What does “conservative” even mean anymore? Is it conservative to want to pave the planet? Is unending war a conservative value? The National Review has embraced gay marriage and supports whichever Republican candidate who most wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Does conservatism mean supporting the Constitution? If so, why did Conservatism, Inc. so hate Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012? I notice that a basic litmus test for “conservatism” these days is that you must ignore the increasing evidence for global warming and continue to insist that it is all a hoax. There is nothing left of conservatism, so it matters not to me whether we get a candidate who is a “conservative”. I want someone who will enforce immigration law. I don’t care if Conservatism, Inc. disavows him.

“Marco Roboto”

Funny. I like that one too. Captures his essence. BTW that’s why I strongly suspect that Chris Christie’s devastating attack on the Rube at the NH debate must have originated in the Trump camp. It’s no small task to devise a short phrase that captures the essence of the person being attacked. Look at the lines Trump used effectively against Jeb!!! (“low energy candidate”) and Rick Perry (“thought he could make himself look smarter by wearing glasses”). Both candidacies probably would have failed anyway, but those two well-directed torpedoes sent both campaigns right to the bottom in very short order.

I prefer the one I saw somebody else here on Unz using (but I can’t remember who)—Marco Roboto.

No, but I was sorry for all those dead Marines that died because a moron allowed himself to be bluffed by the Russians and send in troops for no good reason after he had the Navy shell the place. I was also mad that he got even more Americans killed with that stupid, put together on the way over there, Grenada invasion to make everybody forget how stupid he was in Lebanon.

When it comes to stupidity combined with worthlessness – nobody tops Ronald Reagan – unless it is Ron and Nancy.

The least you could do is answer Rubio’s legitimate question: does BHO indeed know what he’s doing? Or is he just a fool?

Still sore that he pulled out of Lebanon?

Well, I guess I owe Fox News an apology. As the evening wore on, Fox made it clear that the NBC/WSJ poll was, in the words of Newt Gingrich, an “outlier.” Hannity at 10 started off by reciting all the polls showing Trump with a big lead nationally, then noted the NBC “outlier poll,” and then recited all the state polls showing uniformly large leads for Trump in SC. Hannity just had on Laura Ingraham and Geraldo Rivera who made it clear that Trump was not only likely to win SC on Saturday but to get the nomination. Ingraham was urging Party leaders to accept that reality and learn to live with it. Rivera cited the case of a black cab driver, whom he asked what his voting preference was, who said “Trump” without hesitation since he was tired of hearing the same old-same old from the other politicians. I guess even Fox has come to grips with the fact that Trump is for real and that his message is resonating with a lot of Americans. I’m guessing that their switchboards must have lit up with irate calls from viewers who reacted the same way as I did to that 6 pm opening.

Yeah, I was aware of that but I try to tone down my Reagan hatred every now and then. If I was to post every stupid, dishonest, worthless thing that moron did, I wouldn’t have time for anything else.

Greta Van Susteren, who holds the 7-8 slot on Fox, made up for the earlier miss on “Special Report” by not only reporting the NBC/WSJ poll showing Cruz leading Trump nationally but pointing out that the Quinnipiac poll still showed Trump with the same substantial lead he has been holding for months. She expressed some doubt about the new poll and a need for confirmation from other polls. I have found that, of all the Fox luminaries, Greta Van Susteren appears to be the straightest shooter. She really does have a respect for the facts for the most part, unlike the other clowns on Fox News. A thought which occurred to me later was that Fox was hesitant to mention the poll of a competitor, NBC News, in any depth at a time when viewers might be tempted to switch channels. By the time Van Susteren came on air at 7 pm, the worry about a switch had passed

This is really odd. When I turned on Fox News at 6 pm, I heard Bret Baier read off a summary of the various topics to be covered in the program this evening. The one item that grabbed my attention (assuming I heard right) had to do with a new national poll showing Ted Cruz leading Donald Trump. I was astounded when I heard that and listened closely to his subsequent coverage to catch the name of the outfit conducting the poll. He didn’t bring up that item in his detailed news report. As I posted yesterday, the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll as of February 16 showed Trump leading nationally with 40.8% and Cruz second with a distant 16.9%. That result is consistent with polls going back many months. I have no explanation for the Fox News propagandistic introduction. It appears to be totally false and certainly doesn’t speak well of Fox News’ honesty. [Note: see following paragraph, which gets Fox off the hook, in part.]

I got the answer when I switched to NBC Nightly News at 6:30. They led off with the startling news that the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Cruz with 28% leading Trump with 26% nationally. Of course, unmentioned by Lester Holt, was the fact that RCP shows two other current reputable polls, Quinnipiac and USA Today/Suffolk, still showing Trump with more than 30% and leading Cruz by 21% and 15% respectively. Seems like a last minute ploy by NBC News (owned by Comcast Corp.) to influence this Saturday’s SC primary. All the polls in SC show Trump with a still healthy lead in SC over Cruz, Rubio and the others.

BTW I checked Nate Silver’s piece following the 2012 election in which he rated 23 polls. As I noted before, Reuters/Ipsos was ranked 6th, just a fraction below the 2nd ranked poll in accuracy. Quinnipiac and USA Today (I think) were rated 11 and 10, but NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was not mentioned at all. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

{He forget that his hero Reagan did nothing in response to this.}

In fact US (and probably UK) helped Saddam obtain and/or develop poison gas.

[Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons']

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

[How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/

{….it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan’s Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime’s repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq’s Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.}

I usually leave my mom’s house when I go there to work on it at @1:30-2:15 when that moron Hannity is on. He is still braying about the Iraq war being necessary because Saddam gassed the Kurds. It is amazing that people lap this up without thinking. He forget that his hero Reagan did nothing in response to this. He also forgets the intervening 12 years where we had inspectors who never found anything. Finally, he talks about the stories in the New York Times prior and during the war (Judith Miller – Israel First, Last, and Alwayser).

