Showing posts with label  National Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label  National Review. Show all posts

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Phyllis Schlafly Issues Rubio Betrayal Memo

Image courtesy of Phyllis Schlafly

by JULIA HAHN5 Feb 2016Washington D.C.2,613

Conservative icon and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly has released a new report extensively detailingSen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s efforts to deceive the American people in his determined pursuit to open the nation’s borders.

Schlafly’s 15-page report on Rubio’s“betrayal” provides hyperlinked sources to document Rubio’s “big con.”

Schlafly’s memo warns the American people that Rubio’s push to deliver globalist immigration policies for his donors is not finished. “There is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration,” the memo states. “Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as a centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.”

The report is broken up into more than a dozen subsections, including “LYING TO CONSERVATIVE MEDIA,” in which Schlafly details how Rubio made countless false promises to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, National Review, and others. “Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him,” the memo states. “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”

Although in recent months, many of National Review’s writers have sought to boost Rubio’s candidacy, the memo later notes that “National Review has never received an apology for being repeatedly lied to by Rubio.” The memo reports, “To this day, Rubio has not only never retracted one of his false statements — never admitted any wrongdoing — but never even apologized to those he deceived, and their millions of listeners. Instead, he is raising more money and telling the same lies all over again, as he continues his push for mass amnesty and mass immigration.”

Another subsection of the memo entitled “AMERICAN WORKERS CAN’T CUT IT”states

In a for-attribution interview with Ryan Lizza, two senior Rubio staffers expressed frustration that they couldn’t get even more foreign workers crammed into the bill for their boss.  They explained:

‘There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it.’

Rubio’s spokesman — now his campaign spokesman — also compared opponents of amnesty to slaveholders. More on that here.


The memo also documents the back-room deals involved in the bill. A subsection entitled, “IMMIGRATION-FOR-PROFIT”reports that Rubio’s lawyer, who wrote the bill, also enriched his clients through it.”

The “REFUGEES” subsection notes: “Rubio’s bill included language giving the President unprecedented power to expand refugee resettlement. 

The “FIANCÉ VISAS” subsection points out that “Rubio’s bill opened the floodgates for fiancé visas — and fiancé children — an unprecedented security risk and another handout to the foreign immigration lobby.”

In a subsection titled, “DECEIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT,” the memo states:

Revealing Rubio’s character, it is also worth recalling that during his introduction press conference, Rubio stood frozen like a statue as ICE officer, council President, and former Marine Chris Crane was removed from the room for trying to ask a question. Shameful. Crane would later testify: ‘Never have I seen such contempt for law enforcement as I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight.’


In a section entitled, “BACK TO HIS OLD WAYS,” the memo notes that “Rubio is also the only candidate in the race still advocating citizenship for all illegal immigrants, and all that necessarily entails in terms of fiscal costs and chain migration.  (Jeb’s book did not call for universal citizenship, as Rubio does.) To this day, Rubio has not backed off a single policy in the Gang of Eight bill (see more here).”

The conclusion of Schlafly’s memo is posted here in full:

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy.  But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.

The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy.  And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference.  The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio.  Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it.  This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate.

The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress — while Boehner could refuse to bring up Obama’s mass immigration/amnesty bill for vote in 2014, Ryan would never refuse Rubio’s bill.  Rubio’s presence, as it did with the Gang of Eight, would create the cover for both certain Republicans and all Democrats to get behind a far more open borders plan.  Given that nearly every House Democrat sponsored the Gang of Eight House version (including Pelosi and Gutierrez), Ryan would not need to gather that many additional votes (House GOP leaders might have refused Obama’s 2014 request for a vote but they would not refuse President Rubio’s).

All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration.  Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.

