TedCruz – ILANA MERCER

The Winning Trump Ticket And Cabinet

Ilana Mercer — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:48:16 +0000

If Donald J. Trump wishes to lessen the impact of his disappointing second in the Iowa caucuses and walk back the tack he’s taken with Ted Cruz—he must begin to think big and talk big.

Loud in not necessarily big.

Call it triangulation, a concept associated with Bill Clinton’s successful strategies, or call it “the art of the deal”: It’s time for Trump to DO IT.

To this end, Trump must quit the “we don’t win anymore” formulaic rhapsody, and start fleshing out substantive positions. A pragmatist does so by introducing the people he’ll be recruiting to “Make America Great Again.”

To Cruz belongs the Trump Department of Justice portfolio. Offering Justice to Cruz allows Trump to both put Ted in his place as unsuited to the presidency; while simultaneously making him part of Team Trump and repairing that relationship. Ted is too soft to be US president in these troubled times. But he’d make a spectacular attorney general in charge of DOJ.

There’s a reason George W. Bush hates Ted Cruz. In 2008, Cruz gave America reason to cue the mariachi band and celebrate the death of detritus José Medellín. As part of a gangbanger initiation rite, Medellín had raped (in every way possible), strangled, slashed, and stomped two young Texan girls to death.

“In Texas,” to quote another Ron from the Lone Star State, “we have the death penalty and we use it. If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back.”

Bush 43 would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien. Backed by Bush—and on behalf of Medellín and other killer compadres awaiting a similar fate—Mexico promptly sued the US over procedural technicalities in the International Court of Justice. The president ordered Texas to halt the execution of murderer and rapist Medellín.

Texas’ heroic solicitor general said no.

Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court. There, he bested Bush and his lickspittles. As the Conservative Review gloated, Cruz “won the case, 6-to-3.” He had sought justice for Americans against a president who subjugated them to international courts. Ted, moreover, was forever gracious about Bush; Bush and his bambino bro routinely slime Ted.

In trashing Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Trump is in bad company.

The American government currently outsources the job of vetting Muslim refugees headed for the US to the most corrupt of UN agencies: the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. If anyone can vanquish the UN and extricate America from sovereignty sundering international treaties—it’s the victor in Medellín v. Ted of Texas.

Next is Rand Paul. The senator has abandoned hopes of becoming president of the United States, in 2016. With his departure, the libertarian bloom is off the Republican race for the White House.

Rand has been the only Republican in the running to sound a strong trumpet against the warfare state of his rivals. If a giant welfare state is unconservative, what of the warfare state?

By logical extension, not signing on to the bombing of Bashar Hafez al-Assad was a good thing, observed Rand. Assad was the source of stability in Syria, much as Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. Have we learned nothing about the perils of toppling dictators, only to see the rise of barbarians worse than their predecessors?

Besides, why are we still at war in Afghanistan? Why are we dropping bombs there? Why have we been “helping” Afghanistan for over 10 years, inquired Rand in the course of his campaign? We’ve spent more in that blighted and benighted region than we did on the Marshall Plan. “Why can’t the Afghans defend themselves after a decade? Will we have to defend them in perpetuity?”

And what’s unconservative about diplomatic engagement?

As impure a libertarian as he is, when compared to father Ron Paul, Rand has mocked his rivals’ military chauvinism and jingoism as incompatible with conservatism. In particular, why was the robotic Marco Rubio being given the time of day? Rubio is spoiling for fights that’ll dwarf the wars Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton waged on Libya, surreptitiously in Syria and in Afghanistan. As president, “the Boy in the Bubble” (Governor Chris Christie’s moniker for Marco) has promised to use American power extremely liberally. Or, as Rand has kept reminding Americans, there is no daylight between the Rubio and Hillary Clinton regime-change foreign policy.

Rand has been rather rude to Donald Trump, who, in turn, has not spared Senator Paul his repartee. But the front-runner, not Rand, has some placating to do. Promise Rand Paul a cabinet position as secretary of state in charge of US foreign policy. Trump will thus bring the libertarians in from the cold. (By Gallop’s count, the libertarian-leaning vote might be as large as 24 percent.)

Rand can have State on one condition.

