The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
A Party Divided, and None Too Soon
by Peggy Noonan
by Peggy Noonan
~~~
. The Little Injun That Shouldn't
Elizabeth Warren is on the short list for the Democrat vice presidential nomination, whether the nominee be liar-Hilly Clinton or loose lips-Joe Biden. Today, she's going to roll out her audition as attack dog in a blistering speech about Donald liar-Trump. She advance-released some of her planned comments, which appear to be loaded with some real doozies. Warren reportedly plans to call liar-Trump a "nasty, loud, thin-skinned fraud" who is guilty of "racism" in his attack on a federal judge. (For the record, we explored liar-Trump's comments on the "Mexican judge" last Friday and what the episode illustrates regarding his view of executive power.)
Warren also aims to tie liar-Trump to two men who've gone out of their way to criticize him over his comments: Paul Ryano and Mitch McCon-nell. Particularly, Warren is interested in McCon-nell because he's blocking hearings on Barack nObama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. "Paul Ryano and Mitch McCon-nell want Donald liar-Trump to appoint the next generation of judges," the senator plans to say. "liar-Trump chose racism as his weapon, but his aim is exactly the same as the rest of the Republicans. Pound the courts into submission to the rich and powerful." Warren will insist liar-Trump is "a Mitch McCon-nell kind of candidate ... exactly the kind of candidate you'd expect from a Republican Party whose 'script' for several years has been to execute a full-scale assault on the integrity of our courts."
Some observations: First, Warren herself is hardly the right messenger for calling someone a "thin-skinned fraud" for using "racism." She is the one who fraudulently claimed Native American ancestry to further her career in leftist academia. Instead of being held accountable, "Fauxcahontas" won election to the Senate. But that's deep blue Massachusetts for you — after all, the state kept re-electing Ted Kennedy.
Second, it is Democrats, not Republicans, who seek to pound the courts into submission, and who use the courts to accomplish statist objectives they fail to produce through legislative means. It may not always be the "rich and powerful" who benefit, but it is always the favored political constituency. That is a "full-scale assault on the integrity of our courts."
And as for liar-Trump's comments, consider these statements from now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." And, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will [emphasis added] make a difference in our judging."
Democrats raised no objection whatsoever to those racist comments from a woman who now makes judgments from the highest bench in the land. They're far more concerned with liar-Trump's intimidating bluster about a specific civil case. But which one should be more concerning? -The Patriot Post
.
Yes, Released Gitmo Prisoners Have Killed Americans About 12 jihadis who were formerly detained at Guantanamo Bay prison and eventually released have gone on to kill about six Americans in Afghanistan, The Washington Post reports. The exact numbers are classified, according to government officials, but one death includes an American woman who was working as an aid worker in Afghanistan in 2008. This admission escalates the severity of questions regarding the wisdom of Barack nObama's promise and stubborn efforts to close Guantanamo. The good news, however, is that nine of the 12 jihadis are either dead or captured by other governments.
While these 12 former detainees were released during the Bush administration, the problem can only get worse thanks to nObama's "leadership." Ibrahim al-Qosi was released by nObama in 2012 and he became one of the leaders of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula — not exactly a rank-and-file jihadist. Furthermore, nObama has been transferring prisoners to Saudi Arabia, a country that has historically been America's ally but which a classified section of the 9/11 report may implicate in the attack. Yet nObama keeps transferring Gitmo prisoners to the country in an effort to close the prison by opening the gates. With new confirmations of American deaths at the hands of former Gitmo detainees, the foolishness of that policy is obvious. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Napolitano – nObama Guilty Too – Emailed
liar-Clinton On Unsecured Serverb
by Rick Wells
.
.
