DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Friday, May 06, 2016

The Trump Effect

by JASmius



He's only been presumptive "GOP" nominee for three days, but his corrupt, thuggish influence has been corroding the party for long before this week.  This is the Corleonesque endgame.

Take Mike Huckaburger, for example, an ordained Baptist minister, no less, who is now sounding with regard to conservatives who are putting principle before the party that left us like President Bush43 addressing al Qaeda fourteen years ago:

Speaking on Fox’s America’s Newsroom Thursday, the former Arkansas governor dismissed the notion that he could be up for the VP slot — “He’s never said anything to me about it,” he said — but averred that he would do everything in his power to make sure that Trump becomes the next president, even though the party was not be supporting him in unison yet.

“When we nominated people over the past several election cycles, some of us had heartburn, but we stepped up and supported the nominee,” he said, and told any Republicans not backing Trump to leave the party. “This isn’t Burger King,” he said. “This is an election. And you don’t get it all the time just like you want it.”

You’re either on the team, or you’re not on the team,” he added. [emphasis added]



Well, as I say, Gomer, the party has already left us, and if you had any integrity (or three brain cells to rub together), you'd realize that it left you as well.   But then Huckles never did have much of a brain to wash in the first place, did he?

There are two possibilities here: Either he's been corrupted (remember that he was one of the first former candidates to hop aboard TrumpTrain) or he is literally a three-watt bulb incapable of grasping that this isn't the standard case of "wah, my candidate didn't win" syndrome.  It's the difference between browsing an online dating site and choosing between, say, Jessica Alba and Sarah Jessica Parker - smokin' hot and faux hot Oklahoma two-bagger, but still passable female - and choosing between Jessica Alba, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Bruce Jenner....



....not the same gender, and maybe not even the same species.

My candidate, once again, was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and he was the first one out of the race.  And, once again, I could have "heartburnedly" gotten behind any of the other fifteen candidates - even Hucker - that were actual Republicans if nothing else.  But not Trump.  Because Trump is not a Republican (as that used to be defined).  Trump is a liberal Democrat.  And I thought Republicans didn't support liberal Democrats.  That, evidently, has now changed (or changed back, going back to the pre-Goldwater GOP).  But true conservatives still do not, and never will.  Which would speak to the need for Huck to head to the exits if the OTHER "team" wasn't running the party now.  Why is he shocked that we don't want to be on it?

If Huckabuckle wasn't such a witless oaf, he'd have just said, "You are with us....or you are with the terrorists".  It's what he wanted to say, after all.  Apparently he didn't have the balls to do it.

But other Trumpidians, like campaign spokesgal Katrina Pierson (who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, BTW), equivalently do:

A spokeswoman for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said Friday that House Speaker Paul Ryan shouldn’t be speaker if he can’t get behind his party’s presumptive nominee.

” If the speaker of the House doesn’t come around to supporting the Republican nominee, do you think Paul Ryan is still fit to be speaker?” CNN’s John Berman asked Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson.

“No, because this is about the party,” Pierson responded. “We were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.” [emphasis added]

That's a...unique definition of "fitness", Kat.  Given that she infiltrated the Tea Party after her Obama dalliance, I could understand her saying something that imperiously insulting, if not condone or agree with it, coming in that context.  But this?  The Speaker of the House of Representatives not reflexively endorsing a liberal Democrat who has torn the GOP limb from limb (as Pierson herself is illustrating) as the Republican presidential nominee?  That makes Ryan supremely fit for his post, if the party still standing for conservative principles that Pierson once claimed to represent still means anything.  If, however, it's just a bunch of corrupt, mercenary, turd-in-every-pocket hacks - ironically, what the Tea Party has falsely accused the GOP "establishment" of being - then knock yourself out, I guess.  Which is why that is not a "team" on which #NeverTrumpers wish to "play".

And then there is the quixotic, erratic, too-brilliant-for-his-own-good Ryan-predecessor Newt Gingrich, who has yo-yo'd between conservative orthodoxy and anti-conservative heresy for years, leading the Gingrich Revolution in Congress, then paling around with Bill Clinton, then winning the first government shutdown showdown with Slick in the winter of 1995, then overplaying his hand and losing the second one (which is the only part 'Pubbies ever remember), then becoming a political eunuch after Clinton's re-election, then finally resigning the Speakership and retreating to pundit-dom.  Only to resurface fourteen years later with a GOP presidential run of his own in 2012 that saw him (along with Rick Santorum) sound like Bernie Sanders in his hysterical leftish attacks on Mitt Romney, a "Republican businessman" with far less (alleged) wealth, but far more humility, decency, goodness, and personal character than the one for whom he's flacking now:



How did Ryan make a "mistake", even in the context of the rest of Newt's comments?:

“He can sit down and negotiate very toughly with the nominee on specific issues. That is why the constitution has a division of powers, and I encourage that kind of tough-minded negotiation. But it has to be done in a framework that we’re all Republicans. We’re all on the same side…

The Speaker of the House has a lot of tools. He can defend whatever position he believes in by the power of whether or not he even brings it to the floor. So he has enormous leverage over the President of the United States if he wants to use it.”

