Category Archives: Republicans

NEW COLUMN: Applauding The Donald’s Ongoing Creative Destruction

Constitution, Democrats, Donald Trump, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Natural Law, Republicans, The Courts, The State

“Applauding The Donald’s Ongoing Creative Destruction” is the current column, now on WND.COM.

An excerpt:

Big Media, the policy veterans and the chancelleries across Europe and Britain are constantly complaining: Donald Trump has had the temerity to defy their international order, summit—and seek peace—with their enemies, and mess with the multilateral maze they call agreements. He even declared, early in June, that the US would be far better off if it negotiated bilateral trade agreements.

Or, in Trump speak, “country-on-country agreements.”

But what does an entrenched punditocracy, a self-anointed, meritless intelligentsia (which is not very intelligent and draws its financial sustenance from the political spoils system), oleaginous politicians, slick media and big money care? They’ve all worked in tandem to advance a grand government—national and transnational—that aggrandizes its constituent elements, while diminishing those it’s supposed to serve.

These political players have built the den of iniquity Trump keeps trampling. Against these forces—NAFTA, NATO, FBI, DOJ, CIA, a whole alphabet soup of acronyms that stands for the Permanent State, national and international—is Trump, still acting as a political Samson that threatens to bring the house crashing down on its patrons.

And his latest. Trump’s judicial appointments, in particular, might just prove to be “his most enduring legacy,” lamented the liberal Economist. These certainly threaten to cement the Supreme Court’s originalist bent:

.. No president has confirmed more federal appellate judges (12) in his first year than Donald Trump. He has also seen six federal district-court judges confirmed, and one Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch. Another 47 nominees await confirmation; 102 more federal judgeships remain open for Mr. Trump to fill. With two of the Supreme Court’s liberal justices, and its one unpredictable member (Anthony Kennedy) aged 79 or older, the president [will] get to name another justice [maybe two] …

Published in June of 2016, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” made the case that Donald J. Trump is the quintessential post-constitutional candidate.

In the “Opening Statement” titled “Welcome To The Post-Constitutional Jungle,” oldies will recognize a nod to the Guns N’ Roses classic, “Welcome to the Jungle,” as well as to broadcaster Mark Levin’s coinage.

We inhabit what Levin has termed a post-constitutional America. The libertarian (and classical conservative) ideal—where the chains that tether us to an increasingly tyrannical national government are loosened and power is devolved once again to the smaller units of society—is a long way away.

Where the law of the jungle prevails, the options are limited: Do Americans get a benevolent authoritarian to undo the legacies of Barack Obama, George W. Bush and those who went before? Or, does the increasingly ill-defined entity called The People continue to submit to Demopublican diktats, past and present?

The quintessential post-constitutional candidate, Trump’s candidacy was for the age when the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. Like it or not, the original Constitution is a dead letter, having suffered decades of legislative, executive and judicial usurpation.

The natural- and common law traditions, once lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside, natural justice and the Founders’ original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.

The Constitution has become just another thing on the list of items presidential candidates check when they con constituents.

The dissembling words of many a presidential candidate notwithstanding, the toss-up in the 2016 election was, therefore, between submitting to the Democrats’ war on whites, the wealthy and Wal-Mart, or being bedeviled by mainstream Republicans’ wars on the world: Russia, China, Assad and The Ayatollahs. Or, suffering all the depredations listed and more had Candidate Clinton been victorious. …

… READ THE REST. “Applauding The Donald’s Ongoing Creative Destruction” is the current column, now on WND.COM

‘The Kids, The Kids,’ And Other Crap (Parents Are Custodians Of Their kids, Not Uncle Sam & US Taxpayers)

Ann Coulter, Democrats, Family, IMMIGRATION, Morality, Republicans, Welfare

“The kids, the kids.” Never have I seen such a sickeningly sanctimonious press as America’s, convulsing over kids detained at the border, in accordance with US law.

Treacherous “elites vie to see who can reach the greatest heights of rhetorical excess and self-righteous posturing,” said Tucker. It’s an event, a happening, for them, and we Deplorables must look up to and learn from these avatars of morality.

Stand your ground, Kirstjen Nielsen, Head Of Homeland Security. Those breaking the border are using their kids as pawns, not you or President Trump.

Tom Homan, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, certainly stood up to the sniveling, manipulative media with facts about the law and the right of national sovereignty. And, what do you know? THEY, in the person of Wolf Blitzer, CRUMBLED apologetically. The GOP is too dumb to have figured out that a backbone, and fidelity to just law, scares the Democrats more than anything.

Parents are custodians of their kids, not the US state and the American taxpayer.

With respect to The “Big Con,” as Jack Kerwick calls the entity that passes for conservatism:

Immigration virtue-signaler Jason Chaffetz proclaimed he “felt a moral obligation to the person trying to come here LEGALLY.” Ann Coulter corrected the con: “OR, TO THE AMERICAN TRYING TO GET A JOB.”

Also on Fix News’ the Next Revolutionary, the ego in the anchor’s chair (he hardly let Ann Coulter talk) was stymied by the quick-acting Ms. Coulter, who managed to turn to the camera and tell Trump and America, LOUDLY:

“Don’t listen to those child actors on TV.” LOL.

“The answer is don’t bring our kids in illegally”:

“They care about AMERICAN kids separated from their parents for life — killed by illegal aliens. NO compassion for Don Rosenberg, Mary Ann Mendoza, etc etc …”

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen did OK.