Unlike other legislation, the effects of bad immigration policy cannot be repealed. They are forever. The Republican party would never nominate a pro-Obamacare candidate, and it must be an even stronger maxim that it should not nominate any candidate who is committed to a policy of mass immigration. Rubio wrote the Obamacare of immigration policies: a bill that would have eviscerated the middle class, plunged millions into poverty, legalized the most dangerous aliens on the planet, overwhelmed our schools and safety nets, and done irreversible violence to the idea of America as a nation-state. Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.


You can read the entire memo here.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Rush LimbaughSean HannityMark Levin,gang of eightNational ReviewPhyllis Schlaflyfiancé visas

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

CNN’s Ryan Lizza: Trump ‘At War’ With Fox News, ‘Conservative Intelligentsia from National Review’ and ‘He Is Winning’


Donald Trump speaks before a crowd of supporters.(AP Photo / Ross D. Franklin

by BREITBART TV26 Jan 20161812

CNN political commentator and Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza said, “Trump has been at war with” Fox News “all season and he is winning. He is at war with the conservative intelligentsia from National Review, to every conservative columnist in the opinion pages, and he’s winning” on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” on Tuesday.

Lizza said, “On the one hand, we’re going to be talking about Donald Trump from now until the debate. We’ll probably be watching Donald Trump not on Fox, on other networks that don’t obviously take the debates live when it’s on another network. He obviously has some counter-programming plans. So, he will dominate the news cycle on the eve of the caucuses, and he won’t be at the debate, so he won’t be under fire from the other candidates. On the other hand, there’s no doubt that the Fox debate is still going to get big ratings, right? It’s the number one news source for Republican voters, and he’s going to give a platform to a Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) andSen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ted Cruz is his primary rival there in Iowa, who are going to be allowed to say what they want about Donald Trump without Trump responding. I would imagine that the Fox moderators will feel under no obligation to defend Donald Trump in any way, or inject his opinions. So, it’s obviously a risk. I will also say, just to step back a second, this guy is basically at war with every power center in the Republican Party. There was a rule in politics that you don’t go to war with Fox News and Roger Ailes, because that network is too powerful and too influential in Republican politics, and Trump has been at war with them all season and he is winning. He is at war with the conservative intelligentsia from National Review, to every conservative columnist in the opinion pages, and he’s winning. This is a essentially a hostile takeover by Trump and his fans of the Republican Party that we’re watching in real time.”

Follow Breitbart.tv on Twitter@BreitbartVideo

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV2016 Presidential RaceDonald TrumpFox News ChannelNational Review,Ryan Lizza

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

National Review Goes Full-Snob: Attacks Donald Trump Voters as Ignorant Bigots

UNKNOWN NATIONAL REVIEW GOES FULL RETARD.

LISTEN TO MILITARY VETERAN TALK RADIO 

IHEART.SMYTHRADIO.COM


by JOHN NOLTE26 Jan 20164533

After the massive belly-flop that was the poorly thought out, very-poorly executedand way-late “Against Trump” diatribe last week, “National Review” is apparently still so bitter that on Monday morning another fatal decision was made — to attack everyday Americans as stupid homophobes.

With conservatives like these, who needs leftists, or the mainstream media?

The National Review Online (NRO) lead piece was written by Thurston Howell IIIKevin Williamson, titled “Our Post-Literate Politics” (the title changed later in the day), and puts forth the theory that Donald Trump is winning because the everyday Americans who support the billionaire businessman do not or cannot read.

[T]he candidacy of Donald Trump is something that could not happen in a nation that could read.

This is the full flower of post-literate politics.


Trump supporters are also bigots:

Thomas Aquinas cautioned against “homo unius libri,” a warning that would not get very far with the typical Trump voter stuck sniggering over “homo.” (They’d snigger over “snigger,” too, for similar reasons.)


The word “insalubrious” is then used, which I had to look up:

Donald Trump is the face of that insalubrious relationship, a lifelong crony capitalist who brags about buying political favors. But his enthusiasts, devoid as they are of a literate politics capable of thinking about all three sides of a triangle at the same time[.]


