Comments

When Trump supported amnesty — 36 Comments

1. People do not ‘just’ change their minds. Change involves either a long, deliberative process (ala neo’s conversion) or an emotional event that shatters previously held positions (such as a liberal being mugged by reality).

   If Trump cannot articulate the steps that led to a change in perception on illegal immigration and Muslim migration, nor point to some emotional crisis that forced a change in perception, then it’s a false ‘change’ whose purpose must be deceitfully presented for it to be accepted.

   I’m not quite yet persuaded but everything I’m learning about Trump (I never paid attention to him before) adds support to parker’s assertion that Trump is a democrat ‘in sheep’s clothing’.

   Most likely acting out of political opportunism, cynically adopting the position of a popular nationalist, one who seeks to ride the coattails of the public’s justifiable outrage at the machinations of the Left into the Presidency. Increasingly, power appears to be the altar at which he worships.

   If so, we’re screwed if he wins the nomination because the choice will be between the devil we know (Hillary et al) and a narcissist whose only real loyalty is to himself.

2. Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!
   Lovely Trump! Wonderful Trump!
   Trump! Truuuump! Trump! Truuuump! Trump!
   Lovely Trump! Lovely Trump! Lovely Trump! Lovely Trump!
   Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!

   (With no apologies what so ever to Monty Python)

   I don’t know about POTUS, but so far Trump has been hugely entertaining.

3. So according to multiple online sources, every single candidate running has previously supported amnesty. Therefore, what is a voter to do? Pick the candidate she trusts most saying that he is no longer for amnesty.

   This does nothing for me.

4. Yes, Lurker, the The Donald, like The Force, can have a strong influence on the weak-minded. (with no apology whatsoever to either Living Colour or Obi Wan.)

   Unfortunately, the POTUS election is a serious matter and we need a serious person that can be trusted or it’s all over for serious subjects like the Constitution, personal liberty, and the rule of law. But all Trump is, is YUUUUGELY entertaining, in a nasty way.

5. K-E, can you please provide any of those sources that offers evidence Cruz supported amnesty for illegals?

6. Just found a link on Hot Air for you:

   http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2016/01/28/ted-cruzs-flat-out-lie-on-immigration/

   They all have amnesty backgrounds. Who to believe???

7. Geoffrey Britain:
   “Most likely acting out of political opportunism, cynically adopting the position of a popular nationalist, one who seeks to ride the coattails of the public’s justifiable outrage at the machinations of the Left into the Presidency.”

   You bring up a point I’ve spotlighted in previous Neo threads. It’s a fundamental point to spotlight in terms of the politics regarding the Trump phenomenon and for the big picture.

   In the wake of the recent Palin endorsement of Trump, the frame has been inserted in the political discourse that “populism” and “nationalism” are distinct from, even incompatible with “conservatism”, so that spectrum-right Americans who identify as populist and/or nationalist thus cluster with Trump whereas mainstream conservatives of the Right affiliate with the GOPe candidates, to include otherwise-considered non-establishment candidates Cruz, Fiorina, and Carson.

   Incredibly, in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist, Neo and other commentators seem to have accepted this demographic-sorting re-frame with little critical pushback on the definitions and premises asserted.

   Take a step back.

   Since when have mainstream conservatives of the Right been antagonistic to spectrum-right populism and/or nationalism – as those terms have been defined by the Right, not the alt-Right – and the spectrum-right Americans who identify as such?

   The answer is they haven’t. Or else, I have overlooked for a long time a salient feature of mainstream conservatives of the Right.

   It looks like a rhetorical maneuver to slyly redefine fundamental concepts in order to shift the demographics in a way that pushes affiliations to Trump and isolates mainstream conservatives of the Right.

   It makes competitive sense for the alt-Right to try the maneuver. After all, the Left successfully tricked a lot of people, including many on the Right, into believing the demonstrably false premise that the grounds for OIF was the pre-war intel, despite the assertion’s obvious contradiction with the controlling law, policy, and precedent of the decade-plus Gulf War ceasefire enforcement and Iraq’s evidential material breach of ceasefire that was the actual casus belli for OIF.

   Looking at the Left’s success at blatantly misrepresenting the Iraq intervention, it’s no wonder the Left-mimicking alt-Right believes they can reconstruct the prevailing narrative against the Right with virtual impunity, too. So far, the tack seems to be working.

   In the critical, frame-setting Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, narrative is elective truth. And the actual truth is merely a narrative that must be competed for like any other.

