The GOP is in Civil War, as Rod Dreher says. There are few possibilities of a Trump victory as pointed out by Noah Millman, he will lose against Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders he would probably perform even more poorly. So is there a hope. For those who read The American Conservative the permanent mantra of Pat Buchanan is that Trump would win against Hillary because he is populist. I think there are a lot of flaws in that declaration, Jesse Walker shows that the term populist had been used for a long time for very different political characters, just like some people seem Trump as a populist, liberals and some independents seem him as a demagogue. Even those on the left who could recognize him as a populist probably would prefer to throw their support behind Sanders who in a general election would accuse Trump of being a millionaire who wants to simply buy the election. While I consider myself a proud anti-imperialist, despite the efforts of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, few people consider foreign policy their main priority. Even if Trump probably would be less hawkish than Hillary, his defeat is almost a ccertainty. So what could happen to the future of Republican Party?
Trumpkins. The establishment would face a difficult challenge if Donald Trump doesn’t get a majority of the delegates at the convention. But whether they support him or make a last attempt to stop him, they would alienate one of two groups. If they support Trump, independents might prefer the Democratic nominee whoever it is. If they support another candidate, trumpkins might feel betray and stay at home in November. What would happen after that, the establishment really hates Trump but knows that in order to win they need their supporters. However after 2016, like in the 90s with Buchanan or in 2010 with the Tea Party, the GOP would face an existential challenge. The big question is whether Trump would run in 2020.
The establishment. Trump’s rise had shown that many Republican primary voters have little interest in neoconservatism. It seems also that Israel is not a priority for conservatives, even evangelical Christians. Another Wall Street Journal editorial calling for tax cuts and open borders wouldn’t change that. There could be consequences for not heeding what were once the Buchanan supporters in the 90s or the Paul supporters in the 2000s. Being out of power so much time could have certain effects, Jon Huntsman was almost a parody of a RINO in the 2012 primary, however as one of few national figures with bipartisan appeal the GOP may trust him for a comeback.
Libertarians. On the one hand the popularity of Trump is a clear example that a majority of Republicans are not libertarians, however it also has shown that they could vote for an anti-establishment candidate. The major surprise of this election is that the one calling for getting out of NATO is Trump. The average GOP voter maybe not be a perfect anti-imperialist but don’t buy the neocon foreign policy either. So could they want the libertarian realism of Rand Paul, I doubt it. Probably Justin Amash and Thomas Massie are going to have a better chance.
Social Conservatives. They might find out the hard way that corporate America is not going to be friendly with them. Especially Hollywood and Silicon Valley differ too much from their agenda of religious freedom. I don’t think it’s surprising that corporate America could panic more from Trump than Sanders because Scandinavia had shown that corporations could survive higher taxes, when the state take care of the necessities of workers instead of them. Immigration is a subject that Trump raised but the establishment also know that corporate America wants open borders forcheap labor. It is very difficult to imagine how they would nominee in the future Cruz, Huckabee or Santorum but the real question is if they could choose Trump again.
Some days, all I want is the police to violently punish the miscreants who play super victim in public.
It’s like the old Mencken saying, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” Except, instead of cutting jugulars, I want to see some SJWs have their skulls cracked against pavement.
The latest example: A group of students (it’s always jobless college students) at Emory University protested an overnight pro-Donald Trump chalking of the campus. As the little snowflakes descended upon the Emory University building, they chanted commie bromides about how it is their “duty to win” and how they have “nothing to lose but our chains.” The leader of the march, sophomore Jonathan Peraza, demanded university officials “Come speak to us” because “we are in pain!”
If these crybabies think a chalk drawing of Kingfish Trump’s coiffure is painful, I gleefully wonder how they’ll feel about the back of a police truncheon.
The Emory trail of tears is just latest show of pitiful behavior in a long line of academia-enabled embarrassment. Precious angels at Oberlin College are complaining about dining hall food not being culturally accurate. Black students at the University of Albany are faking being attacked by white racists. Super queer and free speech hero Milo Yiannopoulos continues to have his university speeches disrupted by momma’s boys who can’t bear to hear a thought they disagree with.
