Donald Trump had better prepare for total war with the GOP establishment. He might have “signed a pledge to support the Republican Party’s nominee,” but as WND has reported, “that doesn’t mean the party’s establishment will support him, should he win the GOP presidential nod.”
Republican kingmakers, the monied interests that buy elections, are furious that they cannot control the will of the Republican base and their candidate. So these crypto-leftists got together at the Hotel Bel-Air in Los Angeles, California, to plot. “They want a puppet that they can control, and Donald Trump will never be that person,” said Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager. “GOP donors loathe Trump because he is not beholden to special interests.”
A report by the Hill suggests the big money Republican donors are actually looking to support Hillary Clinton for commander in chief if Trump is at the top of the GOP ticket. Yes, the Democrat Hillary Clinton could be getting millions of dollars from Republicans.
The website says: “In conversations over the past month, GOP establishment donors have confided to the Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.”
The GOP worms are squirming because Trump is threatening The Machine.
Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Obama started the wars that eventually caused entire Middle-Eastern populations to be on the move. Personally, I think these American politicians and their respective cabals (Samantha Power and the Rices, Condi and Susan) should pay reparations, out of their personal fortunes, to Iraqi, Syrian and Afghani refugees. No qualifying test required.
Libertarian justice aside, Laura Ingraham has been ahead of Ann Coulter in evolving away from establishment Republicans and their weasel words, as was noted in this space, in July of 2014. Now Ingraham is doing her listeners a service by alerting them to how “Paul Ryan is using the language of the Left to advocate a new Republican way forward”:
“By opposing a ‘religious test’ for refugees, the new House Speaker Paul Ryan is ‘using the language of the left,’ ‘the language of Obama.'”
“Nobody is talking about a religious test,” counters Ingraham, “we are talking about a test of leadership, for the American people to finally see their leaders—Obama and the Republicans—standing up for the American people.”
Not quite. A religious test is inherent in refugee legislation, as religious persecution is grounds for a request for asylum. However, and by the sound of it, Americans are sick and tired of laws passed in contravention of their rights and interests.
More materially, there is nothing in the thousands of bills dreamed up by representatives, annually, that remotely approximates the will of a self-governing people and their exclusive interests. I mean, poor, working-class whites are dying in inordinate numbers in the US. Who do these local refugees turn to for redress? The left-liberal establishment (GOP included), which finds the exotic more sympathetic?
UPDATE: As Christians die across the Muslim world, America’s leaders feel the urgency of importing more Muslims:
Jeff Sessions (R-AL), “chairmen of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations and Immigration and the National Interest subcommittees respectively, issued the following statement, 11/17. It’s a little soft, but better than most:
… Under our nation’s current policy, the President simply brings in as many refugees as he wants. Refugees are entitled to access all major welfare programs, and they can also draw benefits directly from the Medicare and Social Security disability and retirement trust funds – taking those funds straight from the pockets of American retirees who paid into these troubled funds all of their lives.
Our immigration and refugee policies must serve the interests of our nation and protect the security of the American people. After admitting 1.5 million migrants from Muslim countries on lifetime visas since 9/11, it is time to assist in relocating Muslim migrants within their home region rather than relocating large numbers to the United States. It simply cannot be our policy to encourage a mass migration of entire populations from their homelands, a strategy that will only further destabilize the region and bring threats of terrorism deep inside our shores.” …
Hillary Clinton owns the Benghazi hearing, mainly because Republicans are both stupid and malevolent, concerned with self-aggrandized huffing and puffing and posturing.
A clever bunch of people would have arrived at the House Benghazi committee hearing with a surprisingly terse, focused and unanimous mandate. First, they would have disavowed the actual intervention in Libya. Predicated on the first, the second move would be a short proposition to Hillary. It would go something like this:
“You were the one, Madam Secretary, who cracked the whip at Foggy Bottom. It is our informed opinion that you had resolved to run the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, as one would an open community center. In contravention of the safety of our staff there, you meant above all to telegraph to the world that the war you and war-lords Samantha Power and Susan Rice launched was a success, when in fact, Madam Secretary, your gunpoint democracy in Libya has been as fruitful as G. Bush’s faith-based forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, let us trace the ‘stand down’ orders that issued from the mindset aforementioned. It will take an hour, not more. We don’t expect to squeeze much from you, but let us do those dead men our due diligence. … etc. …”
And pigs will fly.
Instead, Hillary, slightly rehearsed, but speaking in a calm, surprisingly sonorous voice, is showing herself to be a master bureaucrat, in command and able to memorize the ins-and-outs of her office at the time these poor men died waiting on her help.
A masterful performance by Mrs. Clinton; a fail to the generally flailing GOP.
“The top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent … as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent,” roared the independent senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, at the first Democratic primary debate of 2015, in Las Vegas.
Standing for president, Sanders implies, somehow, that there exists in nature a delimited income pie from which a disproportionate amount of wealth is handed over to, or seized, by a class of evil doers: “the rich.”
Clueless Sanders omits the process by which that wealth magically materializes.
Wealth doesn’t exist pristine in nature, until individuals—deserving as much, if not more, of the pope’s love as the poor—apply their smarts, labor and savings to transform raw materials into marketable things that satisfy human desire and need.
But not if one listens to the socialist from Vermont as, sadly, too many Americans did.
You ask, why was it not just as discouraging when even more Americans tuned in to watch the first and second Republican Primary Debates, 24 and 23 million respectively?
For this reason: While Republicans are never to be equated with freedom, smaller government, or anything remotely libertarian; the voting public equates a vote for a Republican with a vote for less government and more freedom from the state.
Therefore, an interest in and a support for a Democrat is often a reliable proxy for the measure of statism in the land.
Countering Sanders’ pie-in-the-sky economics, Reisman notes that, “The wealth of the 1 percent is the overwhelming source of the supply of goods that people buy and of the demand for labor that people sell.” The wealth of the rich is not to be found in a huge pile of goods from which only capitalists benefit, but in the means of production that benefit us all. …
If you want to be harangued non-stop—libeled a privileged racist, responsible for “structural racism,” if you happen to have been born white—vote for the Harridan Hillary. Haven’t you had enough of this offal? Here she is stomping around at the National Urban League’s conference in Fort Lauderdale:
“I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare, or repealing Obamacare,” Clinton charged. “People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care. They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you can’t seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote.”