   Guard the premises with care. Control the frame.

8. GB,

   trump is not a sheep in a democrat’s clothing although he strongly identifies with the left’s agenda on abortion, the 2nd, kelo, etc. the donald is the donald is the donald by any other name. That is all he is, nothing more. The narcissistic macho man (wannabe) should stay in NYC and build skating rinks. Let 10,000 skating rinks blossom in NYC.

9. parker,

   Thanks for clarifying my understanding of your thinking. I suspect that Trump, politically is a capitalist/social liberal, i.e. a RINO. I agree that his egocentrism encompasses his entire world view.

   Eric,

   My understanding is that “populism” and “nationalism” are indeed distinct from but not at all inherently incompatible with “conservatism”. Many embrace all three. I suspect most on the right embrace some combination of the three.

   I would dispute that anyone who supports the GOPe or its goals is in fact a mainstream conservative. They are conservative-in-name-only.

   I agree that the Left is attempting to redefine the terms so as to divide and conquer.

   RE: “After all, the Left successfully tricked a lot of people, including many on the Right, into believing the demonstrably false premise that the grounds for OIF was the pre-war intel, despite the assertion’s obvious contradiction with the controlling law, policy, and precedent of the decade-plus Gulf War ceasefire enforcement and Iraq’s evidential material breach of ceasefire that was the actual casus belli for OIF.”

   I can’t entirely agree that the Left alone sought to ‘trick’ people into believing “that the grounds for OIF was the pre-war intel” that is because the Bush administration and many neocons used the pre-war intel as the moral justification for the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration rightly judged that support for America invading Iraq required a moral justification. They used Colin Powell’s UN presentation to assert that Saddam presented a clear and present danger, i.e. a pressing, existential threat that had to be dealt with… the legal justification was and still is insufficient as persuasion, only lawyers and policy wonks find it alone, persuasive.

   While I no longer agree with the “implantation of democracy into the ME” as a valid rationale, I still hold to my analysis of what the actual neocon rationale consisted of for the invasion of Iraq.
   See: “Iraq, Invasion, NeoCons and the War on Terror”

10. Geoffrey Britain,

    The actual rationale is plainly stated in the primary sources – the law and policy – of the Iraq intervention that were exceptionally well developed over the decade-plus of the US-led enforcement of the UNSCR 660-series resolutions leading up to OIF.

    Saddam’s threat didn’t need to be separately established from the Gulf War ceasefire because the threat was inclusive with Iraq’s material breach of the ceasefire. The terms of ceasefire were purpose-designed to resolve Iraq’s threat. As long as Iraq remained noncompliant, Saddam ipso facto remained a threat.

    The intelligence had a limited ancillary role in the operative enforcement procedure. Presenting the pre-war intel inapposite of its actual role in the ceasefire enforcement was unwise and unneeded. Clinton didn’t cite the intel at all when he developed the case for Iraqi regime change that was handed down to Bush.

    That said, Bush novelly emphasizing the intel for the political purposes that you point to should still have been okay – as long as the intel was presented in a way that was consistent with its actual role in the ceasefire enforcement.

    That’s where Bush went off track. At times, Bush officials presented the intel in the correct context. Too often they unnecessarily improperly characterized the pre-war intel in a way that was inconsistent both with the normal role of intelligence generally and the role of intelligence in the ceasefire enforcement specifically.

    In fact, while it was fairly criticized for its predictive imprecision, the intel was unfairly blamed as a cause of war. Per its normal role and particular role in the ceasefire enforcement, the pre-war intel correctly indicated Saddam was violating the disarmament and terrorism-related mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire.

11. Geoffrey Britain:
    “My understanding is that “populism” and “nationalism” are indeed distinct from but not at all inherently incompatible with “conservatism”. Many embrace all three. I suspect most on the right embrace some combination of the three.”

    This concept needs to be repetitively highlighted by mainstream conservatives to re-set the narrative frame.

12. Add to my comment at January 29th, 2016 at 1:05 am:

    Bush officials, while they too often improperly characterized the pre-war intel, were redeemed by that they were consistent with the controlling law and policy that the trigger for enforcement was Iraq’s noncompliance.

13. Eric,

    You continue to argue from the standpoint of legality and legally, you are perfectly correct. Which, on the emotional level of moral justification… is totally irrelevant.

