Death Comes for the Party

The Bull Elephant ^ | May 5, 2016 | Michael Giere

[null and void]

“What the hell is “conservative” about uncontrolled immigration and corporate trade pacts?”

Donald Trump’s electoral rampage through the Northeastern states and then his stunning Indiana victory – taking all but five counties statewide and walking away with 57 delegates – did a lot more than drive Ted Cruz and John Kasich out of the race.

It has driven a stake in the heart of the post-1988 Republican Party. It’s dead.

The “professional” party has been in death throes for years, for a variety of reasons, but none as lethal as the absence of a defining and unifying rationale for its existence that resonated with its own membership.

What does the Party stand for? And who decides that?

No sooner had The Donald driven his rivals from the field of battle, than the self-appointed guardians of “conservatism,” already in panic mode, began pouring out opinions, curses, and threats – all somewhat hysterically.

If only they could find the same passion about the most destructive force America has ever known; Barack Obama.

Columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer launched scathing articles explaining their “never Trump” positions as the last defense of “conservatism,” joined by the house pets in the big newspapers. They’ve been followed by others trash-talking Trump and talking about “real conservatives,” and what they should or shouldn’t do. These include conservative media outlets such as Red State, National Review and Conservative Review.

The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol is evidently the self-appointed leader of an effort to mount a third party challenge to Trump intoning the name of Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska as its possible standard bearer, who for his part has also said he can’t support the Party nominee because he has to save “conservatism.”

The Bushes have let it be known that they aren’t endorsing anyone. Ditto the Koch brothers. Romney, who famously claimed to be “seriously conservative,” won’t be at the convention. After all, what do any of them owe to the Party that supported and defended them with sweat and money?

On Capitol Hill, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, oblivious to the primary results evidently, said today that “he is not ready to endorse Trump,” adding that, “I think conservatives want to know, does [Trump] share our values and our principles.”

Speaker Ryan had previously laid claim to the speakership for all conservatives and the right to define “conservative,” by rebuking Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim’s entering the country until the U.S. government could properly identify them, this following the San Bernardino terrorist attack. “This is not conservatism,” Ryan thumped. ”What [Trump proposed] is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

All I can say is, what are these people talking about?

Aren’t these the same people by and large who sat back in the Bush years and supported vastly expanded government spending, and helped turn education over to the federal government? To say nothing of two wars that were not concluded victoriously, but shackled by rules of engagement and petty infighting.

Is any of that conservative?

Aren’t these the same folks who laid down in front of Obama like they were flower petals tossed at a wedding?

When the Supreme Court overturned 5,000 years of tradition weren’t these by and large the same people who told us to suck it up and live with it? Is that conservative?

A lot of them, like Sen. Sasse, talk about the Constitution a lot. That’s nice. Here’s a few questions: Where were they in the last eight years as an American President dared them to impeach him, ignored separation of powers, laws, funded unlawful programs, forced the BATF to run guns and the IRS to harass conservative groups, abandoned four Americans in Benghazi, and gave Iran $150 billion dollars by confirming that the treaty with Iran wasn’t really a treaty at all?

Any of that conservative?

What the “professional” Party has been good at is subjecting their frustrated members out in the real world to lectures claiming that unregulated, wide open immigration is conservative, and that illegal entry into the U.S. should be rewarded with citizenship because it is a conservative value. We’re told that a conservative believes in the “willing worker” model; that any person in the world has a right to come into the U.S. on a visa to compete with any American citizen for any job at any wage.

The professionals have also been good at pushing “free trade” like it was cotton candy at a child’s birthday party. It is now the sacred mantra of being a conservative – “free trade!”

I want free trade; the empirical evidence of the benefits of free trade are well established economic facts. There is no doubt about that.

But the truth is that, starting with NAFTA, we have learned that we have been snookered. These aren’t free trade agreements defined as two or more countries deciding to treat each others products and services reciprocally; instead, it is managed corporate trade. We allow many countries to ship goods into the U.S. with little to no tax, while American goods are subjected to a withering variety of consumption and other taxes hidden in the host economy, currency manipulation, and are hobbled with rules and regulations that no domestic company must comply with. The end result it that millions of jobs and untold wealth have left the U.S. for someone else’s benefit.

