Chris Wallace left out China from the debate topics for a reason.
The issue of how outsourcing America’s supply chains to China threatens US economic and security interests damages Biden’s support in the crucial Rust Belt states because he has spent decades being a pro-outsourcing China apologist.
The more Trump brings up Biden’s well documented coziness with Beijing, NAFTA, and the TPP, the more Biden is hurt in the Rust Belt where the race has been tightening faster than it did in 2016.
In addition to being an ideologically Conservative woman (assuming a man is ruled out), whoever the nominee turns out to be should be a concrete wall who will not entertain emotional appeals from Liberal attorneys, i.e, the nominee should be a complete, and total, bitch.
Bitchiness is called for because the bitchier the nominee is the less likely they are to “grow” on the bench as the media softens them year after year with emotional appeals, as has happened too many times with male GOP Justices like Roberts and Kennedy.
Judges Joan Larsen, Allison Rushing, Barbara Lagoa, and Allison Eid all look bitchy enough to ignore Liberal emotional appeals.
Continue reading “Pass on Barrett Because She Isn’t Bitch Enough”
The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, which occurred soon before the 2018 midterms, showed how the GOP should handle getting a replacement for Ginsburg through the Senate.
The Eisenhower Doctrine –
Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine […]
The administration also saw the Middle East as being critical for future foreign policy regarding the United States and its allies. The region contains a large percentage of the world’s oil reserves needed by the allies. […]
…meant that the US was the lone western power in the Middle East and placed US oil security in danger as the USSR filled the power vacuum.
The Trump Doctrine –
Trump singled out the China threat in his doctrine […]
The administration also saw the Middle East as being critical for future foreign policy regarding the United States and its allies. The region contains a large percentage of the world’s oil reserves needed by the allies. […]
…meant that the US was the lone western power in the Middle East and placed US & allied oil security in danger as China filled the power vacuum.
Eisenhower’s Doctrine of preventing the creation of a power vacuum in the Middle East that would be filled by Soviet Russia was the same doctrine Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan followed in Europe, America-aligned Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. Their doctrine’s are now Trump’s doctrine in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere, but with the goal of preventing China from filling a power vacuum over those areas instead of the Soviet Union.
Well, this will be the Trump Doctrine unless American Isolationists do something they don’t want to do, something they are incapable of doing.
The moment Isolationists have feared, tried to delay, and avoid making an honest case for during the last 29 years has finally arrived:
Ballot harvesting should be shut down by Trump with an Executive Order because (unlike normal absentee ballots) it breaks the ballot’s chain of ownership and risks the spread of coronavirus.
Turkey’s military standoff with Greece means Turkey is too politically unstable to host American nuclear weapons.
Because only a stable nation state should serve as a base for the Nuclear Triad, Trump should order the weapons to be withdrawn from Turkey and redeployed to a safer location.
The redoployment should be done quietly so as not to have Erdogan lose face, because if he does feel embarrassed he may do something reckless like try to take over the nuclear weapons installations.
The indictment of Kevin Clinesmith for falsifying a FISA spying warrant was anticipated as a major problem for the Spygate colluders, and has now backfired on them, as I expected to happen years ago:
From February 2018,
Whatever other spin is put to the memo, the most important fact to keep in mind is that from now on everyone who made use of the dossier – Steele, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Yates, Ohr, – are each potential criminal suspects for lying and/or misrepresenting information to Federal law enforcement, the FISA Court, or both.
So long as they are all in legal jeopardy for some statutory variation of perjury or lying to Federal Courts, the collusion narrative has changed in a way that favors Trump simply because now it is anti-Trump that has to prove a negative:
Before the memo the burden was on Trump to prove he did not collude with Russia. Now, the burden is on anti-Trump’s law enforcement wing to prove they did not falsify their evidence.
From March 2017,
First, the Progressive story about a Trump-Russia connection has backfired and is now checked.
Second, Progressive FedGov machinery has devolved into an incompetent Shallow State less and less able to defend Liberal interests.
The flimsy allegations Russia somehow coordinated with the Trump campaign have trapped the accusers in a catch-22 they have no obvious way to escape from:
In either case the Progressives can do little more with their allegations. If they insist on their investigation going forward the Left risks Trump retaliating with his own investigation into the legality of the wiretaps. Based on the non-denial denials coming from Obama officials it is doubtful they believe they will come out of an investigation looking better than Trump.
If the Progressives back off their story they are admitting they knew their reported accusations were based on little to no evidence.
It’s morning again for the Military-Industrial Complex.
With the return of a multipolar world divided between American economic spheres of influence and Chinese economic spheres of influence, the window of opportunity that American Isolationists had from 1991 to 2020 to make their case for America withdrawing from its international spheres has closed for good.
Isolationism died for the same reason Globalism died after China’s proven unreliability on the coronavirus – neither Isolationism nor Globalism can exist as viable systems outside a Utopian alternate universe where China is a peaceful and reliable force for balanced trade and security.
To be fair it isn’t clear if American Isolationists ever seriously intended to win the foreign affairs argument in the first place. Not unless posting shirtless Putin pictures, hoisting Syrian flags as their screen avatars, and waxing romantic about the Kim dynasty was their idea of a “strategy” to change US foreign policy.
