Man… I give that tool way too much space on this blog already, but when a coalition of people who love and respect freedom stand up against the current GOP frontrunner, I need to say something. This is pretty big, folks. This is not just National Review bloviating against Trump. This is a compilation from some of liberty’s greats standing up in unison and rejecting Trump and rejecting his crazy, authoritarian agenda. These greats include libertarian firebrands such as Thomas Sowell and David Boaz, just to name a couple. He’s not a conservative. He doesn’t even come close to libertarian. He’s a statist fuck masquerading as someone who loves freedom.
But guess what! Using the word “freedom” to win an election does not equal loving freedom, and as I pointed out in a previous post, Trump’s agenda is anything but liberty-oriented. If anything, it’s a big government, fascist scheme, and angry meatheads are falling for it.
Trump promotes himself as an outsider, but he’s bought so many politicians, it’s hard to imagine him as such. And the very establishment Republican National Committee, upon seeing National Review’s call to reject Trump, has now stripped the publication of its hosting gig in the next debate. Yeah, some outsider.
National Review publisher Jack Fowler wrote Thursday that his publication was being stripped of its hosting duties for a GOP debate with CNN in late February.
“Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our ‘Against Trump’ editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald,” Fowler wrote.
RNC spokesperson Sean Spicer confirmed to ABC News that National Review will no longer be participating in next month’s GOP debate.
Like there haven’t been other debate hosts that have been openly hostile to Republican candidates?
Ahhhh, but no. We will yank the debate gig from a publication that doesn’t like our candidate. That’s the ‘MURRICAN thing to do, right?
Never mind that the National Review editors are on point! Trump is a plague on conservatism. He’s a threat to freedom. He’s a caricature of what the left believes America’s right to be.
Aside from the litany of fascist diktats Trump is on the record as supporting – or at the very least not forcefully opposing, like any sane person would (forcing Mexico to pay for a wall using some unknown fascist mind-control unicorn dust to keep illegal aliens out, forcing manufacturers to bring jobs back to the United States from overseas, registering people based on their faith, depriving people of their rights without due process, depriving them of their property through eminent domain, etc. etc. etc.), he also supported the stimulus, the Wall Street bailouts (“it’s worth a shot“), and the auto bailouts. He luuuuuuves him some ethanol subsidies, and thinks we should pour more American taxpayer money into that black hole of crap. Is it any wonder that the establishment porkers of Iowa love Trump and hate Ted Cruz, who bravely stood up and said “NO MORE!” to dumping millions in taxpayer dollars into Iowa to pay it to grow corn?
Oh, and let’s not forget that Trump helped sell out Virginia with a nice, healthy donation to the campaign of Terry McAuliffe!
Can you get more establishment than that – on either side of the political spectrum? Can you get any more authoritarian than that – on either side of the political spectrum?
National Review is right.
Trump is not an outsider. He’s as establishment as it gets, and the fact that he posits himself as a “deal maker” should be a red flag to any so-called “conservative” who bitched and moaned about “RINO Republicans” being too willing to compromise.
There was an article recently detailing the type of personality that supports Trump.
My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.
I won’t pretend that the findings are objective or even remotely scientific, as I really haven’t had a chance to examine the methodology behind these results. That said, given Trump’s penchant for statism, the authoritarians’ love for him is unsurprising.
Please, people. Stop and think.
Trump claims that the National Review is a dying publication that “lost it’s [sic.] way.” Whether it’s true or not, when economic heavy hitters like Thomas Sowell publicly stand up in opposition, perhaps we should carefully listen.