In the past, Trump has praised Representative Ron Paul. Trump will further solidify libertarian backing if he places Paul senior in charge of the US Department of the Treasury. Independents and some on the Left may follow (although they’ll lie to pollsters about it). No one is better suited than Congressman Paul to the task of halting further debasement of the coin courtesy of the Federal Reserve Bank. He will also put an end to the depravity that is the Internal Revenue Service.

The urgency of the strategy offered in this column dawned when a ghastly idea was floated on Twitter to approving “Retweets”: “Trump should choose Colin Powell as VP.” Powell was the establishment toady who endorsed the war on Iraq while in the employ of Genghis Bush. Later, General Powell backed Barack Obama, using the pathos of racial justice as his excuse. In Trump parlance, Powell would be a “horrible” mistake. The same can be said about Ann Coulter’s calamitous Trump-Mitt Romney suggested ticket.

No, Trump must go outside the political tribe for a vice president.

A previous Return to Reason column suggested “the talented James Webb” for the Trump ticket. Webb is a decorated Marine who served as Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the navy. In particular, Webb is the recipient of the “Navy Cross for heroism in Vietnam,” the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts.

Indisputably the last salt-of-the-earth Democrat of his generation, Webb had considered a bid for president as a Democrat, last year. However, he appeared out of place at the first dominatrix-dominated debate in October of 2015, where he confessed to killing a man or two in battle. He soon dropped out.

Citing paleoconservative thinker Pat Buchanan, Mr. Webb had argued forcefully against affirmative action and for poor whites, well before reports about the early demise of white working-class America percolated to the public.

Webb the Southern Democrat can galvanize Reagan Democrats as well as fans of the military on the Left.

Rand Paul will bring libertarians along provided the little guy brings his dad to work with him.

Wasted on the presidency is an outstanding mind like that of Senator Ted Cruz. An outstanding businessman like Donald Trump should appreciate the intellectual value of such an asset.

©ILANA Mercer
WND, Quarterly Review, Praag.org,
The Libertarian Alliance & The Unz Review
January 22, 2016

The post The Winning Trump Ticket And Cabinet appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

GOP Debate: America-First Alliance Emerges; Neoconservatives Neutralized

Ilana Mercer — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:44:17 +0000

Donald Trump strode into the gaudy Venetian, in Las Vegas, for the CNN-Facebook Republican presidential debate, with a primary lead for the history books. As Weekly Standard put it, “Trump’s lead over his primary opponents is larger than both Ronald Reagan’s was in the 1980 race, and George H. W Bush’s was in the 1988 contest.” Not that you’d know it from the media’s Trump-In-Decline School Of Alternate Reality, but “on a national level, Trump is clearly in a stronger position than Hillary Clinton is.”

So, while Trump’s debate was meaty on meaning; thin on policy—”our country doesn’t win anymore. We don’t win on trade. We don’t win on the military. We can’t defeat ISIS. We’re not taking care of our great people, the veterans—the candidate was comfortably presidential and graciously conciliatory to the tools of the Republican Party organ. The Republican National Committee had been plotting to stop a Trump nomination by forcing a procedural sleight of hand—a brokered convention—warranted only when a candidate fails to secure the most delegates in the primaries. Republican Party kingmakers and monied interests had also convened to float the possibility of supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton—anything to thwart Trump.

Yet humbly did Trump profess his total commitment “to the Republican Party.”

I feel very honored to be the front runner. And I think I’ll do very well if I’m chosen. If I’m so fortunate to be chosen, I think I’ll do very well. Polls have come out recently saying I would beat Hillary. I will do everything in my power to beat Hillary Clinton, I promise you.

So it is hoped that by professing his great respect for the Republican brass in Vegas, Trump has not let down his guard or “sold out.”

Other than the conciliatory tone, there were no surprises about Trump’s performance at “the final Republican debate before the election year begins.” The Lines—”We either have a country or we don’t have one, I want a strong border and a wall, walls work, ask the Israelis”—all worked for the umpteenth time.

Touchingly Trumpian, too, was the, “I don’t want our country to be taken away from us, and that’s what’s happening. The policies that we’ve suffered under other presidents have been a disaster for our country. We want to make America great again. And Jeb [Bush], in all fairness, he doesn’t believe that.”

The early, second-tier Republican performers remained hopelessly afflicted with War Tourette‘s, even spoiling for skirmishes with Russia. Gov. Mike Huckabee distinguished himself by coming closer than all contenders in seriously commenting about Islam: “[Our job] is not to protect the reputation of Islam. It is to protect Americans first and foremost.”

