The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ilana Mercer ArchiveBlogview
Schooling Beck On Trump’s Nullification Promise

Former Fox News Channel broadcaster Glenn Beck, now of The Blaze TV, has been warning theatrically of an inchoate catastrophe should the country choose Donald J. Trump “as its next president.”

Trump “will be a monster much, much worse” than Barack Obama, says Beck.

Worse than George W. Bush? Will Trump be worse than the 43rd president, who is ranked 37th by Ivan Eland, author of “Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty”?

In Eland’s near-exhaustive appraisal, Bush II falls in the category of “bad,” for having “undermined the Republic at home and abroad with interventionist policies,” policies Trump has criticized. Stumping for Trump, Sarah Palin has taken pains to praise Rand Paul’s libertarian recommendations that Jihadists be left to “duke it out” alone in the Middle East.

President Obama is a dreadful cur. About that Beck’s correct. Like Bush, Obama has made it into the “bad” presidential category. But whereas Obama allowed Hillary to henpeck him into destabilizing one country, Libya; Bush Jr. gave the world the Iraq-Syria Axis of ISIS. Ranked 34th on the measures of peace, prosperity and liberty, the 44th president is “only a slightly improved version of George Bush.”

The charismatic Ronald Reagan, the man “conservatives have enshrined as a demigod,” was certainly as forceful as Donald Trump. Reagan was also remarkably perceptive in his anti-communist oratory. The “evil empire” appellation was as catchy as it was warranted. But face it; “tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev,” didn’t bring down the Soviet empire. Neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant “Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.” Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy (the kind Brainiac Bernie Sanders and his supporters are eager to usher in).

Those of us who love No. 40 for his ability to express the immutably true principles of liberty and free-market capitalism must face the facts. While Elan loses some credibility in ranking Reagan after Obama among American presidents (perhaps because Elan understates the damage done by Obamacare), Reagan did “instigate the Iran-Contra affair,” “let federal spending rise,” “did not reduce big government,” and cancelled out the benefits of a large tax cut by not coupling it with spending cuts.

The lesson here is plain. When you get down to the brass tacks of which American presidents most embodied the values of peace, prosperity, and liberty (PP & L), you find only few—a handful really—acted wisely, avoided unnecessary wars, “demonstrated restrain in economic crisis” and foreign affairs, practiced free-market capitalism and favored hard money; opposed big government and welfare, and limited executive and federal power.

Ranked No. 1 is the stellar John Tyler. He ended “the worst Indian wars in US history,” practiced restraint in an international dispute, “opposed big government and protected states’ powers.”

Grover Cleveland is second, as an “exemplar of honesty and limited government.” Martin van Buren excelled—especially in rejecting economic stimulus and national debt and balancing budgets. He ranks third.

Rutherford B. Hayes is fourth. Likewise, he didn’t just preach but practiced capitalism and advocated for black voting rights, while recognizing the ruthlessness of Reconstruction.

In the context of the American presidency and our lost Constitution, Beck’s alarm over candidate Trump is peculiar. Not many American presidents lived up to republican ideas of liberty and limited authority.

“Where are the people who say we stand with the Constitution,” protested Beck. Trump fails to talk about the Constitution in depth, he blathered.

True. Trump is not a TV talker. Moreover, all candidates who talk about the Constitution “in depth” are dishonest. For there is no Constitution left to talk about. That thing died over the course of centuries of legislative, executive and judicial usurpation. That’s why when Iraqis were composing their Constitution (after no. 43 destroyed their country), the late Joe Sobran recommended we give them ours because we don’t use it.

Mention of the Constitution means nothing. It’s on the list of items candidates check when they con constituents. Beck went on to OMG it about Trump saying this: “President Obama’s irresponsible use of executive orders has paved the way for him to also use them freely if he wins the presidential race.”

Amen—provided Trump uses executive power to repeal lots of laws, not make them. We live under an administrative “Secret State.” Very many, maybe most, of the laws under which Americans labor ought to be repealed. The only laws that are naturally inviolable are those upholding life, liberty and property.

Trump, thankfully, has proclaimed: “the one thing good about executive orders: The new president, if he comes in – boom, first day, first hour, first minute, you can rescind that.”

Beck has protested. He apparently accepts the inherent legitimacy of Barack Obama’s executive orders. Beck also seems to believe that the Constitution, or some other higher order, demands that people continue to labor under burdensome government edicts forever after, and that to promise repeal is the act of a progressive.

“Ted Cruz,” countered Beck, who has since endorsed candidate Cruz, “is the guy who says he’s for certain principles and will be tethered and tied to them, exactly like Ronald Reagan was.”

Well, another of Eland’s discomforting observations about Reagan is that he “enhanced executive power through questionable means. Although presidential signing statements, accompanying bills passed by Congress, had been around since George Washington, Reagan began to use these signing statement to contravene or nullify Congress’s will without giving that body a chance to override a formal presidential veto.”

There’s nothing necessarily progressive about overturning laws that have been passed.

There is nothing sacred about every law an overweening national government and its unelected agencies inflict on the people. “At the federal level alone,” the number of laws totaled 160,000 pages,” in 2012. By John Stossel’s estimation, “Government adds 80,000 pages of rules and regulations every year.” According to the Heritage Foundation, “Congress continues to criminalize at an average rate of one new crime for every week of every year.”

ORDER IT NOW

America has become a nation of thousands-upon-thousands of arbitrary laws, whose effect is to criminalize naturally licit conduct. Is Beck implying, in his objection to Trump’s promise to repeal Obama’s executive orders, that laws subjecting over 300 million people to the edicts of one have moral force?

Rather than uphold individual rights, most positive law regulates or criminalizes the business of life.

The nullification of man-made laws law comports with American freedoms just fine. Donald Trump had better sit at his desk for a chunk of his first term and issue one executive order after the other to do just that.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Glenn Beck is a mystic. Not only is he completely enamored with the whole Straussian-Neocon-Fukuyamian worldview, he thinks he has received a special commission from God to go forth and preach it. He also spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about the so-called crimes of the Nazis (as if that horse hasn’t already been beaten to death and then some).

    He is the closest example I’ve ever seen of a “prophet.” I’m using that word metaphorically so as not to insult the real prophets of the Christian tradition. What I mean to say is that he is a true and absolutely irremediable believer in establishment cuckservativism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "he is a true and absolutely irremediable believer in establishment cuckservativism"

    I don't think that's exactly true - maybe 80/90%. If it were 100% true he'd not have taken on the cultural Marxists & Soros and got himself fired from Fox News.
    , @ilana mercer
    Brilliant. (I presume "the real prophets of the Christian tradition" include those Hebrew-Testament giants, too.)
    , @Art

    Glenn Beck is a mystic. Not only is he completely enamored with the whole Straussian-Neocon-Fukuyamian worldview, he thinks he has received a special commission from God to go forth and preach it. He also spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about the so-called crimes of the Nazis (as if that horse hasn’t already been beaten to death and then some).
     
    Most mystics are charlatans. Beck is no exception.

    Beck goes on and on about the Constitution – he is its “champion.” At the same time, he is a champion of Zionist Israel. NO honest person can be a champion of both. He avoids talking about the negatives of Zionist control of America’s government.

    Israel is a Jew state. Israel is a separatist apartheid state. It murders its Palestinian people at will. It both hides and intimidates the world with its nukes.

    The American Constitution was written and born out of a philosophical idealistic Christian environment. It is self-evident that Israel is an ancient hateful tribal state. They are opposites.

    Beck knows these things better than most, yet says nothing – he is dishonest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/imercer/schooling-beck-on-trumps-nullification-promise/#comment-1303069
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant “Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.” Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy

    Then why did it collapse in 1991, and not 1981, or 1971, or 1961, 0r 1951…?

    SDI wasn’t exorbitant because it was never built. Somehow, it did its job anyway.

    …and cancelled out the benefits of a large tax cut by not coupling it with spending cuts.

    Congress spends.

    Rutherford B. Hayes is fourth.

    The third largest province of Paraguay is named after him. That’s kinda strange. Where do Mr Normalcy, Warren Harding, and his successor appear? Signing those immigration laws did wonders for the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnalogMan
    My father died in 1999. He was 79. The death certificate said he died of a stroke, but I know that he was killed by the Y2K bug. Else, why did he die in 1999, and not in 1989, 1979 ...?
  3. The multiplicity of laws also means that people’s liberty and property exist at the suffrance of the state. I think it was Beria who said, “Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    I can't find it but I remembered it as, "A man can say six sentences and I will have enough to hang him".
  4. “Moreover, all candidates who talk about the Constitution “in depth” are dishonest. For there is no Constitution left to talk about. That thing died over the course of centuries of legislative, executive and judicial usurpation. That’s why when Iraqis were composing their Constitution (after no. 43 destroyed their country), the late Joe Sobran recommended we give them ours because we don’t use it.”

    Agree. Back in the 1990s, when I’d thought briefly about emigrating from the States, I was astounded that my disgust with American politics was a strong #2 reason for leaving. (Career advancement was the #1 reason.)

    FWIW-I think Theodore Lowi (?), author of “The End of Liberalism”, mentions we ought to use terms such as First Republic, Second Republic, and so on to refer to various iterations of American government that break sharply with the past. I’m not sure how useful the idea is, but I like it.

    Read More
  5. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    She must have his poster on her bedroom wall.

    Like the subject himself from time to time, this latest Trumpeting from Ms. Mercer speaks some truth about what has long gone wrong in our country.

