The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Why I Support Donald Trump and Not Ted Cruz
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Recently, I was asked by a friend who likes Ted Cruz, why I support Donald Trump and not the Texas senator among the Republican candidates running for president. In partial response to that question, let me set down briefly my thoughts.

I think it is important to begin with a review of some essential history, a brief exploration of the evolution of what is now called “Movement Conservatism” and its symbiotic relationship to the modern Republican Party. Understanding this background is critical to comprehending what has happened and is happening, politically and culturally, to what remains of the American republic in 2016. The transformation of the intellectual brain trust for the Republican Party has fundamentally affected and influenced the successive evolution of the positions the Republican Party has taken over the past fifty years.

Before discussing this history, I think it is necessary that we recall that the GOP Establishment, in fact, never gave up its virtual control of the party structure, despite Ronald Reagan. And since Reagan’s departure it has controlled the party apparatus completely and uninterruptedly. Even under President Reagan, as a dear friend who worked in the White House in 1981 once remarked to me: “Reagan let the Bush establishment people control appointments, and their strategy was ‘Let Reagan speak like Reagan, but we will control appointments and policy’. And basically that is what happened.”

It was my mentor and friend, the late Dr. Russell Kirk, whose volume The Conservative Mind actually initiated what became the older, scholarly “conservatism” in the 1950s. “Conservatism,” as Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy, staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on “unenlightened” countries around the world. Conservatives should celebrate local traditions, customs, and the inherited legacies of other peoples, and not attempt to destroy them. America, Kirk insisted, was not founded on a democratic, hegemonic ideology, but as an expression and continuation of European traditions and strong localist, familial and religious belief. Indeed, Kirk authored a profound biography of Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Conservative,” who embodied those principles.

Beginning in the 1970s into the 1980s there was an influx of former Leftist and ex-Trotskyite intellectuals and writers, who had become anti-Communists and who began to move to the right into the older conservative movement. These were denominated the Neoconservatives, or Neocons. At first the Neocons were welcomed as ex-Marxists “coming in from the cold.” The problem was, and still is, that the Neocons brought with them not only their welcomed and spirited anti-Communism, but also their intellectual template of across-the-board egalitarianism, internationalism, and an a priori liberal and global interventionist foreign policy, which has, as its underlying principle, an almost chiliastic belief in imposed “liberal democracy” as the “final stage” of human (and secular) progress. And it is that Idea of (irreversible) Progress, which means the destruction of older traditions, customs, and those things considered “reactionary” that stand in the way of Progress, that characterizes most of Neocon thinking. Such ideas, needless to say, run counter to traditional conservative principles.

With strong academic connections and financial sources, the Neocons soon took control of most of the older conservative foundations, think tanks, and publications, and they did so with an iron hand, reminiscent of older days, when their Marxism was readily visible. And, more significantly, through this control of most “conservative” institutions, especially those centered in Washington, D. C., they very soon began to provide experts and advisors to the national Republican Party and its candidates. Their dominance manifested itself in organs such as the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and in publications like Commentary, The Public Interest, and National Review (which shed its previous attachments to the older conservatism). The advent of the Rupert Murdoch media empire, with Fox News television, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, and the New York Post as its notable voices, cemented this influence, which manifested itself abundantly in post-Reagan GOP policies and prescriptions.

With the triumph of the Neocons, conservatism soon no longer resembled what it once was. The principles which so characterized the Old Right were replaced with an ideological zeal for the very opposite of those principles. Older conservative icons such as John Randolph and John C. Calhoun, included prominently in Kirk’s pantheon of great conservatives, were, due to their opposition to egalitarianism, expelled from the Neoconservative lexicon, to be replaced by Abraham Lincoln, and later figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. (And Southerners like Sam Ervin, Harry Byrd Sr., Robert E. Lee, Wade Hampton, etc., were now uniformly condemned and rejected by the new “mainstream conservatives.”)

Lincoln, who was not included in Kirk’s pantheon, became the new and real “Founder” of the American republic, as the editor of the post-William Buckley National Review, Rich Lowry, contends. The civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, with its far-reaching and radical court decisions, was pronounced to be “conservative,” and, at the same time, Southern conservatives, such as the brilliant Mel Bradford, and anti-egalitarians, such as Dr. Samuel Francis, were purged out of the “movement.” Scholars such as Bradford, Joseph Sobran, and the internationally-recognized political scientist/historian, Paul Gottfried, had their careers attacked, were denied well-deserved professional positions, and were banished from formerly conservative publications and access to the largesse of formerly conservative foundations.

Libertarians, too, were shown the door. Never a good fit within the older conservative movement of the 1960s, their exit began long before the triumph of Neoconservatism, with prominent advocates associating at such foundations as the Ludwig von Mises Institute or congregating in certain college economics departments, writing via sites such as, and publishing scholarly works by the Liberty Fund. Politically, their most significant leader in recent years has been Ron Paul, but his prescriptions and views were dismissed just as firmly as were those of the Old Right, or paleoconservatives, as they were sometimes called.

No one was allowed to violate the new orthodoxy without severe consequences. But more revolutionary, the logic of Neoconservative egalitarianism, when carried out to its fullest extent, has meant that very many of those now-termed Mainstream Conservatives presently endorse, either openly (e.g., Jonah Goldberg, the National Review magazine, etc.), or tacitly (e.g. George Will, Charles Krauthammer at Fox, and a majority of national mainstream conservative “opinion leaders”), such aberrations as same sex marriage and feminism, and various absurdities under the rubric of civil rights. And at the same time they push zealously for “regime change” internationally everywhere (which also means eventual control by Wall Street). This has meant American misadventures in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Thus, in a very real sense, what is commonly termed “conservatism” today has not been truly conservative in the traditional sense for probably three or four decades, at least. Indeed, political scientists and historians such as Gottfried, Claes Ryn (at Catholic Univ), Gary Dorrien (in his study, The Neoconservative Mind), and others have examined this transition in some detail.

Turning to current Republican politics, for the first time since 1992 and the Pat Buchanan campaign, there is actual opposition, if a bit amorphous, this year to the reigning Neoconservative template that has dominated Republican policy thinking. The campaign rhetoric and views of Donald Trump, I would suggest, represent a potential break with the regnant Neoconservative orthodoxy. Perhaps more importantly, none of the GOP candidates, save Trump, is really capable of challenging the Neoconservative template, and this is precisely why most of the GOP and Neocon elites despise him so much. Thus, while the Neocon and GOP Establishment heartily dislike Ted Cruz, they actually fear and loathe Trump. Trump, is not a “movement conservative,” that is, he is not a Republican candidate schooled in the narrative of Neoconservatism (while Marco Rubio wallows in it). In the current political context, the term “conservative” is used so cavalierly that every GOP candidate now claims the mantel: Jeb, Kasich, Christie, Rubio, and so on: all claim to be “movement (or mainstream) conservatives.”

Trump is the candidate who has been bold and farsighted enough to raise the real issues that are affecting every day Americans, not just “movement conservatives.” Most importantly, there is the supremely significant issue of illegal immigration. Consider, for example, what has happened to California, that up to the 1980s was considered a reliably “conservative” state, but after the 1986 Immigration Act, and three-to-four million new immigrants from Latin America, most illegal, will no longer ever vote for a Republican, much less any kind of conservative. The question is: do we want this to continue to happen? Who will be the candidate who will actually stop—and reverse—this?

Then, there is the issue of Muslims coming to America. Trump’s plan to temporarily bar them coming in until a proper and secure screening system is put into place, is not only logical, it is completely constitutional and legal. Various legal experts and historical and judicial precedents confirm Trump’s proposal; indeed, Professor Jan Ting has mined the archives to discover ample support for Trump’s pledge, including rulings by the Supreme Court, the Immigration and Citizenship Act of 1952 (U.S.C. Title 8, Section 1182), and actions by Presidents Jimmy Carter, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and others; also, No other candidate, including Ted Cruz, has advocated the same program, and several have mindlessly attacked him for it. But does anyone doubt that Trump would do it?

It is Trump who, on the issue of militant Islam, inspires both the hatred and fear of politically-correct multiculturalists, not just in this country, but around the world. In Britain a petition has been pushed by the political Left to ban Trump’s entry into the United Kingdom. Signed by more than a half-million people and endorsed by the usual assortment of far left and communist organizations, it has actually been debated in the English parliament (January 18, 2016). And although the Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned Trump’s proposal as “divisive, stupid and wrong,” he has stopped short of endorsing a ban of Trump’s entry; Ted Cruz has not been the object of similar attacks. The internationalist politically-correct elites recognize their primary foe.

And the Leftist Hollywood elites are lining up against Trump. Notorious Vietcong supporter Jane Fonda has organized a committee to “Stop hate dump Trump.” Including such old school pro-communists as Harry Belafonte and leftists like Jonathan Demme, the committee has boasted that it has 1,200 supporters, and has condemned Trump, declaring: “We are offering Americans a chance to be heard and engage in action, as Trump’s campaign gains momentum even as he increases his hateful and divisive rhetoric.”

At almost every Trump rally there are demonstrators, from Black Lives Matter, from various pro-illegal immigration groups, and those representing an assortment of Marxist organizations. After recent protests in North and South Carolina, immigration lawyer, Marty Rosenbluth, speaking for a network of such groups, declared: “Let’s just say if Mr. Trump comes back to our neighborhood, we might pay him a visit… He is the real enemy of progressives this year.” [] It is clear that the Left and the Establishment know who is their real enemy in 2016.

The case of Ted Cruz is mixed. He has on the Senate floor, opposed some of the measures pushed by the GOP Establishment, and he is not a member of the exclusive congressional “club,” but he is still part and parcel of the GOP/ Neocon “movement” fabric. The problem here is that the GOP ceased years ago to be a true vehicle for traditional conservatism nationally. Rather, its fundamental ideological praxis and its basic progressivism are shared by its supposed enemies over on the Left. Accordingly, as we have seen in so many practical applications, this leads only to continued surrender and the ongoing slide of this country into the morass of inevitable politically-correct progressivism, which most all of the GOP candidates buy into.

Certainly, Ted Cruz is disliked by many of the elites, looked down on as a parvenu, but the Establishment would, if very reluctantly, prefer him (holding their collective noses, perhaps) to Trump, and the reason—if you read what they have written, or listen to them on the air—is that they instinctively realize that Trump would very likely re-shape the Republican Party and dislodge the corrupt, establishmentarian Mainstream Conservatives/Neocons and GOP elites who have enjoyed their rich sinecures and positions for so many years, all the while the nation has continued to descend into what John Milton called “the slough of Despond”—decay and corruption galore.

Neoconservative publicists and thought-shapers, like Bill Kristol and George Will, literally hate Donald Trump. Will, especially, has written with a venom and unrestrained passion that even for him is unaccustomed. His latest anti-Trump philippic appeared in the National Review on December 23, 2015. [ ]. Weekly Standard editor Kristol has suggested that if Trump were the GOP standard bearer in 2016, the Establishment might launch a third party effort. As the editor of the Neocon organ tweeted out on December 21, 2016, “Crowd-sourcing: Name of the new party we’ll have to start if Trump wins the GOP nomination? Suggestions welcome at [email protected]

Trump has continued to lead the Republican pack, even pad his lead in the polls. Thus, one of the latest desperation tactics in this power politics game on the part of a few members of the GOP Establishment was evident on Fox News’s “Special Report with Bret Baier,” Thursday night, January 21, as panelists, including Charles Krauthammer and Nina Easton of Fortune magazine whose utter contempt for Trump was so readily visible recently, now appear to want to cozy up to the New York billionaire, and criticize Cruz. The immediate hope was clearly to rattle some hard core, anti-Establishment Trump supporters, cast some doubts, and peel them away over to Cruz, and thus strengthen the second-place Cruz to the point that he could neutralize Trump’s strong lead. The strategy here was simple: destroy your real enemy by appearing to embrace that enemy. That way, a Marco Rubio, or perhaps a Chris Christie, or even Jeb or Kasich, might slip through and become a real player. After all, these latter four are their real candidates.

But just as this strategy seemed to blossom, Rich Lowry’s National Review assembled a group of twenty-two Neocons/GOP Establishment writers to launch a massive, multi-focused, and vicious attack on Trump and his lack of what they termed “conservative” credentials, at least as they see it. Among the writers we find the usual zealous globalist and egalitarian advocates, including Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz (these two, sons of two of the ex-Marxist founders of neoconservatism), Andrew McCarthy, Cal Thomas (the Neocon Evangelical), and the George Soros-supported Southern Baptist Russell Moore. Each author penned a short assault on Trump and his lack of “conservative” orthodoxy, reading him out of “movement conservatism.” Moore summed up much of their charges, condemning “Trump’s vitriolic–and often racist and sexist–language about immigrants, women, the disabled, and others…” (January 21, 2016). That such leftist-sounding language should appear in what was once considered the premiere conservative magazine in the United States, should come as no surprise. After all, under Lowry and his team at National Review has endorsed same sex marriage as “conservative” and no longer resembles the journal began by William F. Buckley. Clearly, the strategy to stop Trump involves both attacks by some neocon thought-leaders on his conservative bona fides, while others seem to accept his inevitability. And, equally evident is that the real intended recipient of these double-edged initiatives would be a Marco Rubio, or perhaps a Christie or even Jeb Bush.