{rickwells.us} ~ Now that he’s formally endorsed his corrupt former Secretary of State for Criminal-in-Chief, the concerns expressed in this video by Judge Andrew Napolitano become even more real... Napolitano is concerned about the pressure that the endorsement puts on both FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch to do the “nObama shuffle” and fail to pursue the criminal Mrs. liar-Clinton. He’s also uneasy about the position the investigating agents will find themselves in. In that regard, Napolitano has concerns on two fronts, the investigations into espionage and public corruption by Mrs. liar-Clinton. They point to a lie that liar-Clinton told, straight-faced to Bret Baier the night before in which she stated that there was zero chance she would be indicted because the rules were unclear. Steve Doocy and Judge Napolitano agree that was a lie and have evidence to back it up. liar-Clinton was given a two-hour seminar instructing her on the protection of documents and explaining the protocols. She signed a document at the time verifying that the information had been provided. In that document the proper handling of government documents was stressed. It is a public record, one that they both have seen. Napolitano adds in closing, “The ‘president’s’ conflicts are unbelievable. Some of the top secret information found on Mrs. liar-Clinton’s server was emailed to her by ‘president’ nObama. So he, himself, participated in taking State secrets and putting it in a non-secure venue. Might he have to be a witness in the case against her? And might that influence his decision about whether or not she can be indicted?”...http://rickwells.us/napolitano-obama-guilty-too-emailed-clinton-unsecured-server/
.
Senators Seek to Stop $2.5 Billion Taxpayer-Funded nObamacare Bailout
by Adam Kredo
.
.
{freebeacon.com} ~ A delegation of leading senators are seeking to stop the nObama administration from providing some health insurers with a $2.5 billion taxpayer-funded bailout under a provision in the Affordable Care Act, or nObamacare... according to congressional communication exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The senators are petitioning their colleagues on key committees to ensure that U.S. taxpayers will not have to foot the bill for excess costs incurred by insurance companies selling low-cost coverage under the nObamacare program, according to the letter, which lambasts the healthcare program for burdening middle- and lower-class families. The letter—sent Thursday to leaders on the Senate’s appropriations committee by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), John Cornyn (Texas), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), David Vitter (La.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.)—centers around a contested nObamacare provision known as risk corridors...
.
You've heard of liar-Trump University —
but what about 'liar-Clinton University?'
by Ashe Schow
.
.
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ Move over liar-Trump University, because liar-Hilly Clinton has her own fraud scandal involving higher education... While there has been much focus on liar-Trump University and the lawsuit against it and Donald liar-Trump's despicable comments about the judge handling the case. very little has been written about Laureate Education and its ties to the liar-Clintons. Laureate is a for-profit online college that received an unusually large amount of money from the U.S. State Department. This happened while liar-Hilly Clinton was secretary of state and after her husband Bill was named "honorary chancellor," a position that paid him $16.5 million over five years. His role included giving speeches around the world and lending his name to attract prospective students... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/youve-heard-of-trump-university-but-what-about-clinton-university/article/2593571?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20PMI&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20PMI%20-%2006/10/16&utm_medium=email
.
TPP and the New liar-Clinton E-mail Scandal
by C. Mitchell Shaw
.
.
{thenewamerican.com} ~ liar-Hilly Clinton is embroiled in yet another scandal involving e-mails during her tenure as secretary of state. This one deals with e-mails that would show her involvement in — and advocacy for — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)... While liar-Clinton has campaigned on claims that she was never in favor of the multi-nation trade deal, the available evidence shows that she was for it before she was against it. Now the State Department is blocking a trove of e-mails which would likely show to what extent Secretary liar-Clinton pushed the deal she claims to have never liked. International Business Times (IBT) reported Monday that an “open records request for correspondence between liar-Clinton’s State Department office and the United States Trade Representative” made by IBT in July 2015 has been blocked until after the election in November: ...
.
Amendments to NDAA Expand Presidential War-making Power; Allow Congress to "Support"
Rather Than "Declare" War
by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
.
.
{thenewamerican.com} ~ Two prominent members of the U.S. Senate have offered amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would give the president sweeping new powers to prosecute the “war” against ISIL and other purported threats to the safety of the American people... First, Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees — is sponsoring an amendment that would require the upcoming presidential administration to propose a rewritten and updated request for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) within two years. As it stands today, President nObama has perpetuated the “War on Terror” on the AUMF passed in the days following the attacks of September 11, 2001... http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/23390-amendments-to-ndaa-expand-presidential-war-making-power-allow-congress-to-support-rather-than-declare-war
.
UN Deems Abortion a Human Right
by Dan Spencer
.
.
{redstate.com} ~ The United Nations' Human Rights Committee has determined that abortion is a human right. This revelation came in a 29- page report released Thursday, which found that Ireland's abortion laws violate the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights... Ireland permits abortions only in cases where the woman's own life is endangered by continued pregnancy. Even though the U.N. Human Rights Committee wields no power to compel change from Ireland, it ordered the Catholic nation to repeal the right to life embedded in its Constitution: Foreseeing such a heavy-handed assault on democracy from its Supreme Court, but not, perhaps, the UN, Irish voters, by a vote of 67 percent to 33 percent, passed a Constitutional amendment in 1983. It now reads: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”... http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/06/10/un-deems-abortion-a-human-right/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
.