    But if The Establishment is really so shook by him, why is Trump constantly in the news? The contrast with how Ron Paul was (not) covered is astounding. And none of his adoring fans wants to hear about his utterly contrary past statements, his assertion that Snowden is a traitor, or his longstanding ties to the Clintons about whom he now conveniently rails. Can’t you people be pissed on your own, without having a Daddy take you by the hand to the bathroom?

    Trump’s ultimately a decoy, albeit one that gets off some good quacks. If he is elected, Ms. Mercer and a lot of other people around here are going to be as disappointed as were those who believed what Mr. Obama was saying in 2007-2008.

    To each and all: I promise not to cancel your vote.

    Read More
    • Agree: jtgw
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I'm still waiting for Ilana to explain how Trump is going to bring about decentralization and more liberty, or for evidence that Trump will abuse his authority for the repeal of unjust laws and regulations, rather than simply for the arrogation of more power to the executive branch and himself. For the moment, I'll just assume she is abandoning principle for adulation of the great macho leader who will save everybody and crush our enemies.
  6. @Intelligent Dasein
    Glenn Beck is a mystic. Not only is he completely enamored with the whole Straussian-Neocon-Fukuyamian worldview, he thinks he has received a special commission from God to go forth and preach it. He also spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about the so-called crimes of the Nazis (as if that horse hasn't already been beaten to death and then some).

    He is the closest example I've ever seen of a "prophet." I'm using that word metaphorically so as not to insult the real prophets of the Christian tradition. What I mean to say is that he is a true and absolutely irremediable believer in establishment cuckservativism.

    “he is a true and absolutely irremediable believer in establishment cuckservativism”

    I don’t think that’s exactly true – maybe 80/90%. If it were 100% true he’d not have taken on the cultural Marxists & Soros and got himself fired from Fox News.

    Read More
  7. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The only viable option of The Historic Native Born White American Majority:

    1)Hardcore racial xenophobia

    2)more hardcore racial xenophobia

    3)Highly racialized hardcore racially xenophobic Native Born White American economically progressive Populist Labor Revolt against The Greedy Cheating White Liberal MEGA-CEO White Male Bossman(The former MEGA-CEO of Verizon comes to mind).

    4)Termination of the right of Corporations to be legally treated as a Super-Person-Diety in the US Legal System

    5)hard-core anti-interventionist foreign policy

    6)recognize Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia as the social,cultural..and spiritual leader of all European People

    7)a denouncing of Evangelical Christianity as a repellant Christian Heresy

    8)Even more racial zenophobia

    What I have listed above is on fact a description of the late 18th -early 19th century US Labor Movement which gave The Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class wonderfull things such as “The Chinese Exclusion Act” and “The Sihk Exclusion Act”….

    Ilana

    You have a very close resemblance to counselor Troy from Star Trek Next Generation…meant as a compliment!!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnalogMan
    You have a very close resemblance to counselor Troy from Star Trek Next Generation…meant as a compliment!!!!!

    I'm not a Trekkie, so not sure if I'm thinking of the same character, but I remember on one of those spin-offs there was a woman psychologist. She was the main reason I watched a whole season of the show, because she had the most exquisite collar-bone I'd ever seen.

    No, not a fetishist, just a connoisseur of feminine pulchritude.
  8. This article is unfair to Reagan. He was doing the will of the people in the face of resistance from a congress controlled by liberals. He did what was possible and what he had to do to keep alive his main theme: big government is bad for our country. He did not stop the growth of big government, but he did slow down the RATE of growth, and that was an accomplishment in and of itself when you consider the corruption in D.C. To realize what slowing down that rate of growth meant, consider the liberal hysteria of the times, with leftist hacks writing about how Reagan was “gutting” important programs. I sometimes think that the only way to get back to small government is for an all-out war against the left and crony capitalists who infest D.C. It’s probably the ONLY way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    On the face of it, your comments are either highly in the realm of lying...or highly in the realm of very stupid.

    It is just a bold-faced lie or pinhead stupid to make an across-the-board-statement that BIG GOVERMENT IS BAD!!!! If you think the existence of National Bureau of Standards of Technology is a bad thing, then you area profoundly ignorant of the history of US technological developement....or you are just a very stupid. I can give many examples such as this.

    Across-the -board blanket statements such as "BIG GOVERMENT IS BAD!!!! doesn't even come close to be a serious nor intelligent critcism of BIG GOVERMENT !!! I write this as an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

    Ronnie Regan was a corporate whore who shilled for GE....whose mega-tonnage nuclear weapons are pointed at the last hope for the Human Species:Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia. Moreover, Ronnie Reagan was the mortal enemy of The Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Does anybody know if Nancy Reagan rubbed Oxford Black shoe polish into Ronnie's hair every morning before the photo ops while he was acting as POTUS? Was this the cause of Ronnie Reagan's dementia while acting as POTUS?
  9. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Epaminondas
    This article is unfair to Reagan. He was doing the will of the people in the face of resistance from a congress controlled by liberals. He did what was possible and what he had to do to keep alive his main theme: big government is bad for our country. He did not stop the growth of big government, but he did slow down the RATE of growth, and that was an accomplishment in and of itself when you consider the corruption in D.C. To realize what slowing down that rate of growth meant, consider the liberal hysteria of the times, with leftist hacks writing about how Reagan was "gutting" important programs. I sometimes think that the only way to get back to small government is for an all-out war against the left and crony capitalists who infest D.C. It's probably the ONLY way.

    On the face of it, your comments are either highly in the realm of lying…or highly in the realm of very stupid.

    It is just a bold-faced lie or pinhead stupid to make an across-the-board-statement that BIG GOVERMENT IS BAD!!!! If you think the existence of National Bureau of Standards of Technology is a bad thing, then you area profoundly ignorant of the history of US technological developement….or you are just a very stupid. I can give many examples such as this.

    Across-the -board blanket statements such as “BIG GOVERMENT IS BAD!!!! doesn’t even come close to be a serious nor intelligent critcism of BIG GOVERMENT !!! I write this as an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

    Ronnie Regan was a corporate whore who shilled for GE….whose mega-tonnage nuclear weapons are pointed at the last hope for the Human Species:Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia. Moreover, Ronnie Reagan was the mortal enemy of The Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Does anybody know if Nancy Reagan rubbed Oxford Black shoe polish into Ronnie’s hair every morning before the photo ops while he was acting as POTUS? Was this the cause of Ronnie Reagan’s dementia while acting as POTUS?

    Read More
  10. Glen Beck is a self-destructive madman. He had a good gig at Fox and he subverted himself by becoming progressively nuttier and nuttier. This is common for alcoholics which I believe Beck to be. He has some kind of messianic complex it seems from the very short moments when I’ve managed to listen to him without becoming instantly nauseated. He flogs white guilt better than Al Sharpton and suggests redemption can only happen by following his nutty ideas.

    Reagan as some exemplar of conservatism is just as nutty. Reagan grew debt and government. Reagan led us into all sort of illegal foreign intervention both against commies and for Israel. In fact, the only good thing about Reagan that I can discern is the quality of his oratory combined with the quality of his speechwriters. He did give the leftists conniption fits with his speeches. But his failures were legion. During his second term he could have made big progress toward dismantling the leviathan State. He did nothing. And his legacy, giving us GHW Bush and then GW Bush, has been as disastrous as anything since Roosevelt.

    Read More
  11. Glenn Beck can best described as Trump’s clone. He received tens of million dollars from Zionist organizations, both Jewish and Christians. He still works for the Organized Jewry, from Fox News Channel to The Blaze TV.

    Glenn Beck was nominated by the Jewish-founded ‘FAIR magazine’ as one of America’s top 12 Islamophobe in October 2008. Glenn Beck has repeatedly equated Islam with Nazism (though Nazi Army had 150,000 German Jews among them) and Holy Qur’an with Hitler’s Mein Kampf which was written over 1,300 after the revelation of Holy Qur’an. Since Glenn Becks associates himself with Islamophobe Jews like Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Mark Steyn – ADL always supported Glenn Beck’s ‘freedom of speech’ (though Helen Thomas was not awarded that freedom for criticizing Jews for occupying Arab lands).

    In 2010, Beck came under ADL’s knife for calling Jewish billionaire George Soro, – “Atheist and anti-Jewish” on the air.

    Glenn Beck also compared Soro with the prophecy in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He described Soros as the most powerful man on earth, the creator of a “shadow government” that manipulates regimes and currencies for its own enrichment. Obama is his “puppet,” Beck says. Soros has even “infiltrated the churches.” He foments social unrest and economic distress so he can bring down governments, all for his own financial gain. “Four times before,” Beck warned. “We’ll be number five.”

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/11/18/glenn-beck-from-islamophobe-to-anti-semite/

    Read More
    • Replies: @SILVERSTREAK
    Please do your research before you post, when Rome destroyed israhell back in 7o AD the biblical Hebrews were also destroyed except for the Hebrews that had believed the message that Jesus "Christ came to earth to express to humanity of a new way of salvation that whom so ever believed it could be forgiven of all their sins past, present and future, the message was brought to the Hebrews first but they rejected such message and God made that to be the NEW COVENANT WITH HUMANITY ONLY FOR THOSE THAT BELIEVED IT AND REPENTED OF ALL THEIR SINS FROM THE HEART AND ASK FOR FORGIVNESS GOD THE FATHER WOULD FORGIVE AND TRANSFORM THOSE NEW BELIVERS INTO NEW CREATURES . AND THAT BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THEY WOULD ENTER INTO A NEW LIFE AS GOD WOULD BEGIN TO PURGE THE OLD LIFE FROM THEM AND RENEW THEM FROM INSIDE OUT.

