal rally speech.
Instead, I am going to deliver a detailed policy address on one of the greatest challenges facing our country today: immigration.
I have just landed having returned from a very important and special meeting with the President of Mexico – a man I like and respect very much, and a man who truly loves his country. Just like I am a man who loves the United States.
We agreed on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns and people across our border, and to put the cartels out of business.
We also discussed the great contributions of Mexican-American citizens to our two countries, my love for the people of Mexico, and the close friendship between our two nations.
It was a thoughtful and substantive conversation. This is the first of what I expect will be many conversations in a Trump Administration about creating a new relationship between our two countries.
But to fix our immigration system, we must change our leadership in Washington. There is no other way.
The truth is, our immigration system is worse than anyone realizes. But the facts aren’t known because the media won’t report on them, the politicians won’t talk about them, and the special interests spend a lot of money trying to cover them up.
Today you will get the truth.
The fundamental problem with the immigration system in our country is that it serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists and powerful politicians. Let me tell you who it doesn’t serve: it doesn’t serve you, the American people.
When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following: amnesty, open borders, and lower wages.
Immigration reform should mean something else entirely: it should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.
But if we are going to make our immigration system work, then we have to be prepared to talk honestly and without fear about these important and sensitive issues.
For instance, we have to listen to the concerns that working people have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills, and living conditions. These are valid concerns, expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds.
We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.
Then there is the issue of security. Countless innocent American lives have been stolen because our politicians have failed in their duty to secure our borders and enforce our laws.
I have met with many of the parents who lost their children to Sanctuary Cities and open borders. They will be joining me on the stage later today.
Countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not for the open border policies of this Administration. This includes incredible Americans like 21-year-old Sarah Root. The man who killed her arrived at the border, entered federal custody, and then was released into a U.S. community under the policies of this White House. He was released again after the crime, and is now at large.
Sarah had graduated from college with a 4.0, top of her class, the day before.
Also among the victims of the Obama-Clinton open borders policies was Grant Ronnebeck, a 21 year-old convenience store clerk in Mesa, Arizona. He was murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member previously convicted of burglary who had also been released from Federal Custody.
Another victim is Kate Steinle, gunned down in the Sanctuary City of San Francisco by an illegal immigrant deported five previous times.
Then there is the case of 90 year-old Earl Olander, who was brutally beaten and left to bleed to death in his home. The perpetrators were illegal immigrants with criminal records who did not meet the Obama Administration’s priorities for removal.
In California, a 64 year-old Air Force Veteran, Marilyn Pharis, was sexually assaulted and beaten to death with a hammer. Her killer had been arrested on multiple occasions, but was never deported.
A 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office found that illegal immigrants and other non-citizens in our prisons and jails together had around 25,000 homicide arrests to their names.
On top of that, illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion dollars [sic] a year. For the money we are going to spend on illegal immigration over the next ten years, we could provide one million at-risk students with a school voucher.
While there are many illegal immigrants in our country who are good people, this doesn’t change the fact that most illegal immigrants are lower-skilled workers with less education who compete directly against vulnerable American workers, and that these illegal workers draw much more out from the system than they will ever pay in.
But these facts are never reported.
Instead, the media and my opponent discuss one thing, and only this one thing: the needs of people living here illegally.
The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants – or however many there may be.
That has never been the central issue. It will never be the central issue.
Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington.
Only out of touch media elites think the biggest problem facing American society today is that there are 11 million illegal immigrants who don’t have legal status.
To all the politicians, donors and special interests, hear these words from me today: there is only one core issue in the immigration debate and it is this: the well-being of the American people. Nothing even comes a close second.
Hillary Clinton, for instance, talks constantly about her fears that families will be separated. But she’s not talking about the American families who have been permanently separated from their loved ones because of a preventable death. No, she’s only talking about families who came here in violation of the law.
We will treat everyone living or residing in our country with dignity. We will be fair, just and compassionate to all. But our greatest compassion must be for American citizens.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders. President Obama and Hillary Clinton support Sanctuary Cities, they support catch-and-release on the border, they support visa overstays, they support the release of dangerous criminals from detention – and they support unconstitutional executive amnesty.
