Archive for the ‘Republican Party’ category

There Is Nothing Honorable about Losing to Hillary

July 25, 2016

There Is Nothing Honorable about Losing to Hillary, American ThinkerKarin McQuillan, July 25, 2016

In 2008 we had John McCain, who was too honorable to criticize Barack Hussein Obama.  In 2012 we had Mitt Romney who again was too honorable to attack our first black President.  Now we have Ted Cruz who is too honorable to honor his pledge of party unity, too honorable to protect our Supreme Court from Hillary’s potential nominees, and too honorable to help us win.  We have all the Libertarians, so honorable they have a shot at throwing the election to Hillary.

We have a whole list of conservative pundits and websites, who could swallow the GOP betraying all their 2012 pledges, doubling our national debt and increasing entitlements, without a word about bolting the party, but Trump’s crude, honest talk is too much for their honor to bear?

We have Paul Ryan who is so honorable he has to rush to the microphones and join the media lynch mob criticizing Trump as racist, while the Dems’ race-baiting over 8 years has gotten a pass.  Ryan’s priority is to protect his own, oh so honorable brand, as a compassionate conservative, superior to the voters as well as Trump.

There is nothing honorable about choosing to lose.

There is nothing honorable about betraying your voters, who picked Trump because all those honorable leaders have been lying to us for years.  They pretend to support enforcing our immigration laws when they have no intention of doing so.  They pretend to be serious about the jihadi threat, while letting millions of sharia-supporting Muslims into our country.  They pretend to be fixing things in the Middle East, while giving the Gulf sheikdoms free rein to turn American mosques into jihadi propaganda centers.  They pretend to be serious about jobs, while refusing to confront the Chinese on currency manipulation.  They pretend to love America, but not enough to protect it from the PC onslaught on our constitutional rights.

Note to all you honorable liars and losers:  the voters are sick of you.  We want someone on our side and someone who will to fight to win.  That’s why Trump was nominated.

Ted Cruz – the honorable thing was to put your personal anger at Trump’s dirty fighting aside.  Yes, he called your wife and father mean, ugly things, completely reprehensible. That’s more important to your conscience than a Hillary Supreme Court?  You told the convention, “And citizens are furious — rightly furious — at a political establishment that cynically breaks its promises and that ignores the will of the people.”  You were talking about yourself, Ted.  You were in the very act of ignoring the voters who elected Trump, not you, and breaking your promise to support the nominee.   And you have the hypocrisy to label that principled.

Message to all you so very honorable constitutional conservatives:  Trump is a far better constitutional candidate than anyone we’ve had a chance to vote for since Reagan, who also had his flaws.  Without borders, we have no country and no rule of law, both of which are prerequisites to a constitutionally limited government.  Think you’re going to get smaller government with amnesty and open borders?

So Trump doesn’t make beautiful intellectual speeches about liberty.  He’s going to protect freedom of speech, religion and the 2nd Amendment, all of which are eroding by the week under progressive misrule.

So Trump isn’t pledging entitlement reform?  He does recognize the need to rein in government over-regulation, so crucial to both liberty and prosperity.  He will get rid of the Common Core federal take-over of education, with its curriculum designed to wipe out American values and love of country among our children.  He will take on special interests such as the environmental lobby, which has hobbled our energy sector, and limited growth.  These are not small improvements.

Hillary will finish destroying everything you hold dear.  Trump will not just hold the line, he will advance it.

It’s nonsense that Trump is a horror, but that Hillary is worse.  Trump gets the basics.

Which is far more than can be said of all you honorable men.


Why we must support Donald Trump

June 27, 2016

Why we must support Donald Trump, American ThinkerCarol Brown, June 27, 2016

I supported Ted Cruz during the primaries and struggled mightily with Donald Trump (and in many ways, still do). But I will vote for Trump in November because as intrigued as I was early on by the NeverTrump movement, it’s clear these folks (who stand on soap boxes of personal integrity) are putting self before country.

David Horowitz and Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Magazine are two conservatives among many who have been covering the urgent need to get behind Trump. Writing in forceful and eloquent ways, they are sounding the alarm, pointing out critical differences between Trump and Clinton. Most recently Horowitz wrote:

Barack Obama delivers nuclear weapons and $150 billion to America’s mortal enemy in the Middle East…

But when Donald Trump insinuates the president is a man of uncertain loyalties, Republican leaders back away from him. When Trump proposes fighting “radical Islam,” securing America’s borders, stopping unvetted immigration from Muslim terrorist states, surveilling mosques, and scrutinizing the families of terrorist actors, Republicans join Democrats in denouncing him, or take an uncomfortable distance or maintain a silence that leaves him to fend for himself. [snip]

…Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run…This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.