    The Bush administration wanted/needed public support for the invasion of Iraq. They sold the invasion of Iraq to the public by arguing that Saddam’s covert pursuit of WMD (nukes) gave the world the moral justification for invasion. They sold the invasion of Iraq to the public by arguing that it was necessary to the War on Terror.

    Since no facility for the development of nukes were found, this was a fundamental mistake and the repercussion was that the Bush administration lost its moral justification for the invasion.

    So for we on the right to ‘correct’ the public’s understanding of the OIF, for the public to renew its emotional embrace of the OIF’s moral validity, the moral justification for the invasion must be restored. IMO, to ‘reframe’ the issue, legal technicalities are entirely insufficient as justification. Good luck with that.

14. I recall that whole ‘invade Iraq’ conversation began with U.N. inspectors being refused entry to inspect sites that Saddam had agreed to at the end of the Gulf War in the 90s. Then the U.N. did NOTHING. They did not enforce the agreement Saddam had made and wimped out.

    That is what I remember from the time.

    This was before any intel was mentioned. Saddam was thumbing his nose at U.N. inspectors who were supposed to ensure that Saddam was not building WMDs. What are we to think when he refuses entry of those inspectors?

    I can guarantee you that when he refused them entry, our spy capabilities went into overdrive to find out if Saddam was hiding something. They may have overstated what was going on based on poor intelligence, but may have been motivated to find some connection b/c of Saddam’s refusal of inspections.

    And based on that information, I am still perfectly okay with Bush going into Iraq. They may not have found the ‘smoking gun,’ but there could’ve been a smoking gun. And that would have been deadly in the hands of Saddam.

    Also, it has been discussed since then that the chemical weapons used in Syria could possibly have come from Iraq and that some of the weapons obtained by terrorists were also smuggled over the border before the U.S. invaded.

    It is always easy to look back and criticize, but I remember the things leading up to the Iraq situation, and it started with Saddam refusing the U.N. inpsectors entry.

15. Don’t you all feel that some sort of “amnesty” is justified for the wonderful, hard-working people who’ve been allowed to come to this country (albeit “illegally”)? Sure, send the criminals packing but your friends and neighbors? really?

    I think Rubio has it right and he is winning me over.

16. K-E,

    That is my memory as well. That you and I and many more think that Saddam’s defiance was sufficient cause for invasion is only meaningful if the great majority of the public are also supportive.

    Most people operate on feelings not considered reflection. Thus the need for moral justification. The Bush administration, by hinging that support upon an unsustainable moral justification for invasion, ensured the erosion of that initial support.

17. Lurch,

    How many of those admittedly hard working people are willing to assimilate? Look to the growth of La Raza upon every major campus for your answer. If the parents were inculcating into their children the traditional immigrant views of the American dream, those students would not be open to La Raza. The problem isn’t skin color, the problem is cultural values. They come from corrupt, socialist societies and 70+% of illegal immigrants support a party that seeks one-party control. That alone reveals their values.

    Rubio will betray us… again.

18. Geoffrey Britain — your blog on Iraq was spot on! 150,000 or so US troops in the heart of the Middle East would have put us in a completely different and much better position: no ISIS, no Kuds Force roaming around, gentle but firm pressure on Assad to step down, same on Saudi Arabia to halt support for Wahabi madrassas and jihadis, support for Jordan, teaching the Iraqis how to form a non-sectarian, multi-ethnic state, etc., etc., etc. However, when no American Military Government was put in place and the troops started coming home, I knew the strategy was not being followed — hell, we didn’t even let the Germans FORM a government until 9 years after the war was over!

    Have you found anything indicating why the strategy wasn’t followed?

19. Hi GB, I know there are problems and more than a few of these people need to go. However, it hasn’t been my experience that they don’t share our values, as such. They are almost all Christian and only want a better life. IMO we conservatives need to be more persuasive and I try to do that in all my interactions. We’re not in the same boat as Europe, thank God.

20. Does everyone here realize that getting tough on illegal immigration means that everyone in the US will have to have “papers” (as in, “your papers are not in order”)? I’m certainly for that, as among other things, that will reduce illegal voting tremendously, but having to carry “papers” used to be a bugaboo for libertarians.

    I’d also like to know if by “amnesty” you mean a path to legalization (green card or bracero) or a path to citizenship? I would support the former but not the latter.

21. Richard Saunders:

    I don’t think most people (I’m not talking about commenters here; I’m speaking generally) have a clue what they mean by “amnesty.” It’s just a buzz-word, a bad thing. And they don’t bother to think it through—what it would mean, how it would actually be implemented if mass deportation occurs, and what the unintended consequences would be.

