Wednesday, December 7, 2016

National Review

by -
National Review

You can nearly smell it between the pixels of the National Review Online. It’s the thickness in the air when you combine failure, anger, humiliation with fresh tears and stale coffee.

The “Against Trump” cabal at the National Review wanted America to believe that it was serving as the protector of conservative values, but the truth always falls in the cracks.

This crew was only looking to preserve its place among the right-appearing intelligentsia of Washington D.C. and its suburbs.

The National Review, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

In their first post-Presumptive Nominee issue, the writing allowed to leak through to their front page appeared wandering and looking for a purpose.

. . . the failings of Ted Cruz.
. . . Little Jonah Goldberg’s “I don’t wanna like Trump” acceptance of reality.
. . . A Trump-Gingrich ticket.

These are the words of lost souls.

Like most irrelevant politicos and their organizations, the talk will quickly shift to coalition and “army” building with a purpose to influence Donald Trump and his pick for Vice President.

This is what the irrelevant do . . . they create irrelevant campaigns to give themselves something to do.

Others, like Jonah Goldberg, will have to spend a few months mocking the GOP nominee before he realizes that no one really cares.

Then there will be those who will slowly shift and pretend that they were ALWAYS in support of Trump. This is the historic operating procedure of the clowns of the National Review, who failed to endorse Reagan in 1968 but didn’t hesitate to endorse Romney in 2008.

The group sat back and chose to cowardly endorse no one in ’92, ’96 and even 2012.

That’s because they prefer to be on the “winning” side of their endorsements, despite living in bubble so thick that they have only called it correctly 50% of the time since 1956.

That’s what we call a losing record.

But the brilliantly stupid people who write for the National Review call it wrong on more than just presidential politics.

These are the neo-cons who backed the invasion and occupation of Iraq under George W. Bush.

They’re the ones who sat on the sidelines as George W. rammed through the largest budget expansions of any “conservative” president and distracted readers as John Boehner acquiesced on Obamacare and nearly every other desire of Barack Obama from 2008 to today.

Don’t be fooled by their legacy left behind by the eccentric and flamboyantly effeminate William F. Buckley . . . the National Review is the place where writers self-define “conservative” while earning a pay check . . . nothing more and nothing less.

Let their tears flow into the gutter . . . along with their careers.

by -
I Voted For Trump

Why in the world would a libertarian vote for Donald Trump? As Ron Paul wailed on CNN on Super Tuesday, Trump “represents the opposite of Liberty!”

I don’t disagree.

Donald Trump also represents the opposite of Washington.

When I first started my career in D.C., I was a young and naive idealist wearing a uniform and serving as a United States Marine.

During my last year on Active Duty, working in the Judge Advocate Division, I was in charge of reporting cases of officer misconduct . . . and boy I had my hands on countless salacious stories that the media would have drooled over.

At night, I was able to comb through the original Service Record Books of the most notorious Marines . . . from Charles Whitman to Lee Harvey Oswald.

But the biggest scandal I witnessed during my time was the scandal that took place in the White House.

As I tracked and reported cases of misconduct, I kept a tally. Over 75% of my active cases were for the offenses of adultery and fraternization . . . the exact offenses our Commander-in-Chief at the time was guilty of.

As good officers were literally doing time in the brig for their lack of judgment, Bill Clinton was kicking back in the White House.

Following my time in the long hallways of Headquarters Marine Corps, I ended up working in the lobbying office for one of the nation’s largest oil companies.

One day, my boss asked me to sit in for him at a meeting with the other oil lobbyists and I arrived the next morning to a scene straight out of Hollywood.

Not long after I entered the dark, wood-lined conference room filled with a variety of “old boy” characters sitting around a massive table, the leader of the discussion crowed, “Who is going to put money into Hastert’s pocket?”

His tone shifted to urgent as he cried, “We’re falling down as an industry guys!”

As one lobbyist after another pledged to divert funds to buy influence, I sank further into my seat.

Knowing how Washington works is one thing, seeing it take place before your eyes is another.

As I made it back to my office, I shot off an email offering to stuff envelopes for a government watchdog group and weeks later, they hired me as a director which started my lengthy career in fighting government for a living.

Since I made it to D.C. twenty-three years ago, I’ve had a front row seat to witness an endless parade of corruption and hypocrisy, not just within government, but within the consultant and political class that surrounds it.

As Marty Huggins would say, “Folks, bring your brooms, ‘cause it’s a mess!”

And that’s a gross understatement.

Washington is a freaking cesspool filled with pseudo-intellectuals and con men looking to buy and sell each other. The smart ones do it for money; the dumb ones do it for social standing that they define as “power.”

The scandals that are buzzed about from time to time about law breaking or ethics violations are nothing compared to the legal corruption that takes place daily . . . and it involves just about everyone that’s inside the beltway, not just the politicians who are the target of our anger.

That’s where Donald Trump comes in.

Trump is not part of the political class and never will be. More importantly, the success of his campaign has made complete clowns of the candidates, consultants and election experts who were previously held in high regard.