    The Hebrews that were baptized with the holy spirt were taken out of ISRAHELL IN THE YEAR 50 AD AND THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT LIVED AROUND THOSE NATIONS THAT SURRUNDED ISRAHELL LIKE IRAQ, EGYPT, SYRIA, IRAN ETC. WHY WOOD ROME TAKE THOSE STUPID ARROGANT HEBREWS WITH THEM WHEN IN REALITY THEY KNEW THEY WERE NOTHING BUT TRUBLE, THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON WHY ROME DESTROYED ISRAEL, SO THAT NO HEBREW COULD EVER BUILT ON IT AGAIN, DOWN TO ITS FUNDATIONS. AS JESUS CHRIST HAD PROHESIED TO THEM WHILE HE STILL WAS PREACHING TO THEM THE GOOD NEWS.

    THESE PARASITIC CLOWNS THAT CALL THEMSELVES JEWS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN BEASTS FROM HELL THAT HAVE SUPLANTED THE HEBREWS WITH THEIR SATANIC INTENTINON OF DECEPTION AND BY GETTING THEM OUT OF GOD'S WILL AND TAKE THEM TO HELL WITH THEMSELVES, THAT IS WHY THEY PUT IN GOD WE TRUST ON THE PAPER MONEY SO MAKE THE GOYS BELIEVE THAT IS OK TO LOVE MONEY BECAUSE IT SAYS IN GOD WE TRUST BUT IS NOT THE CREATOR BUT THEIR GOD THE DISTROYER THE GOD OF EVIL FORCES .

    THE JEWS INFITRATED ALL DENOMINATIONS A LONG TIME AGO BEGINING WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT IS WHY IS FULL OF PEDOPHILES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE JEWS ARE, HOMOSEXUALS TRANSEXUALS OR TRANSGENDER LOVE BESTIALITY AND EVERY THING THAT IS EVIL, GLENN BECK IS A MORMON, AND MORMONS ARE PART OF THE MASONS AND JEHOVA WITNESS, SAME ORGANISATIONS LED BY ZIONIST JEWS.EPISCOPALIANS ETC, THEY ALL ARE THE SAME THE JEWS ARE IN ALL OF THEM. THAT IS WHY THE NEW BELIEVERS GO ASTRAY AS SOON AS THEY ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR SAVIOUR.
  12. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Everything anyone needs to know about Glenn Beck was discussed by the late Andrew Breitbart. Beck is Feculant scum and who, according to former fans of his, is spiraling quickly into serious mental illness. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOrp3FU6fE

    Read More
  13. @Intelligent Dasein
    Glenn Beck is a mystic. Not only is he completely enamored with the whole Straussian-Neocon-Fukuyamian worldview, he thinks he has received a special commission from God to go forth and preach it. He also spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about the so-called crimes of the Nazis (as if that horse hasn't already been beaten to death and then some).

    He is the closest example I've ever seen of a "prophet." I'm using that word metaphorically so as not to insult the real prophets of the Christian tradition. What I mean to say is that he is a true and absolutely irremediable believer in establishment cuckservativism.

    Brilliant. (I presume “the real prophets of the Christian tradition” include those Hebrew-Testament giants, too.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    lol

    Me Too! Me Too!
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, of course. I have a great fondness for the Old Testament and I read it almost every day.

    I could have been more clear by saying "Biblical tradition," but I am an old-school Roman Catholic and I thought that might make me sound too protty.
  14. Posted this the other day, but it is even more relevant to this thread:

    “This incessant creation of restrictive laws and regulations, surrounding the pettiest actions of existence with the most complicated formalities, inevitably has for its result the confining within narrower and narrower limits of the sphere in which the citizen may move freely. Victims of the delusion that equality and liberty are the better assured by the multiplication of laws , nations daily consent to put up with trammels increasingly burdensome. They do not accept this legislation with impunity. Accustomed to put up with every yoke, they soon end by desiring servitude, and lost all spontaneousness and energy. They are then no more than vain shadows, passive, unresisting and powerless automata .”
    Gustave Le Bon

    God, Country, Family, Trump!

    Read More
  15. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    You know like..if your into the Haskell groove…..Glen Beck::fat sweaty cockroach!!!!=blattaria gigantus sweatiamous. Do I have my types and values right here?

    Read More
  16. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @ilana mercer
    Brilliant. (I presume "the real prophets of the Christian tradition" include those Hebrew-Testament giants, too.)

    lol

    Me Too! Me Too!

    Read More
  17. Pretty funny, the idea anyone would take Beck seriously, other than as some sort fruitcake. But then, a shooting star named Joe Bageant pointed out how it is liberals had sold out the working class and left them adrift in shark infested waters. I suppose they’re now a kind of refugee in their own right, as ‘neocons without borders’ provides a camp of sorts, to hang their hats as opposed to left adrift but never, it seems, will there be resettlement and citizenship in what ostensibly passes for their own land (discounting any prior claims of certain indigenous ‘savages’ which, btw, I grew up with. Great people. Honestly.)

    http://www.coldtype.net/joe.html

    ^ ILana, I recommend reading Joe. A moron like Glen Beck is the least of your problems. And you’re right about the USA constitution, it should be in the open as up for sale (or given away if there were perchance no bid on the trashed result.) But as someone from a (small l) libertarian background and state (Montana) who actually knows what the term libertarian meant before the Koch Brothers repackaged and prostituted the name via an obscenity called the ‘Tea Party’ (bearing little resemblance even to a self interested smuggler named Sam Adams) you might be surprised at what the term ‘libertarian’ meant to many ordinary folk predating ‘paleo’ this and ‘neo’ that.

    And just because I’m incorrigible (or from Montana), here’s to irreverence in serious style:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/01/07/moot-court/

    ^

    Read More
  18. @anonymous
    She must have his poster on her bedroom wall.

    Like the subject himself from time to time, this latest Trumpeting from Ms. Mercer speaks some truth about what has long gone wrong in our country.

    But if The Establishment is really so shook by him, why is Trump constantly in the news? The contrast with how Ron Paul was (not) covered is astounding. And none of his adoring fans wants to hear about his utterly contrary past statements, his assertion that Snowden is a traitor, or his longstanding ties to the Clintons about whom he now conveniently rails. Can't you people be pissed on your own, without having a Daddy take you by the hand to the bathroom?

    Trump's ultimately a decoy, albeit one that gets off some good quacks. If he is elected, Ms. Mercer and a lot of other people around here are going to be as disappointed as were those who believed what Mr. Obama was saying in 2007-2008.

    To each and all: I promise not to cancel your vote.

    I’m still waiting for Ilana to explain how Trump is going to bring about decentralization and more liberty, or for evidence that Trump will abuse his authority for the repeal of unjust laws and regulations, rather than simply for the arrogation of more power to the executive branch and himself. For the moment, I’ll just assume she is abandoning principle for adulation of the great macho leader who will save everybody and crush our enemies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ron mexico
    "she is abandoning principle for adulation of the great macho leader who will save everybody and crush our enemies."

    who or what is the alternative?
  19. This ia another terrific column by Ilana Mercer. It was good to see Ivan Eland’s learned rundown of U.S. presidents, turning upside down the results of all those surveys of history professors (the “herd of historians,” in Mencken’s phrase). The basic difference between Eland and the herd is that he is a liberty-loving man and they worship state power. Ilana is absolutely correct in stating, “neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant ‘Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.’ Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy.” In the 1920s the great Ludwig von Mises showed the impossibility of rational economic planning in the absence of a market economy (refining the argument in subsequent year, seconded by F. A. Hayek). The economic history of the Soviet Union is an illustration of Mises’s prescient analysis. Reg Caesar thinks he refutes Ilana by asking why the collapse of communism came only in 1991 and not much earlier. The reason is Gorbachev’s reforms, which, among other things, brought the information revolution to the Russian people. The elaborate house of cards built by Soviet propagandists, the “surreality,” as critics called it, collapsed. Now Russians finally learned how inferior their living standards were to those of the Portuguese and the Greeks, how blacks in South Africa had consumer goods available to them that they lacked . The time came, as in France in 1789, when even the parasitic elite lost faith in the system. Ideas have consequences, the conservative philosopher Richard Weaver reminded us, often the greatest consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    You make good points. I absolutely agree with Ilana that it was not deficit-spending and military expansion that defeated the USSR, and I agree in spirit with her rejection of the current presidential pantheon. I still find her love affair with Trump hard to swallow, but I hope she will come forth with more cogent arguments as to why libertarians should support him. But a candidate who openly boasts that he will abuse the authority of his office does not fill me with confidence, especially when combined with his explicitly statist beliefs. If he was saying that he would rescind all unconstitutional orders, that would be one thing, but instead he is boasting that he will use executive orders to undermine the laws passed by Congress, which is precisely what Obama has been doing and which genuine conservatives have been rightly most outraged about.
    , @Ron Mexico
    "Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy.” In the 1920s the great Ludwig von Mises showed the impossibility of rational economic planning in the absence of a market economy (refining the argument in subsequent year, seconded by F. A. Hayek)."

    Reagan Smash was well aware of what was going on...