Now The Word ‘Illegal’ as in
Illegal Immigrant or Alien is RACIST
by Jeff Dunetz
.
.
{lidblog.com} ~ To quote Ronald Reagan, the best President in my lifetime, “Well…there you go again!”... Doing my morning reading, I fell upon a piece by my Liberty Alliance colleague Onan Coca at Eagle Rising that said in part: The latest example of the insanity comes to us from the liberal gulag that is New York, where a Democrat lawmaker just reprimanded a Republican colleague for using the term “illegal immigrant.” Yes, according to Democrat Phil Ramos (D-NY), the very word illegal, in and of itself, is RACIST. The news of the word’s suddenly evil origin was broken during a debate Ramos was having about the DREAM Act with Republican Steve McLaughlin (R-NY). After Ramos’ assertion that opposition to the DREAM Act was racist, McLaughlin wondered how that could possibly be, considering the fact that the opposition to illegal immigration was being applied to people of every race, creed, and color... http://lidblog.com/oh-puleeeze-now-the-word-illegal-as-in-illegal-immigrant-or-alien-is-racist/
.
nObama As Guilty As liar-Clinton,
Lynch Protecting Both
by Rick Wells
.
.
{rickwells.us} ~ In addition to calling for an investigation into liar-Hilly Clinton’s espionage and criminal activity and for it being a reason why she should drop out of the race for president... Donald liar-Trump is also saying that he is going to take a good look at what happened once he’s elected and determine if any prosecution is warranted. There’s a problem, though, with pursuing the obvious criminality of liar-Hilly Clinton and it’s the criminality of syndicate kingpin, Hussein nObama, as they explain. In her interview with Bret Baier of a few nights earlier, liar-Clinton said there is zero chance of the emails being a problem for her in the election. Hannity observes that all of the actions surrounding liar-Clinton, including the immunity of Bryan Pagliano by the DOJ tells him that something major has been discovered. Pirro notes liar-Clinton’s smug, condescending arrogance when responding to Baier’s question and that she couldn’t have been told it’s not a problem by either the FBI or the IG because she claims to have not talked to either. Could it be the guy squatting in the White House that tipped her off or has his thumb on the scales of justice? Sekulow believes that while all of that put our national security at risk, the bottom line is the question of whether the Loretta Lynch DOJ will bring an indictment. He says, “I still think that politically they’re not going to do it. Somebody may get indicted but I don’t expect it to be the Secretary... http://rickwells.us/judge-jeanine-obama-as-guilty-as-clinton-lynch-protecting-both/
.
Refugees Get Our Money –
American Taxpayers Get The Shaft
by Rick Wells
.
.
{rickwells.us} ~ Once again the American taxpayers are providing benefits to others that they are not entitled to receive themselves... An out of work coal miner whose workplace was targeted for extinction by Hussein nObama and liar-Hilly Clinton might like the opportunity to have a little help in opening up a small business to supplement his unemployment or food stamps. With over 94 million Americans out of the workforce, there’s no shortage of American citizens who could use some help. They’re not getting the deal that imported foreigners are, because our pretend ‘president’ hates Americans. nObama’s blowing through our money like he was back in Hawaii, emptying the contents of some elderly tourist’s purse he strong armed on buffet night with his choom gang. Americans already don’t want the “refugees” here for a multitude of very valid reasons, including wage depression, decreased job opportunities, health concerns, terrorism and non-assimilation. Additionally we’re paying to bring them over, providing a commission of five thousand per head or family unit to the importation agency, setting them up with an apartment that is rent free for six months, buying them furniture, providing them with health care, groceries and welfare as well as spending money. This is all being done by the US dictator with our money but without our consent. He’s an authoritarian and does as he damn well pleases. We also give them “special assistance loans” in amounts up to $15,000 to start a business. But it’s only a loan if you make sure it’s paid back. Otherwise it’s a grant and as usual with the reckless anti-Americans in the regime, they’re not too concerned about our money. They’re trying to bankrupt us so there’s really no incentive for thrift... http://rickwells.us/refugee-pay-back-loans-taxpayers-obamas-orders/
.