In some ways, their attempt to expel and silence Trump is reminiscent of earlier efforts to rid their movement of any elements that they deemed undesirable or that dared suggest that Neocon dogma is the only acceptable version. It is exactly what they did to members of the older conservatism. They continue to fail miserably to understand Donald Trump’s strong appeal, not just to those who think of themselves as grass roots conservatives, but to a broader, more populist and nationalist cross-section of Americans.

The leaders of the neocon/mainstream conservative movement believe that even if Cruz is dangerous and not “one of them,” the financial and political links they have and would extend, would make him more amenable to their influence. That, in itself, is a major fact that must be considered this year.

It is true that recently Ted Cruz has sounded in his campaign much like the non-conformist Trump, that is, he appears to have copied or taken some of the issues that Trump has raised and attempted to make them his own. I applaud this, but I also have some serious questions about his sincerity.

As a movement conservative purist, Cruz could fit comfortably within the Mainstream Conservative institutions as they already exist. Indeed, these institutions are basically designed to handle naive “evangelical Christians” that the Neocons actually despise. That Cruz represents this group, far from threatening the Neocons, reassures them of a basic institutional compatibility (despite their personal loathing for Cruz and general contempt for evangelicals). It is less clear that the existing Mainstream Conservative apparatus (think tanks, publications, institutes, etc.) would so smoothly accommodate a Trump presidency. It would require a far more significant alteration than a Cruz presidency, and pose more of a threat to the entrenched power and interests behind these institutions.

A fascinating case of this Establishment “choosing the lesser evil” occurred on Thursday, January 14, at the Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, South Carolina. It was reported by Rush Limbaugh on his radio program on January 15:

“I have an incredible story here last night — and, by the way, just to give you a little bit of inside data, if you watched the debate last night, did you hear a lot of boos for Trump? Did you wonder about that? Well, you knew where it was coming? Where was it coming from? (…) It might have been the Bush camp, but I’ll tell you where the boo-birds were coming from. They were coming from North Carolina. The North Carolina state GOP bused a bunch of people down there and their express purpose was to try to show that there is no massive support for Trump. They wanted to do some damage. They are grudgingly accepting Ted Cruz now. But can you go back just maybe three, four weeks? How many of you remember the Republican establishment embracing Ted Cruz, promoting Ted Cruz, thinking Ted Cruz would be the solution? I mean, it didn’t happen, did it? But it has worked out that way.” (emphasis added)

Another example of this “lesser evil” opting for Cruz came on ABC’s Sunday This Week, January 17, 2016. After panelist E. J. Dionne of The Washington Post recounted that the Republican base was greatly disillusioned with the Establishment and its abject failure for so long to oppose the Left, George Stephanopoulos turned to well-placed Republican consultant and senior Jeb Bush strategist, Sara Fagen:

“STEPHANOPOULOS: But so let me put that question to you. As I said, you did work for President George W. Bush. As you talk to your colleagues, your former colleagues, people in the top of the Republican Party, if they’re forced to choose between Trump and Cruz, who do they choose? FAGEN: Well, I think they would, I think, support Ted.”

And who can forget South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s personal attack on Trump for his “divisive” politics and the need to resist the “siren call of the angriest voters” as central to the Republican “response” to President Obama’s State of the Union address? Haley spoke for the GOP/Neocon Establishment in singling Trump out for specific criticism. As a revealing essay published by The Hill details, “Trump has been at the center of the storm.” []Haley was selected for her role by Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, and no doubt her remarks were vetted by them and their staffs prior to their delivery. Despite their disdain for Cruz, the real enemy of the Establishment is Donald Trump.

I am aware of Trump’s history, his checkered past, his divorces. But the fact remains, Trump is the only candidate who is not actually controlled by a lobby or pressure group. His campaign is self-financed. Indeed, he knows, in many cases personally, many of the major money-bags, hedge fund magnates, and heads of those pressure groups, and he publicly rejects their contributions…and their direction and advice. For me, this is an extremely important development and a signal issue in 2016. I think a large group—millions—of Americans really do want someone who is not beholden to such Super PACs, pressure groups, and lobbies. Trump is, in fact, the only such candidate who comes close to that qualification this year.

Cruz has raised the issue of “New York values” and implied that Trump is tricking voters and that he actually espouses liberal views, citing an interview given back in 1999. Ted Cruz’s campaign has launched a series of TV ads in Iowa of accusing Trump of being, in fact, a “liberal Democrat,” and, for proof, dredging up an interview that the Donald gave back seventeen years ago, in which he expressed views which would certainly be anathema to any traditionalist conservative. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Seventeen years ago? How many of us have not changed, at least to some degree, our views on various topics in seventeen years? Remember Ronald Reagan? For most of his life he was a New Deal-Roosevelt Democrat, but by 1968 he had altered his philosophy. Conversions are, indeed, possible, and, in fact, the Christian faith not only lauds them, but teaches that they happen all the time. Indeed, if “the abortion doctor,” Bernard Nathanson—a co-founder of NARAL–can come full circle on the right-to-life, cannot Donald Trump? And if (former) Democrat loyalist Ronald Reagan can become standard bearer for conservatives, why deny the possibility of conversion to the Donald?

In reality, both Trump and Ted Cruz state their opposition to “liberal” New York values, and both say as much on the campaign trail. Trump has been very open about his change of heart, his conversion. He admits that his life is an open book, that he now disavows some things he previously believed, while Cruz offers himself as a true-blue, consistent champion of grass roots conservatism. But is that narrative completely valid?

Let’s take a closer look at Cruz’s effort to grasp the mantle of Christian knight-errant, unstained by “New York values.” The fact is that Cruz depends on some heavy-hitting Wall Street donors, who will assuredly gain open access should he be elected. Can he, then, be truly independent of their wishes and eventual demands should he enter the Oval Office? Also very worrying is whether domestic lobbies such as the Chamber of Commerce, foreign policy lobbies connected to the Middle East, or other powerful interests, will exert their pound of flesh should he reach the White House. He has, for instance, heavily courted the Las Vegas gambling kingpin and zealous Zionist, billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is a high-powered Wall Street investment banker, a manager with Goldman Sachs, and Cruz has strong on-going financial connections with Wall Street, as well. His Super PACs have received substantial political contributions from Wall Street and Establishment elites, including $11 million from hedge-fund kingpin, Robert Mercer. [See detailed expose’ by Francis S. Sellers in The Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2015, How a reclusive computer programmer became a GOP money powerhouse]. And he continues to mine the New York financial elite for financial support. His top financial donors between 2011 and 2016 include Goldman Sachs, Woodforest National Bank, and Morgan Lewis LLP. Indeed, he received in direct contributions $2.5 million from corporate oil, gas, and investment and security interests.

Not only that, but recall that Ted Cruz has emphasized his opposition to such targets as same sex marriage and “the gay rights lobby.” Yet The New York Post [by Robert George, Jan. 18, 2016] and other sources have reported that he has solicited large campaign contributions from prominent gay figures who form and shape precisely those “New York values” he so resolutely condemns and rails against in his campaign. Indeed, he promised prominent gay New Yorkers that, if elected president, he would not push opposition to same sex marriage. [Ted Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen, by Maggie Haberman, New York Times, April 23, 2015] Does not Cruz’s present line of attack strike us as a bit hypocritical? Does it not remind us of those garden-variety politicians who solemnly promise one thing to a Tea Party audience, but then assure more socially liberal big donors “don’t worry, it ain’t gonna happen.”

Thus, I submit, Cruz’s attack is bogus and, in some ways, dishonest. Trump has steadfastly affirmed a Rightist agenda, on gun rights, on right-to-life (and defunding Planned Parenthood), on same sex marriage, on illegal immigration (and ending birthright citizenship for illegals), on repealing Obamacare, on halting unfair trade/giveaway deals with China (and other countries), on halting Muslim immigration until we fix our broken immigration system, on talking man-to-man to President Putin and finding a real solution to problems in the Middle East, and much more. In so doing he goes beyond the accustomed narrative of “mainstream conservatism.” He has connected with millions of formerly tuned-out voters and new voters with a more populist and nationalist vision, and any true conservative renaissance desperately needs that if things are to begin to turn around, and if the smelly Augean stables of the GOP “Mainstream Conservative” Establishment can be cleaned out.

Certainly, on a personal level Trump was not the candidate to whom I was at first attracted. Yes, he supported Democrats in the past, indeed, he contributed to some of them. But, he was part of that culture back then, and he was playing, necessarily, their game and by their rules. And it is precisely that knowledge of who those folks are and how they operate, what they have done to this country, and how they play the influence and power game, that gives him much better insight and a real sense of what must be radically undone if any part of this country be salvaged.

The essential question for me is this: as much as I might respect Ted Cruz’s senate career, I sincerely don’t think he would be able to withstand or take on the powerful Establishment in the same no-holds-barred and independent manner as the Donald. I don’t think Cruz would dislodge the Neocon intellectual stranglehold over the GOP policy; I think he would end up accepting and confirming it.

Other objections to Trump imply that he is ignorant, or doesn’t know what he’s doing, or lacks the good graces to be president. Simply put, any man who has created business enterprises in dozens of countries worth tens of billions of dollars, who has created thousands of good paying jobs (with only four chapter 11 bankruptcy re-organizations for his many operations over thirty years) has got to have some intelligence and savvy. Yes, he gained degrees at the Wharton School and an Ivy League education.

Electability? Increasingly, both the polls and the frantic reaction of the Hillary campaign indicate that, like with the GOP Establishment, Trump is the candidate they fear the most.

What is needed in this nation now is dramatic, even radical change. What is needed is not someone who will simply raise Hell, but someone who will be more like a bull loosed in a terrified china shop. Half measures and regular politicians, “mainstream conservatives” like Ted Cruz, I don’t think can pull it off. Trump, I believe, just maybe can.

I certainly realize that various folks will differ in their appraisals, for various reasons. A goodly number don’t like Trump’s history or his persona (or his, at times, salty language). Others think Cruz is a better “conservative” or a more sincere “Christian,” but I would posit that the old conservative movement that we grew up with has basically become nugatory, run aground and corrupt. Present day “Mainstream Conservatism” reminds me more of a Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, transforming itself into something that upends what was once its essential nature.

And, lastly, regarding support for a straight-down Christian: lest we forget, God may use any vessel, even an imperfect one, should He choose to effect change. Don Juan of Austria, who vanquished the Muslims at Lepanto and saved Europe from Islamic invasion for one-hundred years, was not a saint, but who would not say that he served God’s purpose as champion of Christendom in forcing back the massive Islamic wave of 1571?

So, I repeat: what we need this year, a year critical to the very fragile existence of what is left of the republic, are drastic measures by someone who is truly outside the tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum kleptocratic duopoly that has dominated American political discourse for decades.

Someone recently compared Ted Cruz to Ronald Reagan. This year we don’t need another Reagan. No; the times are far worse today. We need a Reagan with fangs.

Hide 126 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. You could have mentioned that Cruz’s wife is an executive for Goldman Sachs, and that during his Senate campaign said outfit gave him a $500,000 unsecured loan.

    Trump’s “liberal” comments in favor of choice for abortion and single payer healthcare is exactly what makes him electable, and intelligent.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @rita
  2. I had to laugh at how Mr. Cathey carefully avoids mentioning the ethnic origin of the Neoconservatives.

    I have to wonder whether he thinks that we really are under attack from “radical Islam”. Or is he just pretending to believe that?

    The problem is: how can you be opposed to the neocons if you accept the central myth that those self-same neocons have constructed?

    How do you oppose the neocons if you’re terrified of pointing out that they are Jews whose primary loyalty is to international Jewry and the state of Israel?

  3. @Jonathan Revusky

    Presumably you would accept that people tend to seek to avoid cognitive dissonance and that the American Jews you anathematise presumably regard themselves as loyal patriotic Americans. Is it not plausible to see most of the Jewish neo-cons as people who maintain mental comfort with some such general prima facie belief as “what’s good for Israel is generally good for the USA”? It may have been urban myth that he said it but no one seems to have rejected as absurd the “what’s good for General Motors is good for the USA” of “Engine Charlie” Wilson when Secretary of Defense.

