Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."
Before Congress he denounced "extreme nationalism," invoked the U.N., NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but, on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.
For the world he celebrates is receding into history.
Earlier by Ann Coulter: Trump Opponents Take Nuanced View Of Child Rape
Usually the vibrant cultural diversity that immigrants bring runs more along the lines of child rape, drunk driving and food stamp fraud. But our official government policy of importing the Third World also means we're going to have a lot more elder rape, too.
Thank you, Teddy Kennedy! Something for the seniors.
I was recently reminded of this aspect of diversity because, a few days ago, jury selection began in the trial of illegal alien Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez and anchor baby Jose Fernando Villagomez for the rape, torture and murder of 64-year-old Marilyn Pharis.
Pharis (right) was attacked in 2015, just a few weeks after Kate Steinle was killed by an illegal in San Francisco—a wondrous moment in time when Donald Trump wanted to deport illegals, rather than call them "Dreamers" and give them amnesty.
Like Steinle's killer, Martinez Ramirez had a lengthy and impressive arrest record in this country, including felony assault with intent to commit sexual assault. A week before his violent home invasion, he was released from jail on drug and weapons charges.
Mike Pompeo will be Secretary of State partly because Senator Rand Paul voted for his nomination after weeks of saying he would do no such thing. Paul tweeted that he’d received assurances Pompeo agrees with him that “Iraq was a mistake, that regime change has destabilized the region, and that we must end our involvement with Afghanistan,” but if the only Libertarian in the upper chamber cannot be counted on to vote “no” on the confirmation of a superhawk to an important cabinet position, what’s the point? The squishy Senator served as further confirmation of just how useless the Libertarian mainstream has become.
Which brings me to Dr. Paul Gottfried’s criticism of my recent article The Strange (Well, Actually, Absolutely Predictable) Death of Left-Libertarianism.
I have nothing but respect for Dr. Gottfried and his invaluable work, he is incorrect in his (rueful) claim that Establishment Libertarianism is doing just fine and has no interest in doing business with the likes of us Dissident Rightists.
He points out that Left-Libertarianism need not fear for its future because it has quite a bit of money and because it has a toehold in Establishment discourse. While these two specific charges are true—Left-Libertarians certainly have deep pockets and do get to appear on FOX News now and again—this is not enough to keep their movement alive and well.
While money is not a guarantee of success. The Libertarian Cato Institute has 75 million dollars, yes; and the Libertarian Koch brothers have billions of dollars, yes. This means that Cato will not have to shut its doors any time soon, nor will any of the numerous Koch-funded organizations such as Americans for Prosperity or the Institute for Humane Studies.
But it does not mean that any of these organizations will make any kind of serious headway in terms of political goals. The same is true of Libertarians’ success in injecting themselves into the national political conversation. That sort of media status may be necessary for success, but it is not sufficient. It is nice to appear on FOX News and be linked to by RealClearPolitics.com, but does not necessarily mean your ranks will grow.
With voting scheduled for July 1, Mexico’s election fast approaches. According to a recent Reforma poll, the winner will be Leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, or AMLO, of the Together We Will Make History coalition. He leads Ricardo Anaya, of the “conservative” (see below) For Mexico to the Front Coalition, 48-26. Jose Antonio Meade of the Everybody for Mexico coalition is in the basement at 18 points. My position: a strong America need not care.
AMLO’s success has caused some hysteria stateside. Unsurprisingly, You Know Who gets the blame. Thus the Washington Post editorialized that President Trump’s tweets “may enhance the already strong possibility that the July 1 ballot will be won by a left-wing populist who is as hostile to free trade and close U.S.-Mexican relations as is Mr. Trump” [U.S.-Mexico relations might be about to get even worse, April 6, 2018]. But Real Clear Politics offered a more reasoned—and reasonable—assessment: “In reality, Trump’s real impact will be minuscule, because this contest is shaped by its own powerful dynamic completely outside the influence of our commander-in-chief” [The Coming Mexican Election: It’s not All About Trump, by Chris Jackson and Clifford Young, April 19, 2018].
Yet whatever AMLO’s advantage, the election is no done deal. Plus, in a Mexican presidential race, a candidate only needs a plurality to win. Current President Enrique Pena Nieto won in 2012 with 38.21% of the vote versus 31.59% for runner-up AMLO. Previous President Felipe Calderon won with 35.89% of the vote versus runner-up AMLO with 35.31%. And back in 2000, Vicente Fox won the Mexican presidency with 42.52% of the vote.
Not a majority vote among them.
From an American National Question standpoint, the election is interesting but not worrying. As long as we have a patriot president, who runs Mexico shouldn’t matter a hill of beans.