First of all, isn't "toughly negotiating with the nominee" pretty much what Ryan is doing by withholding his endorsement?  Ryan didn't declare himself a #NeverTrumper, but a #SkepticalOfTrumper.  He said that if Trump wants his backing, he's going to have to earn it, not have it handed to him for free.  If The Donald is such a great negotiator himself (and he isn't, as his business track record dismally shows) I would think he would recognize and appreciate that.  Just as I would think Gingrich would be able to figure that out.  Maybe his "brilliance" is overrated, seeing as how he is blind to the fact that Trump is on nobody's side but his own...or Hillary Clinton's.

Perhaps Il Douche recognizes the Speaker's opening gambit for what it is....or perhaps he's going full-Godfather:





Sometime in the next week one of these....



....may show up in Ryan's bed.

There is another plausible motivation for Speaker Ryan playing hard to get.  Exit quote from Chris Cillizza:

Lost somewhat in the maelstrom of press coverage of Ryan’s announcement — it came during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper — was the “why” behind Ryan’s decision to not simply get in line behind Trump.

The answer is important and telling about where Ryan sees both himself and the party not just in this election but in 2020 and beyond. He is not running for president. Instead he’s working like hell to preserve a Republican Party that can be viable in future national elections. …

Seen through that lens, Ryan’s unwillingness to simply throw his support behind Trump makes perfect sense. Ryan knows the numbers. He gets that Trump is an underdog against Hillary Clinton in the fall. And what he wants to avoid is sacrificing (or appearing to be sacrificing) the core principles of the Republican Party for the easy expediency of backing the party’s nominee. [emphases added]

Rick Perry & Rand Paul Go Trumplican

by JASmius



Let's take a few walks down memory lane, shall we?

Remember when Governor Perry and Senator Paul couldn't stand each other....?:

There are many things I like about Texas Governor Rick Perry, including his stance on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. But apparently his new glasses haven’t altered his perception of the world, or allowed him to see it any more clearly.

There are obviously many important events going on in the world right now, but with sixty thousand foreign children streaming across the Texas border, I am surprised Governor Perry has apparently still found time to mischaracterize and attack my foreign policy.

Governor Perry writes a fictionalized account of my foreign policy so mischaracterizing my views that I wonder if he’s even really read any of my policy papers.

....and when neither could stand Donald Trump?

Perry:

Let no one be mistaken – Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.

It cannot be pacified or ignored, for it will destroy a set of principles that has lifted more people out of poverty than any force in the history of the civilized world – the cause of conservatism.

I feel so strongly about this because I believe conservatism is the only way forward for this country.

I will not go quiet when this cancer on conservatism threatens to metastasize into a movement of mean-spirited politics that will send the Republican Party to the same place it sent the Whig Party in 1854: the graveyard.

Paul:

Appearing on Comedy Central’s Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore Monday, Paul invoked his experience as an optical surgeon to draw an analogy between voters’ love affair with the bombastic business mogul and a speck of dust in one’s eye.

“Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye? Annoying, irritating, might even make you cry,” Paul said. “But if the dirt doesn’t go away, it’ll keep scratching away at your cornea until it eventually blinds you with all its filth, and then it makes fun of you on CNN.”

“Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag,” Paul continued. “A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president.”

Fast forward almost a year, and now Governor Perry and Senator Paul are the oddest of Odd Couples.

Paul:

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, asked on Thursday if he would endorse Donald Trump now that he’s the party’s presumptive nominee, answered that he has always said he would back the winner of the Republican primary.

“You know, I’ve always said I’ll endorse the nominee,” Paul said in an interview with interviewed by radio host Leland Conway. “I said that even when I ran [for Senate] in 2010.”

Except that six years ago, you never in your worst nightmares imagined that the nominee could ever have been somebody as manifestly anti-libertarian as Donald Trump.

As I've been saying, I get the impossible tightrope that Senate Republican incumbents up for reelection this fall will be walking, so in that sense Rand Paul's craven cuckolding to the New York liberal conman is not particularly remarkable.  What is remarkable is that such a hardcore libertarian and worthy heir to his father's kooky legacy would bow the knee before a man who is a personification of just about everything he supposedly opposes - corruption, big government statism (though not foreign policy isolationism, which is where the two overlap).  Maybe there's a "Trojan horse" kinship at work, but given that those respective Trojan horses came from opposite ideological and temperamental directions, it's still spit-take-inducing.

But Perry?  He's out of elective office, if not politics altogether.  He has no institutional impetus to submit to such a perfidious humiliation.

And yet....:

Rick Perry would be open to being the vice presidential candidate on a ticket with Donald Trump, CNN reported Thursday.

“I will be open to any way I can help. I’m not going to say no,” the former governor of Texas and two-time presidential candidate told Dana Bash, who recounted a phone conversation she had with Perry earlier that day on Erin Burnett Outfront.

“Rick Perry just told me on a phone call from his home state in Texas that he does support Donald Trump and that he’s going to do everything he can to help Donald Trump get elected,” Bash reported.

“He said that he believes in the process and the process meaning the voters inside the Republican electorate clearly said Trump should be the guy and he is going to follow that process.”

Seriously, man? When you announced for president, you had Marcus Luttrell standing by your side. Trump is the guy who mocked war prisoner John McCain.

