During Christmas week, Diana West posted on Breitbart her endorsement of Donald Trump.
There is no one whose understanding of America’s federal political history is more thorough or astute than is Diana West’s. Her willingness to speak out against the common wisdom is well-known to readers of Gates of Vienna. It is this willingness to explain foundational truths on that has caused Diana West to be marginalized. However, you can judge the truth of her observations merely by watching the reactions taken against her by the mainstream soi-disant “conservatives”.
They may put her beyond the pale but they have yet to find a way to silence her.
What follows is her statement in full as it subsequently appeared on her website. Any emphases are mine.
[Diana West begins with a prefatory statement outlining her previous posts on Trump.]
Posted below is my endorsement of Donald Trump as GOP 2016 presidential nominee which Breitbart News published [on December 26 2015].
It was about time to make such a statement, given that over the unfolding campaign season, my support for his candidacy has not wavered, but rather solidified for some of the reasons stated below. It all began with “the wall” — the concept of border, concrete and metaphorical, that in our times is revolutionary. The voter-candidate bond was also forged in the hellaciously, noxiously fiery attacks on Trump from the mainstream Right, where I just happen to find some of my own choice antagonists, and perhaps for some similar reasons.
I had almost forgotten how bad these attacks have been, to tell the truth (probably blocked them out), so I am reposting refreshers.
- August 18, 2015: “Trump: Giving Voice to the American ‘Subconscious’”
- August 19, 2015: “Warning: The GOP Big Tent Is Rated X”
- August 23, 2015: “Sex! Jack Boots! Trump!”
As for the mainstream Left:
- December 8, 2015: “Hitler, Islam, Religious Freedom and Donald Trump”
- December 9, 2015: “Organs of Obscenity”
Despite the name-calling and clown noses, what actually seems to be taking shape is a very serious, very significant battle over foundational if inchoate issues, all swirling around the nearly battered out of existence nation-state, which Trump and his policies, instinctively or not, seem poised to resurrect, vs. globalist currents driven either by conservative/universalism, or liberal/multiculturalism. In certain key ways the latter are near twins, which may explain why it is that “elites” in our main political parties often work closely together to thwart national interests.
Here is a splendid, must-read elaboration on related themes written by Jeff Nyquist.
Now, finally, [my] endorsement:
“It Is Time to Rally Around Donald Trump”
Brent Bozell has called on conservatives to rally around Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the Republican presidential nomination. Ted Cruz is a good man and a fine candidate — my own second choice — but I believe GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is the candidate for American patriots to rally around.
Bozell states that Cruz is the one candidate who will return the United States to “her Constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian values,” explaining:
On every issue of crucial importance to conservatives—defunding Planned Parenthood, ending the Obamacare nightmare, reducing the size of government, opposing amnesty—Cruz is not only with conservatives, he’s led the fight for conservatives.
To be honest, if these were the only issues under discussion in this GOP presidential primary season I would hardly be able to make myself pay attention. It’s not that they are unimportant issues. Personally, I support every one of them. But they are not existential issues. They are not the issues on which the very future of the Republic hangs. They are issues that a responsible Republican House and Senate, if they were loyal to their oath and to their constituents, could today begin to rectify all by themselves.
If they did — or if, say, a President Cruz were to ensure that Planned Parenthood was defunded, Obamacare ended, government trimmed, and amnesty once again staved off for another election cycle — we would all rejoice. However, the Constitution, the Republic, would be no more secure. On the contrary, they would still teeter on the edge of extinction, lost in a demographic, political and cultural transformation that our fathers, founding and otherwise, would find inconceivable — and particularly if they ever found out that the crisis took hold when We, the People lost our nerve even to talk about immigration and Islam.
It is in this danger zone of lost nerve and the vanishing nation-state where the extraordinary presidential candidacy of Donald Trump began. Like the nation-state itself, it started with the concept of a border, when Donald Trump told us he wanted to build a wall. Circa 21st-century-America, that took a lot of nerve.
After all, Americans don’t have walls. We don’t even have a border. We have “border surges,” and “unaccompanied alien minors.” We have “sanctuary cities,” and a continuous government raid on our own pocketbooks to pay for what amounts to our own invasion. That’s not even counting the attendant pathologies, burdens and immeasurable cultural dislocation that comes about when “no one speaks English anymore.” A wall, the man says?
The enthusiasm real people (as opposed to media and #GOPSmartSet) have shown for Trump and his paradigm-shattering wall is something new and exciting on the political scene. So is the “yuge” sigh of relief. Someone sees the nation bleeding out and wants to stanch the flow. Yes, we can (build a wall). From that day forward, it has been Trump, dominating the GOP primary process and setting all of the potentially restorative points of the agenda, compelling the other candidates to address them, and the MSM, too. Blasting through hard, dense layers of “political correctness” with plain talk that shocks, Trump has set in motion very rusty wheels of reality-based thinking, beginning a long-overdue honest-to-goodness public debate about the future of America — or, better, whether there will be a future for America. That debate starts at the border, too.
A well-defended border is an obvious requisite for any nation-state. It bears noting, however, that before Donald Trump, not one commander in chief, and (aside from former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO), not one figure of national fame and repute I can think of had ever put it to the people of this land that a wall was a way to stop our border crisis: the unceasing flow into the nation of illegal masses of mainly Spanish-speaking aliens, among them terrorists, criminals (yes, including rapists and murderers) and transnational gangs. On the contrary, crime and chaos at the U.S. non-border are what every branch and bureaucracy of our government expect We, the People to accept as normal — and pay for as good citizens.