Hillary Clinton has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days, and her plan will provide Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare for illegal immigrants – breaking the federal budget. On top of that, she promises uncontrolled low-skilled immigration that continues to reduce jobs and wages for American workers, especially African-American and Hispanic workers. This includes her plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees in a four-year term.
Now that you’ve heard about Hillary Clinton’s plan – about which she has not answered a single substantive question – let me tell you about my plan.
While Hillary Clinton meets only with donors and lobbyists, my plan was crafted with the input from federal immigration officers, along with top immigration experts who represent workers, not corporations. I also worked with lawmakers who’ve led on this issue on behalf of American citizens for many years, and most importantly, I’ve met with the people directly impacted by these policies.
Number One: We will build a wall along the Southern Border.
On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border. We will use the best technology, including above-and below-ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels, and keep out the criminal cartels, and Mexico will pay for the wall.
Number Two: End Catch-And-Release
Under my Administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.
Number Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.
According to federal data, there are at least 2 million criminal aliens now inside the country. We will begin moving them out day one, in joint operations with local, state and federal law enforcement.
Beyond the 2 million, there are a vast number of additional criminal illegal immigrants who have fled or evaded justice. But their days on the run will soon be over. They go out, and they go out fast.
Moving forward, we will issue detainers for all illegal immigrants who are arrested for any crime whatsoever, and they will be placed into immediate removal proceedings. We will terminate the Obama Administration’s deadly non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.
Since 2013 alone, the Obama Administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return back into U.S. communities – these are individuals encountered or identified by ICE but who were not detained or processed for deportation.
My plan also includes cooperating closely with local jurisdictions to remove criminal aliens.
We will restore the highly successful Secure Communities program. We will expand and revitalize the popular 287(g) partnerships, which will help to identify hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens in local jails. Both of these programs have been recklessly gutted by this Administration. This is yet one more area where we are headed in a totally opposite direction.
On my first day in office, I am also going to ask Congress to pass “Kate’s Law” – named for Kate Steinle – to ensure that criminal aliens convicted of illegal reentry face receive strong mandatory minimum sentences.
Another reform I am proposing is the passage of legislation named for Detective Michael Davis and Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, two law enforcement officers recently killed by a previously-deported illegal immigrant. The Davis-Oliver bill will enhance cooperation with state and local authorities to ensure that criminal immigrants and terrorists are swiftly identified and removed.
We are going to triple the number of ICE deportation officers. Within ICE, I am going to create a new special Deportation Task Force, focused on identifying and removing quickly the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice.
The local police know who every one of these criminals are [sic]. There’s no great mystery to it, they’ve put up with it for years. And now, finally, we will turn the tables and law enforcement will be allowed to clear up this dangerous and threatening mess.
We’re also going to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents, and put more of them on the border, instead of behind desks. We will expand the number of Border Patrol Stations.
I’ve had a chance to spend time with these incredible law enforcement officers, and I want to take a moment to thank them. The endorsement I’ve received from the Border Patrol officers means more to me than I can say.
Number Four: Block Funding For Sanctuary Cities
We will end the Sanctuary Cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.
Number Five: Cancel Unconstitutional Executive Orders & Enforce All Immigration Laws
We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties, in which he defied federal law and the constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants.
Hillary Clinton has pledged to keep both of these illegal amnesty programs – including the 2014 amnesty which has been blocked by the Supreme Court. Clinton has also pledged to add a third executive amnesty.
Clinton’s plan would trigger a Constitutional Crisis unlike almost anything we have ever seen before. In effect, she would be abolishing the lawmaking powers of Congress in order to write her own laws from the Oval Office.
In a Trump Administration, all immigration laws will be enforced. As with any law enforcement activity, we will set priorities. But, unlike this Administration, no one will be immune or exempt from enforcement – and ICE and Border Patrol officers will be allowed to do their jobs. Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation – that is what it means to have laws and to have a country.
Our enforcement priorities will include removing criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays, public charges – that is, those relying on public welfare or straining the safety net, along with millions of recent illegal arrivals and overstays who’ve come here under the current Administration.