So did Perry mean what he said ten months ago about Trump being a cancer on conservatism or didn't he?  Or had he not thought it through to the extent of contemplating the possibility that Trump might actually win the nomination and the impact of that on his still quite evident political ambitions?  Most of it is likely the latter, but you'd like to think that the convictions with which Perry accurately pronounced The Donald a malignant political tumor would have had the stamina to survive Trumpageddon.  In the words of Red Skull, "Evidently not".

There is one other possibility, though.

Recall that the closest Republican analog to Donald Trump in recent history is Richard Nixon - a perceived "tough guy" (Nixon in the context of is anti-communist street cred for having busted Alger Hiss) who was, in reality, on the left on domestic issues (EPA, OSHA, etc. all came into existence through his signature, taking the U.S. off the gold standard, wage & price controls) and even ultimately used his past anti-communist props to sell out those principles by "opening" to Red China and pursuing "detente" with the Soviet Union.  Nixon was similarly thin-skinned and vindictive, with his enemies lists and attempting to use the IRS to go after them, and similarly naive in the sense that he thought, as a Republican, that he could abuse power with impunity the same way past Democrat POTUSs did.  In Watergate he found out the hard way that that was not the case.

I've already predicted that if Donald Trump ever made it to the White House, he would become either (1) the second president to resign from office (because he doesn't want the actual JOB of the presidency because he would quickly get bored with it once he found out that it wasn't the royal throne he thinks it is now; he just wants to prove that he can win it) or (2) the first POTUS to be impeached and removed from office (He'd have any number of scandals from which for the Dems to choose).  If he didn't resign first, as Nixon did.  Which, in that situation, I don't think Trump would, given his penchant for mindless, reflexive "counter-punching".  Nixon resigned once the late Barry Goldwater told him that there weren't the votes in the Senate to save him, much the same way that he conceded the 1960 election to JFK despite knowing that the Daley machine in Chicago had stolen Illinois and put Kennedy over the top: He chose not to put an already bitterly divided country through the spectacle of a Senate trial that would combust whatever was left of it.  Nixon, ultimately, put America ahead of himself.  Does anybody seriously believe that Trump would do that?

Which brings us to the outsized significance of who Trump's running mate ends up being, because that person would be very likely to wind up the forty-sixth POTUS were Hairboy to go all the way this fall.  Could that be what Rick Perry is thinking with his endorsement?  Make himself a conservative Trojan horse within TrumpWorld, assume the role of loyal lieutenant and shotgun-rider, ready to step in after Trump quits or is toppled?  That is the only viable option true conservatives have left at this point (third-party protest candidacies don't qualify).  And we could do a lot worse than the three-term Texas governor waiting in the wings.

Assuming, of course, that he still secretly has his principles intact and hasn't "gone native," as deep-cover operatives sometimes do.

It's almost a pity that we're never going to find out which it is.

Time to Unite Behind Trump

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Is Donald Trump the perfect Republican Candidate?  Absolutely not.  Is he a Republican in the first place?  I think he might be, but overall he's a wild card.  Is Donald Trump a better candidate than the other GOP candidates he beat?  In some cases, but not in all of them.  Is Donald Trump a better candidate for President of the United States than Hillary Clinton?  You bet your bottom dollar he is.

After Donald Trump completed his solid victory in the Indiana Primary (after struggling in States who hold caucuses), his competitors in the GOP race (Ted Cruz and John Kasich) promptly suspended their campaigns.  The cleared path makes Donald Trump the presumptive Republican Candidate in the 2016 Presidential Election.

I know there are people out there who are determined to support the #nevertrump movement even now that Donald Trump is the inevitable Republican nominee (save for Republican Party Establishment shenanigans).  They are entitled to their opinion.  Many of the #nevertrump folks (the ones who are registered Republicans, anyway), however, were also the same folks complaining in 2012 that many people refused to vote for Romney because they didn't think he was conservative enough, or because he was Mormon.  Some folks on the other side actually believed that Romney may be something worse than Obama!

Early on during this latest campaign for President, when there were seventeen candidates, I was not a fan of billionaire Donald Trump.  I told people I wasn't sure Trump believed the words that were coming out of his mouth.  I supported Governor Scott Walker, with Rand Paul running second on my list.  I am a constitutionalist, and for me those were the logical choices.  I especially liked Walker not only because of his track record as the Governor of Wisconsin, but I tend to have a more favorable opinion towards governors because they have executive experience I believe to be very important to when it comes to being the President of the United States.  Ted Cruz remained among my top considerations too, though I had reservations regarding his lack of eligibility to be President of the United States, and his lack of executive experience.  Nonetheless, I told people that if Ted Cruz got the nomination I would still vote for him because I would take an ineligible Ted Cruz over Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders any day of the week.

Trump comes across as a brazen authoritarian.  His nationalist political complexion had me convinced that Donald Trump was not a conservative product of the GOP as much as he might be someone who would be a Republican version of Barack Obama.  He's loud, outside the system, inexperienced, and he can't be controlled (which is largely exactly why his supporters have liked him since the beginning of the 2016 GOP primary season).  I have called him the "biggest hammer in the rock yard."  To his supporters, he's the stick in the spokes of the establishment.  He's like an uncontrolled explosion on the scene blasting anything and everyone who gets in his way.  "Liar!" he screamed explosively and continuously.  "Liar, Liar, Liar!"