Both Dr. Ben Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz may have believed themselves to be brave when they repeated the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” Uttering it is supposed to signal seriousness about terrorism, in Republican circles. It signals confusion.

The mouthful, “radical Islamic terrorism,” is itself an error because it’s a redundancy. Islam is radical. It has never undergone a reformation. Most Muslims do not act on their radical religion, but the authentic, un-reformed Islam is dormant in the faithful.

Gratitude is owed to moderator Wolf Blitzer for reminding the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham, who yelled his yearning for George Bush—that after 9/11, it was “W” who told the nation that Islam was peace. Predictably, Graham, who polls a steady 0 percent with Americans, maintained his lead with the news nitworks. More than anyone at the kiddy dais, Graham’s fulminations excited the dark desires of CNN “analyst” Gloria Borger. Women love an energetic regime changer.

Another neoconservative, Sen. Marco Rubio, became the object of Sen. Rand Paul’s barbs. The Rand Rubio offensive was wise and well-rewarded. Alas, Rand, who shone during the debate, forgot to back off Donald Trump. Who knows? If Rand stops nipping at The Donald’s heels, Trump might give the little guy a position as Secretary of State, in charge of foreign policy. And that would be a good thing.

On the foreign policy front, an alliance emerged that saw Trump, Paul and Cruz unite to advance an America First foreign policy, and to volubly oppose the foreign policy forays of Rubio aka Genghis Bush aka Dick Cheney aka Jeb Bush aka John Kasich aka Carly Fiorina.

Thus when Chris Christie—who also shares the ideological cockpit with the neoconservatives—vowed to down Russian planes if they crossed a no fly zone he’d establish in Syria; Paul was quick to interject: “There’s your candidate to start World War III.”

“If we want to defeat terrorism, the boots on the ground need to be Arab boots on the ground,” insisted Sen. Paul splendidly. Then he went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid like, “If we ban Muslim immigration, the terrorists will have won.”

“The terrorists win if Americans don’t do as the politicians say” is reverse psychology and cliché rolled into one. The prez also keeps saying, “Dare do x, y or z on matters Muslim, and you guarantee that ISIS wins.” Or, “ISIS wants you to do x, y, and z.”

First, how do these asses know what ISIS wants? Or, are Barack Obama and Sen. Paul simply ass-uming they know? It is more likely the two politicians are using reverse psychology to get Americans to comply with their own wishes.

In any event, if ISIS wants you, America, to do what in your estimation is best for you–perhaps ISIS is right and the president is wrong. Perhaps ISIS is right and Rand Paul is wrong. So, Sen. Paul, we’ll take that long moratorium on Muslim immigration. It’s a winner for Americans. If ISIS approves, too, so be it. ISIS is happy; we are happy; everybody is happy; we all win.

After being set up for a confrontation, Both Trump and Cruz refused to beat up on each other. CNN moderator Dana Bash looked dejected, but was infinitely better behaved and more able than Fox News’ Megyn Kelly had been at the first-ever debate. (Last night, Kelly tweeted out Cruz’s coded anodyne assurances to moms: “I will do everything necessary to keep our children safe.” F-ck the kids, Kelly. We’re trying to have an adult conversation, here. Adult lives matter, too.)

Speaking of a drone, Ms. Fiorina failed to get past her funereal introduction: “I beat breast cancer. I buried a child. I began as a secretary. I was called a bitch.” Oy!

To sum: A vital node in the neoconservative network, Marco Rubio, was exposed for his open-borders record and odious alliance with Democrat Chuck Schumer with whom Rubio formed the Schubio Gang of Eight.

In their rosy post-debate analysis, Rubio’s fans at Fox News failed to note how he stumbled further into incoherence by insisting a moratorium on Muslim immigration was unconstitutional. Not according to constitutional scholar Peter J. Spiro, who wrote in the New York Times that, “Trump’s anti-Muslim plan is awful. And constitutional.”

Trump would have “plenary power” to protect Americans from the sporadic but predictable eruptions of the Islamic faithful. Such exclusion of or dissociation from Islam’s practitioners would approximate a defensive, leave-me-alone act, more commensurate with the libertarian non-aggression axiom than the military adventurism beloved by Democrats and neoconservatives alike.