My guess is that even Hannity isn’t this stupid but both him and Rush have to continually repeat this garbage in the hopes of keeping the dumber members of their audience on the GOP plantation.

I hope Trump OK’s the Keystone Pipeline day one – that will signal things are a changing.

I would note that the Reuters/Ipsos poll of national sentiment as of February 16 shows Trump at 40.8%, Cruz at 16.9%, Carson at 11.5%, Rubio at 9.8%, Jeb!!! at 8.0% and Kasich at 7.1%. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20160101-20160216/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

A couple of observations. The poll was taken after Saturday’s SC debate, which apparently didn’t hurt Trump at all. Reuters/Ipsos was the sixth rated poll in 2012 by Nate Silver, so it has a reputation for accuracy. Reuters/Ipsos has consistently shown Trump at higher levels than other polls. In fact, it showed Trump at 50% at the beginning of 2016. With Jeb!!! at 8% nationally and showing 4th place in SC, I don’t see how he survives SC with a poor showing after pulling out all the stops with his brother’s appearance. On Sunday, Kasich was on one of the Sunday shows and whooped and hollered about a poll showing him second to Trump, but that has faded so he is now running a distant fifth or sixth in SC, which takes most of the bloom off his unexpected second place finish in NH.

You don’t have to convince me, Art. I was opposed to the Iraq War more than year before it started when I heard GWB utter that “Axis of Evil” phrase in the State of the Union speech in February 2002. I thought Trump was just telling it as it was, which obviously has Jeb!!! and his brother and the rest of the elite which fully backed that ridiculous war concerned that Trump will totally damage their reputation if he becomes President. If I were Trump, the first thing I would do as President is tell the Defense Department to release Sen. John McCain’s records pertaining to his imprisonment in Vietnam. Time to finally expose that phony war hero’s real story of how he violated the Code of Military Justice by agreeing to reveal military secrets to the North Vietnamese in exchange for medical treatment, as he openly admitted in an interview with U.S. News & World Report a few months after his release in 1973. That should dramatically deflate the reputation of the most outspoken hawk in the U.S. Congress who is constantly asking that the U.S. get involved in one war after another. Next thing I would do is release those private CIA documents having to do with “Curveball,” the Iraqi gentleman upon whom SOS Colin Powell based his UN speech justifying the Iraq War, even though the CIA had never been allowed to interview him by his German handlers but expressed strong reservations about and questioned the truth of his testimony. In fact, the Associated Press ran an article six months after Powell’s UN speech in which they documented that everything he said in that speech had been proven to be false. So Trump is treading on safe ground, as far as I am concerned. I am a little surprised that he decided to be so aggressive about the Iraq War in the SC debate with the SC primary a week away. But the polls so far show that his outspoken attacks against Jeb!!!, his brother and the Iraq War have not hurt him in SC, so maybe even the citizens of SC have had their fill of stupid wars. We shall see on Saturday.

If they don’t crush Trump they will lose all or some of their donors and if they do crush Trump the voters will send them out of Washington DC. I don’t know what they will do but I think they will huff it if Trump win the presidency and see to that Trump goes the same way as Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Exactly — that is my hope.

America is not a one party state like California, Oregon, Washington are today. The big money really has no choice – it still has to back both sides.

So…your analysis is that Rubio keeps on saying “new american century” to send signals to the couple of hundred people who were authors of PNAC or passionate devotees that they should keep on reminding the neo-con money bags to fill his campaigning pockets? And that he counts on others not inferring that his use of the catch phrase means he is owned by the Jewish neo-cons/Israel firsters?

Absolutely.

Does the average American know the implications of the words “New American Century – NO.

But four or five very rick Jews do – Rubio is asking them for more money and not to give money to Cruz – end of story.

I agree with you. The only thing I said was that Trump has not been attacked hard enough by the elites and that is why he is still standing.

The GOP establishment (I recognize that there are diversity within) is the vast majority of the elected politicians and executives and higher management within the party. Conservative Inc, think thanks and the Republican Media (Such as Fox News) is something else.

Yes, the GOP will lose a lot if not giving Trump a chance. However, if Trump wins the Neo-Conservatives, Internationalist and Big business people would not own the presidency. The GOP establishment wants to stay in Washington DC but what if their donors say that their priority is to get rid of Trump? If the GOP establishment doesn’t crush Trump the donors may turn against them and support other politicians who do their bidding. I think the pressure in GOP establishment is enormous because of Trump. If they don’t crush Trump they will lose all or some of their donors and if they do crush Trump the voters will send them out of Washington DC. I don’t know what they will do but I think they will huff it if Trump win the presidency and see to that Trump goes the same way as Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

because the elites have not bought the support of their base.

Do you even understand what is going on in the real world? Just who do you think has been actively screwing the base these last 30 years by filling the country up with illegal aliens, immigrants, guest workers, and moving their jobs overseas? I will give you a hint “THE ELIT-S”.

Do you understand their game? They want to screw the base and try and make sure the base doesn’t notice who is behind it. The game is played out.

I understand how propaganda works. What I’m talking about is ousting Donald Trump from all respectable discourse. The attacks on Trump have not been aggressive enough. In Europe the elites are much more aggressive and even commit crimes to hold the alternative right at bay. If they want to get rid of Trump they need to destroy him and some bias in the MSM is not nearly enough. Voters are stupid. The only reason why you see angry people in Western countries voting on the alternative-right and in the US case on Trump is because the elites have not bought the support of their base. It is done through giving regular people decent jobs which allow them to marry, buy a house and car. Then you let them spend their life in a bubble consisting of ESPN, CNN and Fox and trips to some Disney-resort in Florida or Hawaii. Understand – this is how the elites operate in the past and it was very successful. The problem with the US elites is that they act just as the European elite did in the 1850-1920 and lead to people turned to radical Nationalism, Fascism, and Communism or simply moved to United States were the elites “got it”.