If you listen carefully, you are not even sure exactly where he stands on some issues.  Sometimes, he says things that leaves you scratching your head.  He's a wild card.  I don't believe Trump is conservative in the way that I am, but I also don't believe he's a liberal democrat in the way that the #nevertrump crowd thinks.  He's an American, and he thinks he can stop the downward slide this country has been in, especially under the hard left clutches of Barack Obama.

For many, Barack Obama was the straw that broke the camel's back.  They got involved in politics for the first time in their life because of the hard left policies of the first black president.  Obama's leftist policies frightened them, and they were convinced they had to get involved to save the country from Obama's anti-constitutional plan to fundamentally change foundations of the United States.

I think the same goes for Mr. Trump, actually.

The prevailing opinion among Trump's opposition in the Republican Party is that Trump has spent his life more as a liberal Democrat than as anything remotely near a conservative.  He's had business dealings with the Clintons, and according to those doubters of Trump's intentions he only become a Republican over the last few months because it was a way to achieve something he wants. . . winning the presidency.  My co-host, JASmius, has even suggested that once Trump is in office (if he beats his Democrat opponent - which JASmius believes is unlikely) Mr. Trump would resign shortly afterward.  He wants the prize, but not the position.

As a result of all of this hullabaloo, I have decided to study Trump, to use a little logic, because as much as I think there may be some truth to what the #nevertrump folks say, I still believe Donald Trump as President of the United States would be vastly better than Hillary Clinton in the White House.  I also believe that Donald Trump loves America, and no matter how misguided some of his opinions may seem, or how little he understands the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, he desires to do the right thing to "Make America Great Again."

Donald Trump has always been a businessman.  I don't even think he has really cared much about politics until recently.  Historically, his party affiliation has been all over the board, but mostly  Republican.  He dealt with people of all political stripes, even giving money to, and hanging out with on occasion, the Clintons.  I think that was because he was a businessman first, and when you are in business, and you are trying to separate others from their money, the reality is that both Democrats and Republicans have money.  Therefore, party didn't matter.  Money did.

Personally, I am not "party first."  I am a Christian first, a Constitutionalist second, and a Republican third.  So, there have been times when I have been critical of the GOP, and when I have abandoned a GOP candidate for an independent who I believed to be more in line with my thinking.  So, I kind of get it when we look back at Trump's history, and see that he's been largely GOP, but not all GOP.

Since we can't seem to nail down Trump's political beliefs by studying his past business tactics and affiliations, and we can't nail down his political beliefs by studying his fluid tendencies regarding the political parties, we must set that evidence aside.

Since we can't determine where he stands politically and personally based on what he says because we are not positive Mr. Trump is being honest with everything he says, we must also set aside that evidence.

That leaves us with those who know him.  I don't mean those who know "of" him, but those who personally know Donald Trump, have spent time with Donald Trump, who either have been his close personal friends, or those who have worked with or for him for a long time.  We need to look at his life, and talk to those who know him best, to determine who Donald Trump truly is.

His children were raised in a manner very consistent with conservatism.  They weren't handed anything.  Trump taught them strong work ethics, and they seem to be pretty grounded in a moral sense.  Some may bring up the fact that he is on his third marriage, and his latest is simply a plastic trophy wife.  Perhaps.  But, we don't know the full details of why the previous marriages failed.  As for his current wife, Melania Trump showed us in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren that she is tough, thick skinned, opinionated, intelligent, politically savvy, looks up to her husband, and is deeply in love with her husband, Mr. Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrLTFjWAyXY


Those others out there who have gotten to know him have said that Trump is attentive, caring, and a strong believer in individualism.  When you experience the testimony of those who have known him in business, you also receive a resoundingly conservative sounding report card.

Below, an executive for Donald Trump, Lynne Patton, provided a video titled, "The Trump Family That I Know" - A Black Female Trump Executive Speaks.  The evidence, again, is compelling, and works in the favor of Donald Trump being someone I am willing to vote for as President of the United States.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxaKUo5naoY



So, which is it?  Is Trump a hard left liberal charlatan who is pulling the wool over the eyes of an entire unsuspecting country, and someone who is possibly an ally of Hillary Clinton to pull off the kind of scam on Americans to get her into office that we would expect the Clintons to be behind. . . or is Trump someone like the rest of us who saw the rise of Obama and was so disgusted by it he felt the need to get involved politically. . . even though he knew nearly nothing about how to do it?

From the point of view of a constitutionalist who only adheres to the originalist point of view of the document, I get it.  Donald Trump understands business, and he may be a good deal maker and negotiator, but he falls way short when it comes to the American System.  I am not sure he understands that Executive Orders that modify the law are unconstitutional.  I am not sure he understands the original intent regarding the President's relationship with the Congress, nor the influence and rights the States have regarding the activities of the federal government.  Based on the evidence I have experienced, however, digging deeper than what you see on the surface, I do believe Trump sincerely wants to Make America Great Again.  I do believe he will stumble along the way, as well.  He is not the best candidate we could have gotten to represent the Grand Ol' Party.  But, he is far better than Hillary Clinton. . . and I do believe Mr. Trump will be willing to listen to those who know more than him about the political arena, conservatism, and the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, and this is a message to Mr. Trump: If you need a constitutionalist on your staff, feel free to let me know.  I want you to succeed - but if you are going to succeed, you need to surround yourself with people who know the American System.