The threat of Islam, terror, and open borders drives home the fact that without national security, all else is moot. And on this front alone, Donald Trump’s views are dramatically different from Hillary Clinton’s. The gap between Trump and Clinton on national security is so wide it is one that might one day save your life. Or mine. Or the lives of Republicans who will not vote for Trump because, you know: integrity. As if casting a vote that helps ensure that a criminal, socialist, Islamist sympathizer gets to plop herself down in the oval office in order to continue the destructive and downright evil work of the past eight years is an act brimming with integrity.

To those whose delicate sensibilities are offended by Trump, I ask: Are your sensibilities not offended by Clinton? Because if they’re not, then you should register as a Democrat. And if they are, then the reality is that it will be Clinton or Trump.

Choose one. “Conscientious objector” is an adolescent cop-out. Our nation is at war (albeit a one-sided one we refuse to fight). All adults are needed on deck.

As Daniel Greenfield wrote concerning those who are committed to abandoning our presumptive nominee and helping to “usher in eight years of left-wing rule” that embraces “positions well to the left of Obama”:

Political campaigns can get ugly and Trump’s style is, at times, to get as nasty as possible, but it’s a sign of misplaced insider priorities to allow personal animus to matter more than the war against the left. It’s not unreasonable for some conservatives to be angry at Trump and his tactics. It is unreasonable to let that anger turn into a petulance that would let the left rule the nation for another eight years.

So to those holier-than-thou conservatives who refuse to vote for Donald Trump because their personal integrity will not allow them to do so, I say: If you want more jihad, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. If you want to be sure our borders remain open, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And if you want the next president to be someone who got Americans killed and then lied about it, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And when Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the next president, you can pat yourself on the back, know you did the right thing, and raise a glass to your integrity, which will have served your ego but not the nation.

The primaries are over. Whatever happened, happened. Whatever rude, obnoxious, manipulative behavior Trump engaged in is in the past. Voting for him doesn’t mean you condone such behavior, you support everything he has expressed, you trust him implicitly, or that you even like the guy. It means you understand what’s at stake and have the maturity to move beyond your own ego in order to be a true patriot.

We either have a shot at a future or we don’t.

Trump gives America a chance to survive. And maybe even do better than that.

Exclusive — Donald Trump Plans To Continue GOP Legacy Of Leading On Women’s, Civil Rights Against Racist, Sexist Democrats

June 10, 2016

Exclusive — Donald Trump Plans To Continue GOP Legacy Of Leading On Women’s, Civil Rights Against Racist, Sexist Democrats, BreitbartMatthew Boyle, June 10, 2016

donald-trump-supporters-rally-associated-press-640x480AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States, tells Breitbart News he plans to continue the rich GOP tradition of standing up for women’s and civil rights in the face of opposition from Democrats.

He also says he plans to help the Republican Party, which led the way on ending slavery, the Civil Rights movement and women’s suffrage and women’s rights—among other big picture moral leadership causes in American history—take more credit for its victories for women’s and civil rights while fighting Democrats who opposed those measures.

“You’re right—100 percent,” Trump told Breitbart News when asked about how the Republican Party led the way on ending slavery, the Civil Rights movement and women’s suffrage.

On Tuesday night, when now presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton assumed the leadership of that party, she whitewashed the Democratic Party’s history of racism, sexism, support for slavery and long history of standing against civil rights for all in America. In fact, as the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major political party in America, Clinton attempted to align herself with the Seneca Falls convention of 1848, the first ever women’s rights convention organized in large part by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

“Tonight’s victory is not about one person,” Clinton said in her speech accepting her role as the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible. In our country, it started right here in New York, a place called Seneca Falls, in 1848. When a small but determined group of women, and men, came together with the idea that women deserved equal rights, and they set it forth in something called the Declaration of Sentiments, and it was the first time in human history that that kind of declaration occurred.

Clinton did not mention Cady Stanton, or the fact that the women’s rights leader went on to become one of the nation’s first Republicans. In fact, Stanton’s husband Henry Brewster Stanton—a journalist and a New York State senator—was one of the nation’s leading voices for the abolition of slavery and helped found the Republican Party in New York back in 1856.

Later in the speech, Clinton took a shot at Trump, arguing that he wanted to send America backward—that his trademark campaign phrase “Make America Great Again” was code for taking the country back before all people had civil rights.

“Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit to be president and commander-in-chief,” Clinton said. “And he’s not just trying to build a wall between America and Mexico – he’s trying to wall off Americans from each other. When he says, ‘Let’s make America great again,’ that is code for, ‘Let’s take America backwards.’ Back to a time when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all, promising his supporters an economy he cannot recreate.”

