It is a mistake to interpret Ann Coulter’s use of the Biblical Joseph’s story—at the Donald Trump rally in Iowa, Tuesday—as an allegory for Mitt Romney’s political suffering. No, no , no! Ms. Coulter is talking quite clearly and metaphorically about long-suffering America under the lying Demopublican “regimists,” when she says,
“He had to be sold into slavery, imprisoned, betrayed, so that eventually he could save the Jews. Maybe Mitt Romney had to lose. And maybe we had to give Republicans one more chance in 2014.
“And maybe [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and [House Speaker] John Boehner had to betray us once again to pave the way for President Donald Trump.
“God hasn’t given up on America yet.”
“He” is everyday America.
Chelsea Schilling of WND reports on a win-win situation:
Conservative firebrand and bestselling author Ann Coulter joined Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa Tuesday – and she delivered an epic smackdown of “speech Nazis” who ridiculed the GOP frontrunner for using the term “anchor baby.”
The “New York Magazine’s” Jonathan Chaffe compared Donald Trump to Pat Buchanan. I’d take that as a compliment. Whenever readers—my editor @ WND, too—have mentioned that I remind them of Pat Buchanan, it flatters. Chaffe, however, meant to insult Trump. He also insults the intelligence. (What’s new? That’s the definition of a liberal; an insult to the intelligence.) Chaffe tweeted: “Trump isn’t Cain or Bachmann redux, he’s Pat Buchanan redux and that’s bad.”
An insult to the intelligence because, while Trump is smart and certainly smarter than most of the political class, which is to be expected; Trump is no intellectual. Buchanan is most certainly an intellectual.
SMERCONISH: Donald Trump has run a campaign like nothing we have seen before, or have we? Well, he’s often been compared to flash in the pan frontrunners like Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann, maybe the real comparison should be to conservative lightning rod Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996. That’s what “New York Magazine’s” Jonathan Chaffe believes.
He tweeted “Trump isn’t Cain or Bachmann redux, he’s Pat Buchanan redux and that’s bad.” Perhaps the most obvious parallel to Trump is style like Buchanan’s red meat speech at the 1992 GOP convention. Listen to the way that he described that year’s democratic convention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT BUCHANAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIOS DIRECTOR: We’re 20,000 liberals and radicals came dressed up as moderates and centrists in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: That was Pat Buchanan 23 years ago. It’s funny, I remember exactly where I was when I watched that speech. And he joins me now. Hey, Patrick, thank you so much for being here. Is Trump taking a page out of your playbook?
BUCHANAN: I think he certainly is an outsider, an insurgent the way I was in 1992 and 1996, Michael. And he’s also taken up the issue of illegal immigration and unfair trade deals that robbed this country of factories and jobs and investment. And he is really riding those issues extremely well. The difference is, Donald Trump is far, far ahead of where I was.
SMERCONISH: How so?
BUCHANAN: Well, in the polls he’s running two to one ahead of the former frontrunners in the Republican party. The polls never had me that far ahead nationally. In 1992 I did well against President Bush but we never had the kind of massive enormous crowds that Donald Trump is getting or the enormous coverage he’s receiving or the poll numbers he’s got right now. Look, Donald Trump as of right now I think is pretty much the favorite for the Republican nomination in 2016.
SMERCONISH: I want to show you something that Jeb Bush said this week because the terminology that’s being used in the immigration debate become a touch point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFED MALE: Did you use the term anchor baby yesterday on the yesterday?
JEB BUSH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No I didn’t. I don’t.
UNIDENTIFED MALE: You don’t regret it?
BUSH: Do you have a better term?
UNIDENTIFED MALE: I’m asking you.
BUSH: You give me a better term and I’ll use. Don’t yell at me behind my ear, though.
UNIDENTIFED MALE: Sorry about that.
UNIDENTIFED MALE: The language, anchor baby is that bombastic?