    Ronald Reagan

    What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise

    Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganhillsdalecollege.htm
    , @Bill Jones
    I remember reading the possibly apocryphal story that the Soviet plan for world Communism exempted Switzerland whose role was to be the price discoverer.
  20. @Ralph Raico
    This ia another terrific column by Ilana Mercer. It was good to see Ivan Eland's learned rundown of U.S. presidents, turning upside down the results of all those surveys of history professors (the "herd of historians," in Mencken's phrase). The basic difference between Eland and the herd is that he is a liberty-loving man and they worship state power. Ilana is absolutely correct in stating, "neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant 'Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.' Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy." In the 1920s the great Ludwig von Mises showed the impossibility of rational economic planning in the absence of a market economy (refining the argument in subsequent year, seconded by F. A. Hayek). The economic history of the Soviet Union is an illustration of Mises's prescient analysis. Reg Caesar thinks he refutes Ilana by asking why the collapse of communism came only in 1991 and not much earlier. The reason is Gorbachev's reforms, which, among other things, brought the information revolution to the Russian people. The elaborate house of cards built by Soviet propagandists, the "surreality," as critics called it, collapsed. Now Russians finally learned how inferior their living standards were to those of the Portuguese and the Greeks, how blacks in South Africa had consumer goods available to them that they lacked . The time came, as in France in 1789, when even the parasitic elite lost faith in the system. Ideas have consequences, the conservative philosopher Richard Weaver reminded us, often the greatest consequences.

    You make good points. I absolutely agree with Ilana that it was not deficit-spending and military expansion that defeated the USSR, and I agree in spirit with her rejection of the current presidential pantheon. I still find her love affair with Trump hard to swallow, but I hope she will come forth with more cogent arguments as to why libertarians should support him. But a candidate who openly boasts that he will abuse the authority of his office does not fill me with confidence, especially when combined with his explicitly statist beliefs. If he was saying that he would rescind all unconstitutional orders, that would be one thing, but instead he is boasting that he will use executive orders to undermine the laws passed by Congress, which is precisely what Obama has been doing and which genuine conservatives have been rightly most outraged about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ilana mercer
    I've said before, but it bears repetition: I don't support Trump per se, I support the Process of Trump; he's smashing what needs smashing with a force second to none. Never seen anything like it. The things Trump is smashing must be smashed.
  21. @Intelligent Dasein
    Glenn Beck is a mystic. Not only is he completely enamored with the whole Straussian-Neocon-Fukuyamian worldview, he thinks he has received a special commission from God to go forth and preach it. He also spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about the so-called crimes of the Nazis (as if that horse hasn't already been beaten to death and then some).

    He is the closest example I've ever seen of a "prophet." I'm using that word metaphorically so as not to insult the real prophets of the Christian tradition. What I mean to say is that he is a true and absolutely irremediable believer in establishment cuckservativism.

    Glenn Beck is a mystic. Not only is he completely enamored with the whole Straussian-Neocon-Fukuyamian worldview, he thinks he has received a special commission from God to go forth and preach it. He also spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about the so-called crimes of the Nazis (as if that horse hasn’t already been beaten to death and then some).

    Most mystics are charlatans. Beck is no exception.

    Beck goes on and on about the Constitution – he is its “champion.” At the same time, he is a champion of Zionist Israel. NO honest person can be a champion of both. He avoids talking about the negatives of Zionist control of America’s government.

    Israel is a Jew state. Israel is a separatist apartheid state. It murders its Palestinian people at will. It both hides and intimidates the world with its nukes.

    The American Constitution was written and born out of a philosophical idealistic Christian environment. It is self-evident that Israel is an ancient hateful tribal state. They are opposites.

    Beck knows these things better than most, yet says nothing – he is dishonest.

    Read More
  22. @ilana mercer
    Brilliant. (I presume "the real prophets of the Christian tradition" include those Hebrew-Testament giants, too.)

    Yes, of course. I have a great fondness for the Old Testament and I read it almost every day.

    I could have been more clear by saying “Biblical tradition,” but I am an old-school Roman Catholic and I thought that might make me sound too protty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Oh, I thought you meant Christian prophet like Bob Tilton or Jom Jones or Aimee Semple McPherson.
    , @Rich
    Fondness for the Old Testament? Which part The Flood, killing all human beings, murdering all the Egyptian first born sons, committing genocide against the Canaanites or the Amalekites? Selling daughters as slaves(Exodus 21:76-11), killing every woman who wasn't a virgin and taking the virgins as sex slaves(Judges 21:10-24), killing all the children and women who'd slept with men, saving the virgins for sex slavery(Numbers 31:76-18)? And, obviously, I could go on and on. The Old Testament is probably worse than the Koran and should be disregarded by civilized men and women.
  23. @jtgw
    I'm still waiting for Ilana to explain how Trump is going to bring about decentralization and more liberty, or for evidence that Trump will abuse his authority for the repeal of unjust laws and regulations, rather than simply for the arrogation of more power to the executive branch and himself. For the moment, I'll just assume she is abandoning principle for adulation of the great macho leader who will save everybody and crush our enemies.

    “she is abandoning principle for adulation of the great macho leader who will save everybody and crush our enemies.”

    who or what is the alternative?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    From a libertarian perspective, Rand Paul is way better (if not perfect). Unlike Trump, he opposes eminent domain and socialized healthcare, for example, and is vastly better on civil liberties. To me it just doesn't make sense for an actual libertarian to prefer Trump over a candidate like Paul. Now if Ilana is not really a libertarian, but an authoritarian nationalist like Pat Buchanan turned out to be, then her decision would make sense, but she's still claiming the libertarian mantle so I think she should be challenged on this.
    , @anonymous
    There is none -- voting does nothing but put the lipstick of democracy on a smoothly running, self-and-crony-serving system that will never improve through its own processes.

    If you wish to effect change, then abstain, and tell others you'll no longer endorse your shameful Uncle Sam by participating in meaningless national politics.

    Please see my comment #5 above. Do you honestly believe Trump is "the alternative"?
  24. @Ralph Raico
    This ia another terrific column by Ilana Mercer. It was good to see Ivan Eland's learned rundown of U.S. presidents, turning upside down the results of all those surveys of history professors (the "herd of historians," in Mencken's phrase). The basic difference between Eland and the herd is that he is a liberty-loving man and they worship state power. Ilana is absolutely correct in stating, "neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant 'Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.' Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy." In the 1920s the great Ludwig von Mises showed the impossibility of rational economic planning in the absence of a market economy (refining the argument in subsequent year, seconded by F. A. Hayek). The economic history of the Soviet Union is an illustration of Mises's prescient analysis. Reg Caesar thinks he refutes Ilana by asking why the collapse of communism came only in 1991 and not much earlier. The reason is Gorbachev's reforms, which, among other things, brought the information revolution to the Russian people. The elaborate house of cards built by Soviet propagandists, the "surreality," as critics called it, collapsed. Now Russians finally learned how inferior their living standards were to those of the Portuguese and the Greeks, how blacks in South Africa had consumer goods available to them that they lacked . The time came, as in France in 1789, when even the parasitic elite lost faith in the system. Ideas have consequences, the conservative philosopher Richard Weaver reminded us, often the greatest consequences.

    “Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy.” In the 1920s the great Ludwig von Mises showed the impossibility of rational economic planning in the absence of a market economy (refining the argument in subsequent year, seconded by F. A. Hayek).”

    Reagan Smash was well aware of what was going on…

    Ronald Reagan

    What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise

    Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganhillsdalecollege.htm

    Read More
  25. @ron mexico
    "she is abandoning principle for adulation of the great macho leader who will save everybody and crush our enemies."

    who or what is the alternative?

    From a libertarian perspective, Rand Paul is way better (if not perfect). Unlike Trump, he opposes eminent domain and socialized healthcare, for example, and is vastly better on civil liberties. To me it just doesn’t make sense for an actual libertarian to prefer Trump over a candidate like Paul. Now if Ilana is not really a libertarian, but an authoritarian nationalist like Pat Buchanan turned out to be, then her decision would make sense, but she’s still claiming the libertarian mantle so I think she should be challenged on this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Rand Paul proved himself dishonest and foolish over the Iran nonsense. He's a trimmer, not a libertarian, but more importantly he foolishly trims to dishonest neocon nonsense in a futile attempt to curry political favour with the party establishment and their dupes, rather than making sensible adjustments to account for reality, as his father occasionally did.

    To me it just doesn’t make sense for an actual libertarian to prefer Trump over a candidate like Paul. Now if Ilana is not really a libertarian, but an authoritarian nationalist like Pat Buchanan turned out to be, then her decision would make sense, but she’s still claiming the libertarian mantle
     
    Libertarianism (and I write as one who used to self identify as libertarian) if taken to its logical conclusions is not practicable in the real world, because it implicitly cannot account for important aspects of human reality - namely exactly the national and other group loyalties that Buchanan prioritises.

    In practice, nobody with anything remotely sensible to say about the world we actually live in is really just a libertarian. What's significant is the particular ways in which a person adjusts libertarian theory to account for reality. If Mercer is someone who understands the importance of both libertarianism and nationalism, then she's the kind of woman I could respect.
  26. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @ron mexico
    "she is abandoning principle for adulation of the great macho leader who will save everybody and crush our enemies."

    who or what is the alternative?

    There is none — voting does nothing but put the lipstick of democracy on a smoothly running, self-and-crony-serving system that will never improve through its own processes.

    If you wish to effect change, then abstain, and tell others you’ll no longer endorse your shameful Uncle Sam by participating in meaningless national politics.

    Please see my comment #5 above. Do you honestly believe Trump is “the alternative”?

    Read More
  27. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, of course. I have a great fondness for the Old Testament and I read it almost every day.

    I could have been more clear by saying "Biblical tradition," but I am an old-school Roman Catholic and I thought that might make me sound too protty.