Ultimately, 2016 will all come down to the only candidate who uttered the following plain but poignant passage:

“I feel a very, very strong bind, and really I’m bound to this country.”

©ILANA Mercer
WND, Quarterly Review, Praag.org,
The Libertarian Alliance, The Unz Review,
December 18, 2015

The post GOP Debate: America-First Alliance Emerges; Neoconservatives Neutralized appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

What If The Media Were Moral?

Ilana Mercer — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:41:32 +0000

Media conservatives and liberals were agreed. The Republican brand, as National Review’s Jonah Goldberg put it, had been damaged by the debt-ceiling standoff.

Chuckie Krauthammer, another phony conservative, concurred. After badmouthing tea-party Republicans for attempting to leverage a partial government shut-down and debt-ceiling deadline to dilute ObamaCare, Krauthammer scolded “the media” for its biased coverage of the quixotic showdown.

Pot. Kettle. Krauthammer.

No sooner had the Senate voted, on Wednesday Oct. 16, to unconditionally reopen the spending spigot—seconded in short succession by Congress and the president—than an unabashed Dana Bash, chief congressional correspondent for CNN, cornered Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Her angle, like every other media mouthpiece in the country, was the futility of the fight Cruz had spearheaded:

As you well know, you have a lot of fellow Republicans really downright angry at you because, here we are, almost three weeks later, the strategy that you started out on to defund Obamacare as part of funding the government. They never thought it was going to work because the votes aren’t there. And here we are, reopening the government after a lot of bruising political warfare internally, and you got nothing for it.

More a leading suggestion than a journalistic question, Bash’s crude calculus—that outcomes, rather than principle, should dictate the political action pursued—was what Americans had been force-fed by her ilk over the past two weeks.

Throughout the so-called shutdown (unnoticed by hardworking Americans), Americans were exposed, day in and day out, to asphyxiating agitprop. The Taliban-like tea party caucus, they were told, was criminally negligent for refusing to allow the government to keep borrowing. Damned they were as “aging, white bigots” for daring to demand changes to a despised law, at the expense of the temporary furlough of 800,000 non-essential oink-sector workers, whose salaries are, on average, double that of the average wage in the country, and whose hefty healthcare and bankrupting retirement benefits the rest of the country can only dream of, but must pay for.

What Cruz had to say throughout the ordeal was not what Americans—who get most of their news from cable television and the news networks—got to hear. Repeated ad nauseam by these noisy, Democratic sleeper cells were the results of polls that reflected a media-manufactured consensus: “Republicans continue to get more blame than the Obama administration for Washington’s fiscal policy stalemate.”

Is there any wonder that infantile America mirrors its squandering government with respect to debt carried? “Like father, like son” goes a saying about the similarities between the behavior of parent and progeny. Like their government, Americans are debt-addled (the “fore horse for oppression and despotism,” forewarned Founding Father Thomas Jefferson). The total household debt in the U.S. stands at $13 trillion; student loans at $3.04 trillion.

If the media were moral, they’d have told Americans these truths.

If the media were moral, they’d have told Americans that the perennial debt crises are manufactured crises. That the U.S. government’s receipts are more than sufficient to cover its debt payments by a factor of approximately 10.

That the 14th Amendment (Section 4) of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a default on the country’s debt. That if the country were to default on the debt, it would be because President Barack Obama deliberately and maliciously chose to flout the Constitution (it’s the law of the land, unlike Obamacare), and not service the debt, so as to win a political battle.

If the media were moral, they’d tell America that it’s do or die. That capping the debt ceiling is perhaps the only way to compel a government that owes $17 trillion and carries “$70 trillion in off-balance-sheet liabilities” to make do with the loot it collects.

That the stock-market’s “confidence,” pursuant to lifting the cap on the debt, amounts to faith in confidence men; that soaring stocks in a debt-fueled, stagnant economy is a consequence of the confetti of funny-money raining down from the nation’s pantheon: the Federal Reserve Bank.

That non-stop monetary stimulus is the road to ruin—it results in a rise in prices, stocks included. Homes too. And that an increase in the price of an item is not the same as an appreciation in its value.

That the natural laws of economics dictate that Obamacare will increase both public and private debt.

That members of the media-monetary-military-congressional complex are immoral and have an allergy to the truth.

And that’s the honest to goodness truth.

The post What If The Media Were Moral? appeared first on ILANA MERCER.