You have to read the whole thing to believe it. Had this published word-for-word at Salon, no one would blink an eye. In other words, anyone who believed NRO would be circumspect in the face of last week’s backlash was sorely mistaken.

NRO itself has become the very caricature it paints of Trump. All the once-necessary publication has is insults as opposed to ideas — as though pomposity itself is argument enough. Don’t you understand, if the rubes could quote Thomas Aquinas like us snobs, the rubes would know what is best for them!

Apparently it is unforgivable that the hoi polloi are simply too busy going about the business of keeping our world turning to have the time to read “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”;  too busy fighting our wars, unplugging our toilets, fixing our cars, processing our food, delivering our heating oil, and working three part-time jobs.

The Unwashed have, however, read enough to know that Democrats never do this — never attack their own voters like NRO and the rest of the Establishment have this year.

But maybe — just maybe — because they spend all their time in the Real World and not hiding inside NRO’s erudite reading list, the Unwashed also intuitively understand that what NRO and the Establishment have been peddling for five presidential cycles is pure undiluted, self-serving bull shit.

The Unwashed might not have read Shakespeare, but they can read a paycheck.

The Unwashed might not have read “Capitalism and Freedom,” but they have read a pink slip as their job went overseas or to an exploited illegal immigrant.

The Unwashed might not have consumed the same library of Greek and Roman classics (in the original or in translation) but they have consumed years of “Dial 1 for English,” Common Core math problems, terror attacks committed by immigrants, and an Establishment so removed Jeb Bush is being sold as a winner because … he  speaks Spanish.

The Unwashed might not read a publication that still pines for a Real Conservative, no less than the architect of ObamaCare who has already lost a nationwide presidential election, but they can read a country slipping away into a morass of political correctness, identity politics, and a Republican Party more concerned with the trough that comes with treating illegal immigrants better than America’s working class.

NRO simply can’t believe Americans are stupid enough to fall for a slogan like “Make America Great Again.”

Maybe NRO should read more.

NRO appears to have been caught off guard by an electorate that isn’t falling for The Establishment’s snake oil this year.

Maybe NRO should step out of the Velvet Bubble now and again.

The publication that once served up a cup that runneth over with ideas is  now reduced to lashing out with ad hominem — not against the Powerful (like Trump), but against the everyday Americans found in William F. Buckley’s fabled phone book.

Things really have changed at NRO.

Impotent rage is a helluva drug.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter@NolteNC               

My link says Buckley used the “Manhattan” phone book in his famous quote. Twitter is telling me it was “Boston.” The piece has been edited to avoid an insalubrious battle. 

Read More Stories About:

Big Journalism2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump 2016National Review,William F. Buckley

Monday, January 25, 2016

Glenn Beck Tells Iowa Crowd He Prefers Bernie Sanders Over Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Glenn Beck endorsed Senator Ted Cruz this weekend for President of the United States.Beck traveled to Iowa to endorse Cruz at a Saturday rally.

This was a big endorsement for Ted Cruz.

Beck reportedly said he preferred Socialist Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump.Seriously?The Hill reported:

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for the White House.

Beck compared Cruz to the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, and gave him a compass that belonged to the first one, George Washington.

“I’m taking a very big risk here and gambling on it, but this is how much I believe in Ted Cruz,” Beck said at a Cruz rally in Ankeny, Iowa.

“I’d like you to hold onto that,” he said, passing Cruz the compass, “to make sure your compass is square and you stay true” to your values.

Beck said he had never endorsed a presidential candidate in his 40 years of broadcasting, but he made an exception because of the urgency of the moment…

…He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.

“Honesty, faith and truth are basic requirements. And quite honestly, I have to tell you, this probably isn’t going to go over very well, that’s why I like Bernie Sanders,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is like, ‘Yep, I’m a socialist.’