BUSH: No, it isn’t. Give me another word.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Patrick, what’s the proper word choice?
BUCHANAN: Well, the word choice is anchor baby. What you mean by that is people come into the country in San Diego, California places like that, something like 22 percent of the babies. The illegals come in. They have their baby born in the United States, achieves automatic citizenship and entitlement to all these benefits which eventually is going to bankrupt the country if we don’t stop it.
SMERCONISH: But it’s regarded as a slur by Hispranic for no other reason. Is it not losing electoral strategy?
BUCHANAN: Michael, political correctness is killing this country. I think there’s nothing demeaning about saying anchor baby because it anchors the family in the United States. It’s a child of an illegal alien who broke into this country and broke the law. Nothing wrong with the baby at all –
SMERCONISH: I don’t think they mean that it anchors the family.
BUCHANAN: It certainly does!
SMERCONISH: I think it means they dropped an anchor here just to have a baby. That’s the way people interpret it.
BUCHANAN: That’s not the way – look, that’s not the way I interpret it. Let me say this, Michael, what you’re doing, with due respect, is just why the people, excuse me, detest the media. He’s got a valid point. It’s a tremendous issue. People are upset by it and the media are saying, “why did you use those two words? Why didn’t you get another two words?” What is the matter with this country given the crises we are in? People are running around asking if the verbiage is politically right or not.
SMERCONISH: Pat, respectfully, we have known each a long time. This is no liberal hit job I’m doing on you. The “Wall Street Journal” on Friday, a lead editorial, born in the USA said, hey what happened to republicans? Didn’t they use to believe in exceptionalism? Yes, the 14th amendment is exceptional. Are they now ditching that?
BUCHANAN: Let me talk to that. First, “The Wall Street Journal” has been a horrible influence on the Republican Party on the issue of immigration. Secondly, you’ve got to get control of this, the borders in this country, deal with the policy and Donald Trump went out there, I think some parts of it are going to be tough to do but the part about stopping that, it isn’t in the 14th amendment.
SMERCONISH: Patrick, let me crunch numbers with you, because Mitt Romney’s pollster – Mitt Romney’s pollster has pointed out that to win 50.1 percent of the vote in this cycle, the Republican candidate, if the trends stay the same, is going to need 64 percent of the white vote. Well, the problem is that Romney and McCain got 59 percent and 55 percent respectfully.
There aren’t enough whites only to win a presidential race for the republican party if they don’t expand the tent, they will be a party of controlling the House but not the White House.
BUCHANAN: All right, look, let’s take Donald Trump. His appeal to Hispanics in America, even some African-Americans when Barack Obama is no longer on the ballot, is going to be whether he can deal with an economy which just saw a 500-point drop in the Dow on the last day of this week. These are the issues. He’s up against Bernie Sanders and there’s the possibility given Hillary’s trouble, you don’t think Donald Trump couldn’t beat Bernie Sanders?
Given Hillary’s problems, look at him now. I mean when a judge tells the FBI to start looking at her server and see if she’s telling the truth, the lady is in real trouble, she’s getting lawyered up. If she cracks and something happens to her and dies and losses her security clearance who steps in for the democratic party?
SMERCONISH: Patrick, Joe Biden, probably, right?
BUCHANAN: If he steps in and shoves Hillary aside, how do you think American women will react to Joe Biden?
SMERCONISH: Patrick, I want to play for you something that happened on my radio show on Friday. A truck driver from Texas called and here’s a piece of our conversation. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFED MALE: Here’s why he’ll win, people, the wages are stagnant. One of the reasons why the wages are stagnant is because of illegal immigration. Big companies are going to pay lowwe wages for people that are not even citizens and they get away with it. The immigrants years ago, when they came in to this country they built their roads, their schools, their churches, their houses. They built the subways, they built the railroads and they obeyed the laws, they assimilated they learned the English language and they paid their taxes. Today, the immigrants come over here and as me “what have you got for me?”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: I thought that was the epitome of the Trump supporter, maybe the Buchanan supporter of all, the guy who believes that his wages are stagnant because of illegal immigration overlooking the impact of globalization and technological changes.