The brash billionaire is able to accomplish something that no one has been able to come close to since Washington left office . . . he’s breaking down the political machine, and more specifically, the Grand Old Party.

In his farewell address published in 1796, George Washington warned the nation of the “baneful effects of the spirit of the party.”

Few listened to him and the tools in power today from Mitch McConnell to Lindsey Graham to the neo-con clowns of the National Review, have clearly not taken a moment to sit back and understand that political parties do not deserve loyalty . . . principles demand loyalty and the GOP along with so-called “conservatives” have no firm principles.

When it comes to ideological grounding, the GOP, the conservative movement and, yes, even Donald Trump do not know who they are.

They have not explored the principles of Liberty to set aside party lines and trust in individuals rather than government.

When an individual lacks a foundation of beliefs, they quickly sink into the quagmire of mass opinion and outside influence for gain.

When beliefs are formed on a foundation of Liberty, there is never a doubt. The only question is “how do we get there?”

Liberty is a mountain made of granite. Mere men can’t break, move it or ignore it. When your eyes are open to these principles, you can’t even really argue with yourself.

As one libertarian activist, Ernie Hancock, says, “Freedom is the answer. What’s the question?”

So when an opportunity comes about to destroy or at least change the Republican Party and the Washington Establishment, hell yes, I’m taking it.

Make no mistake; I have high confidence that when Donald Trump takes the GOP nomination, he will be able to beat Hillary Clinton . . . despite what the polls may say.

But my decision was not based upon the outcome of the election; it was based upon the devastation Donald Trump will lay upon various arms of the government, the Washington Establishment and Congress. “President” Trump will serve as a spark to burn the whole thing down, and a controlled-burn is long overdue.

As for me, I’d rather take a shot at starting over then endure another eight years of ruin due to spineless and self-serving elites who demand our respect.

I’d rather hand the reigns of government over to a drunk monkey with a butcher knife than allow another bullshit politician to sit in our White House.

Today, Donald Trump was my drunk monkey. I’ll bring the butcher knife.

by -
National Review

During the Nevada Caucus last night and after, reporters for the anti-Trump, fair-weather-conservative magazine, The National Review, went full retard.

Here’s Elaina Plott, a reporter for the “Against Trump” publication:

Elaina Plott failed to mention that volunteers were permitted to wear candidate attire, buttons, hats, and kazoos according to the Nevada GOP. So the reporter had to find something else to complain about:

Another reporter for the National Irrelevance, Alexis Levinson, was obviously offended that no one was there to hold her hand and walk her to a green room for tea and M&M’s:

Alexis’ complaint is a prime example of the elitist privilege that establishment reporters expect.

Not to be outdone by their boots-on-the-ground reporters in Nevada, the publication’s senior editor, Jonah Goldberg, jumped the shark by writing a column suggesting that a “Rubio-Cruz” ticket is the only way to stop Trump.

Poor Jonah, whose mamma is the well-connected literary agent, Lucianne Goldberg (and a likely reason Jonah landed a job at The National Review at the age of 28 despite having few credentials), started his column in a near fit:

As things stand, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee. That’s awful news, and depressing to contemplate.

The privileged Jonah went on to blame Ted Cruz for Trump’s rise as he failed to attack him early in the process.

But the brain-child of Lucianne offered this suggestion, “If the two factions [Rubio and Cruz] – which make up the overwhelming majority of Republican voters – could be unified, it might be enough to stop Trump.

Jonah fails to realize that with the results of last night’s Caucus, even by combining the vote totals of Cruz and Rubio – and assuming zero loss to Trump – the idea could STILL not beat Trump.

Additionally, either Rubio or Cruz (Goldberg recommends Cruz) would have to drop first. As America experienced last night, voters would still peel off to Trump once a candidate folds their race . . . now proven with Bush.

That would leave Rubio even more vulnerable to Trump and would guarantee his victory.

Goldberg’s whining and the rest of the National Review’s establishment writers’ pitiful screams are too little too late. If these establishment hacks had shown a spine in opposing the GOP establishment, there would be a slight chance that the nation would not be in such an “angry” mood and willing to cast a vote for anybody-but-a-politician.

Goldberg and his crew are partially responsible for creating this opportunity for Donald Trump and now pitch a fit over his presumptive victory over the GOP field, while offering no solutions to save the nation.

Comment below.

by -
Establishment

The clowns of the National Review are at it again.

Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize winning, pro-abortion, interventionist (if it suits Israel), and defender of the Republican Establishment, penned a column yesterday screaming “So what?” that 60% of voters are throwing their support behind anti-establishment candidates such as Trump, Carson and Cruz.

Krauthammer softens the attack on his peers by saying, “There’s nothing wrong with challenging the so-called establishment . . . if by establishment you mean careerists, the lobbyists, and the sold-out cynic, then  a good poke, even a major purge, is well-deserved.”

The career establishment journalist, who was a major backer of George Bush’s Iraq War, and the “weapons of mass destruction” fable, flips the anti-establishment support for Trump into an attack of the billionaire’s appeal.

