Registration

Articles

For Immigration Patriots, Scott Brown Probably Trump’s Best VP Choice—But There Are Others

Speculation about Donald Trump’s VP pick is rampant—see here and here. What should immigration patriots want?

From an immigration patriot perspective, there are three considerations:

  • First, reinforcing Trump’s immigration patriot stance.


While Clinton v. Trump provides the first-ever real major-party choice on immigration, we cannot be blind cheerleaders of Trump, and we want to make sure he continues to champion our issue.

  • Secondly, a running mate who will help Trump win in November.


Trump, it goes without saying, is not your conventional GOP nominee. Thus, considerations beyond charisma and ties to a swing state are important. The usual claptrap about the VP “balancing the ticket” does not exactly apply.

Usually, “moderates” pick VPs who will appeal to conservatives and vice versa. But Trump transcends the typical conservative v. moderate Republican template. Trump fared relatively poor among the churchgoing Christians and very conservative voters who typically make the GOP base. He needs to make these voters feel welcome in his coalition, without turning off independent and Democratic voters to whom his socially moderate and economically populist stance could appeal. (In a future column, I will elaborate on this strategy, but it’s also necessary to consider with his VP pick.)

And Trump has other considerations when “balancing the ticket.” Given his age and two previous marriages, a younger and never-divorced candidate would be ideal.

  • Thirdly, the loyal candidate must be loyal.


I could easily see some wobbly and/or conniving politicians distancing themselves from Trump’s more controversial statements if the going gets rough—and even withdrawing from the ticket if they think he will lose. After all, the Bush clan doesn’t seem to feel bound by the loyalty oath all the candidates accepted.

For this column, I’m only going to discuss candidates could potentially be assets to the campaign. And as VDARE.com readers do not need me to explain why we don’t want Marco Rubio or John Kasich, I’m not Read more >>

Bush Republicanism Is Dead and Gone

"The two living Republican past presidents, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have no plans to endorse Trump, according to their spokesmen." So said the lead story in The Washington Post.

Graceless, yes, but not unexpected. The Bushes have many fine qualities. Losing well, however, is not one Read more >>

Ann Coulter: And Then There Was One—And He Means What He Says About Immigration



511nk5odwLL._SY344_BO1204203200_-198x300[1]A guy just won the Republican nomination for president by spending no money, hiring no pollsters, running virtually no TV ads, and just saying what he truly believed no matter how many times people told him he couldn't say that.

I always hoped I'd see this once before I died. It's like to going to Mecca, for Americans. Pay attention, because it's the last time we're going to see it in our lifetimes.

For those of you not yet on the Trump Train, I know you don't want to vote for Hillary, but all the pundits have been trying to convince you that Trump's a complete fraud. (That was between their smug assurances that he wouldn't make it out of Iowa.)

It's odd. When Trump launched his campaign by talking about Mexican rapists and the wall, his critics hysterically denounced him, rushing to TV to say he did NOT represent the Republican Party! Only after it became resoundingly clear that large majorities of Americans agreed with Trump did his critics try a new tack: He doesn't believe it!

That's what my friend Andy McCarthy at the now-defunct National Review wrote recently.[ Trump Would Press the Agenda That Drove His Voters from the GOP, April 30, 2016] I had to spend the weekend figuring out how to attack a friend without saying, "This is the most retarded argument I've ever read."

Here goes: This was not Andy's best effort.

Of all the arguments that could be made against Trump, McCarthy settled on: I don't trust him on immigration. Read more >>

Trump Victorious As GOP Transformed Into A National Conservative Party


NEW YORK Magazine thinks that the Republican Party is "broken"--President Trump may mock them at the Inauguration

In the end, it wasn’t even close. Donald Trump won a crushing victory in Indiana with over 50% of the vote, leading Ted Cruz to suspend his campaign for President. To the shock and horror of the Conservatism Inc. Establishment (whom you could actually watch melting down in real time on Twitter), Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee.
How much does Trump owe his Indiana victory to immigration? Exit polls ranked immigration as a top issue, but not the top issue, coming in well behind the Economy/Jobs, Government Spending, and Terrorism [ Exit polls: Immigration not a top issue for Indiana Republicans , by Lisa Mascaro, CNN, May 3, 2016]. But this is misleading. All of the top three issues are directly related to immigration. Moreover, Trump’s views on immigration are part of a larger Nationalist Narrative which is attractive to voters. As one voter put it, Trump is “for us”. [ Immigration, Social Security on the minds of Indiana voters on primary day , Fox News Latino, May 3, 2016]

And Trump’s own supporters certainly thought immigration was important. Exit polls showed slightly less than half of all Republican primary voters said most illegal immigrants should be deported to the country they came from. Of those voters, 64% voted for Trump, with 34% going for Cruz and only 1% for Kasich. [ Indiana Republican Entrance/Exit Poll , CBS News, May 3, 2016]

The scale of Trump’s victory was such that it essentially ended the Republican primary race. And many commentators Read more >>

Tale of Two Tribes: ‘Climate Refugees’ vs. EPA Victims

The left has concocted a lucrative category of politically correct victims: "climate refugees." It's the new Green racket.

U.S. taxpayers will now be forking over untold billions to ease the pain allegedly inflicted on "carbon's casualties" by industrial activity. By contrast, those who have suffered as a direct result of Read more >>

Big Law Buckling To Big Left—So Much For Legal Ethics



If Trump were a murderer or a terrorist, Above The Law wouldn’t attack the lawyer who defended him

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Texas, the Obamnesty case argued April 18, is not expected until June at the earliest. But the backstory demonstrates just how far to the Left the top corporate law firms (“Big Law”) have moved—as (perhaps less surprisingly) does the controversy over the Donald Trump campaign’s legal representation in Washington D.C.

As with most high-profile cases, dozens of amicus briefs were filed both for and against the Obama’s Executive Amnesty. An amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief is filed by a third party interested in the outcome of a case. For example, if two small technology companies has an intellectual property dispute before the Supreme Court that could affect the entire industry, larger technology companies or their trade groups may file amicus briefs. In these types of specialized cases, the briefs can have a major impact.

usvstexasIn United States v. Texas, legal scholars, trade associations, politicians, and advocacy organizations filed amicus briefs. For example, Democratic Congressmen and Senators, the AFL-CIO, and the American Immigration Council (a Soros-funded pro-immigration group)filed amicus briefs in defense of Executive Amnesty, while Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the Immigration Reform Law Institute filed briefs against. All in all, there were 19 briefs in favor of Amnesty and 18 against.

Yet it’s not clear that these matter that much to the outcome. Most legal commentators think that in such c Read more >>
More Articles...