    Oh, I thought you meant Christian prophet like Bob Tilton or Jom Jones or Aimee Semple McPherson.

    Read More
  28. @Intelligent Dasein
    Yes, of course. I have a great fondness for the Old Testament and I read it almost every day.

    I could have been more clear by saying "Biblical tradition," but I am an old-school Roman Catholic and I thought that might make me sound too protty.

    Fondness for the Old Testament? Which part The Flood, killing all human beings, murdering all the Egyptian first born sons, committing genocide against the Canaanites or the Amalekites? Selling daughters as slaves(Exodus 21:76-11), killing every woman who wasn’t a virgin and taking the virgins as sex slaves(Judges 21:10-24), killing all the children and women who’d slept with men, saving the virgins for sex slavery(Numbers 31:76-18)? And, obviously, I could go on and on. The Old Testament is probably worse than the Koran and should be disregarded by civilized men and women.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Agreed Rich, the OT is mostly cobbled together fiction and stories plagiarised from Mesopotamian history and it isn't nearly as old as people are led to believe.
  29. @Diversity Heretic
    The multiplicity of laws also means that people's liberty and property exist at the suffrance of the state. I think it was Beria who said, "Show me the man, and I will find you the crime."

    I can’t find it but I remembered it as, “A man can say six sentences and I will have enough to hang him”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Here's what you were looking for


    "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."

    Cardinal Richelieu.


    And then there's this
    Job 31:35

    "Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book."

    Dangerous thing putting words on paper.

  30. @Reg Cæsar

    Neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant “Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.” Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy
     
    Then why did it collapse in 1991, and not 1981, or 1971, or 1961, 0r 1951...?

    SDI wasn't exorbitant because it was never built. Somehow, it did its job anyway.

    ...and cancelled out the benefits of a large tax cut by not coupling it with spending cuts.
     
    Congress spends.

    Rutherford B. Hayes is fourth.
     
    The third largest province of Paraguay is named after him. That's kinda strange. Where do Mr Normalcy, Warren Harding, and his successor appear? Signing those immigration laws did wonders for the country.

    My father died in 1999. He was 79. The death certificate said he died of a stroke, but I know that he was killed by the Y2K bug. Else, why did he die in 1999, and not in 1989, 1979 …?

    Read More
  31. @War for Blair Mountain
    The only viable option of The Historic Native Born White American Majority:

    1)Hardcore racial xenophobia

    2)more hardcore racial xenophobia

    3)Highly racialized hardcore racially xenophobic Native Born White American economically progressive Populist Labor Revolt against The Greedy Cheating White Liberal MEGA-CEO White Male Bossman(The former MEGA-CEO of Verizon comes to mind).

    4)Termination of the right of Corporations to be legally treated as a Super-Person-Diety in the US Legal System

    5)hard-core anti-interventionist foreign policy

    6)recognize Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia as the social,cultural..and spiritual leader of all European People

    7)a denouncing of Evangelical Christianity as a repellant Christian Heresy

    8)Even more racial zenophobia

    What I have listed above is on fact a description of the late 18th -early 19th century US Labor Movement which gave The Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class wonderfull things such as "The Chinese Exclusion Act" and "The Sihk Exclusion Act"....


    Ilana

    You have a very close resemblance to counselor Troy from Star Trek Next Generation...meant as a compliment!!!!!

    You have a very close resemblance to counselor Troy from Star Trek Next Generation…meant as a compliment!!!!!

    I’m not a Trekkie, so not sure if I’m thinking of the same character, but I remember on one of those spin-offs there was a woman psychologist. She was the main reason I watched a whole season of the show, because she had the most exquisite collar-bone I’d ever seen.

    No, not a fetishist, just a connoisseur of feminine pulchritude.

    Read More
  32. What I have listed above is on fact a description of the late 18th -early 19th century US Labor Movement which gave The Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class wonderfull things such as “The Chinese Exclusion Act” and “The Sihk (sic – sorry, couldn’t resist) Exclusion Act”….

    Poe’s Law is hard, but from your use of the liberal buzz-word “xenophobia” I gather that you think that was a bad thing. Why do you think that? Do you still think it would be a bad thing today?

    Read More
  33. Trump may be the second presidential candidate to be stupid and disloyal enough to choose Sarah Palin as his VP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I don't think so. He's a pragmatist and opportunist, he knows she has a following in the Heartland and couldn't pass up the chance that she'd bring more support to him. Whether that was smart or not I don't know but ridicule doesn't stick when it comes to the Donald, we'll see. The woman seems to lack brain cells (How on earth can Alaska explain it?) but her sex appeal to many is undeniable.
  34. I find it amusing the way some including the rather unhinged and deceitful Beck are worried about the abuse of Presidential authority by Trump.

    As for Beck, his opinion on anything isn’t worth squat. He’s a nutter and should be left to his own devices and eventual demise.

    Here’s the thing, Presidential authority has been growing for a very long time. Historian Carroll Quigley noted in his last public lecture in 1976 that the President now resembles Caesar Augustus in terms of power. During the Clinton years it was common to refer to the presidency as the Imperial Presidency because of the power that has been amassed and abused.

    Bush and Obama just carried on the abuses, yet no one in authority cared, now we have a bunch of folks squealing like stuck pigs over the prospect of Trump wielding that power his way.

    As to why it’s grown – ask Congress, the leadership let this happen by going prostrate at the abuses. The “why” is most interesting part of the question. Congress being in thrall monied interests as long as I’ve been alive, tells me it’s what the donor class wants. Centralized power.

    The only reason the Becks and others are squealing is because Trump not part of the establishment that’s been ass r**ing the country and people into the poor house over the last 35 years. They are terrified that he’ll have his hands on the levers of power. He could easily put a lot of people in prison.

    You can bet money if it was some old establishment foot stool like Jeb, Hillary or Cruz they’d go silent.

    Read More
  35. Trump’s ultimately a decoy, albeit one that gets off some good quacks.

    This worries me, too. On the face of it, he seems to have the right enemies. So why are they apparently helpless to stop him, or even slow him down?

    If Ilana Mercer is for him, that’s another red flag for me. She also knew what we needed in South Africa, and when we got it, she left the rest of us to enjoy the fruits while she went to share those same fruits with your country. But you won’t publish this, will you, Ilana?

    Read More
  36. @Rich
    Fondness for the Old Testament? Which part The Flood, killing all human beings, murdering all the Egyptian first born sons, committing genocide against the Canaanites or the Amalekites? Selling daughters as slaves(Exodus 21:76-11), killing every woman who wasn't a virgin and taking the virgins as sex slaves(Judges 21:10-24), killing all the children and women who'd slept with men, saving the virgins for sex slavery(Numbers 31:76-18)? And, obviously, I could go on and on. The Old Testament is probably worse than the Koran and should be disregarded by civilized men and women.

    Agreed Rich, the OT is mostly cobbled together fiction and stories plagiarised from Mesopotamian history and it isn’t nearly as old as people are led to believe.

    Read More
  37. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Trump may be the second presidential candidate to be stupid and disloyal enough to choose Sarah Palin as his VP.

    I don’t think so. He’s a pragmatist and opportunist, he knows she has a following in the Heartland and couldn’t pass up the chance that she’d bring more support to him. Whether that was smart or not I don’t know but ridicule doesn’t stick when it comes to the Donald, we’ll see. The woman seems to lack brain cells (How on earth can Alaska explain it?) but her sex appeal to many is undeniable.

    Read More
  38. @jtgw
    From a libertarian perspective, Rand Paul is way better (if not perfect). Unlike Trump, he opposes eminent domain and socialized healthcare, for example, and is vastly better on civil liberties. To me it just doesn't make sense for an actual libertarian to prefer Trump over a candidate like Paul. Now if Ilana is not really a libertarian, but an authoritarian nationalist like Pat Buchanan turned out to be, then her decision would make sense, but she's still claiming the libertarian mantle so I think she should be challenged on this.

    Rand Paul proved himself dishonest and foolish over the Iran nonsense. He’s a trimmer, not a libertarian, but more importantly he foolishly trims to dishonest neocon nonsense in a futile attempt to curry political favour with the party establishment and their dupes, rather than making sensible adjustments to account for reality, as his father occasionally did.

    To me it just doesn’t make sense for an actual libertarian to prefer Trump over a candidate like Paul. Now if Ilana is not really a libertarian, but an authoritarian nationalist like Pat Buchanan turned out to be, then her decision would make sense, but she’s still claiming the libertarian mantle

    Libertarianism (and I write as one who used to self identify as libertarian) if taken to its logical conclusions is not practicable in the real world, because it implicitly cannot account for important aspects of human reality – namely exactly the national and other group loyalties that Buchanan prioritises.

    In practice, nobody with anything remotely sensible to say about the world we actually live in is really just a libertarian. What’s significant is the particular ways in which a person adjusts libertarian theory to account for reality. If Mercer is someone who understands the importance of both libertarianism and nationalism, then she’s the kind of woman I could respect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I didn't say that Rand was perfect, but that, if you are a libertarian, he is still better than Trump. If your ideological predilections lean more towards authoritarian nationalism, on the other hand, then preference for Trump would make sense, but then why maintain that you're still a libertarian?

    If national and group loyalties exist, that is, if people naturally form themselves into communities with group loyalties, such communities would continue to exist under libertarian conditions. I don't really understand that part of the critique of libertarianism, unless you are confusing libertarianism with contemporary left-liberalism, which actively uses state power to break up communities by e.g. forbidding freedom of association and discrimination.