    People like to feel that their ideas fit together consistently, do they not?

    • Replies: @tbraton
  4. Man, Boyd, you disappoint me. For all the good points, you still pander to what is ugly in people.

    I’ll pick just a few, to point out how you screw up any inclination for a wider audience to support your stance.

    “But more revolutionary, the logic of Neoconservative egalitarianism, when carried out to its fullest extent, has meant that very many of those now-termed Mainstream Conservatives presently endorse, either openly (e.g., Jonah Goldberg, the National Review magazine, etc.), or tacitly (e.g. George Will, Charles Krauthammer at Fox, and a majority of national mainstream conservative “opinion leaders”), such aberrations as same sex marriage and feminism, and various absurdities under the rubric of civil rights”

    Ok, so I despise the same; BUT: having grown up with conservative libertarians in Montana, I can state you miss something big in the ‘old’ conservative reality: Gays were tolerated, nobody cared (or figured it was any of their business) if someone liked same-sex blow-jobs or cunnilingus in the privacy of their home. What is offensive is today’s GAY EVANGELISM. So, yeah, if our first amendment protects Jehovah’s Witnesses, shouldn’t everyone have the same rights? How about instead there is no right to knock on anyone’s door, invading their privacy with some superior ‘my god is better than your god’ horseshit. Privacy should take precedence over free speech when the privacy and speech clash. And I haven’t encountered fags going door to door with their literature. Give me a break from the Evangelicals. And wouldn’t it make sense to separate the ‘contract law’ aspect of marriage from the spiritual aspect? If the government sanction solely ‘civil unions’ (straight or gay) and marriage was strictly the provenance of the personal spiritual convictions of the parties, that whole fight would have the rug pulled out from under it and our legislators would have to look to other issues to whip up political feeding frenzies in the election cycles (and maybe even have to pay attention to things that actually matter, like our war-mongering budget preempting spending on our crumbling infrastructure.)

    Painting everyone on the left with a broad brush of Marxism is pure cock and bull. Only dumbshits fail to see the natural alliance between disaffected progressives on the left and ‘old line’ conservatives on the right in relation to foreign policy, you speak the same language. But then you destroy any chance at mutual attraction with ill-informed idiocy and low-life hate-mongering.

    Christendom and Islam had a centuries old truce until the Christian nations colonialism, and then neo-colonialism (multinationals) beat the living shit out of Muslim people, now ongoing for decades. The tidal wave of Islam presently invading Europe is a direct result of only the latest iteration. Fucking over the Iranians and propping up the earlier murderous Shah (which caused the Iranians to deliver the Ayatollahs to power) is an example of a Bush Sr mentor’s dirty work (Alan Dulles initiated that crap, Ike never made a worse judgement in people he trusted.)

    Reagan sucked as a leader. The elder Bush put Reagan in power (‘October Surprise’), and Reagan let that creep run the show, what a puppet. “Reagan with fangs?” Are you kidding me? That would amount to Iran-Contra on steroids in geopolitical theater. Moron.

    ^ You need to up the IQ (seriously)

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    Ann supports him too.

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  6. Maj. Kong says:

    The history of the postwar conservative movement is indeed a legacy of failure. But the failure begins not with the neoconservatives claiming to be “mugged by reality”, it begins with the very real personal failings of William F. Buckley Jr.

    The man regarded as the movement’s founder, was the descendant of oil money who lived as an Long Island version of the Beverly Hillbilies. In addition to his time in the CIA, and their likely funding of NR as they did Partisan Review, he was always motivated to keep the ‘movement’ on an internationalist track. Others were tolerated until their foundations could be rotted, and then subsequently demolished.

    If indeed as it appears, Trump wins the nomination, the GOP elected officeholders will almost certainly grovel toward his position. The neoconservatives will face a starker quandry, they depend almost entirely on the generosity of two men: Murdoch and Anschutz. This funding is dependent on their ability to be ideological gatekeepers. If they can’t do that, they will retreat back to the center-left that their fathers left with the death of Henry Jackson. They have regressed to the mean.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  7. JBloom says: • Website

    If the choice is between DEMOCRAT Donald Trump as the Republican Party nominee and anyone the Democrats nominate, I am looking for a 3rd Party Candidates. As for me and my house I will not vote for a Democrat even if they have an (R) next to their name. I created a FB Group,, that contains information on the Real Donald Trump, exposing the Truth about the FRAUD we see now.

  8. @Priss Factor

    Yeah, we know… and if Coulter’s skirt were any shorter:

    John Yoo: Object!

    Mr Chief Justice Roberts: Mr Yoo?

    John Yoo: If Ms Coulter’s skirt were any shorter, we’d be arguing the color of her panties!

  9. Rich says:

    The only thing that matters at this point in American history is stopping the flow of both illegal and legal aliens. Our children will be living in a 3rd world hell hole, eking out a living on low wages in an overcrowded country if we don’t do something now. Look around at jobs that even in the 70’s and 80’s that were held by native born Americans that are now closed to them because they are held by illegals at slave wages. Maybe Trump won’t do anything, but he’s the only candidate offering us a chance.

    • Agree: Hubbub, Clyde
    • Replies: @Unz Reader
  10. HOW in the flaming hell did ted cruz become a front runner in the gop race? are the other candidates that bad? even when compare to cruz?

    • Replies: @nuthinbutnet
  11. tbraton says:

    Thus posts JBloom in his very first post on I wonder who he has in mind with that third party run. Michael Bloomberg, perhaps? Blooomberg is the only person I recall who has mentioned a third-party run for President, but that was only if Hillary Clinton didn’t get the Democratic nomination. So Bloomberg would be perfectly happy with Hillary as President, which tells you all you need to know about Bloomberg and JBloom. As I recall, Bloomberg once ran as a Republican since he knew there was no way he could get nominated by the Democratic Party, despite being a very liberal Democrat his entire life. He dropped the Republican pretense on his subsequent two runs for mayor of New York City. Does he think we should all vote for Bloomberg, a true Democrat, despite the fact that he seems to favor immigration and supports foreign wars against nonenemies of the U.S.?

    • Replies: @Sherman
    , @JBloom
    , @Sam Shama
  12. @Carlton Meyer

    Trump’s “liberal” comments in favor of choice for abortion and single payer healthcare is exactly what makes him electable, and intelligent.

    Two of the least conservative positions imaginable.

    However, “single payer” might be the quickest and easiest way to eliminate legal abortion. No medical procedure not paid for by the central state will be permitted, and, following the example of foreign aid, not one dime will be spent on abortion.

    It will be illegal for any private party to donate funds for an abortion, or even for the individual to pay for it herself. Single-payer means SINGLE payer. You are not the state, so you have no such right.

    Voilà! The end of legal abortion.

    • Disagree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @RobinG
  13. Odysseus says: • Website

    I think of Donald Trump not as a candidate but as a weapon. A weapon which I intend to use recklessly and carelessly in pursuit of a political Gotterdammerung. I am totally uninterested in criticisms and in the supposed qualities of other candidates. The disgust and anger I feel permits no other choice. With any luck, he might be a good President. The most important thing right now, though, is to wreak vengeance on the establishment. You can label my choice as foolish. I believe that there are many people behind Trump right now that are just like me: we don’t care what you or anyone else says. We have been stifled long enough. Now we’re going to lash out.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig, CK
  14. @JBloom

    You’d have supported John Anderson in 1980, too.

    • Replies: @JBloom
  15. @Jonathan Revusky

    I had to laugh at how Mr. Cathey carefully avoids mentioning the ethnic origin of the Neoconservatives

    The first neoconservatives were the Southerners who voted for Goldwater– an abrupt change from their previous favorites of Wilson, FDR, and Stevenson.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  16. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Although Trump talks in the language of the average person he’s just one man. What sort of team would he bring with him and where would he recruit them from? Who’s his foreign policy advisor? Would he pick one from the same stable that every other president has gotten direction from, the same names popping up year after year no matter the party in power, or can he reach outside the closed circle and find capable people elsewhere? Reagan was out there giving speeches but in the meantime CIA man Bush was in the basement of the White House helping carry out things like what later became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Could Trump be more than a songbird in a gilded cage? Jeb is still hanging around so perhaps he expects Trump to be derailed in some as yet unknown way. There’s a ways to go yet so we’ll see what happens. At this point I’m expecting unexpected things to happen.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  17. Sherman says:

    I can’t stand Trump, Cruz, Hillary or Sanders.

    I pray that Bloomberg runs.

    He’s not an ideologue and he believes in using any idea as long as it works. Furthermore, he’s so wealthy he doesn’t have to kiss anyone else’s butt for money.

    As opposed to Trump, Bloomberg actually built a thriving business all by himself. Trump was born into the real estate business and needed government and bank bailouts on many occasions.

    When Bloomberg was mayor of NYC he actually did a very good job.

  18. Rehmat says:


    My answer is very simple and short. They’re all more loyal to Israel than America where they live and made their $millions fortunes.

    Every current US presidential hopeful has assured the Jewish Lobby and Netanyahu that if elected, he/she would fight more Israel’s proxy wars in the Muslim world including Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc. But most American voters don’t know that none of these odd 20 candidates ever served in America’s wars around the world since WWII.

    In fact, Presidents George Bush, Father, and George Bush, son did not do active military duty. Presidents Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also did not join any of US military adventures (here). But, these four US presidents have more Muslim blood on their hands than all US presidents since George Washington.

    On December 18, 2015, Ramon Mejia reported that all the Republican presidential candidates, who are pledging more wars for America’s security, none of them has took part in a single US War. The same goes for Republican Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

    “As a US Marine veteran who was deployed to Iraq in 2003, I can’t even begin to describe the disgust I felt while watching the GOP debate on Tuesday night. Presidential candidate after presidential candidate attempted to one-up each other by highlighting how tough they would be as future commanders in chief. Each solution they presented demonstrated what little regard they had for the loss of life, and how quick they would be to resort to acts most often referred to as war crimes,” Ramon Mejia.

    • Replies: @RJJCDA
  19. tbraton says:

    I notice that you don’t even bother to address the issues of immigration and foreign wars. BTW I recall that Mort Zuckerman years ago on the McLaughlin Group also used to speak highly of Mike Bloomberg and thought he would make a great President, which tells me all I need to know about Mike Bloomberg. He probably would be great for Israel. I doubt he would be great for the U.S.

    BTW here is what Bloomberg’s position on immigration is:

    ” Normalize status of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants

    Bloomberg is a supporter of immigration reform to secure the rights of illegal immigrants. He argues that deportation breaks up families and scares illegal immigrants away from cooperating with law enforcement or accessing vital social services; as such, he supports proposals like those put forth by Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, which would normalize the status of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants already present.
    Source: entry, “Michael_Bloomberg” May 2, 2007

    Border controls fight natural forces of supply and demand

    Bloomberg believes that border enforcement is somewhat futile. He told the Senate hearing on Immigration Legislation on 5 July 2006: “It is as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: Defeat the natural forces of supply and demand and defeat the natural human instinct for freedom and opportunity. You might as well sit on the beach and tell the tide not to come in.”
    Source: entry, “Michael_Bloomberg” May 2, 2007″

    I find the analogy between controlling immigration and trying to stop the tides absolutely hilarious BS from this exceptionally smart man. I wonder if he tells the Israelis the same thing.

    • Replies: @Epaminondas
  20. tbraton says:

    “Who’s his foreign policy advisor?”

    When he first started running, Trump would often drop the name of John Bolton as one of his foreign policy advisers. Then I noticed he not only stopped invoking Bolton’s name but started taking positions on foreign policy issues (such as Korea and Syria and Russia) that made me wonder whether Bolton was still on his team., since the positions seemed antithetical to things I heard Bolton state in the past. A few days ago I came across a piece that stated that John Bolton is now part of Ted Cruz’s team, so I guess that answers my question. I realize John Bolton himself has claimed that he is not a neoconservative, but I’m not clear on what he bases his distinction on.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    , @Junior
  21. Rich says:

    It’s true that Michael Bloomberg is a very successful man, he was a Wall St insider who parlayed his huge paydays into a media empire, but he is also more of an ideologue than you seem to want to admit. He is rabidly anti-2nd amendment and would bar gun ownership completely if he could. He is also a health fanatic for people other than himself, trying to restrict the amount of soda a person could drink and even forcing restaurants to cut down on the salt they cooked into their food. He banned beer from Central Park events, but allowed wine for events he favored. He piled fine after fine onto businesses and individuals in NYC to increase revenue. He closed all the OTB’s in NYC because he didn’t like them and increased property taxes on the middle class. He lived off Giuliani’s successes, not his own ideas.

  22. tbraton says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “The first neoconservatives were the Southerners who voted for Goldwater– an abrupt change from their previous favorites of Wilson, FDR, and Stevenson.”