Number Six: We Are Going To Suspend The Issuance Of Visas To Any Place Where Adequate Screening Cannot Occur
According to data provided to the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, between 9/11 and the end of 2014, at least 380 foreign-born individuals were convicted in terror cases inside the United States. The number is likely higher, but the Administration refuses to provide this information to Congress.
As soon as I enter office, I am going to ask the Department of State, Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to begin a comprehensive review of these cases in order to develop a list of regions and countries from which immigration must be suspended until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.
Countries from which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria and Libya.
For the price of resettling 1 refugee in the United States, 12 could be resettled in a safe zone in their home region.
Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.
For instance, in the last five years, we’ve admitted nearly 100,000 immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan – in these two countries, according to Pew research, a majority of residents say that the barbaric practice of honor killings against women are often or sometimes justified.
Applicants will be asked for their views about honor killings, about respect for women and gays and minorities, attitudes on Radical Islam, and many other topics as part of the vetting procedure.
Number Seven: We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported
There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they have been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals. Due to a Supreme Court decision, if these violent offenders cannot be sent home, our law enforcement officers have to release them into U.S. communities. There are often terrible consequences, such as Casey Chadwick’s tragic death in Connecticut just last year. Yet, despite the existence of a law that commands the Secretary of State to stop issuing visas to these countries, Secretary Hillary Clinton [broke] ignored this law and refused to use this powerful tool to bring nations into compliance.
The result of her misconduct was the release of thousands of dangerous criminal aliens who should have been sent home.
According to a report from the Boston Globe, from the year 2008 through 2014, nearly 13,000 criminal aliens were released back into U.S. communities because their home countries would not take them back. Many of these 13,000 releases occurred on Hillary Clinton’s watch – she had the power and the duty to stop it cold and she didn’t do it.
Those released include individuals convicted of killings, sexual assault and some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, who went on to reoffend at a very high rate.
Number Eight: We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.
For years, Congress has required a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system, but it has never been completed.
In my Administration, we will ensure that this system is in place at all land, air, and sea ports. Approximately half of new illegal immigrants came on temporary visas and then never left. Beyond violating our laws, visa overstays pose a substantial threat to national security. The 9/11 Commission said that this tracking system should be a high priority and “would have assisted law enforcement and intelligence officials in August and September 2001 in conducting a search for two of the 9/11 hijackers that were in the U.S. on expired visas.”
Last year alone, nearly a half a million individuals overstayed their temporary visas. Removing visa overstays will be a top priority of my Administration. If people around the world believe they can just come on a temporary visa and never leave – the Obama-Clinton policy – then we have a completely open border. We must send the message that visa expiration dates will be strongly enforced.
Number Nine: We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.
We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.
Immigration law doesn’t exist just for the purpose of keeping out criminals. It exists to protect all aspects of American life – the worksite, the welfare office, the education system and much else. That is why immigration limits are established in the first place. If we only enforce the laws against crime, then we have an open border to the entire world.
I will enforce all of our immigration laws.
The same goes for government benefits. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 62 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants used some form of cash or non-cash welfare programs, like food stamps or housing assistance. This directly violates the federal public charge law designed to protect the U.S. treasury.
Those who abuse our welfare system will be priorities for removal.
Number 10: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers
We’ve admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015.
Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. But we now have an obligation to them, and to their children, to control future immigration – as we have following previous immigration waves – to ensure assimilation, integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records.
The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals:
- To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms
- To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient. We need a system that serves our needs – remember, it’s America First.
- To choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency
- And to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.
We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally and properly-vetted, and in a manner that serves the national interest.
We’ve been living under outdated immigration rules from decades ago. To avoid this happening in the future, I believe we should sunset our visa laws so that Congress is forced to periodically revise and revisit them. We wouldn’t put our entire federal budget on autopilot for decades, so why should we do the same for immigration?
Let’s talk about the big picture
These ten steps, if rigorously followed and enforced, will accomplish more in a matter of months than our politicians have accomplished on this issue in the last fifty years.
Because I am not a politician, because I am not beholden to any special interest, I will get this done for you and your family.
