Tag: politics

I stand with Ann

Apparently someone is getting very worried about Ann Coulter drawing attention to the fact that too many of the Republican politicians appear to care more about Jews and Israel than they do about Americans and the United States. It’s even in the British media, of all places:

If you haven’t ever heard of Ann Coulter, you might want to count your blessings and stop reading now. For the more thick-skinned out there, Coulter is essentially the Katie Hopkins of America. Just like angry, mean Hopkins, Coulter seems to be on a personal crusade to become the most hated woman in her country – and by the looks of things, she’s succeeding.

This week, she was labelled anti-Semitic and sent social media into meltdown.

During a Twitter rant about Republican candidates trying to pander to Jewish voters by focusing on the topic of Israel, she asked ‘how many f***ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?’

    Good grief! Huckabee is running for PM of Israel.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

    Rubio running to be curator of the Reagan Museum.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

    Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.”
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

    How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

It’s clearly offensive. But in keeping with her Conservative beliefs, Coulter hasn’t let herself get too carried away: she’s starred out the f-word.

Her comments haven’t just been criticised for their racist undertones – they’ve also been pulled apart for their ignorance.

US political hopefuls might be turning their attentions on Israel, but that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Jews. Many Jewish people living in the West don’t have close ties to Israel, while many non-Jewish Americans care about what’s happening to one of their country’s top allies.

What’s worrying is that not everyone on Twitter gets this. Instead Coulter’s ‘effing Jews’ post has had more than 1,500 retweets and sparked the hashtag #IStandWithAnn.

Right. We’re supposed to believe that all the Republican talk about Israel has nothing at all to do with the Jews in America. Isn’t it convenient how Israel=Jews whenever it suits the media to call someone anti-semitic, but Israel “doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Jews” whenever it suits the media… to call someone anti-semitic.

The reason Ann’s remarks are resonating is that a large majority of Americans don’t give a flying fuck about what apparently is the primary concern of about one in fifty people presently living in America. And the fact that so many presidential candidates care more about what concerns one in fifty Americans than what concerns the other forty-nine is indicative of a serious problem.

You don’t have to hate Israel or Jews, you don’t even have to mildly dislike them, to not want your own political leaders to be observably more concerned about their interests than yours. And if Republicans don’t like observers criticizing them for always talking about Israel, perhaps they should talk about something of considerably more concern to most Americans, such as the massive immigrant invasion.

The only serious candidate

Donald Trump is not only a serious candidate for President of the United States of American, he is the ONLY serious candidate for the office:

The billionaire politician fired his stiffest broadsides in Texas – the ultimate American border state – at illegal immigrants, the ‘sanctuary cities’ that give them safe haven from deportation, and the pundits who have castigated him for declaring war on them all.

‘We are a dumping ground for the rest of the world,’ he complained. ‘You people are suffering,’ Trump said. ‘I’m in New York, but they’re in New York, too. They’re all over the place. It’s disgusting what’s happening to our country!’

Gang members who are in the U.S. illegally, he pledged, ‘will be out of here so frickin fast’ if he takes over the Oval Office.

And he returned to the brash rhetoric that made him a household name among immigration watchers, referring to child-citizens born of illegal immigrants as ‘anchor babies’ before allowing that ‘I don’t mean to be disrespectful.’

Trump said that just before emerging from the corner of the American Airlines center, where the Dallas Stars hockey team and Dallas Mavericks basketball team play, he had met with Texans who had lost family members to a crime wave brought north by illegal border-crossers.

‘Their sons, their daughters – killed by illegal immigrants!’ Trump boomed. ‘We have to stop illegal immigration!’

Chants of ‘USA! USA! USA!’ rang out even as a small group of immigrants’ rights protesters demonstrated outside.

‘We have to build a wall, folks,’ he said to a crescendo of cheers. ‘We have to build a wall. And a wall works. All you have to do is go to Israel and say “How does your wall work?”‘

He’s definitely listening to the Alt-Right and not the so-called “conservative media”. No wonder they hate him so much. If you’re even remotely concerned about immigration and its societally destructive effects, Trump is the only candidate you can possibly support.

One thing I think those who assume he is bluffing are missing: politicians are affected much more strongly by their wives than most people think. And look what is happening in Melania Trump’s homeland. I’m as cynical about politics as anyone, but I don’t see Trump doing a double-cross on immigration were he to win.

On board the Trump train

Donald Trump addresses the only issue that matters:

Donald Trump estimated that it will take 18 months to two years to get the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally to leave the country, and that he would then build a wall running along the border with Mexico.