  39. “In practice, nobody with anything remotely sensible to say about the world we actually live in is really just a libertarian.”

    Agree. I vote Libertarian when the opportunity presents itself. I think libertarian as a default setting. It’s a disposition of mind, a framework for thought, not the promise of electoral success. I’m a registered Democrat. Why? Because in my predominantly Democrat area, Republicans rarely put up a credible contender, the Libertarians amount to a dozen old guys gabbing at a coffee shop, so the primary election is for local candidates effectively the general election. I want to vote, even if it’s a lesser of two evils thing, or the withholding of my vote for the uncontested candidate.

    Read More
  40. @Randal
    Rand Paul proved himself dishonest and foolish over the Iran nonsense. He's a trimmer, not a libertarian, but more importantly he foolishly trims to dishonest neocon nonsense in a futile attempt to curry political favour with the party establishment and their dupes, rather than making sensible adjustments to account for reality, as his father occasionally did.

    To me it just doesn’t make sense for an actual libertarian to prefer Trump over a candidate like Paul. Now if Ilana is not really a libertarian, but an authoritarian nationalist like Pat Buchanan turned out to be, then her decision would make sense, but she’s still claiming the libertarian mantle
     
    Libertarianism (and I write as one who used to self identify as libertarian) if taken to its logical conclusions is not practicable in the real world, because it implicitly cannot account for important aspects of human reality - namely exactly the national and other group loyalties that Buchanan prioritises.

    In practice, nobody with anything remotely sensible to say about the world we actually live in is really just a libertarian. What's significant is the particular ways in which a person adjusts libertarian theory to account for reality. If Mercer is someone who understands the importance of both libertarianism and nationalism, then she's the kind of woman I could respect.

    I didn’t say that Rand was perfect, but that, if you are a libertarian, he is still better than Trump. If your ideological predilections lean more towards authoritarian nationalism, on the other hand, then preference for Trump would make sense, but then why maintain that you’re still a libertarian?

    If national and group loyalties exist, that is, if people naturally form themselves into communities with group loyalties, such communities would continue to exist under libertarian conditions. I don’t really understand that part of the critique of libertarianism, unless you are confusing libertarianism with contemporary left-liberalism, which actively uses state power to break up communities by e.g. forbidding freedom of association and discrimination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I didn’t say that Rand was perfect, but that, if you are a libertarian, he is still better than Trump. If your ideological predilections lean more towards authoritarian nationalism, on the other hand, then preference for Trump would make sense, but then why maintain that you’re still a libertarian?
     
    On most issues of domestic law I am a small government libertarian. Even on activities of which I profoundly disapprove (such as recreational drug-taking or dealing and homosexual activity, for example), I don't support criminalisation, and never have. But I do recognise (as a doctrinaire libertarian cannot, and Rand doesn't) the need for enforced national borders, and the usefulness of both racial and cultural homogeneity in making societies cohesive, robust and efficient.

    And the simple fact is that the existential issue for Britain and the nations of Europe (and to a less urgent extent for the US) of mass immigration makes relatively trivial arguments over libertarian versus authoritarian in domestic policy irrelevant.

    You are simply incorrect in conflating nationalism with authoritarianism, of course, even though clearly the defence of a nation requires some exercises of authority (as indeed any law does). There is plenty of middle ground between those who can rightly be termed libertarians and outright authoritarians, whether or not they are also nationalists.

    If national and group loyalties exist, that is, if people naturally form themselves into communities with group loyalties, such communities would continue to exist under libertarian conditions.
     
    They would certainly come into existence, and they would likely have tightly enforced national borders, or not exist for long. The fact that libertarians can't accept those for existing nations merely reflects the utopianism inherent in doctrinaire libertarianism.
  41. If Ron Paul had gotten the poll numbers Trump has, he would have gotten the coverage. Note also that on Trump’s two main issues, tariffs and immigration, Paul and Trump are polar opposites.

    Read More
  42. Related, forIlana. I’ve followed your writing since Antiwar.com, and always found principled libertarianism as a feature in it.

    You are less likely to go for a class-based view of politics; neither am I, who wrote some for LewRockwell.com. But I have to say that this article has the greatest explanation of the Trump phenomenon I’ve ever read. Perspective on Trump’s genius, and why the writer thinks he’s inevitable as elected.

    Go, see for yourself.

    Read More
  43. @jtgw
    I didn't say that Rand was perfect, but that, if you are a libertarian, he is still better than Trump. If your ideological predilections lean more towards authoritarian nationalism, on the other hand, then preference for Trump would make sense, but then why maintain that you're still a libertarian?

    If national and group loyalties exist, that is, if people naturally form themselves into communities with group loyalties, such communities would continue to exist under libertarian conditions. I don't really understand that part of the critique of libertarianism, unless you are confusing libertarianism with contemporary left-liberalism, which actively uses state power to break up communities by e.g. forbidding freedom of association and discrimination.

    I didn’t say that Rand was perfect, but that, if you are a libertarian, he is still better than Trump. If your ideological predilections lean more towards authoritarian nationalism, on the other hand, then preference for Trump would make sense, but then why maintain that you’re still a libertarian?

    On most issues of domestic law I am a small government libertarian. Even on activities of which I profoundly disapprove (such as recreational drug-taking or dealing and homosexual activity, for example), I don’t support criminalisation, and never have. But I do recognise (as a doctrinaire libertarian cannot, and Rand doesn’t) the need for enforced national borders, and the usefulness of both racial and cultural homogeneity in making societies cohesive, robust and efficient.

    And the simple fact is that the existential issue for Britain and the nations of Europe (and to a less urgent extent for the US) of mass immigration makes relatively trivial arguments over libertarian versus authoritarian in domestic policy irrelevant.

    You are simply incorrect in conflating nationalism with authoritarianism, of course, even though clearly the defence of a nation requires some exercises of authority (as indeed any law does). There is plenty of middle ground between those who can rightly be termed libertarians and outright authoritarians, whether or not they are also nationalists.

    If national and group loyalties exist, that is, if people naturally form themselves into communities with group loyalties, such communities would continue to exist under libertarian conditions.

    They would certainly come into existence, and they would likely have tightly enforced national borders, or not exist for long. The fact that libertarians can’t accept those for existing nations merely reflects the utopianism inherent in doctrinaire libertarianism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Please define "tightly enforced national borders". Rand Paul is against amnesty and birthright citizenship and visa waivers. He doesn't believe in removing all border control and not checking the entrance or exit of foreigners, and for this has come under a lot of criticism from open-borders libertarians (which don't include me). But if you mean something else by "enforced", you should elaborate.

    The concern about immigration cannot be understood apart from the question of whether or not immigrants are truly invited by the native inhabitants, or whether their entry and settlement is subsidized by the state. Current mass immigration is a result of the latter, not the former, so I am happy to join you in opposing them. The problem is where the nationalists want to expand government in order to tackle the immigration issue, e.g. by mandating E-Verify. I don't believe that employers should need permission from the government to employ anyone, but that is precisely what nationalists like Trump advocate and one of the ways in which they are authoritarian.

    A truly libertarian nationalism would charge immigrants for use of public services and would allow private citizens to discriminate against them without penalty. Illegal immigrants would not be able to demand free healthcare and education for their children, for example. Property owners would be able to refuse entrance to immigrants, as to anyone they did not wish to enter, without needing permission from the government to exclude or include anyone. There are many ways to defend one's community while respecting individual liberty.

    The fear of immigration is also to a large degree grounded in our poor economic situation, which is not caused by immigration but by big government and Keynesian economics.
  44. @Randal

    I didn’t say that Rand was perfect, but that, if you are a libertarian, he is still better than Trump. If your ideological predilections lean more towards authoritarian nationalism, on the other hand, then preference for Trump would make sense, but then why maintain that you’re still a libertarian?
     
    On most issues of domestic law I am a small government libertarian. Even on activities of which I profoundly disapprove (such as recreational drug-taking or dealing and homosexual activity, for example), I don't support criminalisation, and never have. But I do recognise (as a doctrinaire libertarian cannot, and Rand doesn't) the need for enforced national borders, and the usefulness of both racial and cultural homogeneity in making societies cohesive, robust and efficient.

    And the simple fact is that the existential issue for Britain and the nations of Europe (and to a less urgent extent for the US) of mass immigration makes relatively trivial arguments over libertarian versus authoritarian in domestic policy irrelevant.

    You are simply incorrect in conflating nationalism with authoritarianism, of course, even though clearly the defence of a nation requires some exercises of authority (as indeed any law does). There is plenty of middle ground between those who can rightly be termed libertarians and outright authoritarians, whether or not they are also nationalists.

    If national and group loyalties exist, that is, if people naturally form themselves into communities with group loyalties, such communities would continue to exist under libertarian conditions.
     
    They would certainly come into existence, and they would likely have tightly enforced national borders, or not exist for long. The fact that libertarians can't accept those for existing nations merely reflects the utopianism inherent in doctrinaire libertarianism.

    Please define “tightly enforced national borders”. Rand Paul is against amnesty and birthright citizenship and visa waivers. He doesn’t believe in removing all border control and not checking the entrance or exit of foreigners, and for this has come under a lot of criticism from open-borders libertarians (which don’t include me). But if you mean something else by “enforced”, you should elaborate.

    The concern about immigration cannot be understood apart from the question of whether or not immigrants are truly invited by the native inhabitants, or whether their entry and settlement is subsidized by the state. Current mass immigration is a result of the latter, not the former, so I am happy to join you in opposing them. The problem is where the nationalists want to expand government in order to tackle the immigration issue, e.g. by mandating E-Verify. I don’t believe that employers should need permission from the government to employ anyone, but that is precisely what nationalists like Trump advocate and one of the ways in which they are authoritarian.