We will accomplish all of the steps outlined above, and when we do, peace and law and justice and prosperity will prevail. Crime will go down, border crossings will plummet, gangs will disappear, and welfare use will decrease. We will have a peace dividend to spend on rebuilding America, beginning with our inner cities.
For those here today illegally who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route: to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above. Those who have left to seek entry under this new system will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to enter under the immigration caps or limits that will be established.
We will break the cycle of amnesty and illegal immigration. There will be no amnesty.
Our message to the world will be this: you cannot obtain legal status, or become a citizen of the United States, by illegally entering our country.
This declaration alone will help stop the crisis of illegal crossings and illegal overstays.
People will know that you can’t just smuggle in, hunker down, and wait to be legalized. Those days are over.
In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.
Right now, however, we are in the middle of a jobs crisis, a border crisis, and a terrorism crisis. All energies of the federal government and the legislative process must now be focused on immigration security. That is the only conversation we should be having at this time.
Whether it’s dangerous materials being smuggled across the border, terrorists entering on visas, or Americans losing their jobs to foreign workers, these are the problems we must now focus on fixing – and the media needs to begin demanding to hear Hillary Clinton’s answer on how her policies will affect Americans and their security.
These are matters of life-and-death for our country and its people, and we deserve answers from Hillary Clinton.
What we do know, despite the total lack of media curiosity, is that Hillary Clinton promises a radical amnesty combined with a radical reduction in immigration enforcement. The result will be millions more illegal immigrants, thousands more violent crimes, and total chaos and lawlessness.
This election is our last chance to secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and reform our laws to make your life better.
This is it. We won’t get another opportunity – it will be too late.
So I want to remind everyone what we are fighting for – and who we are fighting for.
So I am going to ask all the Angel Moms to come join me on the stage right now.
[[PAUSE FOR ANGEL MOMS – EACH SAYS THE NAME OF THEIR CHILD INTO THE MICROPHONE]]
Now is the time for these voices to be heard.
Now is the time for the media to begin asking questions on their behalf.
Now is the time for all of us, as one country, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, to band together to deliver justice and safety and security for all Americans.
Let’s fix this problem.
Let’s secure our border.
Let’s stop the drugs and the crime.
Let’s protect our Social Security and Medicare.
And let’s get unemployed Americans off of welfare and back to work in their own country.
Together, we can save American lives, American jobs, and American futures.
Together, we can save America itself.
Join me in this mission to Make America Great Again.
Thank you, and God Bless you all!
Thursday, September 01, 2016
New York City: A Hispanic Man Pleaded Not Guilty on Thursday to Charges that He Shot Dead a Muslim Cleric and His Associate Last Month on the Street After They Left a Mosque in Queens, Prosecutors Said; Oscar Morel, 36, is Facing Murder and Weapons Charges
"N.Y. man pleads not guilty to killings of imam, associate
"A New York man pleaded not guilty on Thursday to charges that he shot dead a Muslim cleric and his associate last month on the street after they left a mosque in Queens, prosecutors said."
Brown-on-brown crime?
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Move along.
At MSN.
"A New York man pleaded not guilty on Thursday to charges that he shot dead a Muslim cleric and his associate last month on the street after they left a mosque in Queens, prosecutors said."
Brown-on-brown crime?
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Move along.
At MSN.
A Positive Consequence of the Obama Effect: Moments Ago, America's Legendary Gun Maker Smith & Wesson Reported Q1 Earnings Which, Not Surprisingly, Beat Estimate on the Top and Bottom Line, Reporting EPS of $0.62, Far Above the $0.53 Expected, and 93% Higher Compared to a Year Earlier, on Revenue...
By Reader-Researcher RC
"Smith & Wesson Forecasts Record Quarterly Revenue as Earnings Soar 93%
"SWHC just guided to what would be a new all time high in revenue, predicting a sasles [sic] range of $220-$230 for the coming quarter, whose midpoint would make it the highest revenue quarter in company history."
At Zero Hedge.