Dick Cheney who spent virtually the whole time criticizing Donald Trump for his critical remarks about the Iraq War

FOX-n-Krauthammer went to the devil himself to refute Trump.

There is no question but that Cheney did the dirty work to get the Iraq War started.

How many people did he get killed?

Who, as a matter of interest, do YOU count as GOP Establishment? Greasy William didn’t reply to my basically similar question but Art crudely replied with reference to everyone knowing it was rich Jewish neo-cons.

A further observation. If Roger Ailes is stuffing up Fox’s influence and ratings over Trump it doesn’t mean Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t be able to accommodate a Trump victory though Trump’s independent wealth may make him a slippery customer right now. The two of them would be well matched for deal making skills even if in different styles. No great difference in principles held dear would you say?

So…your analysis is that Rubio keeps on saying “new american century” to send signals to the couple of hundred people who were authors of PNAC or passionate devotees that they should keep on reminding the neo-con money bags to fill his campaigning pockets? And that he counts on others not inferring that his use of the catch phrase means he is owned by the Jewish neo-cons/Israel firsters? And you are yourself such a DC insider that you are really sure that is the right interpretation to the point where none of your fellow insiders could honestly doubt it? Good to know we have such sophistication available to us free. I should amend my CTI list.

I’m convinced that the most of the GOP establishment would prefer Clinton and even semi-establishment candidates such as Sanders over Donald Trump.

That is 100% true – but they have a problem – a big problem.

The Republican establishment has no real choice – if they do not nominate Trump, the people who want him will not vote – they hate the establishment – that means losing the presidency, the senate, and maybe the house.

A small turnout will hurt big time. It is Trump or nothing for the Republican establishment.

I have stopped watching Fox news. Who knew that in just a matter of weeks MSNBC would become more objective and professional than Fox? Even so, I don’t watch them either. In fact, the only media news I watch is the local weather and they can’t get that right 3 days out.

As for Megan Kelly, she is a “Foxtwat”. After all, the bottle-blond bimbo wasn’t hired for her brains. Feel free to use this label and my “Rube-bot” and spread them far and wide..

“Marcobot” – author

I prefer the moniker I made up: “Rube-bot”. It has a nice double meaning to give it more weight.

If the MSM was hostile they would brand Trump as a far-right extremist.

Do you understand how propaganda works? You take something with a kernel of truth, distort it and continually repeat the lie until it becomes the truth. How in the world can you say Trump is “far-right”? Unless you can point to some speech or incident that will work you have nothing and you look stupid for trying. They already tried that on Trump’s immigration stance, his Megyn Kelly kerfuffle, and his stance on Muslims and the public just laughed at the MSM.

If the GOP elite pandering down on democracy to get rid of Trump it will only temporary hurt the party.

I don’t think so. What the Party did to Ron Paul opened a lot of eyes. What is going on now is making more people sick of the GOP. At some point the party has to start caring about it’s base or a new party needs to form to take it’s place.

I agree with you that the MSM is hostile to Trump but it is very soft hostility. Only the Huffington Post and some minor newspapers have showed real hostility towards Trump and I think that can be debated. If the MSM was hostile they would brand Trump as a far-right extremist. I don’t see SPLC and ADL coming out against him other than soft criticism. MSM should treat him as they treated far-right writer/activist David Duke in the 1992 primaries but they do not. In fact; Trump getting much less heat than Pat Buchanan did in the 1992 and 1996 primaries. Trump is getting away with it because he is (or was) an establishment celebrity, is filthy rich and has connections to elite institutions. The GOP establishment, MSM and SPLC/ADL wouldn’t dare to destroy him. Their weakness and lack of coordination is the reason why Trump is winning. If I was the GOP elite I would have expelled from the party before the voting begun.

Naturally, Trump is winning against the other candidates other than maybe semi-establishment candidates Cruz and Carson. Trump has 1/3 of the GOP, the semi-establishment (Cruz and Carson) has 1/3 and the rest is held by the establishment (Bush, Rubio and Kasich). It is all the fault of the establishment because their arrogance and weakness allowed Trump to become the front-runner. This is how GOP star Eric Cantor lost to nobody David Brat. It would be difficult for Fox to endorse Clinton but the alternative is Trump. You have to sacrifice some money and soldiers if you are going to win. I know America is not France or any other European country with multiply of parties. However, what I’m saying is that if the GOP establishment wanted to destroy Trump they could but instead they whispering to Trump that he ought to get out of the race instead of forcefully kicking him out.

United States has more or less only two viable parties. If the GOP elite pandering down on democracy to get rid of Trump it will only temporary hurt the party. Voters and members will forget after a few years.

I was watching “Special Report with Bret Baier” tonight on Fox at 6 pm, and his guest for most of the first half hour (after which I normally switch to NBC) was Dick Cheney who spent virtually the whole time criticizing Donald Trump for his critical remarks about the Iraq War, which Cheney insisted we “won,” only to see the “victory” squandered by Obama. (Since my whole purpose in switching to Fox at 6 pm this past year was to get “hard news,” my purpose was defeated by seeing this propaganda ploy. I may have to reconsider my switch.) The GOP elite obviously views SC as their last chance to derail Trump’s candidacy. I heard a young woman who was a party operative later on Fox openly stating that, if Trump is not stopped in SC, she didn’t see how his campaign could possibly be stopped down the road. Cheney did not get a lot of hard ball questions from Baier, so it clearly appears that Fox is determined to stop Trump. Curiously, the candidate they seemed to emphasize tonight was Jeb Bush, not Rubio.