Never mind the fact that her own husband, former President Bill Clinton, used the phrase“Make America Great Again” multiple times back in the 1990s—a phrase first popularized by former President Ronald Reagan, who used the campaign slogan in his own successful 1980 White House bid—but Clinton is forgetting the history of her own political party. Clinton’s success is built out of a Democratic Party that rose to and clutched onto power by actively suppressing equal rights of not just women, but minorities as well.

Abraham Lincoln, the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery then led the country through the Civil War preserving the Union until his assassination, was a Republican. The general public often forgets how influential the Republican Party was in ending slavery—Democrats wanted to continue slavery, while Lincoln’s Republicans wanted to end it—and if it weren’t for the GOP, slavery would not have ended and the Union itself may have fallen apart.

“Some may not realize that the modern Republican Party owes its origin to the fight over slavery nearly two centuries ago,” CNN’s Tom Foreman wrote back in 2012.

In the tumultuous mid-1800s, right before the Civil War, some political activists were concerned about keeping slavery from spreading into new western territories, and they saw no way to stop it through existing political powers: the Democrats and the Whigs (the pro-Congress party of the mid 1800s that largely destroyed itself in the 1852 elections in a battle over slavery). So they formed a new party, taking the name ‘Republicans’ in a salute to earlier American politicians.

As Republicans led the battle against slavery, in 1861 the party’s first U.S. president—Abraham Lincoln—was elected.

“Soon after, slavery fell,” Foreman wrote.

The Whig party disappeared. And the Republicans began a long steady rise in power. Even back then, the party liked to talk about fiscal responsibility — immigration, religion — and the need for a strong business climate. All of this spurred a sympathetic Chicago newspaper to call the Republicans the Grand Old Party, or the GOP.

Republicans have led the way on every major civil rights movement in American history—ending slavery was hardly the only one. What is now the Party of Trump also led the way in granting women the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a leader in the women’s rights movement in the 19th Century, was a Republican, as was Susan B. Anthony. So were many of the others involved in the effort. In fact, it was Republicans who led the effort for decades that eventually saw passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which granted women the right vote.

“Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920,” the American Spectator’s David Catron wrote back in 2012.

But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats — including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as “Kaiser Wilson.”

Catron continued by noting that Republicans in Utah—Mormons—granted women the right to vote back in 1870. Then, for years afterwards, Republicans—facing objections from Democrats—over and over again introduced the 19th Amendment for ratification in Congress. Meanwhile, Republican states granted women the right to vote in many other places.

“Meanwhile, the Republicans continued to introduce the 19th Amendment in Congress every year, but the Democrats were able to keep it bottled up in various committees for another decade before allowing either chamber to vote on it,” Catron wrote.

In 1887 it finally reached the floor of the Senate. Once again, however, it was defeated by a vote of 34 to 16. After this setback, advocates of women’s suffrage opted to put pressure on Congress by convincing various state legislatures to pass bills giving women the vote. This met with some success. By the turn of the century a variety of Republican-controlled states, including Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, had granted women suffrage. During the first ten years of the new century, several other states gave women the vote, including Washington and California.

Eventually, Democrats relented and Republicans succeeded in granting women’s suffrage nationally.

“Congress, however, didn’t deign to vote on the issue again until 1914, when it was once again defeated by Senate Democrats,” Catron added.

It was subsequently brought up for a vote in January of 1915 in the House, where it went down by a vote of 204 to 174. Nonetheless, the Republicans continued to push even after it was defeated yet again in early 1918. The big break for 19th Amendment came when President Wilson, a true Democrat, violated his most solemn campaign promise. Having pledged to keep the United States out of the European conflict that had been raging since 1914, he decided to enter the war anyway. This set the stage for the 1918 midterm elections in which voter outrage swept the Republicans into power in both the House and the Senate. This finally placed the GOP in a position to pass the amendment despite Democrat opposition.

Later in the 20th Century of course, during the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats again stood against equal rights for all Americans regardless of race or gender. Writing in the Guardian of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act back in 2013, Harry Enten detailed how the Democratic Party opposed civil rights efforts while Republicans backed them.

“80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did,” Enten wrote. “Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

In fact, a PBS special on “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow” detailed how systemic racism was embedded into the very fabric of what has now become Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party.

“The Democratic Party identified itself as the ‘white man’s party’ and demonized the Republican Party as being ‘Negro dominated,’ even though whites were in control,” the PBS special writes on its website of the post-Civil War Democrats. “Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats ‘redeemed’ state after state — sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.”