Before I began considering giving Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt, I made a statement to his supporters.  "You are angry with the fact that we have an authoritarian in the White House, so you are seeking to replace him with a different authoritarian to fix the problems.  Be careful what you ask for."

I hope I was wrong.  I hope the #nevertrump people are wrong.  I do believe the movement that has lifted Donald Trump to the top of the GOP is sincere, and they are seeking someone who can put a stick in the spokes of the political machine.  I know that Mr. Trump is better than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, I just don't know exactly how much better he is.  It may be a small gap, or a large one.  But, one thing is for sure; if we don't unite behind Trump as a party, and if we don't make sure he gets into the White House, Hillary Clinton will prove to be something worse than Barack Obama, and it will take generations more to repair the damage. . . if we are ever able to recover at all.

Hillary Clinton is the final nail in the coffin of the United States Constitution.  Donald Trump, if guided properly by the people around him, may very well be the crowbar that begins to open the lid again.  Or, at least I hope so.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Germans: Islam Has No Place In Our Culture

by JASmius



Xenophobia is a general distrust and dislike of "foreigners".  That is not a reasonable or logical or rational position to hold.  It is paranoia.  Not every outsider is necessarily out to get us or inflict harm.  We have to actually make those assessments on a case by case basis.

"Islamophobia," by contrast, is not paranoid, but is entirely reasonable, logical, and rational, because both culturally and violently, Muslims have amply demonstrated that they are out to get us, to inflict harm, to conquer us by degrees and by force and turn us into them.  Or kills us if we will not cooperate.

It's that former guise that is the more difficult to resist.  "Islam is a 'peaceful' religion" they will argue, "and we have freedom of religion, so you can't keep them out and you have to leave them alone".  An assertion that Christian business-owners and anybody who needs to go to the john at a Target outlet can't really take seriously, but that nobody is permitted not to when it comes to Mohammedans - who have this annoying habit of never "leaving US alone".  The Director has posted many times about the subversion process of a targeted "infidel" society as the percentage of its Muslim population grows.  It's the classic frog in the boiling pot scenario.  If the Muzzies move gradually enough, by the time the natives realize what's happening to them, they're already functional dhimmis, and it's too late.

That is what Barack Obama is facilitating here in the United States, but ours is a huge country that is not connected by land with the Middle East, as Europe is, so we're not as vulnerable to the sort of mass invasion that has befallen them.  Correspondingly, and Trumpmania not withstanding, a mass movement rejecting Islam and Muzzie colonization is correspondingly more difficult to gin up here.

But in Ground Zero of the Muslim invasion of Europe?  It's already in full swing:

More than half of Germans surveyed in a shock poll say there is “no place for Islam” in their nation’s political system.

The results hint at a dramatic changing attitude of the nation's population towards the religion over the past year, which has seen the arrival of more than one million migrants.

Again, to provide a bit of perspective, that's the equivalent of between four and five million Muslims landing on our soil overnight - roughly twice the population of Chicago - randomly interspersed throughout our States and cities and neighborhoods, with the standard 10% or so - a half-million strong - being violent jihadists.  And that may or may not include the roving rape gangs.

That's what the Germans have endured thanks to Chancellor Angela Merkel's insane "Kommen in, Muslime, und uns grundlegend umgestalten" policy.

In January, 37% of people said Islam did have a place in Germany, but this has dropped to just 22%, according to figures released by tabloid Bild.

Meanwhile 60% of voters said "there is no place for Islam" in German politics.

Attitudes toward the religion appear to reflect fear of so-called Islamisation - with 46% of Germans saying they were concerned their country would be taken over by proponents of political Islam.

Really?  Gosh, what could possibly have given them THAT impression?



Oh.

Not so remarkably, the German people are proving to be less insane than their long-time leader:

It comes after Alternative for Germany (AfD) launched its election manifesto calling to ban the burka and claiming Islam is “not part of Germany”.

The manifesto, entitled "Islam is not part of Germany", was agreed in a vote of around 2,400 party members.

The results come amid an increasingly fractious debate over [Islamic Fundamentalism] in Germany, sparked by Angela Merkel's ill-fated open door asylum policy.

This has pushed voters into the embrace of right-wingers like the anti-immigrant AfD party which scored big in regional elections in March and which now threatens Merkel's CDU conservatives at the general election in the autumn of next year.

Shocking opinion polls delivered a crushing blow to the German Chancellor as it was revealed Merkel's conservatives lost in two out of three state elections. Germans appear to be punishing her accommodative refugee policy.

Because it's getting them assaulted, raped, killed, and relegated to de facto second-class citizen status in their own country at the behest of their own government, yes.  That's not "right-wing," it's simple survival and common sense.

The home invasion analogy is always instructive.  Let's say you're seated in your prized recliner in your living room on a fine Friday morning in early May clacking away on your laptop composing a post about Germans understandably rejecting Islam when a mob of rag-headed people show up outside your house and demand to be let in, knocking and pounding and ringing your doorbell.  You'd feel besieged in your own home already, wouldn't you?  Then they throw a brick through one of your windows and forcibly climb in and accost you with demands to feed them and put them up in your house permanently like you'd been drafted into the bed & breakfast guild.  Then they start taking down your decorations and rearranging your furniture and evict you from your prized recliner and lock you in the basement after taking away your laptop and re-writing your post to glorify "the prophet of Islam".  And later you come to find out that it was your mortgage company who told them where you live.