There are only slight differences between GOP and the Democratic Party. Their politician’s campaigns are more or less funded by the same people. The conflict about abortion and traditional marriages has been won by the Democrats and the GOP establishment opposition is mostly symbolic. I’m convinced that the most of the GOP establishment would prefer Clinton and even semi-establishment candidates such as Sanders over Donald Trump. Temporary politics in the west is just a show – in the end politics is in the hand of the Davos liberals, corporations, media and the managerial class.

One piece traced it back to the days when Rubio worked on Dole’s campaign in 1996 and suggested he could have got the expression from Dole or Jack Kemp or perhaps Clinton’s “Next American Century”.

Everyone in Washington knows the words “New American Century” and where they come from — EVERYONE!

Sorry but this Mr. Wiz is pulling our leg again, faining ignorance.

From where I stand it is eccentric to call someone “establishment” – not least if the word is used in the same sense as in “Republican establishment” – on the ground that he is (allegedly) “owned” by “Big Jews” who have given him money.

“Establishment” is a word originally and normally used to describe those in long established networks or positions of influence …yada…yada.

Mr. Wiz does not question whether Rubio takes Big Jew money (a fact).

His quibble is the side issue of whether Big Jews are the establishment. It is a quibble that does not have a clear 100% answer. Does Mr. Wiz aim to discredit the whole fact of Big Jew money with a quibble – YES.

Can the senate and house be described as “those in long established networks or positions of influence?”

Most all of the Republican senate and house gave “The Mufti did it” Netanyahu many standing ovations – are they not the establishment?

Who would be so dishonest as to say that Big Jew money and power does not control and influence the Republican establishment?

Does controlling something make the controlling interest part of that something? It is difficult to say – NO.

Rubio is establishment because he is establishment. He just is. You might as well ask me to define “obscenity”. I know it when I see it.

Establishment I guess means part of the beltway consensus on all or at least most issues. Rubio is for amnesty and open borders and that is something that the establishment of both parties agree on. He is for TPP and globalism, again, like the establishment of both parties.

I guess you could define the core of establishment beliefs as follows:
1. Open borders
2. “Free” trade, as seen by NAFTA and TPP
3. Pro Wall Street, anti financial regulation
4. Economic neoliberalism
5. Militant anti Russian and anti Chinese foreign policy

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio all agree on all these issues. So do all the major donors for both parties, the overwhelming majority of both party’s elected officials and functionaries, and the national media and think tanks. That’s the establishment.

“Art” is on my CTI list but somehow this appeared unblocked so I take the opportunity of again asking “Greasy William” or someone else with more IQ points than a semi-literate baboon why Rubio might be described as “establishment”. Or in what Humpty Dumpty sense GW is choosing to use the word.

From where I stand it is eccentric to call someone “establishment” – not least if the word is used in the same sense as in “Republican establishment” – on the ground that he is (allegedly) “owned” by “Big Jews” who have given him money. “Establishment” is a word originally and normally used to describe those in long established networks or positions of influence not people who had bought themselves in recently or were single issue proponents.

Assuming that your idea of deep research is to put a catchphrase into a Google search u tried “rubio new american century” which showed that not everyone intrigued by that bit of Rubio’s rhetoric is as obsessive about Jews as “Art”. One piece traced it back to the days when Rubio worked on Dole’s campaign in 1996 and suggested he could have got the expression from Dole or Jack Kemp or perhaps Clinton’s “Next American Century”. Not everyone is so witless that they think that Rubio would advertise to everyone that his allegiances are to those who gave America the Iraq debacle. And since when did the neo-cons become the Republican establishment? Is there indeed a Republican establishment any longer? Perhaps when a member of the Bush family who is a rich Ivy League graduate aspires to high office in 2035 someone will write understandably “is the establishment making a comeback?”. (Or a Lowell, Lodge or Roosevelt…..).

The problem with your analysis is that the GOP can’t win without blue-collar whites. To do anything as blatant and crass as expelling Trump from the party means handing the election to Clinton.

What makes Rubio establishment and other Republican rivals not?

Oh my — another attempt by this Wiz character to muddy the waters.

Wiz knows full well why Rubio is establishment – Rubio is supplied mega money by Big Jews – they own him.

Over and over Rubio repeats the phrase “New American Century”.

“New American Century” is the manifesto of the neocon Zionist Jew cabal that controls Washington.

This Wiz guy is NEVER to be trusted – his words and comments amount to spin. His soft words are really screaming lies.

“The corporate, media and political elite have not attacked Trump with a resolute co-ordination.”

You must read different newspapers and watch different TV shows than I. The MSM have been overwhelmingly and blatantly anti-Trump from the beginning. What’s remarkable is that Trump has done so well in the polls and now Iowa and NH despite the onslaught of negative press coverage.

“A blind retarded monkey could defeat Trump. ”

Well, they had a whole field of them, and not one has come close, even though the MSM each week trumpeted the flavor of the week as the one to knock off Trump. I notice several of those flavors of the week have since dropped out of the race, and Trump is still standing tall.

If the GOP elite does what you suggest, endorse Hillary Clinton, then they can say goodbye to the GOP as their home. After Fox started the first debate by making Trump pledge that he would not run third-party, I think he would have a field day asking the American public “who’s the real conservative?” and ride that horse to victory in November. I think, after making tons of money trashing Hillary Clinton, Fox would have a difficult job turning around and endorsing her, if she is the nominee. I am hoping after the election that Trump takes the bold move of ejecting the neoconservatives and send them all back to their old home, the Democratic Party.

BTW America is not France, where you have a tradition of multiple established parties vying for the top prize. Maybe you should brush up a little on American history before posting on unz.com.

As I said, I do not endorse the far-right elite in Israel do to Palestinians or non-Jews. I think Israel and the Jewish community ought to become more tolerant and progressive. I think we should export Black Lives Matter, college professors, MSM and diversity courses to Israel.