But good citizens of what — the world?
For many decades, the unspoken answer to this inconceivable question (inconceivable, that is, before Trump) has been yes. “We Are the World” has been the USA’s unofficial anthem, the political muzak of our times that we either hum along to, or accept in teeth-gritted silence for fear of censure (or cancelled party invitations). “Openness,” “multiculturalism,” “globalism” — all have been pounded into us for so long that I think Americans despaired of ever hearing anyone give voice again to a patriotic vision of American interests. Then Trump came along and changed the tune. Americans perked up their ears. Maybe a wall — which is just the beginning of Trump’s detailed immigration policy, which Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) calls “exactly the plan America needs” — would make America possible again. That would be great, indeed.
Does Trump see it all this way, or is he going on “feel”? I don’t claim to know, although by this time in the political season, I think I am beginning to get a sense of Trump. When it comes to what is important, beginning with immigration, Trump’s instincts are as formidable as his courage. Notwithstanding Cruz and his consistent conservatism (in which Bozell places great stock), immigration wouldn’t even be a campaign issue without Donald Trump. In my opinion, the Trump plan is absoutely essential to any possible return, as Bozell puts it, to America’s constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian principles. I actually think of it as our last shot.
In the meantime, Trump continues to catapult issues, one after another, into the heart of the multicultural/universalist narrative that long ago marginalized the very idea of American interests. His judiciously sensible, also unprecedented call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration following the San Bernardino jihad attacks is a perfect example. Citing polling commissioned by the Center for Security Policy that reveals shockingly high support among Muslims in America for 1) violent jihad in America — 25 percent believe it is justified, and 2) sharia law in America — 51 percent believe they should have the choice of being governed here by Islamic law (sharia), Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
As Trump makes clear, our country’s representatives have no clue. Worse, they seem content to remain in ignorance no matter how many Americans die, no matter how far sharia spreads. Not Trump. When you think about it, his call for a Muslim immigration moratorium is really a no-brainer — but whose “politically correct” brain is capable even of thinking of it, let alone calling for it out loud? I regret to say that Sen. Cruz does not support Trump’s moratorium, deferring instead to a rosier vision of Islam and immigration screening both in order, politely, to reject it.
That’s too bad but so it goes, further testament to the fearless, agenda-setting powers of Trump. It’s really quite incredible: soon, maybe even before it’s too late, GOP primary voters will have a clear choice on walls, borders, immigration, even Islamic immigration (and, I would hope, the related issue of Islamic law), all because Donald Trump plucked these crucial issues from the void where the politicians, including good conservatives, have been eager to leave them.
ADDENDUM FROM DYMPHNA: Brent Bozell’s endorsement of Ted Cruz last week has probably changed by now. Cruz came out a few days ago with a bizarre “altar call” sure to turn away not only the non-Christians in this country, but also a sizeable block of Christians who deeply abhor the mixing of politics and religion in public. I number myself among those who are turned off, embarrassed for the man, and deeply suspicious of this public move. Even Jesus warned that when you wanted to pray, retire to your room to do so in private. I’m sure y’all can find that scriptural reference, right? [Hint: it’s just a bit after Matthew Five. Chapter Five Matthew is considered by some exegetes to be the Christian Constitution. Kind of.]
My guess? Cruz’ strange shout-out was part of the RNC’s timetable to have him fall on his sword precisely here; in other words, it’s about timing. This whole farce was choreographed a long time ago. Thus, Cruz’ funding will dry up and he will blow away sooner rather than later. This is all part of a larger RNC plan to reduce, one-by-one, the hordes ‘running’ for president. There are timed devices lying in wait for all the other contenders — and there are rewards waiting too. Everyone slowly falls by the wayside, leaving only, [ta da!] Bush. Their main problem will be keeping their boy Bush awake long enough to make his acceptance speech. I haven’t accounted for surprise pop-ups, e.g., Paul Ryan, but methinks he’s biding his time, given his current power in the House.
And those stories you’ve been seeing about Hillary’s shaky physical condition? Look for those to disappear as the year gets older. She may even make appearances in her suddenly refurbished SuperWoman cape.
The final battle was decided some time ago: Hillary <—> Bush. Hillary is desperate to win: her many crimes during her tenure as Secretary of State have a six-year statute of limitations. She wins and that clock vanishes. Thus she will do whatever she is told to do. Bush? Meh. He wins and the program still goes on as planned among the crony capitalists, crooks, and other bottom-feeders (law firms, lobbyists, and assorted leeches) who are busy hollowing out our country.
Those who are giving up in disgust, refusing to vote, ought to start reading American history. Start with, say, Andrew Jackson’s first presidential campaign. It makes the current mess look tame. The problem will be finding credible accounts. Not “objective” — there is no such thing in history’s annals. Don’t bother with those who say they’re “unbiased” — ain’t no such animal. Try to find an account that lays out its own agenda and proceed from there.
I have one suggestion:
Paul Johnson is a Brit who writes with great élan, no matter what his subject. He “gets” America. He makes his biases plain. He has also published histories of the Jews and on Christianity. For a fascinating interview with Mr. Johnson, see this.
I’m sure there are PDFs by now of A History of the American People. It’s a matter of looking for them. Meanwhile, I’m going to search through our history books, hoping we didn’t give our copy away. I have a terrible habit of doing that. But who knew, back in he 1990s, that I’d be here talking to you all these years later?