Diana West Suggests We Meet at the Wall

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.

— D.

[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.

As for the mainstream Left:

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.

Go Trump!

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

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:

A History of the American People by Johnson, Paul 1st (first) Edition [Paperback(1999)]

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?

54 thoughts on “Diana West Suggests We Meet at the Wall

  1. Well, when Donald Trump is the last hope, people should know how dire the situation is. We are desperate. So why not Putin for president?

    • When did you first realize the game was fixed?

      As for suggesting Putin, do you really want the U.S. run by a KGB operative who owes his soul to the company store and is determined to bring America to her knees?

      Was it those pictures of his buff chest while he rode bareback that turned your head??

      • Haha! It was a joke. I remember seeing a poster at a right-wing rally several years ago that read “Putin for President”. And I remember Obama joked about it. So it was not my idea. No, I don’t trust Putin. There is no way of telling what he’s really up to.

          • Of course you do – that is exactly what the KGB worked so hard to achieve – trust the authoritarian Collectivists more than the West.


            Please read “Disinformation” by Lt Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa. You cannot understand where we are without it.

    • I would say it was evident long before now that the country is in crisis.
      The Tea Party movement was slammed when its whole point of being was defending the Constitution and what America used to represent. The media roundly condemning them as racists, cranks etc shows you where the mainstream media stands in America today. The same media that routinely attacks the police in favour of criminals if said criminal has the right skin colour – black.
      The way the government shut down parks and reserves during the Obamacare standoff with the GOP refusing to extend funding – that was incredibly petty. Who even comes up with the idea of putting blockades along public roads to prevent tourists pulling over to get views of Mt. Rushmore? Or expelling people from privately owned cabins on federal land?
      No, America was failing long before Trump came along to highlight those failings.

      • Many people were highlighting those failings long before Trump decided that his good friend Hillary Clinton might not be a terrific president after all, and before he stopped helping the likes of Harry Reid get reelected, and certainly before he blustered about how horrible it was to draw pictures and label them “Mohammed” because it offends Muslims.

        Trump still doesn’t have a consistent governing philosophy, except that he has great confidence in his own superiority — or at least he has an irresistible urge to keep reminding everyone of his greatness. Trump fans simply imagine that all good things began with The Donald, and that he’s the one and only solution to every problem.

      • Many people were highlighting those failings long before Trump decided that maybe Hillary Clinton wouldn’t make a terrific president after all, and before he stopped making campaign donations to the likes of Harry Reid, and certainly before he blustered about how wrong it was to draw pictures and label them “Mohammed” because it offends Muslims.

        What Trump highlights most of all is how superior he believes himself to be.

        • I’m not a Trump fan, but these are the things I’m certain of: The four years beginning in January 1917 will be the times that try men’s souls, to say the least. They will humble the proudest, topple the mighty, and test the mettle of any man or woman who has to make executive decisions for the USA during those years.

          Does Donald Trump have what it takes to handle that when the time comes? I have no idea.

          But I know for damned sure that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don’t have what it takes, not by a long shot. There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

          • Ah, yes! Quite right.

            It seems that I must have been overcome with nostalgia for those good ol’ days on the Western Front…

        • OZYMANDIAS

          by Percy Bysshe Shelley

          I met a traveller from an antique land
          Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
          Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
          Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
          And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
          Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
          Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
          The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
          And on the pedestal these words appear:
          “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
          Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
          Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
          Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
          The lone and level sands stretch far away.

        • After he finishes talking about Donald, he talks about the Wall. The Wall all of us want, but only Trump is willing to build – he claims he’ll get Mexico to pay for some or all of it. That remains to be seen.

          If he needed to do business in D.C. then he paid off both sides, not just Harry Reid. He doesn’t have a strong political philosophy, just an unabashed love of his country and a very good understanding of money. Neither is a quality on display in Washington. I caught a brief minute of one of his speeches somewhere shortly after the budget was voted on and signed. Only Trump had awe in his voice when he said, and then repeated, the bottom line: 1.1 trillion dollars. That emphasis was in Trump’s voice, in fact he repeated it.IOW, he actually understands the implications of a trillion dollar budget…

          He makes no bones about loving his country. Unlike Obama, he doesn’t think we need to be brought to our knees. In fact, he wants to restore our pride.

          Best of all, he’s a businessman, not a lawyer. He hires lawyers.

          What a pleasure it is to hear someone speak from notes on the back of an envelope and without the aid of a teleprompter.

      • The elites who own/run Washington, including a huge permanent bureaucracy of over-paid government union employees loathe the Tea Party. There aren’t words adequate to describe this fear and loathing.

        I first ran across the phenomenon reading through various accounts of Andrew Jackson’s presidency. He was elected by the (political) ancestors of today’s populists and the permanent bureaucracy of the time -such as it was – despised Jackson and his cronies. They had wanted John Quincy Adams, a scion of the elite Adamses, a Massachusetts blue blood whose family had served at the top from the beginning.