The reason why Trump is still standing is that Conservative Inc. and the GOP establishment overestimated their appeal to the public. If they wanted to they could have blocked Trump from taking part in debates and just oust him from the party. Then they could send SPLC and ADL at him. Currently, the SPLC and ADL have not made severe strikes against Trump because they fear that Conservative Inc. and particular the GOP establishment would turn against them. SPLC once put Ben Carson on their hate list for his conservative view on homosexuality – but the GOP establishment defended him.

For good reason; the GOP establishment loves Ben Carson because he is an accomplished African-American who happens to something as unusual as a black Republican. The corporate, media and political elite have not attacked Trump with a resolute co-ordination. Trump has just taken minor heat and lost a few deals – none of them fatal. The American establishment ought to look at France. The socialists are openly willing to vote for the establishment-right than let Front National win an election. The American establishment can do the same. Think about it. Donald Trump wins and the GOP establishment endorses Hillary Clinton in the Presidential race.

That would send a clear signal to the angry grassroots that the elites are in charge and not them. The GOP establishment arrogance was the reason why a small-time college professor could beat majority-leader and superstar Eric Cantor. They should have gone medieval on him. When control over the discourse does not work you have to be extremely aggressive towards your enemies. In this case it means throwing Trump out of the party. The clock is ticking for the GOP establishment and the longer they wait the more difficult to will become to destroy Trump. If Trump wins South Carolina he will win Nevada and then come into Super Thursday storming. A blind retarded monkey could defeat Trump. The GOP is really the stupid party.

We don’t find him “handsome” at all. Nor is he “articulate” when he can do little more than repeat memorized lines.

I’m not Jewish or have any Jewish ancestry. Even if I had it wouldn’t change that I’m right on the issue. I’m not a keen supporter of the Israeli far-right. That said I’m not a keen support of the Palestinian violence and politics either. I just don’t hate people because of their religion, race or ethnicity.

How can anyone in their right mind be neutral about Israel?

Hidden nukes, apartheid, aberrant militarism, jailing without trial, stealing land, jailing a million people in Gaza, killing 1,400 people in Gaza, diabolical laws against Palestinians, prostitution slavery.

There are Jews who are decent people, there are Jews who have Western values.

But there are few Jews that are decent and honorable when it comes to the subject of tribe.

Not recognizing that fact is for fools.

Apropos of the general subject matter of this blog, there was an interesting piece in the Washington Examiner last week about the effect Trump is having on Fox News:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/10/fox-news-is-plummeting-as-trump-win-tears-the-network-apart.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=politicususa:

“In fact, Ailes’s bigger problem this week is not Trump. It’s figuring out how to broker peace between Fox’s biggest stars, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly. According to sources, the prime-time hosts are at war, in part over Kelly’s Trump-fueled stardom.

It is no surprise that the network is supporting Rubio. On-air talent looked suicidal after the Florida senator imploded at the New Hampshire Republican debate. It is also not a shock that Kelly and O’Reilly are at war with each other. O’Reilly may be the ratings king right now, but the network is making Megyn Kelly their star of the future.

Donald Trump is helping to bring down Fox News. Ratings and profits will remain high because Fox News has cornered the market on conservative news consumers. They have no competition, so until demographics take their toll, Fox will continue to be on top.

The biggest threat to Fox News is internal. Donald Trump has broken the Republican propaganda machine. There is no unified message coming out Fox’s programming. Roger Ailes has always viewed the true mission of Fox News as getting Republicans elected. Fox has never really been about journalism. Fox News had Republicans convinced that they had to work with the network to survive. Trump has gone against Fox and prospered. The aura of power surrounding Fox News has been diminished.

Donald Trump may unintentionally end up making America great again by destroying Fox News.”

I’m not Jewish or have any Jewish ancestry. Even if I had it wouldn’t change that I’m right on the issue. I’m not a keen supporter of the Israeli far-right. That said I’m not a keen support of the Palestinian violence and politics either. I just don’t hate people because of their religion, race or ethnicity.

Partly, the Freud family changed their religion. Clement Freud was of course ethnically Jewish and his son marrying the daughter of Rupert Murdoch was ethnically “half-Jewish”. My point was that the Murdoch family is not Jewish as Rehmat wrote.

What makes Rubio establishment and other Republican rivals not?

Fox (Murdoch) is a tool for the military industrial complex.

Who owns Fox News – the Big Jew or the Little Jew?

In any case, waching the Fox News anchors in their tight miniskirts is probably the most action you ever get.

Shalom from the Golan!

Hi Sherm,

No question — FOX-n-Krauthammer has both Big Jew and lots of Little Jews.

FOX is as racy as it gets here at the home.

Art

p.s. Still at the Golan? It must be hard to stop watching all the blood letting. It must be addicting? Maybe the Palestinians’ beach is better for you.

Why does the establishment want the fight be restricted to Clinton ,Rubio,and Cruz
.

They are same . They drink from the same –/

This is from mondoweiss.net

” what gives it importance is that Reines, Shapiro and Bash, who are all Clintonites, went on to form a foreign policy consulting shop called Beacon Global Strategies, which The Intercept reported two months ago supplies guidance to Clinton but also Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

– Eric Edelman, a former Bush administration Defense Department official, is an advisory board member to Beacon Global Strategies and a leading foreign policy adviser to Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. -

Edelman also founded a neoconservative foreign policy consulting group with Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Dan Senor.

Bash previously worked for Jane Harman when she was a California congresswoman and secret defender of AIPAC, the Israel lobby group. Shapiro rates one substantive mention in Clinton’s book on her time as secretary of state: when he stood up for Israel’s access to advanced US military equipment, including ..