    That’s twisting the term “neoconservative” into a shape which makes the term useless. “Neoconservative” was a term specifically invented by former Trotskyite Irving Kristol to explain his and his followers switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, after they became disenchanted with the McGovernites takeover of the Democratic Party. For a primer on “neoconservatives,” check out my messages on TAC about 5 years ago: and and

    or check out Jack Hunter’s piece to which I was responding:

  23. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Dear Alt Right Comrades

    Is Donald Trump for the passage of a new Chiniese Exclusion Act?….Korean Exclusion Act?….Sihk Exclusion Act?….Hindu Exclusion Act?

    Then why should we vote for Trump?

    On Nov 3…2016…who will be voting fucking whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority? Very obvious answer:Chinese “Americans”…Sihk “Americans”…Korean “Americans”….Hindu “Americans”..Phillipino “Americans”…

    You are gonna hate every minute…every hour….every day…every week…every month….and every year of being a White racial minority in post-white ecoli infested toilet bowl “America”…you will….you will…

  24. Realist says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    What yo say is correct. Most people pervert the meaning of neocon. They use it to mean warmonger or hegemonic asshole. Neocon means new conservative which implies they were liberals before. Some Jews are the only people that fit that definition.

  25. J1234 says:

    Why I don’t support Trump…a picture of his New York apartment:

    Just eight short months ago, nobody thought of Trump as, “one of us.” Because he wasn’t. And still isn’t. That photo should make that clear. Trump is still the person he’s been for the last 40 years. I’ve come to see the “new” Trump as someone who’s recognized – and capitalized on – a grossly under served political market: those of us who rightly see illegal and mass immigration as the death of our nation and western civilization. I’m not saying he doesn’t agree with us at some level, but his sudden embrace of populism is almost certainly just the means to achieve the ultimate power trip. The presidency.

    Trump is the sort of person that, once you’ve given him what he wants (your votes) he no longer has a need for you. His life story seems to show this over and over again. Bottom line – I don’t trust him. I can understand why others support him and will vote for him. But it’s probably wrong to think of him as an immigration savior. He’ll likely build a wall if elected, but as scenarios and political environments change, Donald Trump will change to. Because for him, it’s about Donald Trump, first and foremost.

  26. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Dear Alt Righter Comrades

    Post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy which gave us Barack Obama POTUS 2008+2012 is a direct consequence of the COLD WAR against Russia after the end of WW2. And what drove the Cold War was MEGA-CEO monumental SATANIC GREED.

    The Cold War against Russia gave us..1)The integration of the US Military….2)the 1964 Civil Rights Act…which gave us the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act…which gave as the Chinese,Korean,Phillipino,Hindu,Sihk,Pakstani interlopers to the Historic American scene…the various Asian Fifth columns are voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 3 2016…and they will be doing it enthusiastically.

    The Cold War against Russia….which gave us NATO which is a Military alliance of “Christian” America with Muslim Turkey against Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia….and Muslim Michigan and Ottoman colonized Poconos PA..

    Time to re-think the Cold War!!!

  27. “We need a Reagan with fangs.”

    No. We need Andrew Jackson on steroids.

    Should Trump become president, he needs to be careful that none of the GOP snakes slip into his administration, as they did with Reagan. These people are vile and should be exiled to political oblivion.

  28. @Sherman

    “He’s not an ideologue.”

    Whatever you’re smoking, I’ll have a stick of it.

  29. @Ronald Thomas West

    “Christendom and Islam had a centuries old truce until the Christian nations colonialism, and then neo-colonialism (multinationals) beat the living shit out of Muslim people, now ongoing for decades.”

    Up through the 1820s North African mohamed worshippers were engaging in massive amounts of piracy and raids on the coats of Christian nations on the north shores of the Mediterranean. Hundred of thousands, perhaps millions, of Christians were enslaved and/or held for ransom. Ultimately the subjugation of these piratical nations was the only way to restore order to the Mediterranean.

    Until the European nations – particularly Britain – put an end to it in the latter part of the nineteenth century the trafficking in African slave by mohamed worshipers was a massive enterprise. Even the temporary subjugation of the nations sponsoring this trade did not obliterate it. Since the decolonization of Africa it has sprung up once again. The mohamed worshiping natives of the African Horn and the Arabian peninsula and its mohamed worshipping natives are once again a major centers of human trafficking and slavery.

    The war between mohamed worshippers and the rest of humanity has never ended. There was just a temporary surcease when the Christain nations of Europe and the new world crushed the ability of mohamed worshippers to do much harm to others. Now, taking advantage of the spinelessness and ignorance of useful idiots like you, mohamed worshipers are once again waging a somewhat successful war on the rest of humanity. If they are not stopped now the world is in for a long and very nasty period of violence, piracy, slavery and all the many other gifts mohamed worshipers bring to the table.

  30. @tbraton

    “I wonder if he tells the Israelis the same thing.”

    Bloomberg probably helped design and pay for their border wall.

  31. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:


    In 2016…post-passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, we are replaying The Cuban Missile Crisis(the near extinction of the Human Species) in Syria and the Ukraine and the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act(in the form of the Kenyan Foreigner’s administrative amnesty.

  32. tbraton says:

    Therefore, since Trump has proven himself unworthy of your vote, your favorite is who?

  33. @J1234

    But the reason that anti-immigration is an under-served agenda is because being pro-immigration is a sine qua non issue for the elites of both parties. Pandering to this segment amounts to a declaration of war against the most powerful political forces in the country. Not exactly a pragmatic move for someone whose only goal is a power grab.

    And it’s not like this is a completely out-of-the-blue shift into populism or taboo violation. His loyalty to the blue-collar base on trade issues and healthcare/social security is long-standing. He joined the “birther” crowd against Obama. He took an anti-vaccine position that is a synonym for idiocy among the elites. He opposed the Iraq war at the peak of its popularity.

    You are right that he is susceptible to changing his opinions – he’s been all over the place on immigration and he seems like he could care less on the social issues. But at least on immigration, his stances seem to be tied on an emotional level to the blue-collar types he has long been loyal to. And on social issues he has struck me as a genuine regionalist: the New York values quote from the ’99 interview isn’t so bad when you consider he respects the differences between his values and an Iowan’s. His pandering is actually pretty genuine from that perspective: he doesn’t pretend to be a Midwesterner or even to understand them, but he makes a pretty good case that they are good people who don’t need to be changed into NYers.

  34. bondo says:

    neocon = jewcon + jewpet = warmongers for israel.

  35. tbraton says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    ” Is it not plausible to see most of the Jewish neo-cons as people who maintain mental comfort with some such general prima facie belief as “what’s good for Israel is generally good for the USA”? It may have been urban myth that he said it but no one seems to have rejected as absurd the “what’s good for General Motors is good for the USA” of “Engine Charlie” Wilson when Secretary of Defense.”

    But when Charlie Wilson allegedly made that remark about General Motors, the company he left as CEO to become Secretary of Defense under Eisenhower, General Motors was, by far, the dominant automobile company in the U.S. and the world. As my father used to say at the time, nearly one in seven Americans were involved in the automobile business, in one capacity or another. So, it is understandable why Charlie Wilson might say “what’s good for General Motors is good for the USA.”

    But, as you know, that is not what he said. “During the hearings, when asked if he could make a decision as Secretary of Defense that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively. But he added that he could not conceive of such a situation “because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa”.” I cannot imagine any political appointee today being asked whether he could make a decision as a government official that would be adverse to the State of Israel. And I would certainly challenge his words if he were to add that “he could not conceive of such a situation because he thought what was good for our country was good for Israel and vice versa.”

    I would first challenge him by asking how Americans benefit from the annual $3+ billion we shell out to Israel (and have been shelling out for nearly 40 years since the Carter Administration). Wouldn’t that money be better spent here in the U.S. on schools, bridges, roads, etc.? Secondly, I would say that obviously Israel greatly benefited from our war against Iraq (in which Israel contributed no fighting men or paid for out of their own pockets) but I fail to see what benefit the U.S. derived from that war. And Israel and its friends here in the U.S. were active in trying to defeat the nuclear deal we worked out with Iran and were trying desperately to have the U.S. attack Iran (‘bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” as Sen. McCain would sing) to eliminate Iran as a possible threat to that little piss-ant country in the Middle East. I fail to see how that would benefit the U.S. in any way, and I can see how it would have serious repercussions on the U.S.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  36. Stan says:

    Here is a profile of he scumbag who funds Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio

    A call came in from New York to my bosses at BBC Television Centre, London. It was from one of the knuckle- draggers on the payroll of billionaire Paul Singer, Number One funder for the Republican Party in New York, million-dollar donor to the Mitt Romney super-PAC, and top money-giver to the GOP Senate campaign fund. But better known to us as Singer The Vulture.

    “We have a file on Greg Palast.”

    Well, of course they do.

    And I have a file on them.

    I had just returned from traveling up the Congo River for BBC and the Guardian. Singer’s enforcer indicated that Mr. Singer would prefer BBC not run a story about him— especially not with film of his suffering prey: children, cholera victims.

    Like any vulture, Singer feasts when victims die. Literally. For example, Singer made a pile buying asbestos company Owens Corning out of bankruptcy. The company had concealed from its workers they would get asbestosis from handling their product.


    You don’t want to die of asbestosis. Your lungs turn to mush and you drown inside yourself.

    The asbestos company was forced to pay tens of thousands of its workers for their medical care and for their families after their deaths.

    But then Singer used his political muscle to screw down the compensation promised to the workers. He offered them peanuts. And, dying, they took it. Like the Ice Man, Singer The Vulture used the cudgel of “tort reform” to beat the weakened workers into submission. With asbestos workers buried or bought-off cheap, Singer’s asbestos death factories were now worth a fortune . . . and Singer made his first “killing.”

    Then it was on to Peru, where Singer had, through a brilliant financial-legal maneuver too questionable for others to attempt, grabbed control of the entire financial system of the country. When Peru’s scamp of a president, Alberto Fujimori, decided it was a good idea to flee his country (ahead of his arrest on murder charges), Singer, Peru’s lawyer Mark Cymrot of Baker & Hostetler told me, let Fujimori escape in return for the Murderer-in-Chief ordering Peru’s treasury to pay Singer $58 million. Singer had seized Peru’s “Air Force One” presidential jet; for the payoff, Singer handed him the keys to the getaway plane.

    And by the way, I didn’t give Singer the name “Vulture.”

    His own banker buddies did—with admiration in their voices.

    What provoked the threatening call to BBC from Singer’s tool was my film from the Congos (there are two nations in Africa called “Congo”). There is a cholera epidemic in West Africa due to lack of clean water. Our investigation learned that Singer paid about $10 million for some “debt” supposedly incurred by the Republic of Congo. To collect on his $10 million, Singer had begun seizing about $400 million in the poor nation’s assets.

    Clean water for the Congo? Forget it—Singer and his vulture colleagues grabbed it all.

    In Africa, I spoke with Winston Tubman, the former deputy secretary-general of the UN. He asked me to ask the Vulture and his cronies, “Do you know you are causing babies to die?”

    It’s legal, it’s sick, it’s Singer.

    Well, not legal in most of the civilized world. Britain, Germany, Holland, and many others have outlawed Singer’s repo-man seizures. In Europe, Singer is a financial outlaw. But in the USA, he’s a “job creator.”

    Singer The Vulture gets loads of positive press, in the New York Times especially, where the corpse-chewer offered an open checkbook to any state Republican who would vote for the right of gays to marry. Don’t think of this as an unselfish act of moral courage: it was more droit du seigneur, the right of the Lords of the Manor to deflower the virgins of choice on their lands. The Vulture’s son wanted to marry another man, and so Vulture would buy the New York State Legislature to approve the nuptials. (That almost all Singer’s money would go to national candidates who would make gay marriage illegal, well, money is thicker than blood.)

    But, under press cover of funding the GOP for social rights, Singer’s influence in the state legislature has paid back a hundredfold. He lobbied the legislature to change the law on the calculation of interest charges on his vulture loan-sharking operation, a change that will guarantee him hundreds of millions of dollars more from the Congo.

    The Vulture’s latest hit was a pay-off from the bankrupt government of Greece.

    On April 4, 2012, seventy-seven-year-old Greek pharmacist Dimitris Christoulas wrote, “I find no other solution for a dignified end before I start sifting through garbage to feed myself.” Christoulas then shot himself in the head. The government had cut his pension as part of an austerity plan to pay foreign creditors. One in four workers also lost their jobs.