The businessman’s statement made on a call with Alabama Republicans Thursday night added a bit of specificity to the Republican presidential frontrunner’s hardline stance on immigration. Mr. Trump released a six-page policy paper on immigration last month, and reporters have asked for details about how it would work since….

On the call, Mr. Trump was asked for details about how long it would
take to round up illegal immigrants living in the U.S., with the
questioner asking if five or ten years was an appropriate timeframe. Mr.
Trump said his two year benchmark could be met with “really good
management.”

“We have to get them out. If we have wonderful cases, they can come
back in but they have to come back in legally,” Mr. Trump said in an
audio clip posted on YouTube Thursday night by a person on the call.

Mr. Trump’s plan has been denounced by Democrats and many rival
Republicans, who have called it impractical and immoral, among other
criticisms. Mr. Trump said he would remove illegal immigrants from the country
“so fast that your head will spin,” and long before he could embark on
his plan to build a wall spanning the 1,900 mile border between the U.S.
and Mexico.

That’s good enough for me. I’d like to see him pledge to begin deporting legal immigrants, but that would probably be too much for the average voter and deporting 11 million invaders is considerably better than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, is going to do. And furthermore, it’s worth noting that Trump said he intends to deport ALL the illegal invaders, the 11 million is merely an estimate.

It doesn’t matter what else Trump thinks or how crazy his policies might be. Immigration is now the only issue that matters to America. There is simply no justification for supporting any other Republican candidate. Is it possible that he’s lying? Sure. But we KNOW all the other Republican candidates are, especially Carson, who is anti-gun.

Peak American-Israelism

It looks as if the Learned Elders of Wye were correct to be concerned as the apex of Jewish influence in America they expected appears to have already passed:

Officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee knew the odds were against them in the fight to block President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran from surviving a congressional vote. But the influential pro-Israel group threw itself into a nearly $30 million advertising and lobbying effort to kill the accord anyway.

On Thursday, the committee, known as Aipac, was handed a stinging defeat. After Mr. Obama mustered enough Democratic backing in the Senate to halt a vote on a resolution of disapproval against the deal, a group known for its political clout saw its power and reputation in Washington diminished.

“They failed — they couldn’t even get a vote,” said Clifford Kupchan, an Iran expert and the chairman of the Eurasia Group, a consulting firm, who noted that Aipac had gone “all in” and tried everything to stop the deal. “It’s among the biggest setbacks for Aipac in recent memory.”

The loss has raised difficult questions about the future of Aipac, a group formed in 1951 just a few years after the birth of Israel. Aipac has long drawn its political potency from its reservoirs of loyalty among members of both parties, but that bipartisan veneer all but vanished in recent weeks as the debate over the Iran deal became increasingly bitter.

Republicans lined up unanimously with Aipac against the accord, which Mr. Obama had made his top foreign policy priority. The vast majority of Democrats supported it.

It’s playing out exactly as I, and a few other contrarians, had warned them. The New Americans who are now the driving force in the Democratic Party view the Jews as dangerous and powerful rivals, not as poor oppressed refugees who are beyond all criticism, and they are totally immune to both Holocaustianity and accusations of anti-semitism. And while AIPAC still enjoys the lockstep loyalty of elected Republicans, its left-wing domestic politics, adventurist foreign policy, and pro-immigration stance means it is increasingly anathema to the Republican base.

It’s not the end for AIPAC. It remains a rich and powerful political influence. But it is the first indication that its days of dictating to the U.S. Congress are over and the trend lines clearly point downward.

Interview with Vox Day

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents interviewed me last night. The MP3 is available there of our discussion, which he summarized as follows:

Greg Johnson talks to video game designer, musician, blogger, novelist, and publisher Vox Day. Topics include:

  • His political outlook and its formation
  • Why he is no longer a Libertarian
  • “National libertarianism”
  • The necessity of borders
  • The European refugee crisis
  • Why nationalism and tribalism are unstoppable forces
  • Illegitimate forms of identity politics
  • The problem of white identity in the United States as opposed to European national identities
  • His new book SJWs Always Lie
  • Why they always lie
  • Advice to those who wish to roll back political correctness
  • A preview of coming attractions

I think the most interesting part of the interview was when we discussed the problem of “white identity”. I think “whites” are inclined to significantly underperform in identity politics for much the same reason that “Hispanics” and “Asians” do, which is that most people who qualify as white don’t primarily identify as White in the same manner that more cohesive minorities such as Blacks, Jews, Gays, and Women (which actually means Feminists) do.