22. Neo – Exactly — like Social Security going bankrupt overnight instead of in 20 years. The necessary cash flow for Social Security to operate is being supplied by illegals working “grey” — in legitimate jobs under phony names and Social Security numbers. Without them, boom! Down it goes!

    When people talk about the cost of illegal immigration, they never mention this offset. I suppose the charitable thing would be to say they don’t know about it — but every accountant and lawyer who deals with small businesses in this country knows it.

23. Richard,

    Had we stayed in Iraq AND been willing to fight to keep it, it is probable that ISIS would never even have arisen.

    That said, “teaching the Iraqis how to form a non-sectarian, multi-ethnic state” was never going to happen. It wasn’t going to happen because Iraq is Islamic and Islam is utterly opposed to the formation of and coexistence with… a non-sectarian state. Islam’s foundational, theological tenets cannot tolerate the separation of church and state.

    Iraq and Turkey have now proven that culture trumps “universal human aspirations” (the foundation of the neocon rationale for confronting the WoT). And neither Germany nor Japan had fundamental cultural beliefs antithetical to foundational Western precepts.

    “Does everyone here realize that getting tough on illegal immigration means that everyone in the US will have to have “papers” (as in, “your papers are not in order”)?”

    No, no need for papers at all. ALL that is needed is to make their employment untenable for the employer… mandatory 5 year federal prison sentences with no possibility of parole and loss of citizenship would do it… no jobs = no illegals.

24. K-E,

    See the explanation of the law and policy, fact basis for OIF, including the situation with Iraq that compelled Bush to switch back to the ceasefire enforcement from the post-Operation Desert Fox ad hoc ‘containment’.

    The intelligence issue is addressed, especially in the answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?”.

    Geoffrey Britain,

    Law and policy (plus precedent). The bases, including justification, are covered by the law and policy. Law provided the enforcement mechanism. Policy provided the rationale. Together they established the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441). On the facts, the decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.

    Iraq’s threat and the mandated process for its resolution were defined by the law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire.

    Your apparent initial misunderstanding of the Gulf War ceasefire – despite that it had progressed for over a decade by 2002-2003 – rendered you vulnerable to the propaganda trick that shifted the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 687) to an inapposite judgement of the predictive precision of the pre-war intelligence.

    You’re not alone in that.

    In fact, while corroborating Iraq’s breach of ceasefire that triggered OIF, the Iraq Survey Group found the Saddam regime possessed a large covert procurement program, ready and developing WMD capability, and an active covert chemical and biological program in the IIS.

    Legally, the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” made no distinction between battlefield-ready WMD stockpiles and ready and developing WMD capability. Practically speaking, there is little gap in the threat rendered by the disarmament violations, especially regarding Iraq’s covert capability.

    The IIS was also the regime arm that ran Saddam’s terrorist network, which the IPP found both rivaled and worked with the al Qaeda network. In fact, Saddam’s terrorism was found to be worse than indicated before OIF.

    As far as improper characterization of the pre-war intel as “evidence”, that happened mainly regarding Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs. See this to clarify the nuclear issue.

    Bush actually said, “Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem.”

    Post-war, the Iraq Survey Group found Iraq’s nuclear program was on standby, not eliminated as mandated. To wit, “Senior Iraqis–several of them from the Regime’s inner circle–told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program” and “ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program”.

    While IAEA and ISG’s nuclear-related findings were comparatively less alarming than UNMOVIC and ISG’s findings on Iraq’s CW and BW capabilities, they still violated UNSCR 687 and added to an already full portfolio for the casus belli.

    Be that as it may, President Bush was consistent with the operative enforcement procedure that the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove to the UNSCR 1441 inspections that Saddam had disarmed as mandated. Outside of enemy propaganda and the people fooled by it, there was no burden of proof on the US and UN to prove Iraq was armed as indicated by the pre-war intelligence.

    On the law and the facts, the evidence (as opposed to pre-war intelligence indication) shows the Iraqi threat marked by the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” was confirmed. Saddam was in fact armed and rearming to pose a “continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” (Clinton).

    As well, Saddam’s humanitarian violations “threaten[ed] international peace and security in the region” (UNSCR 688). In that regard, Saddam’s regime was not a secular bulwark against Islamic radicalization as it is often misrepresented. Along with his terrorism that included Islamic terrorism, including al Qaeda affiliates, Saddam had undertaken the sectarian radicalization of Iraqi society since the Iran-Iraq War.