The PBS special goes on even further to detail how even Northern Democrats tolerated the overt discrimination and racism from their Southern brethren so as to keep their coalition of power together. “The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats,” PBS writes.

A deeper more than 30-page report from the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU)—called “The Truth About Jim Crow”—details how the Democratic Party was integral to the development of such laws.

“Jim Crow’s political purpose was to keep the white population in power, and the Democratic Party thought of itself as the white man’s party,” one part of the more than 10-page-long section on how the Democratic Party pushed Jim Crow laws reads. “A chronological look at the Jim Crow era will illustrate how Democrats created and exploited Jim Crow.”

The report goes on to detail how it was Republicans who ended Jim Crow laws.

Trump, in his latest exclusive interview with Breitbart News, said that Clinton’s rewriting of her Democratic Party’s sordid history on these important narratives is more proof that she is just playing the woman card and the race card for pure political gain—and in opposition of the facts. He also believes that Republicans need to do more to take credit for the party’s leading role in the women’s rights, Civil Rights and slavery abolition movements—all movements the Democrats, the party of Clinton, originally fought against intensely.

“The Democrats have always played that card,” Trump said. “The Republicans have not taken enough credit for what’s taken place. They’ve never taken enough credit for what’s taken place.”

Trump told Breitbart News that he plans to win support across the country despite anyone’s particular race, and aims to seek support from Hispanics and African Americans and white voters alike—and men and women—using the same message delivered to each of them the same way, equally: Jobs and economic opportunity for all. Meanwhile, Clinton, of course, is going to use these race and gender issues to divide Americans into separate classes based on gender and skin color.

“I plan to help Hispanics and African Americans because I’m going to bring jobs back to the country,” Trump said.

She doesn’t know how. I’m going to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, she wouldn’t know where to start. That’s why a lot of the unions, the head people, they routinely endorse the Democrats. Routinely. And they’re having a hard time. Because while they’re dying to endorse the Democrats because that’s where their head people have their lunch and dinner, their membership wants to endorse Trump. Look at the Teamsters. The people within the Teamsters want Trump. They haven’t endorsed yet, and the reason they haven’t endorsed yet is because everybody in the Teamsters wants Trump. The reason they want Trump is because I’m going to rebuild the infrastructure of the country and that’s good for them. It appeals across the lines to people that have small businesses and contracting companies that are not unionized.

When asked about how—when those self-appointed leaders in the African American and Hispanic communities will certainly further the Democratic Party’s agenda and undermine the GOP’s efforts, facts be damned—he plans to get his message out to the actual voters, Trump said it is simple.

“I think that’s been my whole message up to this point,” Trump said. “I’m going to continue to hit it very hard. But I think it’s been very much my own message up to this point, jobs, good trade deals. Last night I talked about it. Great trade deals.”

There are some early signs that Trump—using his unique style of mixing interesting campaigning with his celebrity appeal—might be able to cut through the clutter and reach voters in African American and Hispanic communities that have for years now been outside the GOP’s grasp, despite the Democratic Party’s dark history on civil and women’s rights matters.

As noted by Fox News Latino, Trump’s support among Hispanics is spiking fast according to new data from analytics firm CulturIntel. In fact, he is almost equal with Clinton.

“Based on big data analysis over the last 30 days as of June 1st, Trump reports 37 percent of Hispanic positive sentiment versus 41 percent for Clinton,” CulturIntel writes in the report. “Surprisingly, the candidates tie in negative sentiment across Hispanics at 38 percent; discounting the fact that Latinos default as Democrats or are completely turned off by Trump’s off-color comments. After all, over 50 percent of Latinos identify as political independents.”

Meanwhile, as Gateway Pundit notes in a new report as well based off this and other data, Trump could be on par to win 25 percent of the black vote. It would, the report detailed, lead to a landslide victory for Trump in November. It would also be the first time since 1960, when Richard Nixon failed to beat John F. Kennedy for the presidency before coming back eight years later to win in 1968, that a Republican won such a big percentage of the non-white vote. With black unemployment rates double what they are for whites, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if Trump hammers his jobs message—and corrects the record on Democrats versus Republicans when it comes to civil rights—maybe he could cut into a significant portion of the black electorate.

On top of all of this, as Breitbart News previously reported in an earlier part of this interview, Trump is also zoning in one place where failed 2012 GOP presidential former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not succeed: proving to voters he cares about them.

He said in this interview that he believes that to run the country, a president must “manage with heart”—a sign that he is appealing to the significant portion of the electorate that looks for a president who cares about people like them, qualifications be damned.

While Trump paints Clinton as “Heartless Hillary,” his second nickname for who he also calls “Crooked Hillary,” he could be growing the GOP tent and expanding the electorate based off key analytics that establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., hellbent on amnesty for illegal aliens and jailbreak style “criminal justice reform” crime bills have completely missed.