Ask a “Hispanic” what he is and he’ll tell you he is Mexican or Guatemalan. Ask an “Asian” what he is and he’ll tell you Chinese or Thai. Ask a “white” and he’ll tell you “mostly German” or “half-this, half-that”. You will almost never hear anyone self-identify as White, nor would you have 30 or 40 years ago. And a man who identifies as “Italian-American” is simply not going to see another man who identifies as “Irish” or “Scandinavian” or “German” as his goombah and proactively engage in nepotistic favoritism on his behalf.

There is no nationalism without a cohesive nation and there is no tribalism without identification with the specific tribe.

The Democrats’ defense priority

I don’t know about you, but I doubt the average American will be much reassured by the idea that the “leaders” responsible for national defense are inclined to burst into tears or that the security of another nation appears to be their primary concern:

The head of the Democratic Party, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., choked up while discussing her “gut wrenching” decision to vote in favor of the Iran nuclear deal.

“There’s nothing that’s more important to me, as a Jew, than to ensure Israel’s existence is there throughout our generations,” she said Sunday, choking back tears. Wasserman Schultz announced her vote for the deal, which will ease economic sanctions in return for Iran scaling back its nuclear program, on CNN’s “State of the Union” and in an op-ed for the Miami Herald.

Holding back tears, Wasserman Schultz said that in her op-ed, she talks about her “Jewish heart and how important this [decision] was to me … as a Jewish mother.”

“In weighing everything, all the information, I’ve concluded the best thing to do is vote in support of the Iran deal and put Iran years away from being a nuclear state,” she said. The Obama administration secured enough votes this week to ensure the deal will survive efforts to kill it.

In making her decision, Wasserman Schultz met with President Obama, Vice President Biden, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, as well as dozens of intelligence experts. She has been to the Situation Room twenty times in the past two years, she said, and has personally verified with the Obama administration that Iran will have to allow inspectors in to verify that it is scaling back its nuclear capacity and cannot self-inspect.

Wasserman Schultz said there are “a number of things” in the deal that gave her “angst and pause” and made her decision to vote in favor of it very difficult.

“I worry that the vigilance over the life of deal may wane … that complacency could set in,” she said. “I worry that the additional resources, no matter how little … Iran could divert to terrorist activity that could cause harm to Jews and others around the world. I worry that we have to make sure that the monitoring is really as gap-free as possible.”

Despite her discomfiture with the deal, Wasserman Schultz said she is “confident” that she made the right choice.

“I am confident that the process I have gone through to reach this decision is one that will ensure that Israel will be there forever,” she said.

Being pro-Zionist, I, for one, am pleased to know that Israel’s safety and security is important to American political leaders. I merely regret that America’s safety and security are observably such a trivial matter as far as they are concerned.

 To be fair, Ms Wasserman Schultz did mention in passing that she believes “fervently in protecting America’s national security interests”, they just don’t happen to be as important, or as emotionally moving, to her as ensuring “Israel’s existence is there throughout our generation”.

It would certainly be nice if America’s political leaders cared even one-half as much about America’s borders as they do about Israel’s.

Can Trump win?

The professionals aren’t necessarily taking him seriously, but they are starting to take him into consideration:

I talked with Republican wise men last week — sober establishment strategists who have seen many presidential campaigns come and go — to ask them how long the improbable popularity of Donald Trump can last. Reassure me, I said: He can’t actually win, right?

Their answers surprised me.

“It’s not inconceivable,” Vin Weber, a former congressman (and Jeb Bush supporter) told me. “It doesn’t look as if he’s going to implode any time soon…. It’s hard for me to say this, but he actually seems to be getting better as a candidate.”

“Trump has put himself on the short list of five or six names who could win the nomination,” said another GOP operative who insisted on anonymity because he’s working for one of those other candidates. “It’s not impossible that he could win.”

Until a few weeks ago, the conventional wisdom held that Trump was merely a summer fling for angry voters, a protest candidate whose insults and braggadocio would soon impose a ceiling on his support. But recent polls suggest that Trump has raised that ceiling.

He’s leading almost every horse race poll — although at this stage, those numbers are utterly unreliable as predictors of real voter behavior. (At this point in 2011, the polls were led by Texas Gov. Rick Perry; in 2007, by former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.)

More telling are polls that measure whether Trump has made himself acceptable to Republicans.

A Quinnipiac University poll last month found that 30% of GOP voters had an unfavorable view of Trump — worse than most other candidates but a big improvement from the 52% that Trump scored in May.