Fatherland: Philadelphia Cop with Pro-Nazi Symbol Tattooed on His Arm is Under Investigation After a Photo of the Controversial Ink Emerged
By Prince George's County Ex-Pat
"Philly cop with a huge pro-Nazi tattoo on forearm under investigation
"Philadelphia cop Ian Hans Lichtermann, who has a pro-Nazi tattoo, is under an internal investigation after a photograph emerged showing his controversial ink on social media on Thursday."
If he was a Negro cop with a Black Panther tattoo, he'd be lionized at the White (sic) House.
As for the American Legion, I believe that Mrs. Souza, my late father's neighbor, still plays bingo at the American Legion hall in Clinton, Maryland. And Frank, her late husband, was a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy during World War II.
Don't think Mrs. Souza is a neo-Nazi nor was Frank unpatriotic.
At the Daily Mail.
"Philly cop with a huge pro-Nazi tattoo on forearm under investigation
"Philadelphia cop Ian Hans Lichtermann, who has a pro-Nazi tattoo, is under an internal investigation after a photograph emerged showing his controversial ink on social media on Thursday."
If he was a Negro cop with a Black Panther tattoo, he'd be lionized at the White (sic) House.
As for the American Legion, I believe that Mrs. Souza, my late father's neighbor, still plays bingo at the American Legion hall in Clinton, Maryland. And Frank, her late husband, was a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy during World War II.
Don't think Mrs. Souza is a neo-Nazi nor was Frank unpatriotic.
At the Daily Mail.
“Better to Fight Police, than Each Other”: Ultra-Violent Venezuelan Gangs Ignore Maduro Crackdown
By Reader-Researcher RC
"Amid threats of violence, opponents of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro flooded the streets of Caracas today (2 million strong) in a major test of their strength and the government's ability to tolerate growing dissent. However, for a nation that is forced to slaughter stallions for meat, line up for toilet paper, and dying from lack of simple medicines, Reuters reports that there is another destabilizing factor - ultra-violent street gangs are thriving... 'It's better to work together than be enemies. It's better to make war with the police than with each other.'"
"Ultra-Violent Venezuelan Gangs Ignore Maduro Crackdown: 'Better to Fight Police, Than Each Other.'"
Wait.
Is ZeroHedge speaking of Venezuela?
Or Chicago?
Or the mean streets of Reykjavik?
"Why is Violent Crime so Rare in Iceland?"
"Amid threats of violence, opponents of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro flooded the streets of Caracas today (2 million strong) in a major test of their strength and the government's ability to tolerate growing dissent. However, for a nation that is forced to slaughter stallions for meat, line up for toilet paper, and dying from lack of simple medicines, Reuters reports that there is another destabilizing factor - ultra-violent street gangs are thriving... 'It's better to work together than be enemies. It's better to make war with the police than with each other.'"
"Ultra-Violent Venezuelan Gangs Ignore Maduro Crackdown: 'Better to Fight Police, Than Each Other.'"
Wait.
Is ZeroHedge speaking of Venezuela?
Or Chicago?
Or the mean streets of Reykjavik?
"Why is Violent Crime so Rare in Iceland?"
Surrender by Any Other Name: Donald Trump’s Big Immigration Speech: “There Will be No Amnesty” = There Will be an Amnesty
By Nicholas Stix
Trump said that there will be no amnesty, but followed that by saying that anyone who entered America illegally will have to go back to his native country and “touchback,” before he can apply to return.
If the federal government permits illegal aliens to return, then it has granted them amnesty. This is exactly what GOP amnestisiacs have called for, for years.
On gay, black supremacist Don Lemon’s CNN show last night, the American Conservative Union’s Matt Schlapp said that Trump's policy prescription was “very similar” (read: identical) to what his old boss, King George II, called for.
“Touchback," apply for re-entry, and get to return and on a “path to citizenship,” was the Bush/McCain/GOP amnesty plan. Thatr’s amnesty, plain and simple.
Even though Trump gave the racist Left what it wanted, Bakhari Sellers and Maria Cardona still vilified him as a "racist," etc., the same as they would have, had he not surrendered.
They immediately interrupted, and sought to shout down Matt Schlapp. He responded, “I waited very patiently, while you spoke.”