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/politico-editor-held-secret-contest-with-clinton-aides-at-state-dept-to-name-a-column/#sthash.fkaCCoqk.dpuf
-

Hey Homer

Abe Foxman’s parents were both Polish Jews.

Sherm

Hi Little Art,

Who owns Fox News – the Big Jew or the Little Jew?

In any case, waching the Fox News anchors in their tight miniskirts is probably the most action you ever get.

Shalom from the Golan!

Sherm

the Right can now own Free Speech

If so, they’ve misappropriated it. Ask the Right where it stands on Joe McCarthy.

Tell me dude: Are you Jewish or just an atheist like Gen. Ariel Sharon who happened to love occupying Arab land?

Trump subsequently (Meet the Nation) reneged on Bush’s prevarication.

But darling – how come Abraham Foxman of ADL’s mother was Russian Jew and his father a Christian – but Netanyahu and Obama both honored him being a tireless Jewish fighter for the cause of the Zionist entity.?

I bet professional liars like you would refuse to accept Dr. Chomsky being Jewish once he start talking like Helen Thomas.

I never understood why you idiots are ashamed to be Jewish?

https://rehmat1.com/2014/11/18/manuel-noriega-israels-forgotten-ally/

“Sir Clement Freud (died in 2009) was an Anglican as his family had converted when they migrated to United Kingdom.”

So the act of “converting” changes who you are?

I have the impression that the liberal MSM have settled on Rubio as their “favorite” Republican candidate, the one they want to win the Republican nomination, because they feel that their true favorite, Hillary Clinton, might have an easier time defeating him, current polls notwithstanding

You’re giving them too much credit. They like Rubio cause he’s handsome, Latino, well spoken and establishment.

Rubio is similar to Kevin Rudd, a shortarsed, slimy turd that Murdoch backed in as Prime Minister of Australia in 2007.

If you want some reliable soft porn – turn on FOX-n-Legs. You can get your neocon Jew news and a leg shot to boot.

Trump may be an example of better the devil you don’t know than the one you know.

We should say a ‘thank you’ to the ‘left’.

Thanks to their hysteria and censoriousness, the Right can now own Free Speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

ALT RIGHT loves speech. The established ‘left’ hates speech.

The ‘left’ is into HATING SPEECH. Bitching about ‘hate speech’ is to hate speech of people you disagree with.

It’s not just Fox, Ilana. I happened to watch “Meet the Press” this morning on NBC and “This Week” on ABC, and both Chuck Todd and George Stephanopolis, together with their guests, were sounding the theme that Rubio’s NH debate glitch was a one off and that Rubio would not be making that “mistake” again. Two things strike me about this. First, once again, we find the MSM walking in lockstep on the handling of an issue. Secondly, I have the impression that the liberal MSM have settled on Rubio as their “favorite” Republican candidate, the one they want to win the Republican nomination, because they feel that their true favorite, Hillary Clinton, might have an easier time defeating him, current polls notwithstanding. There is also the advantage that Rubio is not as likely to attack Hillary on immigration and her vote on the Iraq War back in 2002 or for pushing for War on Libya in 2011.

Rehmat don’t get it. He has a fanatical hatred towards Jews. He does not understand the difference between presenting criticism of Jewish identity politics and Jews. Rupert Murdoch is of course not Jewish. There are some family connections to people who had Jews in their family. Rupert Murdoch daughter was married to a man (second husband) who is the great-great grandson to Sigmund Freud. However, his father, Sir Clement Freud (died in 2009) was an Anglican as his family had converted when they migrated to United Kingdom. The Rupert Murdoch family is similar to the Bush family and other powerful dynasties – they associate with whoever benefit their interests. If it is Muslim fundamentalists, Jews nationalists, Asian communists, African dictators or WASP on Upper East Side is secondary for the family.

Rehmat mucker, a fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. Murdoch, unlike our dear Ms Mercer here, is not Jewish. He comes from Anglo-Celtic Christian stock, of course.

The Australian media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has always followed the Organized Jewry’s agenda as a good Zionist Jew.

Murdoch has be been rewarded by Jewish-controlled handsomely and honored by powerful Jewish Lobby groups for defending the Zionist entity.

On October 13, 2010 – one of the US’s most powerful Israel Lobby groups, and Jewish Supremacist organization, ‘Anti-Defamation League (ADL)’ honored billionaire Rupert Murdoch – for his “stalwart support of Israel and his commitment to promoting respect and speaking out against anti-Semitism”.

Murdoch’s acceptance speech sounded like a page from Israel Hasbara Committee’s manual. He said: “We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews…. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel….. Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad – from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada. The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.”

https://rehmat1.com/2010/10/18/murdoch-israel-and-jews-under-attack/

Marco’s puppet masters are named Adelson, Murdoch, Braman, and Singer. Hence I suggest that Marco’s surname start with a J, not an R.

Kelly and the Murdoch machine are merely trying to live out their own version of the Obama 2008 Acclaim-by-the-Praetorian-Media juggernaught, and Rubio is merely the empty vessel into which they have poured their hopes. God help us all if they succeed.

Dana Perino is sexy? She barely passes for much of a ‘girl next door’ type, even if she does come across as much more likeable than Mistress Megyn.

As for Marco, as Derb pointed out in a recent podcast, when he moves you can see his strings.

Now Can Trump take each and every architect of the 2003 war to the court?- He has identified the lying.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269410-trump-on-bush-going-into-iraq-they-lied

Trump on Bush going into Iraq: ‘They lied’ -”We should have never been in Iraq,” Trump added. “They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none.”

Why FOX hates Trump? This is the reason they hate him. It is not for his “nativism” and not for his China bashing and not for his outsourcing of the job.
The war is the kernel of the desire that FOX doesn’t want to trash to the dumpster. They love war in MIddle East.They love to kill Arabs and and Iranian . A reduced military mindset is frightening to Ailes and Murdoch . It is frightening to the donors of Rubio also.