Empty factories stand like tombstones to a disappearing self-determination; while several “conservative” prognosticators claim that the towns and the American citizens those factories supported deserve to “die.” Literally.

So, many of us are scratching our heads and asking, “What the hell is “conservative” about uncontrolled immigration and corporate trade pacts?”

Sometimes it take massive pain to bring us – individually or corporately – to the end of our resources and allow us to realistically reevaluate our destination. I believe that is where the larger “conservative” movement is now.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Donald Trump is the spark that will allow the grassroots to bury the dead “professional” Republican Party, and to rebirth a conservative Republican Party that has clear principles that honor our past and make a way for our future.

[taxcontrol]

Caution, do not so easily dismiss the GOPe. They will not go quietly. They are very practiced and adept at shifting positions and hiding in the nooks and crannies. They like the dems, never stop fighting and never give up. We conservatives need to do the same.

Also, we conservatives need to take control of the leadership of the party AND set the rules to it makes it easy to remove RINOs AND set a party platform that is conservative.

Further, we need to develop a grass roots approach that identifies conservatives at the state level as well. This becomes our future national candidate “farm”.

[Fiddlstix]

Bookmark

[GOPJ]

Empty factories stand like tombstones to a disappearing self-determination; while several “conservative” prognosticators claim that the towns and the American citizens those factories supported deserve to “die.” Literally. So, many of us are scratching our heads and asking, “What the hell is “conservative” about uncontrolled immigration and corporate trade pacts?”

ping

[CrazyIvan]

LOL! Wish that weren’t so appropriate.

[MNJohnnie]

Interesting to note if Trump beats Hillary he will kill off the 2nd political dynasty that has ruled US Politics for the last 40 years.

Trump has taken out the Bush’s, now we need him to do the same with the Clintons

[sailor76]

Caution, do not so easily dismiss the GOPe. They will not go quietly.

Off course they'll go down fighting, but we will beat them. People are more awake now than ever. The only thing that scares me is that theses power hungry cockroaches will try to take the country or whole world down with them.

[Ohioan]

The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol is evidently the self-appointed leader of an effort to mount a third party challenge to Trump intoning the name of Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska as its possible standard bearer, who for his part has also said he can’t support the Party nominee because he has to save “conservatism.”

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the absurdity of the anti-Trump hacks than the involvement of William Kristol, who to my knowledge has continued to pose as "Conservative," without ever distancing himself in any way from his notorious father, the avowed "Godfather" of the "Neocons."

To understand how truly non-Conservative the Neocons are, we took an essay explaining the phenomenon by Kristol's father, who admits that Leon Trotsky, head butcher in the Bolshevik Revolution--hint, not a Conservative adventure--was his hero in College! And in Kristol, Sr.'s own explanation let him demonstrate how seriously anti-Conservative is The Neocon Phenomenon.

In contrast, we have explained why we believe that Donald Trump is a natural Conservative, now in a dynamic process of waking up to the reality of how badly we Conservatives have been betrayed by faux Conservatives parroting the idiocy of what is "politically correct." Donald has already provided Americans with an immense benefit. His campaign offers the best chance to yet save America from what is eating out her cultural vitals.

Trump: Metaphor For American Conservatism.

[SueRae]

ping

[HotHunt]

The author of the article and your comments hit the nail squarely on the head.

I have wondered all these years where the "conservative" candidates pushed forwarded by the GOPe were? McCain? NOT! Almost a member of the democRAT party at times. Romney? NOT! Author of RomneyCare in Mass. that was the blueprint for ObamaCare. These candidates were anything but conservative.

Besides, I don't think a pure conservative would ever get past the primaries, if that, given Cruz's failure to ignite. A far-right evangelical conservative would never be able to garner enough votes in the general election to win IMO.

Given that history, now they are upset that Trump has won and he is not conservative enough for them? I don't think so. They just don't want him in because he is not part of their insider club of elites. He'll upset their apple cart. He'll slow or stop their gravy train. Simply put, they don't want Trump because he is not one of "them".