As far as Sellers was concerned, America has no immigration laws. “These 11 million—or 12 million people who are here quote unquote illegally…”
What’s with the scare quotes? They’re all illegal aliens, and the real number is more like 50 million.
Maria Cardona vituperated, “As an immigrant, this speech sickened me.”
She claimed that Trump had not offered Hispanics anything that would cause them to vote for him.
“If he does not do that, there is no credible path to 270.”
Do what? He just said he was going to do “that.”
I guess for her, “that” means saying that all illegal aliens can stay. But that wouldn’t help him with Hispanic voters, and would alienate his white voters.
Cardona was just concern-trolling. She’s a Democrat Party operative. What could Trump do that would possibly get a good word or a vote out of her or her ilk? Nothing. But following her malicious advice will certainly cost him the election.
And Cardona isn’t alone. I repeatedly heard last night from talking heads that Trump had gone back to his original position, from June 2015. He did nothing of the sort.
Fox News claims a poll it just did showed that Trump’s base would not be bothered by him “softening” (flip-flopping) on immigration.
I don’t believe that for a minute. Trump created his base with his tough immigration positions. The notion that his base support him, independent of his positions is a blood libel that was foisted on the public by Democrat operatives and Never-Trumper Republican operatives, who asserted that his followers were completely irrational, and that he had no positions. That was part of the “Trump is Hitler” smear campaign.
Trump developed his base through his position on immigration. Period. Millions of his supporters stayed home in 2008 and 2012, because John McCain and Mitt Romney betrayed them. The notion that they could lose through betraying GOP-leaning voters, whole Trump could win while doing so, sounds like a Bizarro World analysis to me.
Trump said that there will be no amnesty, but followed that by saying that anyone who entered America illegally will have to go back to his native country and “touchback,” before he can apply to return.
If the federal government permits illegal aliens to return, then it has granted them amnesty. This is exactly what GOP amnestisiacs have called for, for years.
On gay, black supremacist Don Lemon’s CNN show last night, the American Conservative Union’s Matt Schlapp said that Trump's policy prescription was “very similar” (read: identical) to what his old boss, King George II, called for.
“Touchback," apply for re-entry, and get to return and on a “path to citizenship,” was the Bush/McCain/GOP amnesty plan. Thatr’s amnesty, plain and simple.
Even though Trump gave the racist Left what it wanted, Bakhari Sellers and Maria Cardona still vilified him as a "racist," etc., the same as they would have, had he not surrendered.
They immediately interrupted, and sought to shout down Matt Schlapp. He responded, “I waited very patiently, while you spoke.”
As far as Sellers was concerned, America has no immigration laws. “These 11 million—or 12 million people who are here quote unquote illegally…”
What’s with the scare quotes? They’re all illegal aliens, and the real number is more like 50 million.
Maria Cardona vituperated, “As an immigrant, this speech sickened me.”
She claimed that Trump had not offered Hispanics anything that would cause them to vote for him.
“If he does not do that, there is no credible path to 270.”
Do what? He just said he was going to do “that.”
I guess for her, “that” means saying that all illegal aliens can stay. But that wouldn’t help him with Hispanic voters, and would alienate his white voters.
Cardona was just concern-trolling. She’s a Democrat Party operative. What could Trump do that would possibly get a good word or a vote out of her or her ilk? Nothing. But following her malicious advice will certainly cost him the election.
And Cardona isn’t alone. I repeatedly heard last night from talking heads that Trump had gone back to his original position, from June 2015. He did nothing of the sort.
Fox News claims a poll it just did showed that Trump’s base would not be bothered by him “softening” (flip-flopping) on immigration.
I don’t believe that for a minute. Trump created his base with his tough immigration positions. The notion that his base support him, independent of his positions is a blood libel that was foisted on the public by Democrat operatives and Never-Trumper Republican operatives, who asserted that his followers were completely irrational, and that he had no positions. That was part of the “Trump is Hitler” smear campaign.
Trump developed his base through his position on immigration. Period. Millions of his supporters stayed home in 2008 and 2012, because John McCain and Mitt Romney betrayed them. The notion that they could lose through betraying GOP-leaning voters, whole Trump could win while doing so, sounds like a Bizarro World analysis to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