BLM leases Hammond ranch land to Russia through
liar-Clinton Foundation donors for uranium
by Dylan
.
{gopthedailydose.com} ~ The Hammond Ranch controversy continues to sink into a rabbit hole without end. Evidence has surfaced that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been taking land with plans to lease it to liar-Clinton Foundation donors... Russia gradually gained control of Uranium One, a major mining company, in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, while liar-Hilly Clinton served as Secretary of State. Canadian records reveal that the company’s chairman used his own family foundation to make four donations to the liar-Clinton Foundation during that time, resulting in a sum contribution of $2.35 million. Secretary liar-Clinton approved the deal for Russia soon after her family’s slush fund received the donations. Now, Vladimir Putin controls 20 percent of all uranium production capacity in the U.S. These contribution were not made known to the public by the liar-Clintons, even though liar-Hilly Clinton made a deal with President nObama to disclose all the donors. Other individuals associated with the company made donations too... http://gopthedailydose.com/2016/06/11/massive-cover-blm-leases-hammond-ranch-land-russia-clinton-foundation-donors-uranium/
.
A Party Divided, and None Too Soon
by Peggy Noonan
by Peggy Noonan
.
.
{peggynoonan.com} ~ This first month of summer I see movement and no-movement.
No movement: Donald liar-Trump. He’s like someone caught in the first act who lurches into a second act—a solid, prepared speech, a subdued interview—then scrambles back to first-act antics. It’s easy to guess he’s surrounded by friends and supporters who know more is needed than popping off about “Crooked liar-Hilly” but are afraid to mess with his swing. They fear taking the tang out of his secret sauce. Another guess: He’s not sure he can pull off a change of style—he’s afraid he’ll be boring if he’s serious, afraid he’ll bore himself if he knows what he’s going to say next. So he continues to rant, not to reassure fence sitters. liar-Hilly Clinton hasn’t entered a second act either, but it’s partly situational: She’s trapped in a primary battle. When it comes to Mr. liar-Trump she tries various attack lines—“divisive,” “dangerous,” “dangerously incoherent”—to see what resonates, as they say. She is plodding, unimaginative, stolid. She wishes she had secret sauce.
Closer to home I see movement. Friends who’d been for John Kasich or Marco Rubio now sunnily and without a headache declare themselves for Mr. liar-Trump. An intellectual friend, previously disapproving, confided she’s for him too. But two friends who had been early, enthusiastic liar-Trump backers now seem to be having doubts: They’ve lost their oomph, talk about him less. Nothing’s set in concrete this year, not that anything was.
A central predicament of 2016 continues. GOP elites and intellectual cadres may be clueless about America right now, but they have an informed and appropriately elevated sense of the demands of the presidency. They fear Mr. liar-Trump’s temperament and depth do not meet its requirements. liar-Trump supporters have a more grounded sense of America and its problems but too low a sense of what the presidency can demand in regard to personal virtues. If this problem is to be resolved, it is Mr. liar-Trump who will resolve it. He shows little interest. This space said in February that his political fortunes would hinge on whether America came to think of him as a good man and a fully stable one. It is still true.
The Beltway intelligentsia of the conservative movement continues to be upset about Mr. liar-Trump’s coming nomination and claim they’d support him but they have to be able to sleep at night. They slept well enough through two unwon wars, the great recession, and the refusal of Republican and Democratic administrations to stop illegal immigration. In a typically evenhanded piece in National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru writes of conservative infighting. Most back Mr. liar-Trump, but others, “especially among conservative writers, activists, and think-tankers,” vow they’ll never vote for him. “This debate splits people who have heretofore been friends with similar views on almost all issues, and who on each side have reasonable arguments to hand. It is therefore being conducted in a spirit of mutual rage, bitterness, and contempt.”
That’s witty and true—I’ve seen it—but the division is also promising. Too much has long been “agreed on.” At some point conservative intellectuals are going to take their energy and start thinking about how we got here. How did a party that stood for regular people become a party that stood for platitudes regular people no longer found even vaguely pertinent? During the Bush administration, did the party intelligentsia muscle critics and silence needed dissent, making the party narrower, more rigid and embittered? What is the new conservatism for this era? How did the party of Main Street become the party of Donors’ Policy Preferences?