    Greece’s creditor banks took their pound of flesh, but gave up some of theirs, canceling 80 percent of the loan principal. That is, all but two “bankers”: billionaires Ken Dart and Singer The Vulture told the European Central Bank and Greek government, they wanted it all. Singer and Dart would not cancel 80 percent or even 8 percent of the bonds they held, even though Singer and Dart, apparently, only paid a fraction of the face value for them only a few weeks before. Either the Greek government would pay Singer and Dart several times what the speculators invested, or Singer and Dart would undermine the entire bailout deal, bringing down the remnant of Greece’s economy—and the rest of Europe with it.

    Held hostage, the Greek government dipped into its emptying purse and paid Singer and Dart every penny they demanded. Singer’s co-investors in his fund Elliott Management made a killing—including the “blind” trust of one Mittens Romney.

    But the Vulture’s gravy train of greed was about to run into an unexpected obstacle on the track. On April 4, just hours after Christoulas took his own life, in a courtroom in Washington, DC, the President of the United States and his Secretary of State hit Singer with a legal brick. Without any public announcement, without the usual press release and in language so abstruse only a lunatic journalist who went to the University of Chicago Law School would notice, Obama’s Justice Department nailed the Vulture to the wall.

    It was Ash Wednesday and Obama’s boys drove those nails in: they demanded a US federal court to stop Singer from attacking Argentina.

    In this case, Singer had sued to get millions, even billions, from the government of Argentina for old debt that President Ronald Reagan had already settled in a deal involving the biggest US banks. But Reagan’s deal was not good enough for Singer and his hedge fund NML Capital. Singer demanded that a US court order Argentina to pay him ten times the amount he’d get under the Reagan deal. And to get his way, the Vulture also sued to stop the Big Banks from getting their own payments from the Reagan deal.

    But then a bolt of legal lightning cooked the Vulture’s goose: Obama’s Justice Department and Hillary Clinton’s State Department together filed an amicus curiae, a “friend of the court” brief in the case of NML Capital et al. v. Republic of Argentina. It wasn’t all that friendly. Obama, a constitutional law professor, suddenly remembered that the president has the power, unique to the Constitution of the USA, to kick the Vulture’s ass up and down the continent, then do it again.

    Specifically, Obama and Clinton demanded the court throw out Singer’s attempt to bankrupt Argentina (because that is what Singer’s demand would have done).

    This was Singer’s nightmare: that the President of the United States would invoke his extraordinary constitutional authority under the Separation of Powers clause to block the Vulture and his hedge-fund buddies from making superprofits over the dead bodies of desperate nations.

    The stakes in the legal-financial-political war are enormous, yet the real battle is hidden from the public view.

    A titanic struggle had now been set in motion, a battle over billions, between the Obama administration and the wealthiest men in America, the hedge-fund billionaires, all out of sight of the public and press.

    Argentina’s consul called me from DC, stunned by the Clinton move. WTF? Did I have any info?

    I said, this action goes way, way beyond Argentina. Obama and Clinton told the court that the Vulture was undermining the safety of the entire world financial system, destabilizing every financial rescue mission from South America to Greece to the Congo. (What would Romney do? His expected replacement for Clinton would be his chief foreign policy advisor Dan Senor—currently on the payroll of . . . Paul Singer.)

    Does Obama have the stones to stick with his decision? And do Singer and friends, working with Karl Rove, have the money-knife which could cut them off?

    The Rove-bots are already flashing their blade: in June 2012, Republicans on the House Committee on Financial Services held an unprecedented emergency hearing about the president’s stealth move on the Vulture. They sat for testimony by Ted Olsen, George Bush’s former solicitor general, who attacked Obama and Clinton with code words and inscrutable legalismo, not once mentioning Singer or his hedge fund by name.

    But in the White House and on the top floors of the Wall Street towers, they knew exactly what this was all about. And in the golf carts on Martha’s Vineyard, they knew the Vulture had to be put in his place. Robert Wolf, golfing with President Obama on the Cape, was furious. The CEO of UBS (a.k.a. United Bank of Switzerland), had put together the Argentina deal. And Swiss bankers don’t allow anyone to move the hole on their green.

    Wolf bundled plenty of campaign loot for Obama, who made Wolf his “economic recovery” advisor. UBS has recovered nicely (with a sweet plea-bargain deal on criminal tax-evasion charges).

    Now, UBS, JPMorgan, and Citibank chieftains are lined up with Obama and Clinton. The Establishment banks look upon the nouvelle vultures like Singer as economic berserkers, terrorists in a helicopter ready to pull the pin on the grenade. If Singer’s demands aren’t met, he’ll blow up the planet’s finance system. In this war of titans, Obama and Clinton are merely foot soldiers, not the generals. It’s billionaire banking-powers versus billionaire hedge-fund speculators. One is greedy and scary and the other is greedy and plain dangerous. Take your pick.

    Here is the real battle—a winner-take-all war over the control of the world financial system.

    * * * * * *
    Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Billionaires & Ballot Bandits,The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Armed Madhouse and the highly acclaimed Vultures’ Picnic.

  37. @Jus' Sayin'...

    There was a truce in the middle east. Then what a lot of horseshit you spout about colonialism and Christians in Africa. If in doubt, check this out, a fairly up to date (neo-colonial) example:

    Not to mention Christians and Muslims alike sold people into slavery. And how many Christians bought and brought slaves out of Africa? Nah, not impressed at all. For instance in Belgium, Congo (above video) is still a source of pride, (rational people) go figure –

  38. While I am not yet ready to support Trump, Boyd Cathey has written an excellent piece here articulating what happened to the Conservative movement since Reagan was elected. He has cut through all the subterfuge like a hot knife through butter. I always knew that something went terribly wrong once Reagan was given the GOP nomination, and my first insight into this was when Reagan considered putting Gerald Ford on the ticket as a “co-President” at the convention in Detroit in 1980. Reagan finally balked, but he put George Bush in as Veep instead. The Bushies then took over the reins of the government by making all the staffing appointments. Reagan was too overwhelmed by the Neocoms and his wife to be able to withstand what was happening in his administration.

    I am not sure that Donald Trump won’t be co-opted by these same people as was Ronald Reagan. They are powerful, facile, and a scourge on the face of the earth.

  39. Sam Shama says:

    Mike Bloomberg is really well loved by Hispanic voters, women, health conscious population [which the younger generations are], small business owners and let’s face it, by Wall Street and Silicon Valley. He is also widely regarded as a centrist Repub-Democrat [which means a great many crossover Dems would vote for him].

    If MB decides to jump in, a ‘yuuuge’ number of erstwhile Trump supporters will move to his side and Mike might end up playing kingmaker or even better be the Man .

    In a year where we are searching for the genuine article, Mike’s candidacy would be a true gift.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    , @tbraton
  40. bunga says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Tortures and captivity of the innocent passengers on the sea or in the lands have been a peculiar European traits for centuries from the time of Rome

    When the Morocaan or Libyan were engaging in it ,they were simply following the traditions.
    .Back then Pirates from Europe were called Privateers .Drake was anointed by Queen for being the best Pirate as the most adulated and exalted Privateer.
    So were Vaso Da Gama . So many slaves he took back to Europe from India that even Cortez could not compete with . The Europeans would seize them on land and from the boat on the sea.

    Now a nice history from-
    by John Feffer

    “In 1748, as part of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, France regained Cape Breton from Great Britain. The island, off the coast of Nova Scotia, had passed back and forth between the two countries over the years, and previous treaties had been as binding as toilet paper. But as part of the 1748 treaty, Great Britain sent several British peers to Paris as a guarantee of the British king’s good faith in the latest agreement.

    The transfer of Cape Breton was a rather insignificant provision of a largely forgotten treaty. But the implementation of the treaty was hugely important.

    The dispatch of the British peers was the last incidence of an ancient and once-common tradition: the use of hostages as part of the negotiating process. If the British reneged on their promises, the French could simply throw the peers into chains (or worse), much as their Roman predecessors had turned well-treated hostages into prisoners of war in the case of non-compliance. After 1748, however, countries would no longer put the bodies of their citizens on the line in the service of international diplomacy.”

    21st Jan 2015

  41. RobinG says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    You said, “No medical procedure not paid for by the central state will be permitted, ”

    Do you have the same position on tummy-tucks and breast enhancements? (Just the first ‘optionals’ that come to mind.) —Which MY tax dollars are sure as Hell not paying for! I can’t remember, are you always an idiot and dictator?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The interesting thing about Trump, and something that sets him apart from all the other candidates, is that he’s had to borrow lots of money from big banks. He knows at least some of their tricks. He knows what it means to owe money, not in the consumer role that everyone has to play, but in the big leagues. Some journalists look at him and Romney and say: two rich guys, what’s the difference? There’s a lot of difference. One was a lender and one was a borrower. Maybe this is the real key to understanding why the establishment is losing its poop over Trump.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  43. RJJCDA says:

    One slight cavil: Neoconservatism was born in late 60s and early 70s precisely when the international left turned away from Israel and embraced the Palestinian cause.

  44. schmenz says:
    @Sam Shama

    “…Mike’s candidacy would be a true gift.”

    To Goldman Sachs.

  45. RJJCDA says:

    Bush senior was a Navy pilot during WWII, and his son was an Air Force Reserve pilot during Vietnam. I, a Vietnam vet, despise than both despite their service.

  46. @Reg Cæsar

    The first neoconservatives were the Southerners who voted for Goldwater– an abrupt change from their previous favorites of Wilson, FDR, and Stevenson.

    I think it’s pretty safe to say that those are not the neocons that Mr. Cathey is referring to in this article.

  47. JBloom says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    I voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and Howard Philips of the US Taxpayers Party against Bob “The Public” Dole who never worked in the private sector.

  48. JBloom says: • Website

    US Constitutional Party Candidate. I’d even consider Former Senator Web, which is less liberal than Trump and his Democrat soulmate/cellmate Hillary.

  49. tbraton says:
    @Sam Shama

    “In a year where we are searching for the genuine article, Mike’s candidacy would be a true gift.”

    Aren’t you the same poster who back on Jan. 19, 2016 (just a week ago) stated that Bernie Sanders was going to be our next President? Here’s what you said:
    “Bernie Sanders will win the nomination and the general election.”

    Of course, there won’t be a Mike Bloomberg candidacy unless Bernie Sanders is the nominee, so it looks like a classic case of wanting to eat your cake and having it too. I don’t think it will be known for sure that Bernie is going to be the nominee by March, when Bloomberg has said he will make his decision. If Bernie is the nominee of the Democrats and Bloomberg does announce his third party candidacy, you’re going to have some hard thinking to do, which it doesn’t appear you have spent much time doing up to now. It definitely looks like you are desperate to have a Jewish President of the U.S. It apparently doesn’t matter to you whether it is a Jewish Socialist or a Jewish billionaire businessman. Why do you think the U.S. is in desperate need of having a Jewish President?

    BTW I see you have posted a total of 8 messages, starting with that Bernie Sanders prediction on Jan. 19. Somehow I have the feeling you were created just for the purpose of creating the illusion that someone agrees with the delusional thoughts of Sherman re his hero Mike Bloomberg.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  50. tbraton says:

    ” Maybe this is the real key to understanding why the establishment is losing its poop over Trump.”

    No, I think Chris Mathews of MSNBC actually put his finger on the reason. (No fan of Mathews here. Even a blind pig finds an acorn or two every now and then.) According to a piece that appeared on RCP this morning, Mathews thinks the real reason is that all those NR types are upset with Trump’s anti-war attitude, specifically his denouncing GWB’s War on Iraq.

    Scott McConnell, one of three founders of The American Conservative, makes the same point over at TAC:

    “But of course anyone giving Trump a look knew that already. His differences from establishment conservatism are part of his appeal. To understand that, it helps to consider what “really existing conservatism” has has meant to Americans over the past generation. The blunt truth is that the most important “conservative” project in recent memory was the Iraq war, which cost trillions, wrecked the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and set the Middle East aflame for what will probably be a generation. Programmatically, the war was the project of a Republican president and his administration. It was backed enthusiastically by National Review (see “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” linked above), but had its intellectual origins in the world of neoconservatism. Not coincidentally, Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz, editors of magazines which were agitating for war against Iraq long before 9/11, are probably the best known among NR‘s slate of Trump denouncers. In other words, as the United States still grapples with the chaotic aftermath of that Iraq invasion, NR and the rest of Conservatism Inc. unleash a verbal torrent claiming that Donald Trump is a threat to those concepts—“small government,” “the permanent things”—which true conservatives supposedly hold dear. It’s almost comical.”

    • Replies: @RobinG
  51. bondo says:

    vote bloomberg.
    ’bout time the u.s. had a totalitarian israeli in the oval synagogue

  52. RobinG says:

    “Mathews thinks the real reason is that all those NR types are upset with Trump’s anti-war attitude, specifically his denouncing GWB’s War on Iraq”

    Absolutely. And Trump is the ONLY candidate (Rep. or Dem.) who has spoken so clearly against the wars, regime-changes, and chaos.