Judge Jeanine One on One w/ Donald Trump 6/4/16 FULL Special Interview

June 5, 2016

Judge Jeanine One on One w/ Donald Trump 6/4/16 FULL Special Interview, Fox News via YouTube, June 4, 2016

Kristol’s Betrayal gets Serious

May 30, 2016

Kristol’s Betrayal gets Serious, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, May 30, 2016


Reprinted from Breitbart.

Over the Memorial Day Weekend, Bill Kristol doubled down on his betrayal of this country with a pair of tweets:

“Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate–an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.”

“Those accused of betraying GOP by opposing Trump can take heart from P. Henry 251 years ago today: ‘If this be treason, make the most of it!’”

This fatuous invocation of an American patriot to justify the betrayal typifies the arrogant disregard for political realities shared by all those involved in a defection that could produce even greater disasters than the Obama era’s 400,000 deaths by jihad and 20 million refugees across the Middle East.

A week earlier a Never Trump diatribe appeared in National Review, written by Charles Murray. To summarize why “Trump is unfit outside the normal parameters” to be president, Murray cited these words by NY Times columnist David Brooks:

Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa. . . . He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12.

This is a perfect instance of “Trump derangement syndrome,” the underlying animus that motivates Kristol and his destructive cohorts. Dismissing Trump as an ignoramus and a stunted twelve-year old is the stuff of schoolyard put-downs, not a serious critique of someone with Trump’s considerable achievements. Yet this is typical of Trump’s diehard opponents on the right.Is Trump more unprepared than Barack Obama whose qualification for the presidency was a lifetime career as a leftwing agitator? And how did that work out? Despite the lacunae in his executive resume, Obama is now regarded as “one of the most consequential presidents in American history” by reasonably qualified experts.

Can Trump be reasonably criticized, and is he something of a loose cannon? Of course he can, and yes he is. But criticisms that focus exclusively on the candidate miss the larger reality of this election, which is not merely a contest between two candidates but a clash between two parties and constituencies with radically differing views of what this country is and should be about, and even more importantly about the threats we face and how to deal with them.

Obama’s most consequential domestic legislation is the Affordable Care Act, which he had no part in writing. It was the work of leftwing think tanks and the congressional Democrats. So it will be with Trump, which is why all the blather about his vagueness or impracticality on policy issues is beside the point. Will he build a wall the length of the Mexican border? Probably not. But will he secure the border? Probably so.  Will a Democrat – whether Hillary, Bernie or Joe Biden, secure our borders and stop the flow of illegals, criminals and terrorists? Certainly not. In addition to their decades long war for amnesties and open boarders, Democrats are responsible for the more than 350 “Sanctuary Cities” that openly defy federal law and provide safe havens for those same illegals, criminals and terrorists.

Open borders, Sanctuary Cities, importing unvetted Muslim refugees from the Middle East are but the tip of the iceberg in assessing the threat that the Democratic Party and its candidate (whoever it is) pose to America’s national security. For twenty-three years since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Democratic Party has been the party of appeasement and retreat in the holy war that fanatical Muslims have declared on us. The first bombing of the World Trade Center misfired but still killed 6 people and wounded 1,000 others. Clinton never visited the site while his administration insisted on treating it as a criminal act by individuals who needed to be tried in criminal courts, an attitude that would culminate in Barack Obama’s refusal to recognize that we were in a war at all, and certainly not one with fanatical Muslims. To a man and woman the Democratic Party’s elected officials continue to participate in and support this denial.

Following the first World Trade Center bombing, there were three more devastating attacks on American assets by al-Qaeda’s barbarians during the Clinton administration, with no response and no change of mind towards the nature of the threat. There were also massive security breaches, including the theft by Communist China of America’s nuclear arsenal and the publishing of all our hitherto classified data from America’s nuclear weapons tests. Clinton’s leftist Secretary of Energy published the reports for the world to see, as she put it, “to end the bomb-building culture.

Following the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration focused on Afghanistan, which had provided al-Qaeda with a base to attack us, and Iraq, which had violated 16 Security Council resolutions designed to enforce the Gulf War truce, which Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated and prevent him from reviving the massive chemical and nuclear weapons programs we had destroyed. In 1998 Saddam threw the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, a further violation of the Gulf War truce and a clear sign of his determination to revive his weapons programs. Embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton fired 451 cruise missiles into Iraq, a pointless response that was correctly seen by critics at the time as an attempt to deflect attention from his appearance before the grand jury looking into his personal disorders.