Whatever it was they were doing those 29 years, it clearly did not work.
The winner of the foreign policy debate are those who want to see the Republican Party become the Federalist Party again because only the Federalist Party systems endorsed by Hamilton – e.g., the Military-Industrial Complex, trade protectionism, and Hamiltonian Regionalist Foreign Policy – can provide a comprehensive system to contain & deter China’s rival system.
In the new multipolar world, Isolationism and Globalism have no answer to the fact their policies would directly strengthen China.
Federal agents should not be defending anything except Federal Government property.
For everything else that is under attack by the social justice tyrants, then out of the timeless Constitutional principles of pure political expediency, Trump should order Federal agents to stand down and leave the rioters free to do as they please. The way things are going the rioters are not only going to get Trump reelected, they are also going to hand control of the House back to the Republicans while expanding the GOP Senate majority.
I for one am itching for McConnell to get another shot at repealing Obamacare.
Trump should also come out against his supporters attending the riots. This way, any mayhem can be squarely pinned on the Democrats because there will be no Trump supporters in the area who can be credibly blamed for any disasters that occur.
Conversations with Prince Metternich –
‘The entire difference,’ said the Prince, ‘between enlightened politicians and the advocates of violent measures may be exemplified by the difference in the signification of the singular and the plural of the word Reform. A man who uses this term in the singular, exclaiming, “ I am for Reform,” is a revolutionist and an advocate of every kind of Violent change which would suit his selfish ends or his vague conceited notions of things; but the term reforms means the salutary removal of certain impediments to the welfare of society which powerful minds, after a thorough investigation and consideration of circumstances, have found to be such: therefore every enlightened politician may pronounce himself an advocate 0f reforms.’ The same distinction of parties and motives he added, might be applied to the use of the word ‘liberty’ in its singular and plural meanings (Freiheit und Freheiten). Those who were always crying out for liberty, he said, wanted exemption from control, a general licence to gratify their individual desires and passions, and moreover power to tyrannize over others;
This question asked by Christopher Hitchens remains a great question.
Great not only on narrow academic merits, but great because its answer relates directly to the explanation for why the American lamestream right and the American inferior reich failed completely against the Progressive.
Aside from Trump, the best all other wings of the Right could point to were successful Conservative lobbying groups like the NRA that scored tactical (but not strategic) victories, and some useful observations here and there by Conservative writers on specific policy matters. But observation only goes so far – all else being equal, a deer caught in the headlights will still be runover no matter how perfectly it observes the headlights.
Otherwise, they have nothing to point to but failure.
Their collapse is what created the political opportunity on the Right now being capitalized on by President Donald Trump’s de facto Party, Hamilton’s Federalist Party (which is also the de facto Party of this de jure Republican website to redefine) to completely redefine the American Right’s understanding of what American Conservatism and American Nationalism are.
Not an official reestablishment of the Federalist Party as a third party strategy. The third party game was played perfectly by Nigel Farage, but would be a mistake in America’s political environment .
No.
What Trump has pulled off is a greater maneuver than orchestrating Britain’s exit from the European Union: The reconversion of the Republican Party itself back into its Federalist Party origins; without officially, and unnecessarily, renaming the Party of Lincoln.
Where Trump succeeded, and every other Republican politician and writer came up short, was in governing Alexander Hamilton’s governing bodies.
Hamilton’s governing structures can all be categorized as those levers of Federal power that were endorsed and/or founded by Hamilton that Trump either loves having Presidential oversight over, or, wants more Presidential power over.
The powerful, Conservative-Nationalist, Hamiltonian structures of the Federal Government that Trump finds so alluring are –
On the flip side, the Progressive bodies are everything that Trump hates about politics and which interfere with the proper operation in Washington of Hamilton’s Corporatist governing structures.
The Wilsonian structures are –
Wilsonian structures remain in place no matter how many buildings named after Wilson are renamed or how many statues of Wilson are torn down – the social justice tyrants are simply the useful idiots of Wilson’s entrenched paradise of the scientific bureaucrats.
Hamiltonian governing structures were originally built by (or, best advocated by) a visionary New Yorker two hundred years ago; they could only be restored two hundred years later by an even more visionary New Yorker.
In his article Hitchens, without realizing it, was in the ballpark of why the long overdue acquisition of the GOP by the Federalist Party is underway.
As was his method of operation, Hitchens struck multiple targets in a violent display of literary firepower.
But he never landed a clear hit on his sought after answer.
His main explanation for the inadequacy of American historical education is that all sides prefer simplistic interpretations – Progressives want a simplistically negative interpretation of American history (except, of course, for Progressive history which is almost always simplistically interpreted as positive) and Conservatives want a simplistically positive interpretation of American history.
This is in many ways true.
But simplicity doesn’t explain why there is so much energy devoted to arguing over US history.
If he were told today what it is, he – a man with many bêtes noires – would be embarrassed because the answer was nothing more or less than one of his very favorite bêtes noires –
Pragmatically Distributed 