    So, what do you make of Sarah Palin arriving in Iowa to proclaim that Trump “will let our warriors kick ISIS’ ass” ? Did Trump green-light that declaration? Has she repeated her war-cry at subsequent rallies? Has there been a retraction or clarification?

    • Replies: @tbraton
  53. Dr. Cathay, this is a great and brilliant article. I think very much the same way about Trump. You have gotten to the heart of the matter by correctly apprehending that Trump actually represents traditional conservative values, and that the Neocons are terrified of that. Once again, Trump is Julius Caesar and the Neocons are Brutus and Cassius.

    I’ll also take the time here to reiterate my observation that Ted Cruz looks just like Bronson Pinchot doing a Pee-wee Herman impersonation. The contrasting physiognomy between Trump and Cruz is rather telling, I think.

  54. Aschwin says:

    Another “staunch conservative” from Team Lose-A-Lot proving to us that movement conservatism has not only been impotent for the last thirty years but is uncapable of understanding American politics and can never be anything else.

  55. tbraton says:

    “Absolutely. And Trump is the ONLY candidate (Rep. or Dem.) who has spoken so clearly against the wars, regime-changes, and chaos.”

    Well, I think Rand Paul has also spoken out against those foreign wars, but Trump basically stole his thunder on that issue. I believe it was Pat Buchanan who wrote after the last Republican debate about how “Trump, Paul and Cruz” had distinguished themselves with their anti-war rhetoric, and I took issue with his inclusion of Cruz in that category. I don’t trust Cruz at all on this issue and other issues, such as immigration.

    ” So, what do you make of Sarah Palin arriving in Iowa to proclaim that Trump “will let our warriors kick ISIS’ ass” ? Did Trump green-light that declaration? Has she repeated her war-cry at subsequent rallies? Has there been a retraction or clarification?”

    I have never been a Sarah Palin fan, but I was glad to see her endorse Trump, since there are people out there who are affected by her opinion. I watched that announcement on TV, and I was struck by Trump’s response. He appeared to think, like me, that Palin was going on for much too long and saying a lot of nonsensical things. He gave me the impression that, as much as he welcomed her endorsement, he wished the endorsement speech was half as long as it was.

    Now, whether her statements mean anything about Trump’s position with respect to ISIS, I doubt it. As I noted recently, Trump is no longer being advised by John Bolton, who has moved to the Cruz campaign. I believe Trump’s consistently dovish remarks about foreign policy became too much for Bolton to take, so he did what comes naturally to a “Bolton”—he bolted. In light of Trump’s handling of Bolton, I don’t think he will allow Palin’s warlike comments to affect his policy. I still have the sneaking suspicion that Pat Buchanan may be a behind the scenes adviser to Trump, but Trump has decided to keep that quiet in order not to stir up more resistance to his candidacy than he has already. (It was Trump’s off-the-cuff comment in the first Republican debate last August about our troops in Korea that got me thinking about a possible Trump-Buchanan relationship. If I am correct, all the better. That may assure that Trump is sincere in his foreign policy pronouncements and won’t backslide if he becomes President.)

    • Replies: @anonymous
  56. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This was a well communicated piece that captured the essence of why I, a former Rand Paul supporter, am now supporting Donald J. Trump. Where I had even considered Ted Cruz as an alternative to Trump, after in depth research, I can no longer even ponder any thoughts of doing so.

    Without repeating many of your great points, I just want to say that Mr. Trump represents a major shake up in the political system. In fact, no matter how you look at this year’s election, Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders are rattling the feathers of the old guard Republicans and Democrats who both support perpetual wars, abuse of power, ongoing investigations and cover-ups. Trump may not be a Ron and Rand Paul whom I admire but a Trump presidency is an opportunity to begin winning over more Democrats who are on the fence of these two parties. If Rand Paul plays his cards right, he may even be able to sit down with Mr. Trump and try to win him over on libertarian ideas. After meeting him with some Black pastors at a rally, I’m convinced that he will have the ear of other voices and since one of his main advisers is a Libertarian, this makes it even highly likely.

    Regarding Mr. Cruz, he will move closer to the old guard Republicans (neo-conservatives) if elected. This will happen because much of the campaign money he receives will require that he do it. His connections to many of the big banks via his wife and campaign funding will make it a forgone conclusion that he will follow the agendas of the Clintons, Bushes and Obama. Nothing will change, except he will pretend to be a Christian family values man. That meeting with the gay men in the New York Times article just reminds me of the old stories of many Republican leaders who claimed to be family men but were far from it. We won’t talk about those stories but there are many out there, all fact. When he claims several times that he forgot to disclose campaign funds to the FEC, that is warning for all Republican voters who aren’t religious fanatics that he is the same as what we have today in Washington. A lawyer, Harvard graduate, a man who is known for having a photogenic memory and wears his religion on his sleeves does not forget this information. That is “Establishment” behavior in my view.

  57. @tbraton

    Indeed the rationalisation/avoidance of cognitive dissonance must be a lot harder now than when I remember thinking that Israel was effectively America’s army in the Middle East during the Cold War (not a view I was greatly invested in but it did seem to be plausible).

    That $3 billion, perhaps once a good investment, is peanuts in US public expenditure (and waste – even just military related waste) and, because it now is relatively small it is probably the unwillingness to start a fight that inhibits ecoonomic rationality.

    The neo-cons who contributed so much to the thinking that led to the second Iraq war are very clever people and no simple minded fanatics. I would be mildly interested to pursue a couple of questions about them now. One is whether Wolfawitz, Perle, Frum et al actually have much influence now and whether they aren’t wise enough to have retired hurt after the Iraq debacle in recognition that it was a disastrous failure, even perhaps from Israel’s point of view and certainly from that of their own country that they have no intention of damaging. That leaves the Israel lobby fuelled by the money of the likes of Sheldon Adelson to distort US policy – plus the inexplicable madness of McCain who maybe now just likes an audience, any audience.
    Then there is the question of the neo-cons responsibility in 2002-3. As an Australian Jewish journalist said to me Rumsfeld and Cheney aren’t Jews. I wonder if it is wholly fair to blame neo-cons for the errors (to put it mildly) of Rumsfeld and Cheney. Have we begun to see memoirs from neo-cons saying in effect that they pushed for America to rearrange the Middle East but had to bite their tongues and maintain hope when Rumsfeld and Cheney stuffed up the Iraq adventure so badly? Certainly they’re entitled to point out that the buck stops (rightly stopped) with others.

    That may seem to be some sort of pallid defence of neo-cons (or some of them – none of them known to me personally though I have a niece who interviewed and wrote, quite critically, about several of them). I recall Ron using the word “traitor” in this context but I don’t know whether he would in the end object to my hypothesis that they, or most, were possibly honest if misguided avoiders of cognitive dissonance. Believing three impossible things before lunch is a common achievement of clever people as the number of my intelligent religious friends reminds me often.

  58. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Those of you who voted for Ronnie Reagan voted for the Demographic extermination of The Historic Native Born White American Majority and the mass gang rape of young German Women by young Muslim Males. That some of you still have a warm spot in your hearts about the spokesman for GE…Ronnie Reagan…is disgusting!!! You should have seen it coming…..

  59. @tbraton

    I realize John Bolton himself has claimed that he is not a neoconservative, but I’m not clear on what he bases his distinction on.

    Well, Bolton’s not a neo-cohen-servative; other than that though, I think he’s pretty much the same as the rest of them.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  60. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    I am hoping that Hillary Rodham Clinton is announced POTUS with a young Hispanic Male VP next to her in a victory celebration 8PM Nov 3 2016 announcement.

    Trump is the false hope that race-replacement can be halted and reversed through the Beltway.

    Millions of jock-sniffing Fantasy Football enthusiasts White Males deserve Hillary POTUS!!!

    The full-blown race-revolt can not commence unless Hillary is announced as POTUS Nov 3 2016 8PM…WORSE IS BETTER!!!! in the current situation in the US….There is no other way.

    Even if Trump is elected….4 years than voted out enthusiastically by the nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc…a thousand year majority nonwhite Democratic Party Reich….what is the point of delaying the long overdue Native Born White American Working Class Race-Revolt?

  61. tbraton says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    “Well, Bolton’s not a neo-cohen-servative; other than that though, I think he’s pretty much the same as the rest of them.”

    I saw that when someone posted it yesterday and thought it was a clever play on words. Five years ago I mistakenly thought Bolton was Jewish, but I eventually discovered he wasn’t. I’m like you. I don’t see a lot of difference between his foreign policy positions and those of the neocons.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  62. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Now, whether her statements mean anything about Trump’s position with respect to ISIS, I doubt it.

    Being against ISIS is an easy rhetorical point to score. They’re public enemy #1 at this point. Anybody can get points for slamming them. But what does it really mean to say one is ‘against ISIS’? The current administration claims to have spent billions of dollars bombing them so supposedly they’re also against them. But who is behind ISIS and what are we going to do about them, countries such as Turkey? Anybody for sending some soldiers in against them? But anyway, political campaigns are going to generate a lot of smoke and this is just par for the course. Palin always struck me as a pinhead. She had her fifteen minutes of fame back in ’08, why is she still around? Bolton always seems to be muttering something about war this and war that. He gives the impression of being somewhat unhinged. That he’s actually still involved, now with Cruz, is unsettling.

  63. tbraton says:

    ” Bolton always seems to be muttering something about war this and war that. He gives the impression of being somewhat unhinged. That he’s actually still involved, now with Cruz, is unsettling.”

    LOL. And here I thought I had a low opinion of the man.

    I agree with your point about ISIS. What most people don’t realize is how slippery that pole is that a successful politician is forced to climb, even Trump. While I am pleasantly surprised at his consistently outspoken positions against illegal immigration and in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy, the realities of politics are that he can only go so far without risking loss of political support. Thus, he has been careful to focus on illegal immigration (building that “beautiful” wall on the southern border, criticizing “birthright citizenship), but has not spoken out, as far as I know, against the large amount of “legal” immigration into the U.S. (apart from the temporary ban on Muslim immigration), which is as much of a threat to the U.S. as illegal immigration. Once he is elected President, then he can use the bully pulpit to convince the American public of the need to cut back on all immigration, assuming he wants to go that far. He will also have to convince the Congress if he chooses to go that route, since the President has little power to stem legal immigration on his own (apart from banning immigration from specific countries).

    Similarly, Trump has been careful to state his opposition to imposing a “no fly zone” over Syria and fighting ISIS on the ground and deferring to the Russians and Assad to do that work. But he has to make noises about ISIS to satisfy the American public’s demand for a “tough” U.S. President. Whether he will do anything if elected President is doubtful, but he has to sound tough. You can see the same balancing act with respect to the Iran nuclear deal, which he criticizes endlessly as a “bad” deal but has indicated he will abide by if elected President. It’s a real tight rope, and so far he has done a pretty good job of managing that difficult feat without falling off.

  64. Sam Shama says:

    Bloomberg got serious after that first post. Bloomberg is preferable over Sanders, and it has noting to do with Jewishness [unless all you do is obsess about Jews, a common enough occupation it seems on Unz R]

    • Replies: @tbraton
  65. Sam Shama says:

    A set of observations followed by simple questions:

    (1) Donald Trump’s total net worth (very stretched and levered) is about $5b overwhelmingly based on the’valuation’ of his real estate holdings (he has at most $200m cash equivalents). There is some due to name syndications and cash flow valuations of his merchandise and TV shows, but these account for a relatively small amount.

    (2) Trump will need much roll-financing in the future, as well as renewal of merchandising contracts. Most important of course is maintaining the “value” of his real estate holdings.

    Do you think he would do anything that would upset financing and valuation? And if your answer is ‘no’ (which would be correct), what can the Trumpeters hope to achieve? Hint: Not much in reality.

  66. tbraton says:

    It seems to be official: ISIS has defeated ISIL. At least in the NY Times stylebook. Here is what the Times says today in its editorial talking about the pending war against the terrorist group in Libya:

    Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on Friday that military officials were “looking to take decisive military action” against the Islamic State, or ISIS, in Libya, where Western officials estimate the terrorist group has roughly 3,000 fighters.

    So it looks like the Obama Administration’s war against the use of ISIS as the preferred acronym and the substitution of ISIL in its place has proven to be a failure. (Anybody who tries to draw an analogy between this linguistic failure and the failure of the Administration to come up with a legitimate fighting force of “moderate Syrian rebels” to fight the legitimate government of Syria will be treated as a traitor. Our first black President deserves a lot more respect than that. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, after all.) Since hostilities are expected to commence relatively soon, with or without Congressional authorization, the only question is whether the Obama Administration will label such hostilities a “war” or come up with another more acceptable euphemism like “kinetic military activity.”