The Bush administration put 200,000 troops on Iraq’s borders, which prompted Saddam Hussein to re-admit the inspectors, but then to throw obstacles in their path. Bush went before the UN and secured a 17th Security Council resolution, unanimously passed, in the form of an ultimatum to Saddam to destroy any weapons of mass destruction he possessed and provide proof that he had done so. Bush also went to Congress and got an authorization for the use of force from Senate but not House Democrats. The ultimatum date came and went, and to prevent the word of the United States and the commitment of 200,000 troops from meaning nothing, Bush proceeded to invade Iraq. But before he did so he gave Saddam the option to quit the country in which case the invasion would be called off. A simpler measure would have been to assassinate Saddam, since he was the Iraq problem. But thanks to a law passed by the post-Watergate Democrats the CIA is prevented from assassinating foreign leaders, which made the invasion necessary.

Within three months of the invasion, with American troops still in harms’ way. The Democrats who had authorized the use of force and spoken in favor of the removal of Saddam turned against the war and began a five-year campaign to sabotage it. The Democrats reversal – and betrayal of our men and women in arms – was triggered by a presidential primary in which a leftwing candidate, Howard Dean, was running away with the Democratic nomination. This betrayal prevented us from pursuing Saddam’s generals and chemical weapons into Syria, and bringing Assad to heel. Bush managed to rescue the war effort and defeat al-Qaeda on the battlefield through the “surge” that Democrats opposed. But then Obama took charge and implemented, the Democrats’ America-is- guilty platform of appeasement and retreat, creating a power vacuum in Iraq and Syria that ISIS quickly filled. At the same time, the Democrats have systematically taken down our military which is now at its lowest levels since World War II.

This is the issue that defines the coming election. A party in denial about the Muslim holy war against America and its allies, whose basic instinct is to weaken America’s defenses and enable her enemies, is opposed by a party that wants to rebuild America’s strength, secure our borders and put the safety of our people first.

The Kristol attack on the Republican Party and its candidate Donald Trump, is an attack on all Americans, and needs to be seen in that light.

But is Trump nasty enough?

May 25, 2016

But is Trump nasty enough? American ThinkerJames Lewis, May 25, 2016

Donald Trump, we are assured by the first two big pages of Google when you search for “Trump news,” is the meanest, nastiest, most racist (etc., etc.) son of a bachelor to come down the pike in many a long year. Our angelic media cultists are shocked, shocked by… (etc., ad nauseam). The GOPe has battled heroically to protect us from this beast, but the idiot voters out in the boonies (etc., etc., you remember the rest). So here we are, stuck with a nominal Republican who actually fights. Forty million ticked-off voters are backing him, and they don’t care about niceties. Being nice got this country into the ungodly mess we have today. The other word for “nice” is “gimme da money, sucker!”

I didn’t like it when Trump insulted Carly Fiorina in the debates, and I hope that backstage he has apologized to her. But it’s pretty clear why he performed his spectacular war dance in the debates. It’s not Jeb Bush who was the big target. It’s the embedded Washington power cult, both nominal parties, the Permanent Government now grown fat and lazy with trillions of dollars regardless of performance, the corrupt city machines in Chicago and New York, which are now state and regional political machines, the Senioriate in Congress — people with enough seniority to laugh at passing presidents — the radical Lefties Obama has planted as delayed-action bombs in the bureaucracy to explode in future “leaks” and “exclusives” for their pals at the New York Times, the Soros money-power cult that finances and directs the Democratic radical base, tens of thousands of lobbyists who have welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood and similar sweethearts to their moneyed ranks, and the NYT-WaPo Organs of Propaganda who put old Soviet apparatchiks to shame.

Question: Are the real power brokers in DC sufficiently scared yet to listen to fed-up voters?

Probably not. Right now if the Don dropped his famous line “You’re Fired!” nothing would happen. Nothing.

The Donald drove our old, beloved National Review into spectacular hysterics, where it is still stuck, trying to figure out how to climb down from its tall tree without looking ridiculous. Still, a hoo-hah may turn out to be useful, since any comfy power cult can use a good purgative every few years. It’s been too long since Bill Buckley graced its pages. Those terrified old moths flying out after the Donald’s O-kaze (Japanese great wind) are already settling down on more peaceful pools in the swamp.