An anecdote. Two years ago at a birthday party for a mutual friend, I bumped into a hedge-fund billionaire who turned to me angrily and lashed out over something I’d written that seemed to him insufficiently conservative. I listened, merely blinking with surprise I’m sorry to say, and removed myself from his flight path. Afterward I thought about how he must have come to view himself. He is, as I said, vastly wealthy, but also generous, giving time and money to think tanks, groups, candidates. He must view all this, I thought, as a targeted investment. Maybe he sees himself as having . . . a controlling investment. Maybe he thinks he bought conservatism. I felt in a sharp new way that my criticisms of the donor class had been right. Inevitably they see to their own enthusiasms and policy priorities. This was how the GOP became the party of We Don’t Care What Americans Think About Illegal Immigration. Who do those Americans think they are—they think they own the place?
A great party needs give. It needs a kind of capaciousness and broadness. On that, the best example of movement I’ve seen in some time is what I discovered this week: a sophisticated, rather brilliant and anonymous website that is using this liar-Trumpian moment to break out of the enforced conservative orthodoxy of the past 15 years.
It is called the Journal of American Greatness. Its contributors ask questions that need asking and make critiques that sting.
They describe themselves as “aghast at the stupidity and corruption of American politics, particularly in the Republican Party, and above all in what passes for the ‘conservative’ intellectual movement.” Who are they? “None of your damned business.” Why? “Because the times are so corrupt that simply stating certain truths is enough to make one unemployable for life.”
Where they stand: “We support liar-Trumpism, defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, interests-based foreign policy, and above all judging every government action through a single lens: does this help or harm Americans? For now, the principal vehicle of liar-Trumpism is liar-Trump.”
They explore essential questions. “When—and why—did free trade become a sacred ritual of the Republican right?” They give neoconservatism its intellectual due but explore the “unwisdom” of the “Middle East democracy agenda.” Neoconservatives seem “incapable of learning from their mistakes or changing their minds.” The contributors hilariously score Neverliar-Trumpers who claim to be standing at great cost on principle while others are “in the tank” for Mr. liar-Trump: “Of all the opinions that require little courage to express, opposition to liar-Trump is the lead one.” In the past two decades, they observe, “a new conservative intellectual superstructure,” including magazines, journals and think tanks, was built on the new base of the Republican Party. It “routinized the production of its self-justification.” But “the base no longer wants the superstructure.” Voters have their own ideas of what conservatism is.
I contacted JAG by social media and asked about their work. “If we had to characterize ourselves, we would like to think that our writing is informed by a mix of pragmatic experience and theory. What brings us together is our dismay at the stultification of political ideas in the United States. We see ourselves as challenging the intellectual rigidity that has come to characterize, in our view, so much of what passes for self-described ‘serious thinking’ today.”
Their reach and the reactions they’ve received “have thus far significantly exceeded our expectations.”
It’s encouraging they’re doing what they’re doing, and that there is a market for it.
{peggynoonan.com} ~ This first month of summer I see movement and no-movement.
No movement: Donald liar-Trump. He’s like someone caught in the first act who lurches into a second act—a solid, prepared speech, a subdued interview—then scrambles back to first-act antics. It’s easy to guess he’s surrounded by friends and supporters who know more is needed than popping off about “Crooked liar-Hilly” but are afraid to mess with his swing. They fear taking the tang out of his secret sauce. Another guess: He’s not sure he can pull off a change of style—he’s afraid he’ll be boring if he’s serious, afraid he’ll bore himself if he knows what he’s going to say next. So he continues to rant, not to reassure fence sitters. liar-Hilly Clinton hasn’t entered a second act either, but it’s partly situational: She’s trapped in a primary battle. When it comes to Mr. liar-Trump she tries various attack lines—“divisive,” “dangerous,” “dangerously incoherent”—to see what resonates, as they say. She is plodding, unimaginative, stolid. She wishes she had secret sauce.
Closer to home I see movement. Friends who’d been for John Kasich or Marco Rubio now sunnily and without a headache declare themselves for Mr. liar-Trump. An intellectual friend, previously disapproving, confided she’s for him too. But two friends who had been early, enthusiastic liar-Trump backers now seem to be having doubts: They’ve lost their oomph, talk about him less. Nothing’s set in concrete this year, not that anything was.
