Screw National Review: I'm Voting for Donald Trump -- (#Trump)

Donald Trump

National Review's latest online magazine is devoted to trashing Trump.  The NRO Establishment Republicans really don't want anyone outside the Country Club Crowd to become president of the United States.  What would people think if a Republican was elected who actually got things done?  Who actually rolled back the left wing juggernaut?  Trump just doesn't get it!

The whole idea, Donald my man, is to pay lip service to conservative policies but do nothing to implement them.  Our political philosophy is never to leave the mahogany-walled panels of our think-tank libraries.  Conservatism is theory only.  So we must continue to elect do-nothings like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Lindsay Graham.

Well after seven years of Obama and go-along RINO Republicans, a lot of people are fed up.  Conservatives have elected Republicans to the House and Senate, and those Republicans do little or nothing to stop Obamacare, illegal immigration, deficit spending, radical appointees, and Obama's power over-reach via executive privilege..  A more feckless mob of collaborationists has rarely been seen.  Even so, they are aghast that we, their voting base, would finally hold them accountable for their abject failure.

So Republican Party, you're fired.  National Review?  You've been on a P.C. downward slide for some time -- firing Ann Coulter and John Derbyshire for writing unpopular truths and things that needed to be said, about Islamic evil and black violence, respectively.  Like many others, I stopped reading National Review Online some time ago.  I prefer my political news and opinion straight, not watered down, not filtered through a P.C. lens to avoid offending people who desperately need to be offended -- with the truth.

So I'm voting for Trump.  Yes, Trump is a gamble -- he may not be able to do what he has promised (building a wall to stop illegal Mexican immigration and halting Muslim immigration), but at least he has proposed to try.  Anyone you vote for is a gamble -- we have seen how D.C. can change a candidate, how that candidate can do things we disagree with, once they have been elected.  However, I am willing to take that gamble.  I don't see that I have much to lose.

Donald Trump is the hard slap across the face that the Republican Party desperately needs.  If our political party no longer represents our views, then it's time to replace it with something else.

John Derbyshire and RAAACISM

John Derbyshire, lately of National Review Online and currently a writer for Takimag.com, has stirred up a firestorm of protest with an allegedly "racist" article.  Now myriads of conservatives (so-called) are posting, posing and posturing just like liberals in their rush to condemn him.

I read Derbyshire's comments and was not offended in the least.  Basically, all he said was that whites and Asians should caution their children to avoid violence from blacks.  Did he lie about anything?  Distort the truth?  No.

Blacks are more violent than any other racial group, a fact supported by decades of crime statistics as well as recent events.  I don't like this terrible truth and would change it if I could; however, reality has a way of ignoring my wishes, even when they spring from enlightenment and tolerance.

What Derbyshire was arguing for was what Dinesh D'Souza once described as "rational discrimination."  If you're a taxi driver interested in staying alive, you don't pick up seedy-looking black males in rough sections of town at night.  (Black taxi drivers also tend to follow this rule.)  If you're white, you don't wander through black neighborhoods in the middle of the night.  Many blacks hate white people and many blacks are violent.

Of course, many blacks are also good, decent people, but you have to play the odds if you are interested in your physical survival.  That's why Derbyshire advised his kids to avoid large concentrations of blacks that they do not know.  I assume the reader has heard of the recent "wildings" of black youths in many places, like the Wisconsin State Fair where mobs of blacks attacked whites for no reason other than their race.  Those beaten white kids would have been better off if their parents had warned them as Derbyshire suggests.

It amazes me at how thoroughly brainwashed the American public is on the subject of race, and conservatives are not immune to the social pressures, ostracism, job loss and public condemnation that comes from telling the unvarnished truth.  The term "racist" in its current meaning refers to anyone who is unwilling to continue advancing polite fictions about race in America.

I was reading Red State today and was mildly disgusted at the opprobrium that site heaped on Derbyshire.  Of course, National Review Online isn't terribly conservative anymore, preferring to present a socially correct image to the world rather than deal with unpleasant facts.

Black violence is a problem, one that is unlikely to be solved without honest discussion.  Now listen to the crickets chirping in the comments section as fellow conservatives run in terror from a topic they have been conditioned to avoid at all costs.

Andrew McCarthy: "Not a Perversion of Islam, But Islam"

Today at National Review Online Andrew McCarthy again speaks truth about the world's worst religion, Islam. He articulates the fact that violence by Islam against apostates and infidels is not a perversion of Islam, but obedience to its clearly stated doctrines.