In Iowa, where the first GOP contest is held, the percentage of likely Republican caucus-goers who say they could never vote for Trump has fallen from 58% in May to 29%, according to a Des Moines Register-Bloomberg News poll.

It’s still unlikely; the early polls are meaningless. But that being said, none of the other Republican candidates look very impressive, and the images of the European invasion crisis are only going to magnify his advantage on the immigration issue.

And on the Democratic side, the picture is looking even more chaotic and unsettled. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary suddenly develops health issues that force her to end her campaign. Obama has clearly indicated that he’s not going to cover for her; he’s not going to sink her either, as he could, but he doesn’t appear to have any intention of helping her out.

The trademark family incompetence

There are two ways to look at this column by the entire NYT editorial board. Either the New York Times really fears the Democratic Party candidate running against Jeb Bush, or he was simply so horrendous at his staged appearance at a Mexican restaurant that they actually had to address the facts for once:

Jeb Bush went to the border town of McAllen, Tex., on Monday to raise money and to talk about immigration, in English and fluent Spanish. Because the Republican presidential campaign has been so fixated on border security and the immigrant peril — thank you, Donald Trump — it was a chance to see how the supposed expert on this fraught subject handled it.

Short version: He was awful.

In less than 15 minutes, Mr. Bush managed to step on his message, to give Mr. Trump a boost and to offend Asian-Americans, a growing population that is every bit as important as Latinos in winning presidential elections. And he failed to give Latino voters any persuasive evidence that he had anything better to offer them than his opponents in a revoltingly xenophobic Republican campaign.

It may be time to offer this forlorn candidate some free advice. Although if he really is the smarter Bush, he knows these things already:

1. He should never let himself say the words “anchor babies” ever again. He got in trouble for using that derogatory reference to the children of unauthorized immigrants in passing, in an interview, then dug himself a hole by defending his use of it. On Monday, he dug deeper. He tried to explain that he had been talking about “Asian people” who arrive on tourist visas through organized schemes to give birth to American babies on American soil.

Though the phenomenon is real, Mr. Bush was blasted by Asian-American groups for repeating the slur. And, astoundingly, he handed Mr. Trump the opportunity to send out tweets like this: “In a clumsy move to get out of his ‘anchor babies’ dilemma, where he signed that he would not use the term and now uses it, he blamed ASIANS.”

Speaking as a great-grandson of a Mexican revolutionary, Jeb Bush’s positions on immigration aren’t merely wrong, they are obscenely stupid. Trump is going to crucify him on this issue; the imbalance here could actually win Trump the nomination despite all of Bush’s structural advantages.

Immigration hard line is a winner

Donald Trump increases his lead in the polls after releasing his anti-invasion plan:

Republican Donald Trump is pulling away from the pack in the race for the party’s U.S. presidential nomination, widening his lead over his closest rivals in the past week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Friday.

Republican voters show no signs they are growing weary of the brash real estate mogul, who has dominated political headlines and the 17-strong Republican presidential field with his tough talk about immigration and insults directed at his political rivals. The candidates are vying to be nominated to represent their party in the November 2016 general election.

Nearly 32 percent of Republicans surveyed online said they backed Trump, up from 24 percent a week earlier, the opinion poll found. Trump had nearly double the support of his closest competitor, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who got 16 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third at 8 percent.

Some have theorized that Trump is a Clinton stalking horse. But in light of what appears to be happening to both Trump and Clinton in the polls, is it possible that they have it backwards?

Scott Adams predicts President Trump

And also Vice-President Cuban, which would be nearly as amusing:

If you’re keeping score, in the past month Trump has bitch-slapped the entire Republican Party, redefined our expectations of politics, focused the national discussion on immigration, proposed the only new idea for handling ISIS, and taken functional control of FOX News. And I don’t think he put much effort into it. Imagine what he could do if he gave up golf.

As far as I can tell, Trump’s “crazy talk” is always in the correct direction for a skilled persuader. When Trump sets an “anchor” in your mind, it is never random. And it seems to work every time.

Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, I’m going to predict he will be our next president. I think he will move to the center on social issues (already happening) and win against Clinton in a tight election.

I also saw some Internet chatter about the idea of picking Mark Cuban as Vice Presidential running mate. If that happens, Republicans win. And I think they like to win. There is no way Trump picks some desiccated Governor from an important state as his running mate. I think Cuban is a realistic possibility.

He’s certainly demonstrated himself to be a master of rhetoric. Whether that is sufficient to bring the Republican Party establishment to heel, I do not know. Regardless, one can certainly learn a lot from the man; he is like a walking, talking exemplar of Aristotle’s Rhetoric brought to life.