The big, big question is whether anything can shake our deeply dysfunctional establishment, which actually welcomed the Nazi-era Muslim Broederbund with open arms, including Muslim Sister Huma and her hubbie the exhibitionist. The Ikhwan feeds Muslim terrorism, and has ever since 1929. Its high point was the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the greatest Arab peacemaker of the 20th century. Now the Brotherhood has its tentacles deep into the Clintons (witness Sister Huma and Hillary), as well as in Turkey, which has just announced that Überfuehrer Erdogan is taking dictatorial power in the only Muslim nation that managed to keep a modern, tolerant state alive for fifty years. Just to demonstrate the new power of neo-Ottomanism, Erdogan ordered his US-equipped air force to shoot down an annoying Sukhoi-24 (from behind, violating agreed-on flight rules), and killed the surviving pilot who ejected and was parachuting down. Putin was trying to embarrass Erdogan by exposing criminal collusion between Turkey and the demonic followers of ISIS, an obvious collusion that has been ignored by Barack Hussein Obama and NATO. So Erdogan shot down the Russian jet that was getting too close to his own ISIS-oil smuggling operation. Now the Russians have backed off Erdogan, who is stilling getting billions of dollars of Iraqi oil stolen by the Islamic State, when it isn’t massacring Christian children for their parents’ religion.

None of this, none, should be happening.  The greatest moral and strategic failure of the West since the Cold War has been to collude in the rise of Jihad. Not just tolerate. Not just retreat, but actively collude in a criminal movement by any definition of international humanitarian law. In the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials, the West uniformly agreed that genocide was about as evil as evil gets. Terrorism was clearly understood as deliberate murder and mayhem directed at innocent non-combatants purely for political gain. Armies wore uniforms and insignia that clearly identified them as combatants, and therefore more likely to be targeted than innocent bystanders. Von Clausewitz had nothing but contempt for the irregular Cossacks who hid in the general population in the wake of national armies, to rape, loot and kill non-combatants. War is the worst thing people do to each other except for ISIS-type outright sadistic killing of the most innocent for the sake Allah and his bloodthirsty priesthood.

Post-WWII rules of combat emerged against the fresh history of the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust. With the crumbling of the Soviet Empire it looked as if domestic mass-murder might also be almost universally condemned. Millions of people expressed noble intentions. Now we can see that the Rad-Left/Jihad alliance was already being planted in the 1960s and 1970s, according to Admiral James Lyons and others. The United Nations lost every last shred of decency when the genocidal Sudan was elevated to the Human Rights Commission of the General Assembly, and Kofi Annan literally stood by and did nothing during the Rwanda genocide.

Nobody knows these days how to define “terrorism,” but before the rise of the Left/Jihad Axis of Evil, the meaning of terrorism was clear enough. Terrorism is murder, plain and simple, deliberate murder against civilians, regardless of age, gender and all the rest. Every civilized nation has incorporated post-WWII definitions of criminal murder of civilians in its codes of military justice. The Dutch Army has punished its own soldiers who stood by during the Srebrenica massacres and did nothing. The United States, Britain, Israel, and a few other countries enforce rules of decency in combat.

But the United Nations has surrendered completely to the dark side, singling out Israel and favoring Jihad. According to the “authoritative” ulema of Saudi Arabia, the ruling priesthood, ISIS is doing nothing un-Islamic. The Ayatollahs of Iran advocate nuclear genocide every single day, and we just found out that the White House used a thirtyish English Lit major to lie to a compliant media about the contemptible US-Iran deal. But he is just a scapegoat. American collusion with genocide-promoting Ayatollahs comes from the top, and dontcha forget it.

Of course Anti-American hatred is rife at the Jihad-controlled UN and the massively corrupt EU, all busily revising the truth to make the 7th century war theology look normal.

These are the defining events of the Obama era. They are not incidental side effects. They are completely intentional, and the once-proud city of Washington, DC, is now completely degraded, morally and even in matters of national survival. George Washington was an intensely, even an obsessively moral man, a man who kept a diary to track his own faults, where he fell short of his own ideals. It was not an unusual habit in the founding generation of the United States. Everybody knew about political, sexual, and moral corruption, because they could see it in plain sight in France, England, Ireland and the rest. The Founders knew all about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. They understood history and they understood politics, because they understood human nature. But in spite of their intimate knowledge of the worst things that people can do, they had higher hopes for the New World.

Donald Trump is fighting to become the new broom in the fetid swamps of DC. His voters don’t care much about nice manners, maybe because they know or suspect the Augean stables that need cleaning. They are right on the facts and right on the moral issues. They are placing their hopes in Trump, who is a mere human being, no more and no less.

It will take more than one person to make things better. Trump has been quietly telling the truth about taboo subjects like Jihad and the puritanical strictures of PC. The newsies are predictably fainting in horror, or pretending to. But morally they are fluff, blowing with the winds of fashion, from day to day. Total lightweights, every single one. The web-based media are both freer and more morally serious.