Krauthammer states that “Trumpian populism” garnered only 24% support after Iowa, while conservatives where defined as supporters of Rubio and Cruz, who surpassed 51% support.

Krauthammer essentially argues that no self-respecting conservative could support Trump.

The journalist hawk’s consideration of Rubio as a conservative is laughable as the Florida senator is simply an establishment alternative to Jeb Bush’s flailing campaign.

At this point, Krauthammer and other establishment cronies are terrified of a Trump presidency. Why? Because they have no influence over the man.

Being part of the establishment means that they have to be invited to sit with the “cool kids” in the cafeteria, and Trump has offered no such invitation.

Instead, rather than allowing Krauthammer and GOP insiders a place at the table, Trump has indefinitely closed the door to their influence by figuratively proclaiming, “there is no table.”

The snarling rants of Krauthammer and his National Review cocktail buddies will resound until the day that Trump wins the GOP nomination. Then, like good little establishment hacks, they will bow their heads, shuffle up to the nominee and beg to be stroked like a homeless puppy pining for a home.

by -
National Review

The publication founded by Mr. Conservative, William F. Buckley has taken a turn for the worse over the last few decades.

Closely embedded with the GOP establishment and D.C.’s intelligentsia, the publication has dwindled in influence to those outside of Washington and panders to the political elite.

As such, it’s no surprise that National Review has come out with a nonsensical “Against Trump” diatribe against the presidential frontrunner.

This is the same publication that endorsed Mitt Romney in BOTH 2008 AND 2012.

Mitt Romney, the first man to pull off his version of Obamacare, was considered “conservative” by this group of clowns that look to influence your decision.

Romney couldn’t even beat populist McCain in 2008.

Refusing to be haunted by their past actions, the editors of National Review punish Trump as not being conservative enough for their liking.

Don’t be fooled, the editors of National Review pull out the “conservative” card as needed to fit their agenda.

The real story behind #AgainstTrump is the reality that Donald Trump makes them look like fools and will, without question, diminish their future power and influence (which equals their pocket book).

Trump has run a rogue campaign without the help of the consultant class that swarms politics like flies around a Chinese restaurants back-alley dumpster.

The billionaire has been attacked from all angles – left and right – and the words of pundits and bobble heads like the National Review editors fall on deaf ears for a large swath of America.

The Trump attack, in the end, will do little to impact the vote in 2016, but will further their contempt among Americans who don’t need to carry a thesaurus at their cocktail parties.

In proper fashion, National Review shows its true colors by attempting to boost their subscriber base (and pocket a few dollars) with their attack on Trump.

Hours after the attack, National Review boasted of their “largest traffic day” while posting this at the top of their twitter page:

For a group of people who are responsible for enabling the establishment politicians who have spinelessly allowed American policy to bring us everything from Obamacare to knee-pad wearing John Boehner, they see their future influence of their publication swirling around a toilet bowl in Union Station if Trump were to become the next president of the United States.

by -
Ted Cruz

Shortly after presidential contender Donald Trump said it would happen, a businessman in Texas has filed a lawsuit to challenge Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be placed on the ballot.

Bloomberg News report:

Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,” a fellow Texan claims in a “birther” challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.

The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.

“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”

This isn’t the first time a lawsuit like this has been filed. The most recent challenges filed stem from John McCain’s run for president. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone that was later determined to be U.S. Soil.

Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1970 and moved to Texas in 1974. While Cruz’s mother was a United States Citizen (his father was a Cuban citizen), she had to file paperwork at a Canadian embassy to recognize the birth and his citizenship.

Since Ted Cruz was born abroad and had to request the government recognize his citizenship, it is arguable that Cruz is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as the Constitution requires of a president.

The lawsuit and entire “birther” debate has the pro-Cruz camp up in arms.

National Review wrote:

Let’s get the first thing out of the way: Yes, Ted Cruz is eligible to be president. If you’re one of the quarter of Republicans who think that the circumstances of Cruz’s birth are somehow disqualifying, or the 26 percent that haven’t made up your minds, please: Read this. Or this. Or maybe this. Or this. For God’s sake, The Atlantic is clear that this is nonsense. So either the Republican party has several million heterodox constitutional scholars in its midst, or a hefty chunk of the party has devoted itself, with single-minded zeal, to being intentionally, flamboyantly ignorant. Which brings us to Donald Trump. This is, of course, his doing. Because he is unable to engage Cruz (or anyone else on stage) on matters of actual substance, he’s mongered conspiracy under the pretext that Democrats were going to do it anyway. It doesn’t seem to matter to Trump or to his supporters that his legal opinion on the subject was wildly different just four months ago.

While the National Review was quick to redirect readers to a few articles that brush off the controversy, the matter is far from unsettled.

The respected Heritage Foundation has covered this and while they conclude that “a majority of “commentators” argue in favor of the eligibility of Cruz, the argument is “much less certain.”

Here’s the full section from Heritage:

Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The “natural born” terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). But the question remains whether the term “natural born Citizen” used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship thoughjus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

TRENDING STORIES

Obama is a few weeks away from leaving office and Donald Trump is helping him leave on a high point. When Obama departs the White...