    BTW the Times editorial is rather circumspect in describing how the present, chaotic situation in Libya came about: “The planning is unfolding amid political chaos in Libya, which continues to reel from the aftermath of the 2011 civil war that ended with the killing of the country’s longtime dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.” No mention at all about the important role played by the then SOS, Hillary Clinton, in pressing Obama to wage war against Libya and overthrow Qaddafi and how that led to chaos in Libya. Not hard to understand why the Times would not want to mention anything like so damaging to its preferred candidate for President.

  67. @tbraton

    A different way of putting it would be that Bolton, like McCain et al., is another Sabbath-goy.

  68. Jason Liu says:

    This Russell Kirk sounds like my kind of guy. Nationalist in all but name.

  69. @RobinG

    I can’t remember, are you always an idiot and dictator?

    I’m not the one proposing this single-payer system.

    I would like to reserve the right to “dictate” where my own tax dollars are spent, though. I’m sorry if you consider that to be fascism.

    “Keep your laws off my body. But pay for my health care.” Right.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  70. RobinG says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “I’m not the one proposing this single-payer system. ”


    However, “single payer” might be the quickest and easiest way to eliminate legal abortion. No medical procedure not paid for by the central state will be permitted, and, following the example of foreign aid, not one dime will be spent on abortion.

    It will be illegal for any private party to donate funds for an abortion, or even for the individual to pay for it herself. Single-payer means SINGLE payer. You are not the state, so you have no such right.

    Facetiously or not, YOU PROPOSED a state funded, state controlled, exclusive system. In YOUR brave new world, “No medical procedure not paid for by the central state will be permitted…”. Go ahead and deny it (and ask Ron Unz to scrub it for you).

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  71. @RobinG

    Are you serious? Using his irony against a commenter – where irony is here prized above all.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  72. @Stephen R. Diamond

    The only “single payer” I’d find acceptable would be the Vatican. But I don’t think those feeling the Bern would agree to that compromise.

    As for [dis]RobinG, he/she may not have reached Jean Piaget’s third stage of mental development, as explained by Stephen Barone in Reason 35 years ago, and available at

    Robin is clearly unfamiliar with the underlying principles of jiu jutsu.

    • Replies: @Junior
  73. RR says:

    “Trump has been very open about his change of heart, his conversion.
    Trump has steadfastly affirmed a Rightist agenda, on gun rights, on right-to-life (and defunding Planned Parenthood), on same sex marriage, on illegal immigration (and ending birthright citizenship for illegals), on repealing Obamacare"

    Oh..and when you put this "conversion" on a timeline..anything suspicious?

  74. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    I realize John Bolton himself has claimed that he is not a neoconservative, but I’m not clear on what he bases his distinction on.

    I realize Boyd Cathey himself has claimed that he is not a neoconservative, but I’m not clear on what he bases his distinction on. 😉

    From Cathey’s article:

    And, lastly, regarding support for a straight-down Christian: lest we forget, God may use any vessel, even an imperfect one, should He choose to effect change. Don Juan of Austria, who vanquished the Muslims at Lepanto and saved Europe from Islamic invasion for one-hundred years, was not a saint, but who would not say that he served God’s purpose as champion of Christendom in forcing back the massive Islamic wave of 1571?

    Once again this Cathey guy is espousing a NeoCon agenda with NeoCon values in one of his “Support Trump” articles. Claims to be against Globalism meanwhile he’s pushing a “Let’s make America the world’s police against “terror” again” agenda with his talk of forcing back Islamic waves bullshit. If WE don’t go starting shit in these other countries for the SOLE benefit of Israel, then we won’t get these crazies coming over here to start shit with US.

    There’s no “War-on-Terror”. Call it what it REALLY is, a “War-for-the-benefit-of-Israel-masquarading-as-a-War-on-Terror”.

    If Cathey ain’t a NeoCon Put-Israel-Firster in disguise, then he’s an Evangelical Put-Israel-Firster in disguise. I think it’s probably the latter choice of Evangelical, with his religious talk of “champions of Christendom” nonsense that he throws in at the end of the article(which, based on this one and his last one, seems to be his modus operandi of pretending to throw asides at the end of his articles but which are really the points of his articles, as I pointed out to you in his last one)

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  75. @Junior

    You really are a flaming retard, you know that?

    Dr. Cathey is Roman Catholic, and neither he nor Donald Trump have ever voiced any support for foreign interventionism.

    • Agree: tbraton
    • Replies: @Junior
  76. tbraton says:
    @Sam Shama

    You seem convinced that Mr. Cathey is a neoconservative, despite the fact that his present article constitutes a pretty clear criticism of the neoconservative movement. Quite frankly, I could not care less what delusions you are operating under. I refuse to waste any more of my time trying to convince you otherwise. I think you are spending too much time trying to read the future from tea leaves, but, if it makes you happy, please go for it.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  77. tbraton says:

    Correction: my prior message #78 was intended as a reply to Jr.’s message #77 and not a response to FiveThirtyEight.

  78. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Actually, rather than jiu jitsu technique which consists of using leverage, instead she used more of an Aikido technique which consists of entering and turning movements that redirect the momentum of an opponent’s attack and then a throw or joint lock that terminates the technique OR… she just missed the irony 🙂

    Happens. 🙂

  79. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You’re right. Cathey’s not an Evangelical… he’s a Roman Catholic Zionist just like the first Crusaders were. Thank you for the correction.

  80. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:


    I appreciate all the furious and sometimes well-informed discussion. I don’t mind the attacks, as this forum is exactly for that. There is one thing I would like to settle, however. I AM a Catholic, a pre-Vatican II ultra- traditionalist and someone who only assists at the old Latin Mass. I am not, nor have I ever been anything resembling what is generally called a “neocon.” My background is that I earned an MA in American history as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow at the University of Virginia, then served as assistant to the late Dr. Russell Kirk, before then completing a doctoral degree as a Richard Weaver Fellow at the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain. After that I spent several years in the traditionalist Catholic Seminary of St. Pius X, in Switzerland, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I am a native North Carolinian who supported George Wallace when he ran for president. My family background and native traditions are deeply Confederate and Southern. My implacable animus against the Neoconservatives really began in 1981 when my dear friend, Dr. Mel Bradford (who had engaged in a long debate/conversation with Harry Jaffa over Abraham Lincoln) was shot down by George Will and other Neocons when he was a candidate to become head of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford’s “sin” was that he had critiqued Lincoln on a number of points, including his laying the foundations for the kind of managerial government we have now, and the destruction of the older regionalist republic established by the Founders.

    Over the years I met Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, the staunchly anti-Zionist author of THE ZIONIST CONNECTION, and various others of the same viewpoint. I learned much from him, as well as from later writers about the history and origins of what is termed “Neoconservatism.” Although I think it very important to detail the background of the Neocons and speculate on the reasons why they have done what they have done and continue to do, the most important item today is how they should be opposed, and how their stranglehold over not just the ersatz {pseudo) Right, but also over American politics and culture, in general, may be reversed, even defeated.

    This was a major reason for my articles about Trump. Perhaps I am wrong, but I see him as something of a battering ram, that is, a vehicle—however imperfect—to do in the real enemies of any recovery. Certainly, the chances of recovery are slim, but I am willing to take this one. Thus, for me, it is not so much the man Donald Trump, but what he represents, the potential, if you will.

    Perhaps this will clear up just a bit where I come down, perhaps not. In any case, have at it. Even if you think poorly of me or what I say, I appreciate the conversation…..

    Boyd Cathey

  81. rita says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    wondering how you feel about DT owing almost every bank on Wall Street money and George Soros too? Millions of dollars.

  82. @Anonymous

    Thank you, I have a better understanding of who Boyd Cathey is. The problem with conservative Catholicism (and for that matter, all Catholicism and to large extent Christians generally) is how they can decide who/what is wrong, who/what is worthy and who/what can be forgiven. Incredible arrogance.

    ^ SSPX can rehabilitate some incredibly nasty people. Following on caring for the SS killer Priebke, I can’t help but wonder what what your take would be on organizations like ‘The Anvil’ in Spain:

    ^ With the preceding example of church undermining state, there’s always a question of conservative Catholicism’s loyalty to any secular constitution and I don’t see any outright rejection of the Christian right’s ‘dominionism’ or that is to say ‘God’s law’ (or SSPX’s interpretation of whatever that might mean) trumps (no pun intended) the rule of law as set forward by our founders, excluding the historical revisions of ‘Liars for Jesus’


    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  83. schmenz says:

    Sadly, Dr Cathey, your kind response to all of us has raised the ire, in the form of a reply, of this site’s most boring commenter, RTW. I don’t read his rubbish anymore, I just skip over it, but you being the obvious gentleman you are will no doubt have to wade through his verbal cesspool.

    I don’t envy you the privilege.

  84. @schmenz

    Hey, thanks schmenz, nothing like an invitation to further post up some damning information on Catholic fascism (SSPX being a ‘reputed’ poster child)

    I’d actually like to see some straightforward explanations for some of the darker chapters and behaviors-

  85. @Ronald Thomas West

    The problem with conservative Catholicism (and for that matter, all Catholicism and to large extent Christians generally) is how they can decide who/what is wrong, who/what is worthy and who/what can be forgiven. Incredible arrogance.

    Oh, come on! Like you don’t do the same thing yourself routinely. It’s human nature. Maybe we have somewhat different criteria for judgment, but we all judge.

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  86. RobinG says:

    most boring commenter? I’d give that title to Tom the white nationalist who writes in BLOCK CAPS 🙂

  87. I read the commentary on this website and others about this presidential candidate or that one and shake my head in disgust. There is no electoral solution to the woes of the country for the people themselves are eating the seed of entitlement and have forgone creative thought, hard work and moral social behaviors.

    I reject everything about the federal government; it must be allowed to collapse. Only through the demise of the hollow columns that support the nexus of corruption will America be restored to equal justice and opportunity. Therefore the only proper course of action is to dissociate oneself from the election on November 8. Stay home and declare your personal freedom and know you did not partake in the toxic wine that poisons the heart, sullies the soul and places others willingly in bondage to oppressive debt.

    Dissolve it, start over!

  88. @Seamus Padraig

    “Oh, come on! Like you don’t do the same thing yourself routinely. It’s human nature. Maybe we have somewhat different criteria for judgment, but we all judge”

    I don’t think so. It’s the ‘forgiveness’ aspect of judging tied to the church that allows for sociopath criminals to go unpunished. For instance the priests in Rwanda complicit in genocide who were provided alias and new lives (and parishes) in France, not to mention the case of an Argentine priest living under alias (and performing priestly duties in a parish) in Chile who had to return to face charges in the ‘dirty war’ of the former junta, not to mention how many pedophiles had been protected on the basis of a church attitude ‘God’s law’ trumps the rule of law. If you’re ‘forgiven’ (from the point of view at Rome) there should be no secular accountability. That is the ‘judgement’ causes a serious erosion of accountability; ‘Oh father I have sinned… no problem son.’

    Not so different to Obama and Brennan can excuse themselves for extra-judicial assassinations when the meet on ‘kill list Tuesdays’

    It’s a problem endemic Christian culture –

  89. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Thank you for sharing your background info, Mr. Cathey. I was running low on ammo but now that you have sufficiently refilled my quiver with personal info arrows that I can use on you, my attack may now resume in earnest. Just kidding. 😉

    You, sir, are a gentleman and I appreciate your candor to have a dialogue.

    While I highly agree with you about Trump being the best choice of the pack of Presidential candidates, I highly disagree with your attempts at framing our issues in the world as being a religious war with Islam. The manufactured “War on Terror” and the vilification of the Muslim religion is THE lynch-pin and foundation of the Neocons arguments in justifying their wars and interventions in the Middle East. By accepting and propagating their false narrative that they push in the “Media” that we are at war with Islam, you are furthering THEIR put-Israel-first agenda. It is NOT in America’s interest to be at war with Islam. It is in Israel’s interest for America to be at war with Islam. We have MILLIONS of peaceful Muslim Americans living here that are an essential part of the fabric of this great nation and who are PROUD to be Americans. Americans.

    The NeoCon’s SOLE concern is Foreign Policy. And their Foreign Policy is do whatever is best for Israel. They don’t care about domestic issues as long as their Foreign Policy is being carried out. They leave the domestic issues to their fake “Opposition” NeoLibs that try to destroy us domestically with Trade Deals and also divide us along racial lines. Meanwhile the “Media” pushes BOTH sides of this Divide-and-Conquer strategy. Both sides want to bankrupt us both morally and financially and make us nothing more than the hired muscle for International Corporations. We should be trying to ALL unite as Americans to do what is in the best interest of America. ALL Americans no matter what religion, race, creed, or sex. We should NOT be falling for their divide-and-conquer tactics.