[…] like neighboring Rhodesia now Zimbabwe has a trenchant analysis of Trump, FOX and the rigged debate HERE. It’s well worth […]

Immigration, killing two birds with one stone.

Reduce the power of white and use immigrants as buffer between urban elites and dangerous blacks.

Hey, what gives?

Your last: “Upcoming: And the Trump United States Department of Defense portfolio goes to …”

And now all we get is some bayoneting of the mortally wounded Rubio, wrapped in more of your one-way catfight with some self-glorified news reader?

Come on, Ms. Mercer — fill out the Trump Cabinet and Make America Great Again!

I’m not sure I’ve ever been so thoroughly, effectively or eruditely debunked. Thank you for your patient and well-reasoned reply, M.

Ah, when you’ve been commenting at places like the Guardian for a while, it’s truly liberating to engage online with people on the “right side of the curve” Unzluft macht Frei!

There’s no doubt a lot of truth in that observation. When I think of order, efficiency and competence I tend not think of squalid, disease-ridden India; with its thousand-millions at an African level of socially productive usefulness, and a top racially European 5 – 10% who develop software and win global beauty pageants and so on. Pretty much what Europe itself will look like in a few generations, if the organism can’t expel or otherwise overcome the present infection..

On the myth of the “deindustrialisation of India”, the errors from the Indians I tend to see on this, based on my own knowledge, are that they often tend to think:

1) India was exporting large amounts of textiles in the first place before Britain took over as the workshop of the world; while the scale of exports of that cottage production was small compared to the industrial age. An impressive exercise without much machinery and with preindustrial shipping but very small, and these exports contributed only to a very small degree to the wealth of India and to individual Indians (who were relatively poor).

This was cottage production. Although you say deindustrialisation for the collapse of cottage production, it’s extremely misleading (you cannot truly deindustrialise what is not industrialised).

Furthermore, India’s exports of finished textiles compared to raw materials declined before EIC control in India – they were already starting to decline as India was already starting to become a less efficient producer of the finished textiles (although this was falling not just to England, but also, to a quite large degree, to China, who were doubling down on Western silver coin to deal with their own monetary crises).

2) India’s cotton fed British textile factories; again not true, the raw cotton largely came from slave plantations, in the Americas (King Cotton). The British producers largely bought it from there because it was more reliably produced and it was cheaper (cotton gins, etc.).

3) India provided customers to Britain during industrialisation, selling India’s own cotton( see point 2 ) back to them as finished goods to allow wealth to flow from India to Britain; again, not true, Britain’s customer base for finished textiles was domestic, Europe and the Americas, where people had much higher wages and per capita income than India, so could actually afford more finished clothes being produced.

For point 3) remember that the individual Northern English familes were not trying to produce cloth in order to drastically undercut the market price for cloth (although they did, eventually). They were producing it to meet much larger markets than could be met by cottage production, with fewer staff (lower wages), but selling at largely a similar price. And this was a price out of reach for low income Indians.

4) The British purposefully made Indian production difficult and uneconomical to destroy their competitor; again, unnecessary, Indian cottage production was just not competitive with Northern English industry, fed with industrial know-how cheap and available iron and coal, and cotton from the Southern US. Under these conditions, cottage textile production in India went the way of the dodo, as it did in several places not under British control, with not much to replace it (since the skills and capital for industry were lacking).

You can argue, at most, the British should’ve done more to industrialise India, and that with sufficient training and sufficient investment, Indian mills would’ve been as productive as English ones.

But even that’s supposing that the British Raj bureaucrats would have the know-how to do it (they didn’t – they trained to be supercilious and arrogant lawgivers and administrators, not industrial development experts), that the British government would offer financing out of goodwill (and this didn’t happen in Britain – families like the Cadburys saved and pooled wealth to buy machinery and develop industrial techniques themselves) and that there was actually an incentive to do this when the main markets in Europe and America were already served by English industry, and then by rising European and American industry.

Essentially the industrialization of India was wholly unlikely. An India like Japan, willfully independent and nationalistic, might’ve done it. But India without the British would’ve most likely been a French colonial possession (less likely to develop industrially than ex-British colonies), or set of broken states in the aftermath of a long gone fractious Muslim empire, highly corrupt and not very good at intentionally nationalistic development. (Unlike Japan, India was far from an isolated place off the beaten track, with both very high human capital, well developed internal markets and a strongly nationalist spirit.)

Yeah I saw a trailer about a movie coming out in October I hope. Maybe the tribes will watch the movie and f*ck up the elite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Jones_%28film%29

Something like that:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/John_Kasich_Immigration.htm

Essentially he’s saying to build a wall, enforce it, but that it isn’t practical to deport 11 million people if they haven’t broken other laws. He did, in the 90s, cosponsor a bill to end birthright citizenship, though he is quiet about that now.

In my comment I was more focused on Bush’s, under Cheney’s guidance, neocon adventures. Kasich is more like Bush Sr. on foreign policy.

Doesn’t Kasich also want an illegal alien amnesty?

If Rubio gets the nomination, he has an excellent chance of getting elected. He’s a charming liar. He’ll get a lot of votes by pretending to be strong on immigration. He’s pretending now and fooling a lot of people. Clinton is a charmless person, a lousy campaigner, detested by Republicans and widely disliked in her own party

Agree. I would add that Rubio doesn’t seem to be particularly bright relative to the position he is seeking. In that respect, he’s like a more telegenic, more articulate, younger George W. Bush. He would be easily electable, and a very effective tool for someone like Cheney acting as his mentor/guide. This could be very dangerous.

On the other hand, optimistically speaking, if his mentor/guide as VP is someone like Kasich (who would carry Ohio), a Rubio presidency might be harmless.

especially where it is easy and quick to show them up as ridiculous

Yes, and some of them take two or three pages to do it.