[thoughtomator]

Kristol supporting Sasse is more than enough to make me very suspicious of Sasse.

[Liz]

Guess who snookered Americans on free trade deals?

Ex-Pres Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the free trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.

In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.

The Colombia group’s chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions. “He was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came, but that was several years ago. In the present context, I don’t know what his position would be. It is not only about union trade rights. It is about what benefit or damage it can do to the US economy,” said Franco. “Events with the Clinton campaign [concerning Mark Penn] are not good at all for the trade agreement... Right now it became a campaign issues and that is sad, because it needs to go through.”

The comments were supported by a June 23, 2005 article from the news portal Terra (uncovered by Ben Smith at Politico) in which Clinton offered unambiguous support for the free trade agreement with Colombia. They appear to be the first public indication that Clinton has, at least in the past, supported the trade deal.

But evidence that the former president has been sympathetic to Colombia’s position is widely known. In 2007, Clinton met personally with and accepted an award from Colombia’s controversial president, Alvaro Uribe, during a time when the country was attempting to improve its image within the United States. Subsequently, Clinton urged Congress to view the country in a more favorable light.

Moreover, Clinton has helped Frank Giustra, one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, score meetings with high-ranking Colombian officials. Giustra has several business interests in the country, and both he and Clinton have collaborated on an effort to fight poverty in developing world by partnering up with mining companies in Colombia and elsewhere. (SOURCED http://nypost.com/2008/12/19/bubba-sheik-ing-the-money-tree/

more on the Clinton Colombian connection below

[Liz]

Every aspect of the Bill Clinton presidency must be examined for wrongdoing. Recent news reports say the notoriously greedy Clintons used their tax- exempt Clinton Foundation charity to setup a Romney-like money-making private equity fund in the corrupt country of Colombia.

Why Colombia?

WIKI REFERENCE---In 2000, the Clinton administration committed $1.3 billion in foreign aid to the corrupt country of Colombia...... and up to five hundred military personnel to train local forces. An additional three hundred civilian personnel were allowed to assist in the eradication of coca.

The Clinton deal was an addition to $330 million of previously approved US aid to Colombia. $818 million was earmarked for 2000, with $256 million for 2001.

The Clinton-era appropriations for his Colombia Plan made Colombia the third largest recipient of foreign aid from the United States at the time.

--SNIP--

As of 2008, the U.S. has provided nearly $1.3 billion to Colombia through Clinton Plan Colombia nonmilitary aid programs:

<><> Alternative Development (2000-2008 cost: $500 million)

<><> Internally Displaced Persons (2000-2008 cost: $247 million)

<><> Demobilization and Reintegration (2000-2008 cost: $44 million)

<><> Democracy and Human Rights (2000-2008 cost: $158 million)

<><> Promote the Rule of Law (2000-2008 cost: $238 million)

LONG READ--REST AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia

[Ohioan]

I would be at least a little suspicious of all the "Never Trump" crowd. It is one thing to criticize a candidate. It is another to utterly reject the candidate who puts America First, and repudiates the idiocy of "political correctness," which has been stifling the ability of Americans to openly discuss problems, and seek reasoned solutions.

The "Never Trump" types all appear to illustrate a morbid fear of even discussing clear threats to an American future. We can certainly tolerate differences of opinion; but we cannot tolerate an attitude which prevents even addressing phenomena critical to our having a future.

[GOPJ]

In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.

Looks like the Clinton's made their millions selling out the United States... disgusting people.

[thoughtomator]

I’ve noticed the same thing too - fear of change wrapped in a false cocoon of “principle”. And of course there are plenty who are invested in the status quo and simply aren’t on our side.

[Psalm 144]

*

[stephenjohnbanker]

“It has driven a stake in the heart of the post-1988 Republican Party. It’s dead. “

It had BETTER be, or in a short time, the country will go down the tubes.Just another 3rd worls hell hole, albeint with more money than the OTHER 3rd world hell holes. I voted for old man Bush the first time, and immediately regretted having done so. That was the last Repub POTUS candidate I have voted for.Until NOW. The rest have proven to be globalist traitor scum!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Great job on Clinton as usual, Liz.

B T T T

[connyankee]

Excellent article.