Comments Off on ‘The Kids, The Kids,’ And Other Crap (Parents Are Custodians Of Their kids, Not Uncle Sam & US Taxpayers)

Written by on

Conservatism Or Celebrity Driven Cretinism?

Celebrity, Conservatism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

Leave a reply

Were American conservatism alive and well in media and on the idiot’s lantern (the teli), Dr. Paul Gottfried (and not the next sexy girl or “girly-boy” with chipmunk voices and talking points) would be its voice:

“… What clearly differentiated the conservative movement of bygone years from what has taken its place was a willingness to express sharp internal disagreement and to defend conflicting positions with passion and high learning. This is not to say that the conservative movement tolerated all dissent. It featured one dogma that no member of the inner circle was allowed to dispute: anti-Communism and as a corollary, a vigorous struggle against the Soviets as the leading Communist adversary. But otherwise there was remarkably open debate, and those who participated in it received no conceivable earthly reward, such as lucrative book contracts, invitations to appear on Fox as an all-star or a column in the Washington Post. Being conservative back then was about standing one’s ground not only against the Left but also against other self-described conservatives; and the warrior took positions entirely out of principle.”

“Today conservative celebrities often seem obsessively concerned about positioning themselves in a way that allows them to advance their careers. This came to mind while I was looking at Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West, a sprawling collection of mainstream political views for which the author picked the title of a very contentious book written by James Burnham, a giant of the post-World War II American Right. I doubt that there’s even a single page in Burnham’s book, first published in 1964, which would not enrage today’s thought police. Burnham spoke critically about human rights rhetoric and argued that the Civil Rights Revolution, which had only begun then, would lead to more, not less, racial discord. As I now read over Burnham’s views of an earlier era, it seems that I’m looking at something that arrived from a different planet.”

“Goldberg and Burnham grew up in very different cultures, which may help explain why Goldberg’s opinions often seem to have come out of left field. He defends government-enforced affirmative action for blacks, even while counterfactually depicting himself as a libertarian. Moreover, Goldberg “thinks” but never shows that accelerated immigration from Third World countries is helping to raise the living standards of American workers. But let me resist the impulse to be overly critical. Goldberg is trying to make it in a conservative movement that is entirely different from the one that Burnham helped shape.”

“In the 1960s there was no conservative media or massive donor base that rewarded conservative journalists with TV appearances and raised them to national celebrity. William F. Buckley was an exception to this rule, but I don’t remember any other self-proclaimed conservative whom one got to see very often on TV. The present conservative movement requires its stars to accept certain consensus positions that all nice people are supposed to hold, e.g., never speaking out against gay marriage or “moderate” feminism. Although the same stars hope to market themselves as “conservatives,” they also feel obliged to engage in virtue-signaling, for example, by attacking white racism and praising the civil rights revolution almost ritualistically. On November 27, Laura Ingraham spent a large part of her evening program on Fox gushing with joy over the forthcoming wedding of Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle. When a black guest asked Laura if she noticed that Meghan was part black, she feigned offense that someone would even bring up that subject. Fox-Insider tried to make it appear that Laura bested her guest by exclaiming “Must we put our racial hangups on the happy couple?” Needless to say, the guest had figured out the real motive for Laura’s weird outburst of joy. …”

… READ THE REST. The complete column, “A Conservatism of Principle” by Paul Gottfried, is on American Thinker.

Trump Is Trying To Overcome Radically Liberal Immigration Laws & Shitty Lawmakers

Critique, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Law, Military, Republicans

Whether ordered by Barack Obama or Donald Trump; sending National Guard troops to the border, it must be clear, has always been about optics, no more.

Indeed, previous administrations have done so.

But it remains true that the National Guard can act as “extra eyes and ears for border guards,” and no more, notes The Economist, in its April 7th-13th (2018) issue. As we know all so well, “there are legal constraints on using soldiers for law-enforcement.”

In Trump translation: “We have horrible, horrible and very unsafe laws in the United States.”

The president was, therefore, wrong when he announced in April that, “We are preparing for the military to secure our border between Mexico and the United States.”

Certainly President Trump’s “proclamation to deploy the National Guard” does nothing to stop Central American asylum-seekers. These brazen border-crossers “rarely hide from border agents,” for they know that, to stay in the US, and live off the American taxpayer’s avails, all they need do is “lodge a legal claim to stay.”

In Trump translation: We have the crappiest, most liberal immigration laws.

RECENT HISTORY: “During Trump’s first nine months in office, arrests for immigration violations were 42% higher than they were during the same period in Barack Obama’s last year. Non-border deportations rose 25% in fiscal 2017. Deportations of illegal immigrants who have committed no other crime, and who were not a priority in the Obama era, nearly tripled. Refugee admissions have plummeted. This fiscal year 16% of them are Muslim, compared with 42% a year ago.”

ICE agents have increased their presence at courthouses. ICE said they will use courthouse arrests only for “specific, targeted aliens” with criminal records, gang affiliations or removal orders, or who pose national security threats.

MOREOVER, I don’t know if Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice has done so yet, but it was “to set quotas for clearing cases for immigration judges to hit.”

White House officials had been “drafting a package which would, among other things, make it easier to deport children who arrive alone at the border.”

All good stuff the sainted Sarah Sanders, White House spokesperson, never mentions.

So, to bypass the shitty lawmakers who’re unprepared to heed the country, should Republicans “eliminate the rule that most new laws can pass the Senate only with a 60-vote supermajority”? Should they, before it’s too late?

(Source: “Be Very Afraid: Donald Trump takes a hard turn on immigration.“)