Every time I read stories of students bitching about how hard and oppressive life in America is, I wish they would get a first-hand experience at real, physical brutality. Upset a non-Mexican wore a sombrero to a kegger? Have you ever had police hounds sicced on you? Or been pummeled by a high pressure hose?
Listening to NPR the other day, I caught a story on the haranguing of Muslim refugees by natives in Clausnitz, Germany. A bus transporting migrants to a shelter in the small town was stopped by nearly 100 Germans, who opposed forced settlement in their town by yelling such things as “Get Lost” and “Go Home if You Don’t Like it Here.” Not kind words, but not off the mark either.
While reporting the bus episode, the radio host blithely referred to the protestors as “neo-Nazis.” Her guest, a Canadian immigrant who organizes aid services for refugees, let the Nazi charge go unchallenged. Without a lick of evidence, they both agreed that the protesters were Führer worshippers. The idea that those who resents the forced relocation of foreigners in their town are Hitler acolytes was treated as accepted wisdom. And this was an ostensibly nonpartisan program!
Occasions like this – that is, the assumed maliciousness on the part of ideological opponents – are becoming increasingly prevalent in western democracies. Whatever one’s political leanings, there is a sense that common consensus is gone. One side is right; the others are morally and ethically wrong, and don’t deserve a fair hearing.
How have we gotten to this point?
What do former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields and former Ferguson thug Michael Brown have in common?
Their supporters loathe and despise Donald Trump.
OK, that was too easy. Let’s try again: What commonality exists between Fields and convenience store-tosser Brown?
Answer: The rash judgment immediately following their national exposure.
Nearly two years ago, the country was engulfed in the sad, sorry saga of Michael Brown. Shot dead in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, Brown became the poster boy for police brutality against blacks. Brown’s body was still warm on the pavement when the media went into berserk mode, charging Officer Darren Wilson with murder and maligning the entire police force as inveterate racists.
The story fit the progressive narrative: Brown was an unarmed black teeanger gunned down by a white cop. A few conservative voices called for calm as the details were sorted out. Rep. Paul Ryan (now Speaker of the House) warned the public not to “jump to prejudging conclusions before evidence is in.”
Their warnings were prescient: President Obama’s Department of Justice declined to charge Officer Wilson. The law-enforcement agency, which was headed by race-baiter Eric Holder, could not disprove Wilson’s claim that he was acting in self-defense at the time he killed Brown.
A curious thing is taking place in the West. Two opposing forces are coming to a head, the effect of which could be disastrous or salutary, depending on your view.
First the bad news: There is a conscious effort afoot to overrun the First World with Third World immigrants. Popular commentary sites talk openly about how whites must be forced into subservience. Refugee advocates threaten to overwhelm nation-state borders “until Europe will turn black.” Political leaders are intransigent about their open border views, despite the culture clash they engender. In America, Mexican wall jumpers openly brag about “owning” states.
The audacity of this insidious invasion would make Jean Raspail blush.
While the West’s political leadership seems hellbent on putting out the welcome mat for barbarians, another concurrent trend is happening. It is far less pronounced, but it’s taking shape nonetheless.
I’m referring to what John Derbyshire calls “segregation lite.” Across the country, minorities are demanding protection from assimilation with others races. These agitators for apartheid are overturning the gains of the civil rights movement – which, given the country’s increase in racial strife, may not be a terrible thing.
Reprinted from the Press and Journal
Antonin Scalia believed in the Devil.
In a 2013 interview with New York magazine, the Supreme Court justice expressed shock when his interviewer thought it strange to believe in the Prince of Darkness.
“Isn’t it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil?” asked the liberal-minded questioner.
Scalia, in typical fashion, replied: “You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil!”
For that kind of folksy yet intelligent wit, Justice Scalia will be sorely missed.
The long-serving justice and conservative center of our nation’s highest court passed away unexpectedly at a resort in remote west Texas. Without missing a beat, President Obama and congressional Republicans politicized his death, not waiting 24 hours before announcing their plans for moving forward.
Republicans vow to block any Court appointment, while the president insists on nominating a replacement.
However the president and Congress settle the vacancy dispute, one thing is known: Justice Scalia is irreplaceable. He was a man of supreme intellect, of unwavering courage, of religious devotion and incisive prose.