    A truly libertarian nationalism would charge immigrants for use of public services and would allow private citizens to discriminate against them without penalty. Illegal immigrants would not be able to demand free healthcare and education for their children, for example. Property owners would be able to refuse entrance to immigrants, as to anyone they did not wish to enter, without needing permission from the government to exclude or include anyone. There are many ways to defend one’s community while respecting individual liberty.

    The fear of immigration is also to a large degree grounded in our poor economic situation, which is not caused by immigration but by big government and Keynesian economics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    References to what would pertain in an ideal libertarian state are irrelevant. The requirement is for a practical way to deal with the existential threat to the nations of Europe (and in the longer run the US) from mass immigration of people who are culturally and racially distinct and who mostly don't share the cultural assumptions that underpin even the limited libertarian impulses that have contributed to informing the historical development of our societies. More to the point, the evidence is that their children mostly won't assimilate to those cultural assumptions either.

    Adhering to libertarian ideals such as "employers should not need permission from the government to employ anyone" is rather laughable in the context of the reality of today's world of "anti-discrimination" laws and affirmative action hirings, and the state directly controlling a large proportion of economic activity. The fact is you aren't going to change those problems by electing yet more timid conservative establishment types who in reality believe all the liberal assumptions that underlie big government and "anti-discrimination", nor by supporting trimmers like Rand. The bipartisan establishment is the real problem, and it needs to be broken open.

    I'm British, so my only real concern in theory should be US foreign policy, but almost identical considerations apply there. The problem again is a literally stupid and corrupt US foreign policy establishment consensus that needs to be smashed somehow, and Trump is evidently the only candidate who might have sufficient independence of thought and will to step outside it. He might not, but for sure none of the others of the Republican candidates or the likely Democrat candidate, Clinton, even want to, except perhaps for Rand and he proved over Iran that he could not be trusted on the issue.
  45. If cra-cra in the membrane Beck opposes Trump with this much hysteria, I’d say that’s a helluva endorsement.

    Read More
  46. @Ralph Raico
    This ia another terrific column by Ilana Mercer. It was good to see Ivan Eland's learned rundown of U.S. presidents, turning upside down the results of all those surveys of history professors (the "herd of historians," in Mencken's phrase). The basic difference between Eland and the herd is that he is a liberty-loving man and they worship state power. Ilana is absolutely correct in stating, "neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant 'Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.' Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy." In the 1920s the great Ludwig von Mises showed the impossibility of rational economic planning in the absence of a market economy (refining the argument in subsequent year, seconded by F. A. Hayek). The economic history of the Soviet Union is an illustration of Mises's prescient analysis. Reg Caesar thinks he refutes Ilana by asking why the collapse of communism came only in 1991 and not much earlier. The reason is Gorbachev's reforms, which, among other things, brought the information revolution to the Russian people. The elaborate house of cards built by Soviet propagandists, the "surreality," as critics called it, collapsed. Now Russians finally learned how inferior their living standards were to those of the Portuguese and the Greeks, how blacks in South Africa had consumer goods available to them that they lacked . The time came, as in France in 1789, when even the parasitic elite lost faith in the system. Ideas have consequences, the conservative philosopher Richard Weaver reminded us, often the greatest consequences.

    I remember reading the possibly apocryphal story that the Soviet plan for world Communism exempted Switzerland whose role was to be the price discoverer.

    Read More
  47. @Prof. Woland
    I can't find it but I remembered it as, "A man can say six sentences and I will have enough to hang him".

    Here’s what you were looking for

    “Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.”

    Cardinal Richelieu.

    And then there’s this
    Job 31:35

    “Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book.”

    Dangerous thing putting words on paper.

    Read More
  48. @jtgw
    You make good points. I absolutely agree with Ilana that it was not deficit-spending and military expansion that defeated the USSR, and I agree in spirit with her rejection of the current presidential pantheon. I still find her love affair with Trump hard to swallow, but I hope she will come forth with more cogent arguments as to why libertarians should support him. But a candidate who openly boasts that he will abuse the authority of his office does not fill me with confidence, especially when combined with his explicitly statist beliefs. If he was saying that he would rescind all unconstitutional orders, that would be one thing, but instead he is boasting that he will use executive orders to undermine the laws passed by Congress, which is precisely what Obama has been doing and which genuine conservatives have been rightly most outraged about.

    I’ve said before, but it bears repetition: I don’t support Trump per se, I support the Process of Trump; he’s smashing what needs smashing with a force second to none. Never seen anything like it. The things Trump is smashing must be smashed.

    Read More
  49. @jtgw
    Please define "tightly enforced national borders". Rand Paul is against amnesty and birthright citizenship and visa waivers. He doesn't believe in removing all border control and not checking the entrance or exit of foreigners, and for this has come under a lot of criticism from open-borders libertarians (which don't include me). But if you mean something else by "enforced", you should elaborate.

    The concern about immigration cannot be understood apart from the question of whether or not immigrants are truly invited by the native inhabitants, or whether their entry and settlement is subsidized by the state. Current mass immigration is a result of the latter, not the former, so I am happy to join you in opposing them. The problem is where the nationalists want to expand government in order to tackle the immigration issue, e.g. by mandating E-Verify. I don't believe that employers should need permission from the government to employ anyone, but that is precisely what nationalists like Trump advocate and one of the ways in which they are authoritarian.

    A truly libertarian nationalism would charge immigrants for use of public services and would allow private citizens to discriminate against them without penalty. Illegal immigrants would not be able to demand free healthcare and education for their children, for example. Property owners would be able to refuse entrance to immigrants, as to anyone they did not wish to enter, without needing permission from the government to exclude or include anyone. There are many ways to defend one's community while respecting individual liberty.

    The fear of immigration is also to a large degree grounded in our poor economic situation, which is not caused by immigration but by big government and Keynesian economics.

    References to what would pertain in an ideal libertarian state are irrelevant. The requirement is for a practical way to deal with the existential threat to the nations of Europe (and in the longer run the US) from mass immigration of people who are culturally and racially distinct and who mostly don’t share the cultural assumptions that underpin even the limited libertarian impulses that have contributed to informing the historical development of our societies. More to the point, the evidence is that their children mostly won’t assimilate to those cultural assumptions either.

    Adhering to libertarian ideals such as “employers should not need permission from the government to employ anyone” is rather laughable in the context of the reality of today’s world of “anti-discrimination” laws and affirmative action hirings, and the state directly controlling a large proportion of economic activity. The fact is you aren’t going to change those problems by electing yet more timid conservative establishment types who in reality believe all the liberal assumptions that underlie big government and “anti-discrimination”, nor by supporting trimmers like Rand. The bipartisan establishment is the real problem, and it needs to be broken open.

    I’m British, so my only real concern in theory should be US foreign policy, but almost identical considerations apply there. The problem again is a literally stupid and corrupt US foreign policy establishment consensus that needs to be smashed somehow, and Trump is evidently the only candidate who might have sufficient independence of thought and will to step outside it. He might not, but for sure none of the others of the Republican candidates or the likely Democrat candidate, Clinton, even want to, except perhaps for Rand and he proved over Iran that he could not be trusted on the issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Look, I'm not interested in debating libertarianism with you. I just wanted to ask why Ilana, who unlike you still identifies as a libertarian, is supporting such a blatant authoritarian. I don't find her answer particularly satisfactory, I have to say.
  50. @Randal
    References to what would pertain in an ideal libertarian state are irrelevant. The requirement is for a practical way to deal with the existential threat to the nations of Europe (and in the longer run the US) from mass immigration of people who are culturally and racially distinct and who mostly don't share the cultural assumptions that underpin even the limited libertarian impulses that have contributed to informing the historical development of our societies. More to the point, the evidence is that their children mostly won't assimilate to those cultural assumptions either.

    Adhering to libertarian ideals such as "employers should not need permission from the government to employ anyone" is rather laughable in the context of the reality of today's world of "anti-discrimination" laws and affirmative action hirings, and the state directly controlling a large proportion of economic activity. The fact is you aren't going to change those problems by electing yet more timid conservative establishment types who in reality believe all the liberal assumptions that underlie big government and "anti-discrimination", nor by supporting trimmers like Rand. The bipartisan establishment is the real problem, and it needs to be broken open.

    I'm British, so my only real concern in theory should be US foreign policy, but almost identical considerations apply there. The problem again is a literally stupid and corrupt US foreign policy establishment consensus that needs to be smashed somehow, and Trump is evidently the only candidate who might have sufficient independence of thought and will to step outside it. He might not, but for sure none of the others of the Republican candidates or the likely Democrat candidate, Clinton, even want to, except perhaps for Rand and he proved over Iran that he could not be trusted on the issue.

    Look, I’m not interested in debating libertarianism with you. I just wanted to ask why Ilana, who unlike you still identifies as a libertarian, is supporting such a blatant authoritarian. I don’t find her answer particularly satisfactory, I have to say.

    Read More
  51. Lex iniusta non est lex – An unjust law is not law, as the Doctors of the Church once noted with precision and clarity. Augustine said laws can be unjust in two main ways: first, by being contrary to human good, either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory or when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him; or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. Take a far-reaching law like Obamacare, this unequally burdens many in society who do not require public health care and who already have health insurance of their own choice. Such a law is so coercive and its impacts so unequally distributed that it cannot, in any sense, be seen as a just law. If Trump is genuine in his push to repeal such unjust laws, he is not only going to be a good President, but a just man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Trump wants fully socialized single payer healthcare. The only issue on which he is really conservative is immigration and to some extent foreign policy.
  52. the only president that has been a TRUE AMERICAN HERO and also a NON JEW was president John F. Kennedy that did represent the American Tax Payer, and was willing to dismantle the Parasitic Jewish Federal Reserve.