That's essentially what's being done to the land of my ancestors.  And whaddaya know?  They don't like it.  And they're attempting to do something about it.

I'm no fan of "reactionary-ism".  But that's because reactionaries are typically over-emotive, anencephalitic morons.  The reaction of the German people, though, is entirely reasonable, logical, and rational.  And it is one that Angela Merkel had better heed, if she even wants to make it to the fall of 2017 with her fett (politisch) arsch intact.

Thursday, May 05, 2016

Social Security Administration To Ban Guns For The "Mentally Ill"

by JASmius



In basketball, this is what is known as a "full-court press":

The Social Security Administration is proposing a new rule to block some people unable to work because of "mental health disorders" from buying guns – a move the NRA is bitterly opposing as a violation of their Second Amendment rights.

According to the Hill, the SSA plan to report people who get disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI for background checks stems from a "memorandum" [i.e. imperial decree] Barack Obama issued in 2013.

Back we come to two principle factors.  The first is the definition of "mentally ill" and who gets to make that determination.  The answer to the latter is....the federal government.  Which immediately makes the former partisanly and ideologically suspect.  When the objective is to disarm the people in blanket violation of the Second Amendment, the feds will broaden the definition of "mental illness" as much as they possibly can to both strip Americans of their firearms and bar them from either getting them back or replacing them.

The second factor is due process.  If you're on SSI, and, in this case, the Social Security Administration makes the determination that you are "mentally ill" and therefore cannot purchase a gun or retain the one(s) you already have, do you get any say in the matter or the opportunity to make your case and defense yourself and challenge the SSA's ruling?

The answer is....no, you don't:

Similar efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill by the [Commissaria]t of Veterans Affairs were criticized by Iowa GOP Senator Chuck Grassley, who claims 99% of the people the FBI prohibits from owning guns because they are considered “mentally defective” come from the VA, the Hill reports.

"It appears that just like the VA, SSA’s regulatory action will not require the government to first prove that the individual is a danger to self or others," Grassley wrote last July in a letter to Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner of the SSA, the Hill reports. [emphasis added]

See?  "A danger to self and others" is a much tighter and taughter definition than "mentally ill," a huge tossed salad of categories that include "lack of financial acumen," sleep disorders, and "inflated self-esteem" (My God, the GOP has just nominated one of the latter to be f'ing president of the United States; no wonder he used the "I could shoot one of you right on Fifth Avenue and you'd still support me" metaphor).  Very few of those categories justify summary stripping of Second Amendment rights, and none of them merit stripping of  due process rights at the same time.

But this is another instance of the Constitution standing in the way of the Obamunist Agenda.  And whenever that happens, the Agenda always takes precedence.

You might even say it "trumps" all else.

Tom DeLay: Next President Will Have 'No Integrity'

by JASmius



Continuing the general (not exclusive) pattern of Republicans only "endorsing" Donald Trump when institutionally compelled to do so - which is not an excuse but is a not inconsiderable rationalization - the former House Majority Leader, who left politics years ago and thus has no mitigating (or corrupting) reason to "put on the party face" was refreshingly candid in his assessment of both major party presidential nominees today:

Tom DeLay has written off both presumptive presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — telling Newsmax TV that the next commander in chief will have "no integrity."

"The next president of the United States is going to be a person with no character, no faith, no integrity, no understanding of the Constitution," DeLay, the former House Majority Leader, said Thursday on The Steve Malzberg Show.

DeLay also dismissed the charge of some Republicans that the party should back whoever clinches the nomination.

"My vote does not belong to the Republican Party. My vote belongs to me and I have a very, very hard time voting for someone that frankly is running on tyranny," DeLay. [emphases added]

Quite so.  Or as I have been saying with regard to the "Hillary scarecrow," this time the enemy of our enemy is another enemy, as he is in a frantic rush to prove as we speak.

From that quote you would naturally draw the conclusion that "the Hammer" is #NeverTrump.  Declarative statements like "the next POTUS is going to have no character, faith, integrity, or understanding of the Constitution," and "is running on tyranny" - not "could" or "might be" - tends to leave that impression.

But DeLay is more in the #SkepticalOfTrump category:

"Trump is going to have to do a lot of work to fundamentally change to get my vote," he said. "Donald Trump has run on using the power of the government against the American people. If you don't agree with him, that is tyranny. We've had that with Obama for eight years and we're going to get it again with Hillary or Trump." [emphases added]



Or, in other words, DeLay is effectively #NeverTrump, because Trump is not capable of fundamental change.  Change that was truly fundamental would include character and integrity before even policy stances.  A liars and conmen (or women) will say anything to fool their marks and bilk out of them what they want - in politics, that means their votes.  Candidates who are honest and principled (like Ronald Reagan was) will tell you what they believe and ask for your vote.  Now you tell me in which category, based on observed behavior and track record, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump belong.  And if anybody says Trump doesn't belong in the same category as she does, then you're as big a liar as they are - or a fool.