A central predicament of 2016 continues. GOP elites and intellectual cadres may be clueless about America right now, but they have an informed and appropriately elevated sense of the demands of the presidency. They fear Mr. liar-Trump’s temperament and depth do not meet its requirements. liar-Trump supporters have a more grounded sense of America and its problems but too low a sense of what the presidency can demand in regard to personal virtues. If this problem is to be resolved, it is Mr. liar-Trump who will resolve it. He shows little interest. This space said in February that his political fortunes would hinge on whether America came to think of him as a good man and a fully stable one. It is still true.
The Beltway intelligentsia of the conservative movement continues to be upset about Mr. liar-Trump’s coming nomination and claim they’d support him but they have to be able to sleep at night. They slept well enough through two unwon wars, the great recession, and the refusal of Republican and Democratic administrations to stop illegal immigration. In a typically evenhanded piece in National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru writes of conservative infighting. Most back Mr. liar-Trump, but others, “especially among conservative writers, activists, and think-tankers,” vow they’ll never vote for him. “This debate splits people who have heretofore been friends with similar views on almost all issues, and who on each side have reasonable arguments to hand. It is therefore being conducted in a spirit of mutual rage, bitterness, and contempt.”
That’s witty and true—I’ve seen it—but the division is also promising. Too much has long been “agreed on.” At some point conservative intellectuals are going to take their energy and start thinking about how we got here. How did a party that stood for regular people become a party that stood for platitudes regular people no longer found even vaguely pertinent? During the Bush administration, did the party intelligentsia muscle critics and silence needed dissent, making the party narrower, more rigid and embittered? What is the new conservatism for this era? How did the party of Main Street become the party of Donors’ Policy Preferences?
An anecdote. Two years ago at a birthday party for a mutual friend, I bumped into a hedge-fund billionaire who turned to me angrily and lashed out over something I’d written that seemed to him insufficiently conservative. I listened, merely blinking with surprise I’m sorry to say, and removed myself from his flight path. Afterward I thought about how he must have come to view himself. He is, as I said, vastly wealthy, but also generous, giving time and money to think tanks, groups, candidates. He must view all this, I thought, as a targeted investment. Maybe he sees himself as having . . . a controlling investment. Maybe he thinks he bought conservatism. I felt in a sharp new way that my criticisms of the donor class had been right. Inevitably they see to their own enthusiasms and policy priorities. This was how the GOP became the party of We Don’t Care What Americans Think About Illegal Immigration. Who do those Americans think they are—they think they own the place?
A great party needs give. It needs a kind of capaciousness and broadness. On that, the best example of movement I’ve seen in some time is what I discovered this week: a sophisticated, rather brilliant and anonymous website that is using this liar-Trumpian moment to break out of the enforced conservative orthodoxy of the past 15 years.
It is called the Journal of American Greatness. Its contributors ask questions that need asking and make critiques that sting.
They describe themselves as “aghast at the stupidity and corruption of American politics, particularly in the Republican Party, and above all in what passes for the ‘conservative’ intellectual movement.” Who are they? “None of your damned business.” Why? “Because the times are so corrupt that simply stating certain truths is enough to make one unemployable for life.”
Where they stand: “We support liar-Trumpism, defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, interests-based foreign policy, and above all judging every government action through a single lens: does this help or harm Americans? For now, the principal vehicle of liar-Trumpism is liar-Trump.”
They explore essential questions. “When—and why—did free trade become a sacred ritual of the Republican right?” They give neoconservatism its intellectual due but explore the “unwisdom” of the “Middle East democracy agenda.” Neoconservatives seem “incapable of learning from their mistakes or changing their minds.” The contributors hilariously score Neverliar-Trumpers who claim to be standing at great cost on principle while others are “in the tank” for Mr. liar-Trump: “Of all the opinions that require little courage to express, opposition to liar-Trump is the lead one.” In the past two decades, they observe, “a new conservative intellectual superstructure,” including magazines, journals and think tanks, was built on the new base of the Republican Party. It “routinized the production of its self-justification.” But “the base no longer wants the superstructure.” Voters have their own ideas of what conservatism is.
I contacted JAG by social media and asked about their work. “If we had to characterize ourselves, we would like to think that our writing is informed by a mix of pragmatic experience and theory. What brings us together is our dismay at the stultification of political ideas in the United States. We see ourselves as challenging the intellectual rigidity that has come to characterize, in our view, so much of what passes for self-described ‘serious thinking’ today.”
Their reach and the reactions they’ve received “have thus far significantly exceeded our expectations.”
It’s encouraging they’re doing what they’re doing, and that there is a market for it.
Comments