Trump is a serious guy, I believe, since he has been talking about the same policies in the same words since 1988. He has been consistently close to the mainstream of conservative thought, on almost all the things that matter. The media obsessed with trying to destroy him, and he has survived so far. (Without help from National Review and The Weekly Standard).

The liberal attacks will never stop. If they ever do, it will mean that Trump is finished. This is a fight, and it will remain contentious as long as the Left controls the corporate media. Get used to it. Flags and parades come long after the war is over, if ever.

But Trump has the right enemies.

It will take a lot of people, working together to rescue the country and the culture, to make a difference.

Abraham Lincoln’s generals kept losing battles to Robert E. Lee’s more agile forces in the first part of the Civil War. Finally, in despair, Lincoln asked “Where can I find a general who fill fight?” The answer was Ulysses S. Grant, who was not a perfect human being.

American voters have been asking the same question.

Now we have a general who will fight.

He’s not just a pretty face. In fact, he’s not even a pretty face.

But he’s got a good sense of humor, and so far he’s beaten a lot of the competition.

At some point, if he succeeds, he will need a lot of support from people who share the same basic values. Many voters are skeptical, which is the right thing to be.

But this is the best chance we’ve had in many years. If Trump is good enough — not perfect, just good enough — he will need a lot of help.

It’s up to you.


Trump, Ryan and the Islam Problem

May 16, 2016

Trump, Ryan and the Islam Problem, PJ Media, Roger L. Simon, May 15, 2016


One of the main areas of contention between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan is the question of Muslim immigration. In early December, when Trump first made his proposal (now a “suggestion”) to stop all such immigration until we “understood what was going on,” one of the first to react in high dudgeon was Ryan, who declared: “This is not conservatism.”

He was applauded for his four-word pronouncement by those “conservatives” at the Washington Post, who called his response “near-perfect.” Actually, to me it seemed morally narcissistic and had little to with conservatism, pro or con. Ryan wanted to disassociate himself as quickly as possible from the ugly and seemingly racist Trump.

But let’s look more closely at what the speaker said during that response:

When we voted to pause the refugee program a few weeks ago, I made very clear at the time: there would not be a religious test. There would be a security test. And that is because freedom of religion is a fundamental Constitutional principle. It’s a founding principle of this country.

Aside from the obvious — if people are fighting and killing you in the name of a religion, how do you ignore the “religious test” — what about that “security test”? Is it really happening or are people slipping into the country by various means, including an open border, with no test whatsoever?  What about reports of an ISIS camp eight miles from El Paso?

And, perhaps more importantly, did that “pause” Ryan voted for actually take place in any meaningful way? According to the New York Post a “surge operation” bringing Syrian refugees to America was already in operation this past April.  By “surge operation,” Gina Kassem — regional refugee coordinator in Amman — told reporters, it was meant the resettlement process that normally took 18 to 24 months would be sped up to 3 months. (Some pause!) And the figure of 10,000 refugees that has often been proffered by the administration was a minimum, not a maximum.

What is the maximum and how will they be vetted? And just how do you “vet” during a “surge”? Is that what Ryan really meant by a “security test”?  I doubt it, but Trump should ask him at their next reconciliation meeting. As they say, Paul’s got some “xplainin” to do.

Now this isn’t a simple question. The Syrian people have suffered mightily at the hands of various psychotic despots, secular and religious. Trump has called for supporting more extensive refugee camps in the region, an idea that makes more sense than bringing them here.  (He has also called for the Gulf states to pay for them — good luck with that.)

The main point is that this is a significant campaign issue and intelligent solutions have to be discussed.  Trump has put Rudy Giuliani in charge of studying this from his side, an excellent choice.

There may be a short-term fix, but there won’t be a short-term answer. This is a very long-term problem, the longest one we have, dwarfing the deficit and everything else — civilizational, really.  Will we be America or will we go the way of Europe and turn semi-Islamic like France in Houellebecq’s novel?

It wouldn’t be hard. We have been living under an administration that has been an enabler of Islamism.  Obama has chosen to ally himself with Islamists like Turkey’s Erdogan, Egypt’s Morsi and, most stunningly, Iran’s Khamenei, while abjuring Egypt’s al-Sisi, who seeks to reform Islam.  Go figure.

On top of all that — it’s hard to believe this — there are reports our administration was colluding with Russia in an attempt to get Israel to give back the Golan Heights to Syria in some putative peace settlement. Syria? Needless to say, Mr. Netanyahu was not amused.

In any case, on the immediate question of Muslim immigration, Trump may have sounded excessive and even been excessive.  That’s his technique — he likes to get our attention, then negotiate. But in this particular negotiation (not, for example, on entitlements) the basic talking points — and the American people — are on Donald’s side. Ryan should listen.