“I can actually sit at a table with a man who says, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist, and yes, I don’t like what we are doing, we should be more like Denmark,’ ” he added.

So how exactly will Bernie Sanders push forward the conservative cause?

UPDATE: For the record, Glenn Beck said similar things about John McCain.

COMMENTS

Ingraham Blasts National Review For Damaging GOP’s 2016 Campaign With Anti-Trump Tirade

by JULIA HAHN24 Jan 2016Washington D.C.169

Nationally-syndicated talk radio host Laura Ingraham slammed the National Review for what she described as the publication’s attempt to further shrink the Republican Party.

Ingraham warned not only about National Review’s interference in the primary, but also the effects it may have in the general election. “How is it smart to close the door to Trump’s voters and to populism in general?” Ingraham asked in a Friday column.

Ingraham explained that if Rich Lowry and National Review’s “Manhattan-based editors” continue to alienate blue-collar Americans who are concerned about immigration, trade and foreign policy, “National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.”

Ingraham explained that Trump’s “supporters are pushing for three big things”:

A return to traditional GOP law and order practices when it comes to illegal immigration.

A return to a more traditional GOP foreign policy that would put the national interest ahead of globalism.

A return to a more traditional GOP trade policy that would analyze trade deals from the perspective of the country as a whole and not blindly support any deal — even one negotiated by President Obama.


Ingraham explained National Review’s history of trying to “excommunicate conservatives,” who are skeptical of more foreign military engagements, contradicts the big tent philosophy of Ronald Reagan. “There is room for all voices in the GOP ‘big tent’ — including relative newcomers like Trump, who has garnered such a following,” Ingraham said. “One of the many reasons I loved Reagan is that he understood how important it was to grow the conservative movement.”

Ingraham explained that this is not the first time National Review has expressed its disdain for conservatives with whom the publication disagrees on certain issues. Ingraham writes: “The folks at NR launched a similar effort to excommunicate conservatives in 2003, with a much-hyped cover story titled ‘Unpatriotic Conservatives.’ Back then it was Pat Buchanan and the now-deceased Bob Novak who were the targets.” Ingraham explained that the Nation Review believed that “these ‘disgruntled paleos,’ weren’t truly conservative because they opposed the war in Iraq.”

Ingraham writes, “As it turned out, of course, that small band of thinkers knew more about what was in the national interest than anyone at National Review or myself, who was also a strong advocate for Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

While National Review is determined to take out Trump, the publication hasinvested considerable effort in boosting up mass migration enthusiasts like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). While Pat Buchanan has described Trump as the “future” of the Republican Party, Rubio and Ryan’s affection for the longstanding donor-class agenda– i.e. more foreign military engagements, more globalist trade deals and mass migration– seems to make them more compatible with the Republicanism of the past. Jonathan Chait has even observed that when pressed, Rubio is unable to identify a single substantive policy issue that separates him from Mitt Romney or George Bush: when “asked if he disagrees with Bush or Romney on anything at all, Rubio does not directly offer any examples,” Chait writes.

Chait also pointed out that Rubio’s effort to set himself apart from Bush and Romney by saying his agenda is focused on the 21st century seems confused, since Bush and Romney all campaigned for President in the 21st century. Nearly 1/6th of the 21st century will already have been concluded by the time the next President assumes the Oval Office. Chait explains:

Rubio is a George W. Bush Republican who needs to come up with nonsense concepts to deny the fact that he’s a George W. Bush Republican, like pretending his ideas don’t relate to Bush’s because they’re from different centuries. He can’t name a single actual disagreement with Bush or Romney because there aren’t any.