BUCHANAN: Look, you have 41.3 million people who have come into this country in the last I think 30 to 40 years who are immigrants now legal and illegal. Most of them are unskilled, many of them have no skills or semi-skilled or some of them skilled, don’t tell me that doesn’t depress wages of American workers.
Secondly, the trade deals that Donald Trump is hitting, what do you think about the first decade of the 21st century, 55,000 factories disappeared in the United States and six million manufacturing jobs. What we predicted has come to pass. One thing – look, I’m not saying Donald Trump is going to be the next president of the United States, but I do think there’s a possibility he can. What is driving that is the anger of the American people and what has been done to them, what they have failed to do in the capital city.
SMERCONISH: But Pat, what I’m suggesting to you that that gentleman who was nice enough to call my radio program, his anger is misplaced. It’s not the 11 million who are here illegally who are depressing his wages. It’s all of these other factors that are at work.
BUCHANAN: You’re telling me that 40 million people from countries all over the world, third world countries, haven’t had anything to do with that? Are you telling me the export of our factories through these lousy trade deals –
SMERCONISH: I’m saying Tom Freeman has it right when he says the world is flat and the dynamics have changed. Here’s a final thought, here’s what makes me uncomfortable about this conversation and some of the things that my friend, Pat Buchanan, is saying.
These are the same things that could have been said about my Slovak ancestors in the 1920s by the WASPs.
BUCHANAN: Look, your Slovak ancestors, my Irish and German, Scott- Irish ancestors, they came here and after they all got here by 1925, Michael, we had a time-out of 40 years so we could assimilate and Americanize all the kids and grandkids of those people. So that by the Kennedy and Eisenhower years, we were one united America.
What we are becoming is what Theodore Roosevelt warned us about, said it would be the end of the country if we become a (polyglot) boardinghouse for the world. I don’t want that, I don’t think Donald Trump wants that, and I hope Michael Smerconish doesn’t want that.
SMERCONISH: The next time you come here, don’t hold back. Let us know what Pat Buchanan really thinks about the issue, OK?
BUCHANAN: I’m getting older. That’s why I’m so reticent.
SMERCONISH: Thank you, Pat.
BUCHANAN: Thank you, my friend.
Buchanan in conversation with historian Tom Woods:
Essentially, the monetary upheaval being experienced has come about because of a mere threat of the withdrawal of quantitative easing. The sell-off that “took the Dow Jones down more than 10 percent from its peak valuations” must be seen in the context of “seven years of zero percent interest rates,” avers fancier and Austrian Economist Peter Schiff. At work are gains that have come about likely not “from bona fide improvements in the economy,” but due to “the twin props of Quantitative Easing and zero percent interest rates.”
“The Fed has already removed one of the props, and it’s no accident that the markets have gained no ground whatsoever in the eight months since the QE program was officially wound down. As the market considers a world without the second prop, a free fall could ensue. …”
… Stock valuations [have been] extremely high and earnings are falling and the economy is clearly decelerating. The steady march upward in stock prices has been enabled by a wave of cheap financing and share buybacks. There are very few reasons to currently suspect that earnings, profits, and share prices will suddenly improve organically. This market is just about the Fed.
Intrinsically, libertarians of the Austrian School of Economics know all too well what’s afoot across global financial markets. As of Friday, the Dow was at 16,450, down 1,018 points for the week. Yet, search libertarian websites high-and-low and you’ll be hard pressed to find decent commentary on the state of financial markets. Doug Casey and Jeff Berwick agree that financial collapse is imminent, writing that “we are now exiting the eye of the hurricane and rapidly heading towards what he terms the Greater Depression, and Jeff Berwick believes a collapse is being planned for September, moving the world closer to a one world government.”