Think also of it this way: Stipulating that nobody's perfect and that every barrel of apples has at least a few rotten ones, which party's candidates make "say anything/do anything/ends justify the means/victory by any means necessary" a core tenet of their campaigns?  Do Republicans actively and habitually use flagrant deception and "flip-flopping" as calculated and deliberate political tactics?  No, they do not.  As Pat Buchanan put it in his first memoir, "With the Republicans, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak; with the Democrats their is no spirit".

That's why those who are #SkepticalOfTrump who actually keep their eyes on what he says and does over the next six months, as opposed to mindlessly obsessing on "WE'VE GOTTA STOP HILLARY!" and blindly assuming that Trump somehow "has" to be better in the absence of any evidence - don't we want to set the bar a ways higher than that? - will inevitably become #NeverTrump.

I, of course, wouldn't trust The Donald under any circumstances - because I know better.  But in order to pull off the level and magnitude of scam that would convince DeLay, judging by his comments in this interview, Trump would need a level of personal and intellectual discipline that he has never come close to displaying in his entire adult life.  He is simply too vain, too narcissistic, too impulsive, too much a creature of his appetites, to maintain a facade of "conservative" statesmanship for any length of time.  He is not an actor, in other words, but a "reality TV star".  The only "role" he's capable of convincingly portraying is himself.

And while that portrayal has thrilled and dazzled 40% of 25% (i.e. a tenth) of the the U.S. electorate, the other 90% is either "Never" or "Skeptical" - and while a majority of voters are uninspired by Mrs. Clinton, far fewer despise her the way a majority of them detest Trump.

This is why Bill Clinton manipulated and ego-stroked Trump into jumping into the GOP race a year ago.  He knew how high Trump's negatives are and have always been, that he was therefore the only "Republican" candidate that Slick's Nurse Ratchet-esque wife could defeat, and he knew that the rise of the Tea Party and its angry "populism" had created a large pool of suckers for a skilled demagogue to exploit.  And Donald Trump is nothing if not a skilled demagogue.  And a conman.

And Bill Clinton's masterpiece.

Exit question: If Sick Willie had run in 1992 as a Republican, how many "conservatives" would have flocked to his banner?

57% Of Americans Have Gone Isolationist

by JASmius



It was untenable and disastrous eighty years ago, spawning and making inevitable a second global war that the West came far closer to losing than anybody knew at the time or since until very recently.   Today, eighty years later, the world has gotten orders of magnitude smaller than it was then.  Global jihadism alone gives the laughable lie to the idea that we can retreat into "Fortress America," "protected" by two oceans, and pretend the rest of the world will leave us alone.

We are the United States of America.  The world is in flames and chaos precisely because Barack Obama has removed us from our necessary role as the benevolent planetary hegemon.  To stay on that path instead of reversing course would lead, inevitably, to a Pearl Harbor we would not survive and from which there would be no recovery.

But just as a majority of Americans want to finish dismantling our already gutted military, so that same majority thinks we can stick our heads in the sand, asses in the air, like the metaphorical ostrich, and all our problems will just go away:

The Pew Research Center report released Thursday, "America's Place in the World," finds "the public views America’s role in the world with considerable apprehension and concern."

According to the report:

57% of Americans want the United States to deal with its own problems, while letting other countries get along as best they can; just 37% say America should help other countries deal with their problems.

It's not a question of "helping other countries deal with their problems," but of helping ourselves and defending our vital national interests by remaining engaged in the world in order to prevent problems from arising in the first place.  Or "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".  Like how if we'd stayed in Iraq instead of abandoning it five years ago, ISIS would never have been able to rise from al Qaeda-in-Iraq's ashes.

Sixteenfold is one heckuva bargain, as only three-eights of Americans seem to still understand.

This number is almost as dismaying because it reprises the foolish policies, also from eighty years ago, that tilled the geopolitical soil out of which World War II grew:

49% say U.S. involvement in the global economy is a bad thing because it lowers wages and costs jobs, while 44% see involvement as a good thing because it provides new markets and opportunities for growth.

A five point advantage in favor of another Smoot-Hawley economic suicide attempt, another global trade war, and another global economic collapse and depression.  A disastrous fit of reaction to Obamunism.  A turn from Marxian socialism to national socialism, at least economically.  No good can come from this.  You know that insufferable prattle of Barack Obama's about "our values" and such?  Well, it actually applies here.  Neoisolationism is strategic folly - and, again, an impossibility - and protectionism is self-defeating, anti-capitalist statism that will ruin and impoverish the U.S. economy even more than it already is after seven-plus years of The One's misrule.  But that's the dismal, bloody history that half the country wants to repeat.

This, once again, is why "populism" is so virulently dangerous because of its fundamental, over-emotive, anti-intellectual irrationality.  Small wonder, then, that Donald Trump favors both of these terrible, awful mistakes.

It's funny; for years I've wondered if the nation would survive the Obama Regime - that it still has to this point is frankly astonishing, though the jury is, of course, still out on that - so I don't know if it would be ironic or entirely appropriate if it turned out to be a white narcissistic leftist despot who delivered the coup de grace.

Since there'll be two on the ballot in November, it's kinda guaranteed.