    Divided, we fall. United, we make America great again. ALL Americans. THAT is Nationalism.

  90. RobinG says:

    “It is NOT in America’s interest to be at war with Islam. It is in Israel’s interest for America to be at war with Islam.”

    Great post, Jr. All of it. I hope you’re following our thread —
    LIBERTY FROM THE LOBBY, June 8, 2017.

    • Replies: @Junior
  91. @Junior

    I agree with RobinG: brilliant post! Thanks…

  92. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I almost always agree with Boyd Cathey. He is always right on Southern issues, and he has been brilliant on Russia. However, I disagree with him about Trump. Trump is the worst type of Yankee – spoiled, arrogant and amoral. He is the very type of Yankee that our ancestors hated and warned us about. If elected he will govern like a Clinton or an Obama because he is one of them – an amoral, liberal, urban Yankee.

    Trump (and his father) have always been crony capitalists, profiting from federal housing programs. They are not for free enterprise. On abortion and perversion, Trump is no conservative. He would like to appoint his pro-anortion Yankee sister to the Supreme Court. Personally, Trump is deranged. He pouts, he curses, he insults women. Had he lived in the Old South, someone’s brother would have challenged him to a duel and shot him.

    The only good that come out of a Trump presidency is that the U.S. would become a complete laughingstock and pariah state. This could make it easier for Texas and other conservative states to secede even as states were able to secede from a crumbling USSR.

  93. Hibernian says:
    @Maj. Kong

    “descendant of oil money who lived as an Long Island version of the Beverly Hillbilies.”

    Connecticut, not Long Island. I doubt that any other than a very few people would regard either Will Buckley or any of his children including Bill and Jim to be other than very remotely like the Beverly Hillbillies. They were Catholic and Conservative and therefore a little out of place in the Northeastern Establishment.

  94. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Thanks Robin and Seamus but don’t blame me for that post, blame the Truth. It’s the one that wrote it, not I 🙂

    What’s Liberty From The Lobby? I tried to look it up but didn’t find anything resembling it.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  95. RobinG says:

    June 8, 2017
    50th Anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty

    Effort to throw off yoke of Israel Lobby, restore US political sovereignty, stop disastrous neocon designed military adventures for the benefit of Israel. Go to most recent comments @Seeking Bibi’s Favor for more.

  96. CMC says:

    Great essay, thanks.

  97. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I hope Trump wins the presidency then you will learn what I already know Trump is no conservative

  98. Svigor says:

    Actually, rather than jiu jitsu technique which consists of using leverage, instead she used more of an Aikido technique which consists of entering and turning movements that redirect the momentum of an opponent’s attack and then a throw or joint lock that terminates the technique OR… she just missed the irony 🙂

    Happens. 🙂

    Aikido basically is a jumped-up style of jiu-jitsu. With a bunch of pseudo-mystical babble layered on top.

  99. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Elitism of Paleoconservatives

    The “paleoconservative” followers of Pat Buchanan who are flocking to Trump are on shaky ground when they try to tar Trump opponents with the “neocon” brush. If the hearts and emotions of Trump supporters are the measure of what is popular among the Republican “base”, then Buchanan’s non-interventionism is no less an elitist imposition than the free-trade axioms of Burkean conservatism.

    Trump supporters are nationalists, and not just economic nationalists. Their cheers are just as loud when Trump promises to “bomb the shit out of” ISIS as when he promises to throw up trade barriers and kick out immigrants who compete with citizens for jobs. They may agree to get behind Buchanan’s non-interventionist foreign policy views if they think “he is one of us” on trade or immigration, but in doing so they allow an elitist paleoconservative intellectual to tutor them.

    To the charge of elitism I plead guilty in the sense that I believe in deferring on occasion to educated opinion, but PAT BUCHANAN IS ALSO AN ELITIST. Like Burkean conservatives his views resonate in some areas with popular opinion but in other areas he was trying to mold the opinions of the public and his blue collar base. For example, I think he would have been hard-pressed to persuade Trump supporters of his view that it may have been a mistake for us to intervene in the war against Hitler.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  100. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    For example, I think he would have been hard-pressed to persuade Trump supporters of his view that it may have been a mistake for us to intervene in the war against Hitler.

    Which only proves that the key part of the truism still holds:
    You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
    The Mercurians have had a good, long run, but eventually, things fall apart.

    This in turn holds out the hope that the “blue collar base” that was the target of relentless propaganda to persuade them to shed their blood for Roosevelt’s lies and Morgenthau’s zionist psychopathologies can and will be counter-propagandized. The Mercurians are acutely, fearfully aware of this fact, which is why the closet where Truth is stored is locked tight, guarded by the State and by various guard dogs. (How ironic that Bernie is calling for revolution — but only against the American Conservative Koch brothers but never mentions Adelson, Saban, Singer, Dimon, etc.)

    But mobs are fickle things, and there is nothing so fearsome as a mob that, recognizing it has been lied to for a century, wheels about and “storms the castle,” Mercurians, guard dogs and heavily-armed state enforcement shills be damned.

    View post on

    • Replies: @RobinG
  101. RobinG says:

    “But mobs are fickle things, and there is nothing so fearsome as a mob that, recognizing it has been lied to for a century, wheels about and “storms the castle,” Mercurians, guard dogs and heavily-armed state enforcement shills be damned.”

    Will this be true when Americans discover how they’ve been deceived by the myths of Israel, and how they’ve shed blood and treasure in pursuit of the Yinon Plan?

    LIBERTY from the LOBBY !

  102. Boyd —
    Do you agree that Trump’s willingness to water board crosses the line?

    If so, then Who?

    Chris Christie?

    Kasich is married to the John Hay Initiative, a neocon sprout.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  103. AndrewR says:

    I couldn’t care less about homo marriage and abortion. Immigration restriction, a restrained foreign policy, economic protectionism, gun rights, in that order, are my only real concerns.

  104. AndrewR says:

    I concur with Dreher that torture isn’t something that should be government policy, but what is his fetishism for “democracy” and his implication that torture is inherent to non-democracy and mutually exclusive with democracy?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  105. AndrewR says:

    Intervene against Hitler? We should have *allied* with him.

    Besides it’s unlikely we would have entered the war at all had Japan not attacked us. Germany was allied with Japan but Germany did not attack us and was unlikely to so it’s bizarre to imply that we only fought the war because of “Hitler”

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
  106. @AndrewR

    But now that he’s coming off as a threat to democracy, this isn’t funny anymore.

    This guy is a hooligan. A man who talks like a mafioso while bragging about his lack of compunction for Constitutional niceties is not someone a democracy can afford to have head the executive branch of the US Government.

    Dreher and I understand the governance of a republic differently.

    As I understand Machiavelli and his passionate love affair with republicanism, it was a three-legged stool: Autocracy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. They needed to function together for the stool to be balanced, but sometimes it was necessary that one leg take dominance.

    It was, however, almost always essential that the Autarch have the support of the demos; an Autarch could buy off, exile, or kill off intransigent Aristocrats, but without the love — a kind of love marked with respect and undergirded by fear — and support of the people, The Prince’s attempt at republican government would inevitably fail.

    Tossing out the torture thing was red meat to the Populace, to show them he, the would-be Autarch, is strong, even fierce, and is on their side.

    Having thought more about this issue, I revert to support for Trump, torture and all. I suspect that he harbors the realization that the Aristocrats — the Senate, House, and Supreme Court — would impose their will on any folk-blown attempts at autocratic rule.

    I think Trump knows where the boundary lines are.

    I don’t think Sanders admits his limitations; he is cruelly deluding the young people who are hungry for the sugar candy he is tossing them.

    I also think that of all the candidates, only Trump can stand in the center ring and manage the House-Senate circus.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  107. @SolontoCroesus

    What good has ever come from a strongman?

    • Replies: @dahoit
  108. dahoit says:

    Oh yeah,the Napoleon midget with a bad Zionist attitude.OY.
    As #2 says;Its all about Zion,and Trump is the only American running,every other one is corrupted by Zionism,either intellectually(sheesh) or ethnically,although the Jewish Sanders is probably more moderate on Israel(pro Palestinian) than the non Jews,funny dat.

  109. dahoit says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Current Islamic reactionary movements were non existent or on the fringe of the fringe,prior to the insertion of the wacko racist irreligious state,Israel,into the region against the natives wishes.The natives still oppose that event,but almost every leader of the Muslim nations have been coopted by Zionisms riches.
    I give too poopies about the caliphate,the Umma or whatever you clowns use to disparage the inhabitants of the region,all propaganda to obscure that Zionist malignancy.

  110. dahoit says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Iraq ,Syria,Libya were all much more coherent and productive with their strongmen,until we unleashed our hypocritical liberation,which has only liberated souls from earthly pleasure.
    Yankee come home,it aint our call to decide who runs other nations.
    8 new F16s for Pakistan,and the Indians are pissed,and want at least 9.What a colossal clusterf*ck of greed and destabilization by our corrupt scum leadership,with gumby at the lead.

  111. schmenz says:

    I would only suggest that these wars – which you correctly assess as being waged for Israel – would qualify for the term “religious” wars, because of that fact. It is hardly any secret that many (not all) of our powerful Jewish friends despise Christianity with a passion bordering on lunacy and act in many ways to combat it. Some of those ways would include destroying the remaining Christian presence in Europe by their support for an invasion of non-Christians, their promotion of pornography as the great dissolver of family life (it is hardly news that the porn industry is their baby), their tremendous support of the whole homosexual “rights” movement, including the mainstreaming of every unnatural vice out there, etc.

    The US is simply a stooge of such powers even though it sometimes acts in its own selfish interests and will occasionally uphold its own interests above those of Tel Aviv.

    So for some, calling this a religious war may seem to be a stretch, but I believe the case could be made.

  112. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Boyd- I’ve waited 8 years to say this to you, regarding Richard Hines… I told you so:
    I would be happy to speak with you via phone, if you’d like.
    In case you forgot:
    –Tim Manning II

  113. @Rich

    Immigration is issue #1 with me. So I’m voting with Trump, despite, not because, of his bombastic, bragadocious style.

  114. @JBloom

    If Donald Trump was a Democrat he would be all in favor of illegal immigration, because that is the defining issue for what makes a Democrat today. (No Democrat has a better score than D+ from NumbersUSA.)

    I am always amused by the people who will vote solely on the basis of a candidate’s position on abortion. Do you really think any politician will be able to so stack the Supreme Court so as to make abortion illegal? Abortion is strictly an issue for campaigns, it is dropped on the day of the inauguration.

  115. @Jonathan Revusky

    What’s wrong with keeping Muslims out of the U.S.? They don’t belong here.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  116. @Unapologetic White Man

    What’s wrong with keeping Muslims out of the U.S.? They don’t belong here.

    Well, maybe they don’t, but is that specifically because their religion is Islam? Thus, all the Latin American immigrants do belong here since they are Christians, no?

    The problem is taking all this “Islamist terrorism” which is a hoax — false flags and staged bullshit — and formulating an immigration policy based on that.

    By all means, don’t bring in Muslims for the same reason that you don’t bring in Hindus from India or Buddhists from Southeast Asia — or Christians from Latin America. Most of the country’s industry has been outsourced and there aren’t enough decent jobs from the native born. So why bring in immigrants? Even if they were all white Presbyterians, there wouldn’t be much of a case for it.

    The question is about entering into the phony narratives constructed by these neocons. Can’t you see that?

  117. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The ‘Slough of Despond” is a deep bog in John Bunyan’s allegory The Pilgrim’s Progress, into which the protagonist Christian sinks under the weight of his sins and his sense of guilt for them.

  118. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Excellent article. Trump is genuine, unique

  119. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The GOP, ( as indicated in the above article) has never released the power structure of this
    “Corporation” since operation “paper Clip” ( 1945) “garnished” with war criminals that should have made the gallows at Nurenburg-and instead brought their brand of Nazism to these shores
    “Down the Toilet with both illegal intruders, The Democrats who joined in the feeding frenzy as well, they destroyed not only the country, but turned the world upside down in order to control banks and commerce

  120. Smitty says: • Website

    Bring back the 19th century!

  121. @Astuteobservor II

    Because he isn’t any kind of frontrunner.
    Trump happens to be beating his ass, at the moment.
    And it appears as though it’s gonna get much worse for Cruz.

    Trump in a landslide. Get real…

  122. @Sherman

    Bloomberg loves illegal immigration and is virulently anti-gun. He’d make a great Democrat but my vote goes for The Donald. All the right people hate his guts. What better endorsement could there be?

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to 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 Boyd D. Cathey Comments via RSS
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.