    Across the board both in terms of the War on Terror and the threat marked for resolution with the Gulf War ceasefire, Iraq was ripe for the enforcement of Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).

    Geoffrey, American leadership of the free world would be better served if you would set the record straight on the Iraq intervention instead of rationalizing your victimization by enemy propagandists as a “moral justification”.

25. Lurch,

    I presume you are referring to Christian Syrian refugees? If so, it will be of interest that less than 1% of the admitted M.E. refugees to the U.S. are Christian. The other 99% are Sunni Muslim (same as ISIS)… and a sizable percentage of them admit to supporting ISIS…

26. Eric,

    I’m aware of and even agree with the facts and rationale you present. Unfortunately, I observe them to be unpersuasive to the public. You are far from the first to argue as you do. The public’s reaction has consistently been one of, “talk to the hand”.

    The meme that the invasion was morally unjustified is far too deeply embedded. A victorious left has already ‘written’ the history book.

    As the parade marches by, stand on the sidelines and rant against it all you wish… for someone who understands that ‘truth’ is perception, you are remarkably insensitive to the reality that, “that ship has sailed”…

27. Oops. Fix: … rendered you vulnerable to the propaganda trick that shifted the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 687) (UNSCR 1441)

    The basic disarmament standard for Iraq was set by UNSCR 687, but I usually refer to UNSCR 1441 to attribute the quote in order to implicitly cover the “enhanced inspection regime” mandated by UNSCR 1441.

28. Geoffrey Britain,

    Actually, it’s as a former activist whose team succeeded with a cause that was deemed quixotic that I grasp the frame re-setting competitive value and feasibility of setting the record straight on the Iraq intervention.

    What’s past is prologue and the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist is always malleable. Remember, the actual truth is merely another narrative that must be competed for like any other.

    It’s also as a former activist where I came to understand with much frustration your kind of mindset. If it had been left up to the conservatives, and but for anti-left liberals, we would have lost to the leftists out of the gate.

    There’s a reason the Left took extraordinary care to mischaracterize the Iraq intervention: it set the cornerstone premise to lay the foundation for everything else in this episode of their long march.

    That the Left successfully asserted a demonstrably false narrative in overt contradiction of a decade-plus record, the controlling law and policy, and determinative facts shouldn’t have happened in the first place. The progress made by the Trump-front, Left-mimicking alt-Right insurgency shouldn’t be happening now.

    Why are they happening?

    Exhibit A. Your resignation “that ship has sailed” regarding a pivotal active underlying premise in the political discourse reflects why mainstream conservatives are approaching dangerously close to obsolescence in the American political landscape. It’s not due to the quality of ideas. It’s due to the endemic sub-par competitive mindset and method.

    Setting the record straight on the Iraq intervention to re-lay the foundation and re-set the frame at the premise level amounts to basic training in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist.

    If the Right can’t even manage to set the record straight on the Iraq intervention armed with a straightforward set of law and policy and facts versus a demonstrably false narrative, then there is dim hope that conservatives will be able to rise to compete effectively elsewhere in the only social cultural/political game there is.

29. Richard Saunders:
    “Have you found anything indicating why the strategy wasn’t followed?”

    The basic answer to your question starts was the legal character of the Iraq intervention established in 1990-1991: the enforcement of the UNSCR 660-series resolutions, which included the ceasefire mandates and post-Saddam mandates.

    Foundational legal documents for the 2003-2011 peace operations in post-Saddam Iraq are linked here.

30. Oops. Fix: The basic answer to your question starts wasis the legal character of the Iraq intervention established in 1990-1991:

31. “Setting the record straight on the Iraq intervention to re-lay the foundation and re-set the frame at the premise level amounts to basic training in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist.

    Labeling an observation as ‘resignation’ does not make it so Eric.

    Let’s say you could set “the record straight on the Iraq intervention to re-lay the foundation and re-set the frame at the premise level” in that rationally and factually you absolutely destroyed the Left’s mischaracterization of the Iraq intervention.

    Incidentally, I know we’ve already done that.

    The result would be exactly what it is today. That is because the acceptance by half the American public of that mischaracterization is predicated upon their having long ago accepted the Left’s definition of mankind as soulless.

    In 1952, Whittaker Chambers articulated the Communist vision as “the vision of man’s mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man’s liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man’s destiny.”