Monetary rigor mortis is David Stockman’s term for what’s underway. Doug Noland fleshes things out at Stockman’s Contra Corner:
… Global financial tumult has now attained sufficient momentum so that even U.S. markets can no longer remain comfortably oblivious. Yet, for most in the U.S. there remains little worry: the economy is sound, housing is booming, Silicon Valley is heroic, the banking system is rock solid, and the corporate sector is awash in cash. The U.S. economy is viewed as insignificantly exposed to China’s economic slowdown – and to global issues for the most part. Analysts speak of a “normal” stock market pullback – yet another buying opportunity. There is, however, little normal about current global financial, economic and geopolitical backdrops.
The last seven years have witnessed unprecedented EM debt expansion, led by what should be a frightening ballooning of Chinese Credit. In particular, Chinese and EM banks have coalesced into historic lending growth and balance sheet (assets and liabilities) expansion. This week saw indications of what has the potential to erupt into an Asian and EM banking system crisis of confidence. Faith that Chinese and EM government officials have the situation under control is surely being shaken. This is a game-changer for global finance and for the world economy. Financial conditions are tightening around the world – and this has zero to do with a possible September Fed (“baby step”) rate increase. …
… there’s a recurring theme that is especially pertinent these days. Financial and economic Bubbles invariably prove much more resilient than Bubble analysts presume. And, at the end of the day, the excesses and consequences go beyond what even the hardcore “bears” could anticipate. The adage around our office became: “It’s Always Worse Than You Think.”
“Do we believe in the gene thing?” Donald Trump asked the crowd that assembled to hear him speak in Mobile, Alabama, Friday. He was touting his genetic lineage; says he comes from a family of high-achievers.
Wow. Hasn’t the guy received any briefings on the prevailing Cultural Marxism (also known as political correctness), in the country he seeks to lead? The nature-nurture debate has been settled politically. Many co-opted scientists have even seconded the politicians. Trump ought to know that according to this orthodoxy, were it not for largely exogenous circumstances, all human beings would be capable of the same accomplishments. (NOT) No such thing as general intelligence.
One things is clear. Low-energy Trump is not. (The way Trump keeps referring to poor Jeb Bush as a low-energy candidate is hilarious.)
… Megyn Kelly … has fast succumbed to the female instinct to show-off, bare skin, flirt and wink. She now also regularly motormouths it over the occasional smart guest she entertains (correction: the one smart guest, Ann Coulter). At the same time, Kelly has dignified the tinnitus named Dana Perino with a daily slot as Delphic-oracle.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has proven he can be trusted to beat up on the right women.
Exhibit A is Elizabeth Beck, a multitasking “attorney,” who once deposed Donald Trump while also waving her breast pump in his face, demanding to break for a breast-pumping session.
“You’re disgusting. You’re disgusting,” the busy billionaire blurted in disbelief. And she was. Still is. Accoutered for battle, Beck recently did the rounds on the networks. In addition to a mad glint in the eye, Beck brought to each broadcast a big bag packed with milking paraphernalia.
Had she cared about boundaries and propriety, Kelly would have asked Trump how he kept his cool during a legal deposition, with an (ostensible) professional, who insisted on bringing attention to her lactating breasts.
Writes Fred Reed, who regularly tracks our malevolent matriarchy’s “poor sense of social boundaries”:
The United States has embarked, or been embarked, on a headlong rush into matriarchy, something never before attempted in a major country. Men remain numerically dominant in positions of power, yes, but their behavior and freedom are ever more constrained by the wishes of hostile women. The effects have been disastrous. They are likely to be more so. The control, or near control, extends all through society. Politicians are terrified of women. … The pathological egalitarianism of the age makes it career-ending to mention that women in fact are neither equal nor identical to men. …
Not quite in the league of Elizabeth Beck yet, Megyn Kelly was, nevertheless, in need of a dressing-down and a time-out. …