Ingraham warned that if the GOP continues to “devot[e] itself” to defending and expanding the legacy of George W. Bush, it will come at the expense of the country and the Party’s peril:

They [i.e. the National Reviewcontributors] are… inviting those who disagree with Bush on those points to leave conservatism and start seeking their allies elsewhere. This is an absolute disaster for conservatism. It is obvious by now that Bushism — however well-intentioned it may appear on paper — does not work for the average American. It is also clear that Bushism has almost no support within the rank and file of the GOP, much less within the country as a whole. Making the tenets of Bushism into an orthodoxy that conservatives cannot question will cripple conservatism for years to come… If the conservative movement devotes itself to defending the legacy of George W. Bush at all costs, it will become irrelevant to the debate over how to make things better for most Americans.

 


Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentBig Journalism2016 Presidential RaceLaura IngrahamNational Review

Friday, January 22, 2016

National Review Pens Letter to Conservatives: Don’t Vote for Trump

Getty

READ THE BOTTOM MEGAN KELLY COMES OUT TOO.

iHeart.SmythRadio.com



by MICHELLE FIELDS21 Jan 20162533

National Review is publishing a special edition of the magazine that argues against Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, saying he is “not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries.”

The new issue of the long-established conservative magazine is headlined “Against Trump” and includes essays from conservative pundits and writers explaining their opposition to Trump’s candidacy.

But the overall theme is very clear: “Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones,” says the editorial that leads the issue.

The authors argue that Trump isn’t consistent in his views:

Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy. (He andSen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have shared more than funky outer-borough accents.) Since declaring his candidacy he has taken a more conservative line, yet there are great gaping holes in it.


The editorial also goes after his immigration plan for not being practical.

As for illegal immigration, Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government. Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty (and a version of a similarly idiotic idea that appeared in one of Washington’s periodic ‘comprehensive immigration’ reforms). This plan wouldn’t survive its first contact with reality.


They also took aim at his business record:

Trump’s primary work long ago became less about building anything than about branding himself and tending to his celebrity through a variety of entertainment ventures, from WWE to his reality-TV show, The Apprentice. His business record reflects the often dubious norms of the milieu: using eminent domain to condemn the property of others; buying the good graces of politicians—including many Democrats—with donations.


The editorial finishes by saying that “Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”

The online issue is here.


Watch: Megyn Kelly Convenes ‘Conservatives Against Trump’

Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File,” National Review editor Rich Lowry rolled out his magazine’s effort to challenge Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s bid to be the eventual Republican nominee.

Lowry told host Megyn Kelly, who has had her own dust-ups with Trump, that their intent was to rally conservatives against Trump because they saw him as susceptible to special interests.

“One big takeaway from what we’re doing – it’s not the establishment necessarily opposing Donald Trump,” Lowry said. “You have a bunch of lobbyists on K Street right now hiding under their desk figuring out how they can deal with Trump or perhaps coopt him. And the point we’re making is perhaps conservatives who thing Donald Trump — whatever his virtues are doesn’t truly understand the ideas and principles that make this country great. It’s up to those conservatives to stand up and say, ‘No, sorry. We oppose this guy.’”

Kelly asked what the “theme” of the effort included, to which Lowry declared “ideas” and “principles.”

“There are a couple,” he replied. “Number one, if you truly are conservative, you believe in ideas and in principles. It’s not just attitudes. It’s not just who you dislike. It’s limited government. It’s the Constitution. It’s liberty. Those are the things that truly make this country special. And they are basically afterthoughts to Donald Trump. He almost never talks about them. And if you’re truly a conservative, you have a consistent record. We all change our minds on a few things every now and then when the facts change. But he has been on the other side on big hot-button defining issues like abortion, gun control, taxes and even immigration.”

“Ronald Reagan spent about 30 or 40 years marinating in conservative thought and advocating for conservative ideas,” Lowry added. “He just didn’t show up one day and say, ‘Hey, now I’m a conservative. Another problem with Trump is he seems to believe what this country needs is a really effective strong man to make the trains run on time when what we really need is the government to be cut down to size, restored to its rightful role and then focus on the important things, like the borders –“

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race, Megyn Kelly, Rich Lowry, Dana Loesch, Katie PavlichRead More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpNational Review