    That was the reason why the Jews killed Him, all the rest after and before Him have been either Jews or married to jews, Thanks that damn President Ronald Regan the jews were able to destroy tha American system that Help them Monopolize every thing from electronic media to even the way corporations are able to buy their own congress members and senate members

    And without forgetting the way drugs became available to even children in schools, by distableising the latin American nations with his witch wife who consulted with the spiritual world, then we got the king pin drug dealer family as president and then his spawn beastly family who believe that out of 300+ million Americans they are the only ones that should succeed the throne only the arrogant jews can believe such a horrendous dream.

    it only takes 1o% the American people to bring to justice all these criminals but are waiting to see how far these parasites are willing to go, before the people makes its move they have already been warned of the outcome several times so I am sure there won’t be any mercy towards them once the crap hits the fan as they have not shown any mercy towards the non jews

    Read More
  53. @ChrisD
    Lex iniusta non est lex - An unjust law is not law, as the Doctors of the Church once noted with precision and clarity. Augustine said laws can be unjust in two main ways: first, by being contrary to human good, either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory or when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him; or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. Take a far-reaching law like Obamacare, this unequally burdens many in society who do not require public health care and who already have health insurance of their own choice. Such a law is so coercive and its impacts so unequally distributed that it cannot, in any sense, be seen as a just law. If Trump is genuine in his push to repeal such unjust laws, he is not only going to be a good President, but a just man.

    Trump wants fully socialized single payer healthcare. The only issue on which he is really conservative is immigration and to some extent foreign policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Stop lying. He does not want any socialized medicine. He wants to repeal obamacare completely and replace it with market competition. Chapter 7 of his book, "Crippled America".
  54. @Rehmat
    Glenn Beck can best described as Trump's clone. He received tens of million dollars from Zionist organizations, both Jewish and Christians. He still works for the Organized Jewry, from Fox News Channel to The Blaze TV.

    Glenn Beck was nominated by the Jewish-founded 'FAIR magazine' as one of America’s top 12 Islamophobe in October 2008. Glenn Beck has repeatedly equated Islam with Nazism (though Nazi Army had 150,000 German Jews among them) and Holy Qur’an with Hitler’s Mein Kampf which was written over 1,300 after the revelation of Holy Qur’an. Since Glenn Becks associates himself with Islamophobe Jews like Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Mark Steyn – ADL always supported Glenn Beck’s ‘freedom of speech’ (though Helen Thomas was not awarded that freedom for criticizing Jews for occupying Arab lands).

    In 2010, Beck came under ADL's knife for calling Jewish billionaire George Soro, - "Atheist and anti-Jewish" on the air.

    Glenn Beck also compared Soro with the prophecy in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He described Soros as the most powerful man on earth, the creator of a “shadow government” that manipulates regimes and currencies for its own enrichment. Obama is his “puppet,” Beck says. Soros has even “infiltrated the churches.” He foments social unrest and economic distress so he can bring down governments, all for his own financial gain. “Four times before,” Beck warned. “We’ll be number five.”

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/11/18/glenn-beck-from-islamophobe-to-anti-semite/

    Please do your research before you post, when Rome destroyed israhell back in 7o AD the biblical Hebrews were also destroyed except for the Hebrews that had believed the message that Jesus “Christ came to earth to express to humanity of a new way of salvation that whom so ever believed it could be forgiven of all their sins past, present and future, the message was brought to the Hebrews first but they rejected such message and God made that to be the NEW COVENANT WITH HUMANITY ONLY FOR THOSE THAT BELIEVED IT AND REPENTED OF ALL THEIR SINS FROM THE HEART AND ASK FOR FORGIVNESS GOD THE FATHER WOULD FORGIVE AND TRANSFORM THOSE NEW BELIVERS INTO NEW CREATURES . AND THAT BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THEY WOULD ENTER INTO A NEW LIFE AS GOD WOULD BEGIN TO PURGE THE OLD LIFE FROM THEM AND RENEW THEM FROM INSIDE OUT.

    The Hebrews that were baptized with the holy spirt were taken out of ISRAHELL IN THE YEAR 50 AD AND THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT LIVED AROUND THOSE NATIONS THAT SURRUNDED ISRAHELL LIKE IRAQ, EGYPT, SYRIA, IRAN ETC. WHY WOOD ROME TAKE THOSE STUPID ARROGANT HEBREWS WITH THEM WHEN IN REALITY THEY KNEW THEY WERE NOTHING BUT TRUBLE, THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON WHY ROME DESTROYED ISRAEL, SO THAT NO HEBREW COULD EVER BUILT ON IT AGAIN, DOWN TO ITS FUNDATIONS. AS JESUS CHRIST HAD PROHESIED TO THEM WHILE HE STILL WAS PREACHING TO THEM THE GOOD NEWS.

    THESE PARASITIC CLOWNS THAT CALL THEMSELVES JEWS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN BEASTS FROM HELL THAT HAVE SUPLANTED THE HEBREWS WITH THEIR SATANIC INTENTINON OF DECEPTION AND BY GETTING THEM OUT OF GOD’S WILL AND TAKE THEM TO HELL WITH THEMSELVES, THAT IS WHY THEY PUT IN GOD WE TRUST ON THE PAPER MONEY SO MAKE THE GOYS BELIEVE THAT IS OK TO LOVE MONEY BECAUSE IT SAYS IN GOD WE TRUST BUT IS NOT THE CREATOR BUT THEIR GOD THE DISTROYER THE GOD OF EVIL FORCES .

    THE JEWS INFITRATED ALL DENOMINATIONS A LONG TIME AGO BEGINING WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT IS WHY IS FULL OF PEDOPHILES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE JEWS ARE, HOMOSEXUALS TRANSEXUALS OR TRANSGENDER LOVE BESTIALITY AND EVERY THING THAT IS EVIL, GLENN BECK IS A MORMON, AND MORMONS ARE PART OF THE MASONS AND JEHOVA WITNESS, SAME ORGANISATIONS LED BY ZIONIST JEWS.EPISCOPALIANS ETC, THEY ALL ARE THE SAME THE JEWS ARE IN ALL OF THEM. THAT IS WHY THE NEW BELIEVERS GO ASTRAY AS SOON AS THEY ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR SAVIOUR.

    Read More
  55. Beck is an idiot and almost no body listens to him anymore. Help make it so no one at all listens to him anymore: Stop giving him publicity.

    Read More
  56. @jtgw
    Trump wants fully socialized single payer healthcare. The only issue on which he is really conservative is immigration and to some extent foreign policy.

    Stop lying. He does not want any socialized medicine. He wants to repeal obamacare completely and replace it with market competition. Chapter 7 of his book, “Crippled America”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I wish that were true, but he seems to have changed his mind since then:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

    A free market in healthcare is a very tough sell, and as James Kirkpatrick has noted, Trump is succeeding now by following Sam Francis' advice and selling a kind of nationalistic social democracy that goes down far better with blue collar whites than laissez-faire.
  57. @woodNfish
    Stop lying. He does not want any socialized medicine. He wants to repeal obamacare completely and replace it with market competition. Chapter 7 of his book, "Crippled America".

    I wish that were true, but he seems to have changed his mind since then:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

    A free market in healthcare is a very tough sell, and as James Kirkpatrick has noted, Trump is succeeding now by following Sam Francis’ advice and selling a kind of nationalistic social democracy that goes down far better with blue collar whites than laissez-faire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Nowhere in that article does Trump say it will be a single-payer system. In fact in his book he says that 7 years ago he thought single-payer was the solution, but evidence has proved that is incorrect. He then goes on to relate that as a businessman he has always had to be nimble making decisions because of changing conditions and he has changed his mind on single-payer as well. Chapter 7. "Healthcare is Making US All Sick" of his book.
  58. @jtgw
    I wish that were true, but he seems to have changed his mind since then:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

    A free market in healthcare is a very tough sell, and as James Kirkpatrick has noted, Trump is succeeding now by following Sam Francis' advice and selling a kind of nationalistic social democracy that goes down far better with blue collar whites than laissez-faire.

    Nowhere in that article does Trump say it will be a single-payer system. In fact in his book he says that 7 years ago he thought single-payer was the solution, but evidence has proved that is incorrect. He then goes on to relate that as a businessman he has always had to be nimble making decisions because of changing conditions and he has changed his mind on single-payer as well. Chapter 7. “Healthcare is Making US All Sick” of his book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    He says that the government will take care of people. Whatever he's advocating, it's not the free market.
  59. @woodNfish
    Nowhere in that article does Trump say it will be a single-payer system. In fact in his book he says that 7 years ago he thought single-payer was the solution, but evidence has proved that is incorrect. He then goes on to relate that as a businessman he has always had to be nimble making decisions because of changing conditions and he has changed his mind on single-payer as well. Chapter 7. "Healthcare is Making US All Sick" of his book.

    He says that the government will take care of people. Whatever he’s advocating, it’s not the free market.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    The days of Republicans yapping about "job creators" seem over.
  60. @jtgw
    He says that the government will take care of people. Whatever he's advocating, it's not the free market.

    The days of Republicans yapping about “job creators” seem over.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution