The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Trump vs. Clinton: Why Americans Cannot Be Allowed To Take Their Own Side
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/trump ... allowed-to-take-their-own-side
Published: Jan 3, 2016
Author: James Kirkpatrick
Post Date: 2016-01-04 00:05:03 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 1896
Comments: 25
As almost nobody watched the last Democratic debate, you may have missed Hillary Clinton’s charge that Donald Trump had become the Islamic State’s “best recruiter” by supposedly antagonizing Muslims [Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump ‘Becoming ISIS’s Best Recruiter,’ by Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, December 19, 2015]. Now Al Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda offshoot active in Somalia, put out a propaganda video containing a clip of Trump unveiling his plan to halt Muslim immigration in between clips of a terrorist leader saying Muslims would eventually be forced to fight against all Western nations [Donald Trump appears in Al Shabaab’s new terrorism recruiting video, by Kellan Howell, Washington Times, January 2, 2016]. The Left is claiming vindication, with the lesser Charles Johnson (not the editor of GotNews) snarking: “Terrorist group Al-Shabaab is now using Donald Trump’s anti- Muslim bigotry as a recruiting tool, exactly as Hillary Clinton stated” [Al- Shabab Terror Group Uses Donald Trump Soundbite in Recruitment Video, Little Green Footballs, January 2, 2016]. Typically, Trump has brushed aside this claim and struck back hard (“the video that ISIS made was about her husband being a degenerate”) [Trump dismisses terror video, hits Clinton again, by Eric Bradner, CNN, January 3, 2016]. But the real question: why are Americans supposed to care what a bunch of foreigners think? Clinton’s actual charge was that Trump was featured in propaganda for the Islamic State, which is currently in an intra-jihadist shooting war with Al- Qaeda [Think Islamic State has dealt a knock-out blow to al-Qaeda? Think again, by Hugh Naylor, Washington Post, December 26, 2015]. There’s still no proof of that, so Trump’s charge that Clinton made the whole thing up is still valid. As we all know, You Can’t Stump the Trump. But never mind. There is a deeper issue here: the Left’s contention that the only way to defeat Islamic radicalism is through moderate Mohammedans convincing their co-religionists to leave us alone. Donald Trump, we are told, is no less than a threat to national security because he threatens this plan. [USA Today: Trump a ‘threat to national security,’ by Eddie Scarry, Washington Times, December 8, 2015] But there are problems with this argument. The most obvious: it’s ridiculous to say Islamic radicals didn’t have a problem with us until Trump came along. America has been facing Islamic terrorism since well before September 11, all the way back to the Barbary Pirates. [ U.S. at war with Islam since Thomas Jefferson’s time, by Bill Federer, WND, February 15, 2015] A bigger problem: this theory holds that only foreigners are allowed to pronounce on the United States. Americans are not even regarded as a consideration in this mindset. And, as absurd as it sounds, this is precisely the strategy both the Republicans and the Democrats have been following when it comes to waging the farcical “war on terror.” An entire generation of Americans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan can tell us how dangerous it is to rely on the loyalty of people who have no stake in our society. In a story that may remind many veterans of Vietnam, Americans have poured billions of dollars and spilled precious blood to build up military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan incapable of fighting on their own and whom American soldiers and Marines can’t trust. The death of six American troops just before Christmas was enabled by Afghan security forces who failed to detect explosives [Report: Afghan Security Cleared Taliban Suicide Bomber Who Killed Six U.S. Troops, by Edwin Mora, Breitbart, December 24, 2015]. After 14 years of our trying to win “hearts and minds,” the Taliban is still able to launch attacks throughout Afghanistan [Taliban outlast 14 years of U.S. combat in Afghanistan, by Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, December 23, 2015]. We can expect Kabul to fall within hours when America withdraws—Green Berets recently reported that the Afghan army isn’t willing to fight [Green Berets reveal Afghan National Army incompetence, by Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, October 26, 2014]. And that may be the best case scenario—some “allied” Afghan soldiers are quite willing to fight, but only against Americans [Two U.S. troops killed in apparent ‘insider’ attack by Afghan solider, by Sayed Salahuddin, Washington Post, August 26, 2015]. Meanwhile, in Iraq, the soldiers that America spent years training threw down their arms when the Islamic State emerged. Trump is quite right that the Islamic State was essentially created by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and “there is no country” in the sense of an Iraq with functioning institutions [Trump: ‘Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,’ by Colin Campbell, Business Insider, January 2, 2016]. Yet even that isn’t the fundamental issue. Where there are Muslims, there is the problem of “radicalization.” After all, it’s the unlikely location of Minnesota which has emerged as a hotbed of recruitment for Al-Shabaab. Minnesota’s response: spend money to convince them to be basketball coaches instead. But don’t laugh at Minnesota. Nobody else seems to have a better idea. France’s assimilationist approach has failed. More “Britons,” i.e. Muslims, fight for the Islamic State than Her Majesty. Even Sweden, which has practically become a parody of a country ruled by Leftism, has had no luck transforming its Islamic underclass into patriotic citizens. Even native Swedes are now converting to Islam and rushing off to join ISIS. It appears introducing huge populations of angry Muslims is a textbook definition of what Enoch Powell would have called a “preventable evil.” But rather than avoiding this crisis, most Western leaders seem determined to import the problem and then punish their own populations for not celebrating it [Angela Merkel: White Renegade of the Year 2015, by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 31, 2015]. To a modern post-Western leader, it is the responsibility of every civilized nation to import masses of people who will kill you if you offend them. (Ironically, those countries who accept the short-term condemnation of not accepting Muslim populations are the same ones who avoid long-term accusations of “Islamophobia” and “not doing enough” to appease Muslims. Japan won’t have to deal with homegrown Islamic terrorism anytime soon. And we can expect Hungary will experience fewer terrorist attacks in the future than nations such as Germany, France, or even Sweden, which have been “friendlier” to Islam). We see the same kind of self-abasing arguments in the immigration debate: thus Shikha Dalmia of Reason has argued we must oppose immigration restrictions, otherwise most Latinos will eventually vote for “government reparations and programs”—as if they aren’t voting for them now. The historic American nation is to be given no voice over what happens to its own country. Of course, no one, not even liberals or libertarians, really believes that free speech in America risks such repercussions, abroad or at home. You never hear the Main Stream Media worrying about how calling Vladimir Putin a thug and a murderer will antagonize Russia. No-one is concerned that banning the Confederate flag will anger white Southerners. No one says “Chicano/a” activists, or black protesters risk offending white patriots when they blatantly desecrate the American flag while screaming for more programs and preferences from the American government. And no one in the MSM is saying that the government should respond to the current standoff in Oregon with concessions for white ranchers. And that’s the point. To the MSM Narrative Enforcers, Islamic jihadists aren’t a real enemy. Nor can any non-white group ever be a threat to the United States. These groups are devoid of agency. They are only driven to unacceptable actions because of the “root cause” of white racism. For the MSM, now and always, the real enemy are European-Americans. The top priority of the MSM is making sure white Americans remain devoid of any coherent identity or awareness of their own collective interests. And this is the real reason MSM journalists hate Trump: His campaign, in some small way, suggests the historic American nation is moving to take control over its own destiny.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
This is jimmy carter2 ... obomba - Hillary again vs --- Ronald Reagan - Donald Trump ! The voting public ... can figure out the similarities --- consequences again ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Someone has already won the Hearts and Minds of islam; a fellow by the name of mohammed many years ago. Trying to feed, clothe, and sweet-talk those people is like tithing the pope and expecting him to become Lutheran. It ain't going to happen. The more you feed them, the stronger (and more determined) they get.
We're going to a religious war without a religion. Not exactly a winning strategy.
Not unless you want to make rationality your religion. That thakes effort and training. Who wants to do that? It's easier to quote Flatulances 2:9 from the bible and think God will save you from your stupidity. God does not intercede in the petty affairs of mankind.
Objectivism? I don't see it.