I know that I make some stupid and uninformed comments, but I pride myself on being able to do it in just a few sentences.

Show Comment – CTI – not on CTI

Yes, I think it may have gone away. A Karlin always showed as blocked, on his page and when he commented at others, but now his show up.

It just means HALF the people are ignored, and the opposition gets their votes.

Indeed I sometimes wonder how much pop-psychology can explain about my behavior. I think “displacement activity” counts as helpful:-)

Sometimes my CTIs pop up anyway – depending on browser and of course email notifications – and I can’t resist pedantry or minor brutality especially where it is easy and quick to show them up as ridiculous.

On CTIs I have a puzzle which emails to Ron haven’t resolved. A number of commenters I find treated like the CTIs so I have to click on Show to read them although they are not in my CTI list. Carthage and Charles Martel come to mind as two of them. What do you know about that?

“by the late C19th India was compelled to buy all sorts of finished goods from “Manchester” instead”

Gregory Clark in A Farewell To Alms argues in some detail that British mills were much more efficient than Indian or Chinese ones, despite their much higher wages. Not only were Indian textile mills not locked out of the UK market, British manufacturers themselves set up Indian mills using British machinery, but could not match UK productivity.

Are you sure that’s a myth? I seem to recall, and will look up sources if you respond, that in the C18th India produced more iron, coal and textiles than Britain (easy enough I suppose when you consider their relative sizes); but by the late C19th India was compelled to buy all sorts of finished goods from “Manchester” instead? Also, the annual famines (as many Hindus died during WW2 under the Raj as Jews did under the Reich) seem to have mysteriously ended when the Brits were finally kicked out?

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been playing to what look like audiences at art films in the 1950s.

Ha ha! The shoe fits!

Sigh. A Buchanan presidency would have strangled some of these now-grown monsters in the crib. It can’t bring him much pleasure to have been demonstrably correct these past decades..

Thanks. Nice to know that they are not obvious.

I usually read your comments. One reason being that you respond to and dialogue with quite a few that I have on CTI. I can’t see how you are able to slog through some of that stuff.

Good question, Joe, as it could well come down to that scenario. It will be different rules by each state. IIRC, some states let them go after the 1st round, more on the 2nd, etc. Some delegates are hand-picked by the candidates and some are not, so there will be a wide variation in their “loyalty.” At some point they each get to vote their “conscience”. Now isn’t that hilarious.

It looks like it is going to be a 3 way among Trump, Cruz and establishment (Bush or Rubio). I am interested in seeing which way Cruz will bend if the decision goes to the convention. I bet on establishment.

Your observations are very good.

I am unclear on the GOP rules at their convention. Can delegates change their votes from the candidate they supported if given permission by their candidate? etc.

Lots of old guard GOP types will be twisting arms and Rubio is their snake. Furthermore how much will this election reconstitute the GOP?

JW

@Iffen

Smiley emoticon removed by Ron’s software…

Someone should tell John Podhoretz (yet again perhaps since his Dad first warned him) that such irony is not safe outside sophisticated NYC circles and then only orally. After all Disraeli wrote without irony of the importance of race in two novels and that was used by Hitler 50 to 100 years later against Jews and others.

Thanks. Good to find someone on the same wave length without obvious cantankerous kinks

Something that should have been completely obvious to me was that it kicked off in 1973 at Roe v. Wade. Opposition was then picked up by the politico-religious types and folded into their arsenal and the rest is history.

Well I can’t help you with that. My guess would be that they think that when God takes that soul off the shelf and pops it in at conception you’ve got yourself a person. What I can tell you is that it has grown over the years and I am not sure that today you can be an Evangelical if you are not an ardent anti-abortionist. There is probably scholarly material out there that would trace its evolution and give us the facts. I think that it started to grow about the time that the politico-religious operatives like Richard Viguerie and Ralph Reed came onto the scene. I was raised as an Evangelical and as best as I can remember it was not a big deal 50 years ago. An issue like this is tailor made for exploitation by the politico-religious types. These religious and cultural totems and taboos have a life of their own and I am not the best hand at sorting out their genesis and development.

Whence do the evangelicals claim to get their interpretaion of God’s word which makes them regard abortion as a grave sin (and murder)? It isn’t mentioned in the Bible and Christians didn’t know any more than Aristotle about zygotes, embryos, viable foetuses etc until the 20th century so one would have thought that the usual inferences applied by lawyers and sny intelligent person would apply and the absence of clear instructions from God meant that it wasn’t something He cared much about.

The problem with any attempts to get women to have the needed number of children to replace themselves starts with the characteristics of the women who are likely to be motivated by any measures that PC politicians are likely to come up with. The IQ 90 receptionist might have three or four children at average age 24 while it doesn’t shift the IQ 115 theatre sister from her two at 31 or the IQ 125+ surgeon from her 1 at age 36. And that leads to a dumbed down population when the supply of smart Chinese and Indians dries up – or earlier if the other immigrants are dumb.

A totally secular society wouldn’t wait for utopian genetic engineering to be perfected, available and accepted but would encourage dim women to become extra wombs for the high IQ healthy energetic women and nannys’ assistants to fulfill any natural pleasure in the company of young children.

Perhaps I can best explain why by suggestiing that you contrast the words you have used with an alternative formulation, namely that “abortion is the (usually) premeditated destruction of a collection of cells of possibly viable human tissue that might have otherwise accumulated nutrients inside a womb and eventually emerged as a potential sentient interacting member of a human family or wider community”. Doesn’t press a lot of buttons does it?

Deportation for all illegals with a criminal record, amnesty the rest. I don’t like it, but you’ll never make friends on the left if you say deport every last one.

The people you want from the left are working stiffs. They want all the illegals deported. Why do you think Trump polls so well with blacks?