The massive self-deception of the Western world on this question is mind-boggling.  Very few on either the left or the right want to admit this truth:  the terrorists are not perverting Islam, they are practicing it.

There are many pundits who continue embarrassing themselves by claiming the terrorists have "hijacked a religion," but this is pure nonsense.  Sean Hannity is one of these self-deceiving bunko artists, and I wish I could give him a good shake to wake him up.

There are far leftists who make it their personal religion to defend the most odoriferous evil.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of these.  They recently have attacked Pamela Geller for her anti-Islamization activities, asserting that opposition to a violent ideology is somehow "racist."  When the masses of conquered infidels (you and me) are once again led to the public square to be beheaded by twos, Mark Potok and Morris Dees will holding the scimitars of our executioners.

The Declaration of Dependence

Mark Steyn's essay today at National Review shows what we can expect from an Obama presidency that is supported by a liberal supermajority in Congress: the end of America as we know it. He quotes Thomas Sowell, saying that it is "the point of no return." Obama's win will be transformative, and deadly, to American exceptionalism, vitality and power. He writes:

I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the “Now what?” questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

Read it all here.

McCain Campaign Rebuts Accusations Re: Sarah Palin

Bryon York at National Review Online discussed the McCain Campaign's response to a variety of accusations regarding Sarah Palin.

1.  Sarah Palin wasn't properly "vetted."  The implication is that Palin's negatives are so great that McCain wouldn't have chosen her had he known about certain events in Palin's life and career.  York writes:

The story, my campaign source told me, is “materially false.” Gov. Palin, the strategist said, was subjected to a “complete vet.” “That included her filling out a 70-question questionnaire that was highly intrusive and personal. She was then interviewed for more than three hours by A.B. Culvahouse. There were multiple follow-up interviews.” (I asked precisely how many follow-ups there were, but my source stuck with “multiple.”) “There was a thorough interview process,” the strategist continued. “There was a public records search and political vet. There was a private life and financial vet. Everything that has come out was known by the campaign through the vetting process.”

“Every aspect of her political record is known to us. These people [McCain’s opponents] are desperate.”

2.  The "Troopergate" Issue:  Did Sarah Palin fire the commissioner of public safety because he wouldn't fire Palin's brother-in-law from the Alaska Troopers?

“Of course this issue came up in the vetting, and this is what we discovered,” the source said. “The man who was fired has said on the record that he was never pressured by the governor or the governor’s husband on the issue of firing Trooper Wooten. The governor had a vision for how she wanted that department to be run.  The commissioner had a different vision.”

“The reason that members of the Palin family were having discussions with the head of the state police about this state trooper, who was her ex-brother-in-law, was because he had made threats against the family. He threatened to kill the governor's daughter, her father, and her sister. He tasered her 11-year-old stepson.  And that is why the Palin family was concerned about this trooper.”

Read it all here.

The Media Bias Against Sarah Palin

National Review Online has a must-read editorial regarding the mainstream media bias against Sarah Palin.  They write:

This shameful but predictable media performance [of cynical politicking regarding Sarah Palin and her pregnant daughter] stands in marked contrast to the rigorous “hands-off” privacy policy dutifully honored by the press throughout the Clinton years for the president’s then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. Indeed earlier this year, though Miss Clinton was now well into her twenties and an impressively poised surrogate for her mother’s campaign, NBC News suspended reporter David Shuster for asserting that Sen. Clinton’s campaign was “pimping” her daughter — a classless formulation, to be sure. But where’s the hyper-sensitivity about a candidate’s child now?

When Al Gore’s son was arrested on narcotics and speeding charges in 2007, moreover, the national press was a model of sympathetic restraint. The muted coverage was devoid of calls for a national “teaching moment” on drug abuse or responsible driving. The message was plain and correct: No news here, move along.

The Republican base and other people of good will are angry over this grotesque display. It is obvious what the media and Democrats are up to here. They want to define Sarah Palin as a failure before she even has a chance to succeed. Hence the speculation that McCain will dump her from the ticket. How absurd. All we know about Palin’s performance as a candidate so far is that she gave polished performances at her unveiling in Ohio and at a rally the next day in Pennsylvania. The supposed embarrassments — about her alleged membership in the fringe Alaskan Independence Party and her woefully incomplete vetting — are concoctions of a media stumbling over itself to prove a conclusion it has already reached.

So far, it is the press that has embarrassed itself, not the governor from Alaska.

Read it all.