Category Archives: Republicans

Happy Meal Time for US Students

Debt, Democracy, Economy, Education, Elections, Republicans, Socialism, Welfare

“Happy Meal Time for US Students” is my new column. Here is an excerpt:

“Barack Obama has promised America’s miseducated Millenials to keep the student-loan bubble from bursting. Campaigning in Iowa, the president vowed to keep college affordable, because, like every other welfare and warfare program, it “is at the heart of who we are.”

Interest rates for Federal Stafford Loans are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, on July 1. You just know how bad things are when a socialized financial market like student loans attempts to correct itself. Nevertheless, if the glut of miseducation is to be curbed, higher interest rates are healthy.

Why the president’s promise? The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, smuggled into the Constitution by statute, artificially swelled the ranks of Democratic voters by millions of eighteen-, nineteen-, and twenty-year-olds. While they don’t work for a living, youngsters get to vote for dibs on the livelihood of those who do.

It’s Happy Meal time for the nation’s students….”

Read the complete column, “Happy Meal Time for US Students.”

If you’d like to feature this column in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

Support this writer’s work by clicking to “Recommend,” “Tweet” and “Share” “Return To Reason” on WND, and the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT.

UPDATED (8/23/2017): ‘Lincoln’s Marxists’

Barack Obama, Communism, Cultural Marxism, Education, Government, History, IMMIGRATION, Republicans, States' Rights

TAWE (The Ass With Ears, Obama) likes to repeat—in fact he said it yesterday again—a quote he attributes to “Republican Abraham Lincoln”: “The government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves and no more.”

Left-liberals like TAWE should be reaffirmed in their love of Lincoln.

A new book, Lincoln’s Marxists, reviewed in Chronicles Magazine, provides insight into the radical (Marxist) revolutionaries, or Radical Republicans, with whom Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself. Writes Clyde Wilson:

“The early German settlers of America were peaceful and pious farmers, escaping militarism and religious strife. Not so the immigrants of the 1850s, who were militarized advocates of violent social revolution, prototypes of later European communists and fascists. Revolutionaries and socialists on both side of the Atlantic enthusiastically embraced Lincoln’s war as a continuation of the French Revolution and of their own failed revolution of 1848.

This is documented by [Al] Benson and [Walter Donald] Kennedy in full chapter and verse. The Forty-Eighters furnished at least four Union generals, several of whom were intimates of Karl Marx [emphasis added] and Friedrich Engels, and a host of colonels and Republican party activists.

The later-coming Germans may have made possible Lincoln’s election in 1860 by tipping the demographic balance in previously Democratic states.
Marx, who knew even less about America than he did about everything else, described the conflict with the kind of grand abstractions that appeal to people of that ilk, even celebrating the rich corporation lawyer Lincoln as a hero of the working class.

The Forty-Eighters did not dominate Lincoln’s party, but they were a very strong element within it. Nor did they necessarily have a complete picture, but recognized that the Union cause was a step in their Marxist direction—an unappealable centralization of power combined with the violent destruction of reactionary elements.

Since that time, their ideas have triumphed completely. Marx’s description of the war of 1861-65 as a defensive effort against violent reactionaries engaged in a wicked rebellion to spread slavery is now the mainstream p.c. interpretation, in the schools and media, of America’s central event.” (Chronicles, April 2012, p. 27)

UPDATE (8/23): Lovely Lincoln.

UPDATE II: Paving the Way for a Rand Paul Presidency

Iran, Republicans, Ron Paul, War

Gas bag Newt Gingrich reiterated today, following victory in Georgia, his promise of Monday “to eliminate the government of Iran if it blocks passage through a key oil route in the Middle East.” Obama has already subjected Iran to an economic siege through ruthless, counterproductive, boycotts and sanction—all tantamount to a declaration of war. Yet the smug Mr. Gingrich still “described the Obama foreign policy in the region as ‘children’s hour.”

For those who still have faith in the Republikeynesians, no amount of good the big-government Republican troika might do can offset the war wrecking ball each one of is sure to unleash.

If Ron Paul cannot win the nomination, let BHO return to the throne and lay waste to the country, thus paving the way for a Rand Paul presidency.

UPDATE I: “Ron Paul’s strength in both the Vermont and Virginia Republican primaries came largely from Independent voters and, to a lesser extent in Vermont, Democratic voters who chose to participate in their state’s Republican primary. Although Mitt Romney won both states handily, Paul won a significant portion of the vote.” (CBSNews)

DELEGATES:

Gingrich 74

Paul 24

Romney 299

Santorum 99

UPDATE II (March 7): “Dennis Kucinich Offed by Democrats,” writes Lew Rockwell:

Even though he always ended up supporting the Democratic warmonger presidential candidate, the party decided to get rid of this voice for peace and civil liberties through gerrymandering. He’s no Ron Paul–Dennis is a socialist, for example–but he was often an ally for Ron on war and the police state. Dennis, now that you are freed from politics, I hope you start an organization to promote peace and civil liberties. Let the crazed protectionist Marcy Kaptur have the congress.

UPDATED: Russians Voted; The West Objects (The Two-Party Fraud)

America, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Republicans, Russia, The West, UN

Russians voted. International monitors approved the rambunctious process as the fairest so far. Having failed in egging on a “successful,” “color-coded or plant-based revolution” in Russia, the know-it-all, monolithic media of the West have expressed the standard contempt about Vladimir Putin’s overwhelming majority, calling the victory a “stolen election.” Way to go.

Russians, a naturally nationalistic people, like the hardcore Putin, and do not apprecaite the NATO attempt to “demote it, weaken it geopolitically or undermine its defensive potential.”

UPDATE: THE TWO-PARTY FRAUD. In “The Cannibal In Chronicles” post, I recommended Tom Fleming’s “Daily Mail Blog” (which I cannot link to directly because of some code in the “British” link that throws IlanaMercer/com’s home page). About the West vs. Russia, Fleming writes this:

Everyone knew that Putin was going to win, and even anti-Putin pollsters admitted he would get at least 60% of the vote, which would be a landslide in an American election. But, cry the pundits, Putin has the support of the peasantry. The smart people in the cities who can watch the BBC and read the New York Times–the people who really count in any country–they are holding spontaneous anti-Putin demonstrations. Pro-Putin demonstrators are either state employees doing a job or mere yokels. In other words, Russia=the USA, where only rubes and crazies would support Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.
The pundits, long in advance, were also predicting corruption and irregularities, as they always do whenever the the US regime disapproves of election results. The fall-back position is that Putin and his cronies rigged the election in advance by restricting the pool of candidates. …
merican elections have never been clean. Nevertheless, the sauce for the Russian goose cannot be ladled on the American gander. This is especially clear in the case of the charge that Putin’s party rigged the election in advance by restricting the pool of candidates. Here in America, we call this manoeuvre the primary system.
In our two-party party state, ballot access for third party candidates is very restricted. After all, only Democrats and Republicans were involved in writing federal and state election laws. There is no mention political parties in the Constitution, and while two political coalitions emerged very early–the faction of Hamilton versus the faction of Jefferson–they did not function as political parties in the later sense. There were no chairmen, party lines, or caucuses to enforce discipline on independent-minded members of Congress or state legislatures.

Read on by clicking “Tom Fleming Daily Mail Blog” on Barely a Blog’s Blogroll.