    The West long ago accepted that vision and that is why the public has accepted the Left’s mischaracterization of the Iraq intervention and will continue to resist any and all ‘corrections’.

    ‘Reframing the narrative’ Eric, requires much deeper correction than a legal argument.

    “Political ideas that have dominated the public mind for decades cannot be refuted through rational arguments. They must run their course in life and cannot collapse otherwise than in great catastrophe…” Ludwig von Mises

    What you fail to appreciate Eric is that, “You can’t reason (reframe) people out of positions, they haven’t reasoned themselves into…” Benjamin Franklin paraphrased

32. K-E Says:
    January 28th, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Just found a link on Hot Air for you:

    &&&&

    Check out this link — one page —

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-cruz-poison-bill-amendments-killed/2015/12/18/id/706450/

    The ‘open door’ amendments that Ted Cruz launched were all poison pills.

    I’ve seen his work repeatedly distorted by opponents.

    One of his amendments would’ve dramatically increased the permitted H1b numbers.

    Of course, at the same time it would nix a quickie route to voting status for illegals — for all time.

    Wrapping sugar around poison pills is COMMON in Washington.

    It’s also common for opponents to use the sugar as propaganda material — omitting that the true thrust of the amendment was to kill the original bill all together.

    Pitching a half-truth being by far the best form of lying.

33. BTW, it was the defeat of Eric Cantor that really killed the bill.

    That caused support to evaporate overnight.

34. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    January 29th, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Hear, hear!

    Preach it brother.

35. Eric Says:
    January 29th, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    My condensed argument for deposing Saddam is:

    It was an operation necessary to sustain the UN Security Council — itself — lest its resolutions become as flap-jawed as the League of Nations WRT Ethiopia and Manchuria.

    A gummy UNSC would mean that the CORE purpose of the UN to preserve the peace planet wide would end.

    World wide warring would soon ensue.

    Barry Soetoro has achieved the same effect as not deposing Saddam — and enforcing the mandate of the UNSC.

    He has un-friended NATO, Israel, Japan, KSA, Qaddaffy, Assad, ….

    We are early in to WWIV — and with his Iranian fiasco — it could break out into an Atomic WWIV.

    It’s actually pretty amazing how the planet is revisiting the escalation tempo// dynamic seen in the 1930s… With Barry aping Stanley Baldwin.

    By the time Chamberlain stepped into the Big Chair matters had already gotten entirely out of hand.

    While usually dated 9-1-1939 — War in Europe really got started with Munich.

    For not withstanding his rhetoric, Chamberlain budgeted every cutting edge military technology at a wartime tempo.

    The production war had already begun.

    &&&&&&

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/red-ponzi-ticking/

    This piece by David Stockman is critical reading — and very sobering.

    Beijing has set the tables for a horrific civil war — that is most unlikely to stay within its own borders.

36. Pat D…

    Trump infuriates far too many classic GOP voters.

    Those he loses must be replaced by winning over Democrat voters.

    However, the vast bulk of the Democrat faction is even more infuriated with Donald than Conservatives.

    He’s dragging a brutal level of negatives — hard core haters — that are never going to be flipped.

    &&&&&&

    Lest we forget, many states are Democrat fiefs.

    Hawaii
    California
    Oregon
    New England
    The old Northwest

    Trump would need every state that Romney pulled and then pick up Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, ….

    Trump’s New York style — of bombast — is sure to prove wearing in the old south.

    His weakness there is already apparent to the HRC and Cruz camps.

    Cruz’s ‘heartland’ is teaming with illegals. No wonder his pitch is selling… to natives, and legals.

    NEXT

    The Mexican faction HATES Trump. They are certain to pull every lever against him. Yet they ARE a major minority across the South.

    &&&

    I don’t have policy issues with Donald. He could not possibly be as wacky as Barry — and as corrupt as Hillary.

    Electability is a deal breaker for me.

    Trump is certain to be dead meat in November.

    The GOPe is all fine with defeat. Holding onto Congress — and the slop trough — is its primary concern.

    So it’s no wonder that they’re backing anybody but Cruz.

    Ted is garlic — and they’re vampires.

    Last night’s ‘debate’ was a set-up to favor ‘open torrent’ Rubio.

    It’s what a father does to boost his daughter — and vice versa.

    The current smear campaign is to make Ted Cruz look as squishy as Rubio, Bush, and others.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>