If ISIS wants Hillary, then we should never give her power. If they don't want Trump, by god we should give him a shot. Simple logical...
Bingo!
Hillary Clinton: ISIS Endorsed
Don't jump to conclusions or improper extapolations in order to attempt to stick me with someone else's philosophy or behavior.
Are there other "rationality" religions?
Hillary has been a countercultural asset to domestic and foreign enemies of this country for 50 years.
Yup. Try Isaac Asimov.
And she's poised to occupy the White House.
I don't see pedophiles as rational.
I don't see pedophiles as rational. Are you telling me Asimov humped little kids?
And she's poised to occupy the White House. With the women's vote behind her.
My bad. I was thinking of Clarke. Asimov has been accused, but on thin evidence.
My bad. I was thinking of Clarke. Asimov has been accused, but on thin evidence. Clarke--Asimov, it's easy to confuse the two names and their behavior they sound so similar. Who is Clarke and what is he known for other than humping kids?
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke. Perhaps you've heard of him. Asimov's son David is a pedophile, which has led to suggestions that he was abused. As I acknowledged, that's thin.
His son probably felt abandoned. In addition to his duties as a professor of chemisitry, he wrote 400 books in his lifetime and lectured outside the university. It's difficult to see how he took time to be a father.
Heinlein is a better suspect.
He didn't win them. He subjugated them.
He didn't win them. He subjugated them. Initially he did subjugate them by force of arms. But after that he imposed a system of brainwashing that created a population voluntarily and eagerly obsessed with continuing in his path.
We're going to (wage) a religious war without a religion. Not exactly a winning strategy. rlk--- Not unless you want to make rationality your religion In a certain sense, our Constitution, --- our national compact, -- could be called a sort of 'religion', -- or at least a politically rational substitute for one. And, of course , our Constitution gives 'we the people' the power to wage war against enemies of constitutional principles, --- as I'm sure we all can agree?
#2. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
After 14 years of our trying to win “hearts and minds,” the Taliban is still able to launch attacks throughout Afghanistan
#3. To: rlk (#2)
Someone has already won the Hearts and Minds of islam; a fellow by the name of mohammed many years ago.
#4. To: Roscoe (#3)
(Edited)
We're going to a religious war without a religion. Not exactly a winning strategy.
#5. To: rlk (#4)
Not unless you want to make rationality your religion.
#6. To: rlk (#2)
#7. To: jeremiad (#6)
If ISIS wants Hillary, then we should never give her power. If they don't want Trump, by god we should give him a shot.
#8. To: jeremiad (#6)
#9. To: Roscoe (#5)
Objectivism? I don't see it.
#10. To: rlk (#9)
#11. To: Roscoe (#8)
Hillary Clinton: ISIS Endorsed
#12. To: Roscoe (#10)
Are there other "rationality" religions?
#13. To: rlk (#11)
Hillary has been a countercultural asset to domestic and foreign enemies of this country for 50 years.
#14. To: rlk (#12)
Try Isaac Asimov
#15. To: Roscoe (#14)
Try Isaac Asimov
#16. To: Roscoe (#13)
Hillary has been a countercultural asset to domestic and foreign enemies of this country for 50 years.
#17. To: rlk (#15)
Are you telling me Asimov humped little kids?
#18. To: Roscoe (#17)
Are you telling me Asimov humped little kids?
#19. To: rlk (#18)
#20. To: Roscoe (#19)
(Edited)
Asimov's son David is a pedophile, which has led to suggestions that he was abused.
#21. To: Roscoe (#17)
My bad. I was thinking of Clarke. Asimov has been accused, but on thin evidence.
#22. To: Roscoe (#8)
#23. To: rlk (#2)
Someone has already won the Hearts and Minds of islam; a fellow by the name of mohammed many years ago.
#24. To: ironalek (#23)
Someone has already won the Hearts and Minds of islam; a fellow by the name of mohammed many years ago.
#25. To: Roscoe, rlk, Y'ALL (#3)
Roscoe (#3) (Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]