Temecula Constitution Class: State Prohibitions

Article I, Section 10. . . continued
Thursdays, 6:30 pm

Temecula Constitution Class
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA  92882

Trump Reneges On His Tax Cut Plan

by JASmius

Trump flip-flop list (updated):
Minimum wage ✔️
Self funding ✔️
Tax plan ✔️
Wall
Amnesty
Muslim ban
End Obamacare
Pro-Life
2A

Man oh Manischewitz, he's just going right down the list like there's no tomorrow, isn't he?  How long has he been presumptive "Republican" nominee?  Forty-eight hours?  Christ on a crutch, his "Democrat-ization" of the GOP is metastasizing at a breakneck pace:

Trump put out a tax plan last year that included major cuts to income, estate and business taxes for the ultra-wealthy along with less generous cuts for the middle class. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated his plan would cut the tax bill for the top 1 percent of earners by about $275,000 a year on average and for the top 0.1 percent by $1.3 million. The overall cost would be $9.5 trillion over a decade…

But that was the old Trump. Pressed by CNBC on Thursday as to how he could simultaneously brand himself as a populist who will take on wealthy elites [of which he himself is a charter member] while proposing sweeping tax cuts for billionaires, Trump backed away from his plan.

“I am not necessarily a huge fan of that,” he said. “I am so much more into the middle class who have just been absolutely forgotten in our country.”

Trump described his tax proposal, which was the most detailed policy paper he put out in the campaign, as merely a starting point for a future deal. [emphases added]

So it was all BS, in other words.  Which we already knew - I believe I dismissed it long ago as a sop to the Club For Growth to get them off his back - that would evaporate the instant he clinched the nomination.  And I was right.

But here's something you may have noticed already: If he's already backing off of that tax cut plan, doesn't that constitute negotiating against himself?  Why disclose months in advance that his plan is only a "starting point" for "future negotiations"?  Hasn't he already conceded those negotiations by publicly telegraphing his intentions?  Is this the master "art of the deal"?  And doesn't this nakedly telegraph the kind of "deals" he'd be making with Chucky Schumer and Nancy Pelosi?

Note the next item on the list above, and then read this quote:

Donald Trump’s vow to round up and deport all of America’s [illegal alien]s if he is elected president could shrink the economy by a[nother] 2%, according to a study to be released on Thursday by conservative think tank the American Action Forum.

The research adds to concerns about the "Republican" presidential nominee’s policy proposals, which range from tearing up international trade agreements to building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

About 6.8 million of the more than [thirty] million [alien]s living in the United States illegally are employed, according to government statistics. Removing them would cause a slump of $381.5 billion to $623.2 billion in private sector output, the Washington-based non-profit said in its analysis.

Removing them is also a practical and political impossibility, but leave that aside for the moment.  What the AAF study reveals is that there would be a significant economic cost to restoring immigration laws, national sovereignty, and border security.  Whether that cost is considered worth it could be debated, but the point here is that Trump has grotesquely overpromised on something on which he cannot remotely deliver.  Deport all illegals for free!  Build a wall and (somehow) force Mexico to pay for it!  But he has not revealed that there will be a significant cost involved to his idiot followers, just like the "establishment" politicians he's had so gosh-darn much fun ripping and insulting for the past ten and a half months.  "Money for nothing and chicks for free," as it were.  Eat all the cheeseburgers and Hagan-Daas you want and never gain a pound.  The entitlement mentality.  And when the "bill" came do, would he own it, explain to the public that this was the price of restoring the border, and take the heat, or would he jettison his signature policy item and run away?

Actually, we don't have to wonder about that because he's been flacking for touchback amnesty since last summer, and it sailed in one Trumplican ear and out the other (there being nothing in between to serve as a physical obstacle).  The "smart movement" that sees its serial skinnings at the New York liberal conman's hands as one "triumph" after another.  Because he's got "the biggest hammer" with which he's tenderizing their figurative skulls.

Perhaps the sheer magnitude of this lightning avalanche of ideological betrayals is what motivated House Speaker Paul Ryan to decline to "unite behind Trump," at least for now:



Will this courageous stand last?  Ryan is the highest-ranking 'Pubbie in the federal government, and Trump is his party's nominee, so you'd have to say no, he won't.  Perhaps it's a non-telegraphed negotiating ploy - in other words, Ryan is not letting himself be perceived as a cheap date.  If Trump wants Eddie Munster's support, he's going to have to earn it.  That'll still be more difficult for Ryan to carry through than it will be for rank & file "#SkepticalOfTrumpers" who don't have the pressure of party leadership putting a large thumb on the metaphorical scales.  But then he's also got to keep a weather eye on the daunting task of hanging onto his party's House majority, which will be the last line of defense against the renewed Democrat hegemony that Trumpmania has made inevitable.  How much can he extract out of Trump for his support?  Given that he's already proving that the "art of the deal" is more like "the art of capitulation" when negotiating with anybody he can't bully or bulldoze, perhaps quite a bit.

Of course, the Baron of Butthurt Pavlovianly retaliated almost immediately:

JUST IN: Trump: "I am not ready to support Speaker Ryan's agenda."

Well, that we already knew - because Speaker Ryan's agenda is conservative.  And because Ryan is not robotically "lying back and enjoying it".  Something that you'd think would earn a measure of the millionaire slumlord's respect, except that he doesn't respect ANYBODY, and vastly over-respects himself.  Which is the antithesis of being "presidential," or of being a competent "deal-maker".