        Jackson, the son of Scots-Irish immigrants, was orphaned early. His father died a few weeks before he was born in the NC/SC highlands. He served in the Revolutionary War at the age of 14 and was captured by the British, along with his brother. His life-long antipathy for the Brits began when a Redcoat officer slashed his hand and face for refusing to shine his boots. Both boys contracted small pox in the camp before being ransomed by his mother in a prisoner exchange. The younger boy died of the disease, to be followed shortly by his mother who’d come down with cholera while attending wounded soldiers.

        Quite a beginning for a man who would later become a lawyer and build a successful practice in the Tennessee frontier before going on to serve in the military.

        Here’s a Jackson song – it’s NOT “The Battle of New Orleans”


  2. “There is no one whose understanding of America’s federal political history is more thorough or astute than is Diana West’s. ”

    John Bolton.

    • Nope. He’s a policy analyst, an excellent prognosticator, and a good fighter in the trenches. But he’s not a historian nor does he pretend to be.

      Apples and oranges.

    • John Bolton’s solution to defeating ISIS is to create a Sunni state in the ME. He lost me when he came out with that one.

  3. Trump God willing be a great president. I believe he is our only real hope to stop the madness. It is in God’s hands.

  4. I was fortunate/unfortunate to have spent 15 years inside the USSS and White House bubble. I learned not to place complete confidence in any one man. And I learned that money is more important than anything to these people. So how do I apply my lessons to Trump? Well, I put his sticker on my car in June. He isn’t enamoured by money, as he already has plenty. But he is an enormous egotist. So I’m supporting the rich egotist and praying that he doesn’t fill the SCOTUS with liberals.

    • How do you conclude that he’s not enamored by money when his whole life has been about amassing large sums of it (even after he already had “plenty” by most people’s standards), and displaying his wealth extravagantly, and putting his name boldly on his expensive projects, and frequently reminding everyone that he’s rich?

      How does someone with a history of trying to buy political favors to build his own billions (e.g. by trying to get average people ejected from their homes) suddenly become the best hope for pure, principled, selfless governance?

      What basis is there to expect that his SCOTUS appointments would be more solid constitutionalists than Souter or O’Conner (or Roberts)? … Oh wait — it’s only a prayer that they will be. Much of the Trump fandom really is faith-based.

      • It’s hard to explain how I concluded that Trump is the best wager in the field. Of course he worships money, yet he uses it for quintessential American purposes, property ownership, the entertainment culture and charity. How many candidates and voters donated their time and/or money to veteran groups decades back? Trump did, so he passes my un-enamoured by money test. He uses no prepared speeches and answers questions immediately, even though many of his responses are not what a conservative wants to hear. He bragged of buying influence from politicians left and right. So he passes my honesty test. I don’t know what he’ll do with SCOTUS appointments, but it’s a safe bet that he wouldn’t do any worse than the previous 4 executives. We all want more from our candidates but we need to focus on electability of the chosen candidate. Based upon the intensity of criticism of Trump that I have observed from all camps- he is over the target. One last thing – I was in a Bay Area meeting last month; at my table were a gay Hispanic man, older Chinese woman and a middle aged Anglo male. One of them brought up his name and they all lavished praise on Trump and mentioned that he seems to be the favorite candidate throughout SF simply because he’s ripped the curtains back and exposed the evil underworld of politics.

        • Wow hearing Trump has been quietly and in an unassuming manner supporting veterans, only increases my respect for him.Thanks for telling us about it.

      • Surely the point is that Trump has so much money it is highly likely that he can’t be tempted by it.

      • Trump’s success and display of success illustrates his ability to boast about success…so when he proposes he can “Make America Great Again”, we can reflect upon his record of successes. Yes, he’s hit bumps in the road but has managed to overcome those bumps quickly. Yes, he’s flip flopped on issues, but it seems his decisions seem logical to fit the ever shifting political landscape. No candidate is perfect or predictable, but at this time, we need a plain speaking no-holds-barred candidate with ambition to “Make America Great Again”.

        • Amen – and an old Marine infantry officer once said something like “a half baked plan quickly executed is better than a perfect plan 2 minutes too late”.

  5. Dymphna,
    If everything is ‘fixed’ as you say, then when will the Elites play their “Trump” card?

    • What was said facetiously was meant with all seriousness. As an appraiser I have dealt with real estate brokers on many occasions. One thing that is consistent about them is their focus upon the successful results of the deal they are engaged in or the goal that they have set for themselves.
      Trump is selling the American people what they want to buy. What is in question is whether he will deliver the promised goods. I personally doubt that he will. You do not have the money that he does without someone else’s permission. Those of his economic strata regard the rest of us Munchkins on Main Street as commodities to be bought, sold, employed or exploited as needed.
      That is what I meant by the Elite playing their Trump card. They will have what they have wanted while having sold us a bill of goods, shades of the Hunger Games.
      So……I am wishing everyone a happier new year.

  6. I believe we have Ann Coulter to thank for the spectacular rise of the Truth-teller Trump candidacy, and the ascendancy of immigration as the number #1 issue in the 2016 election. He echoes every point she makes concerning the nexus of immigration and every other existential challenge we face in America, indeed the whole Western World, in her book “Adios, America”.
    The reason I am certain this is true is because on July 13 of this year I brought my daughter to a book signing at the Oaktree Gun Club in Newhall, Ca. and she told us that she had had dinner with Donald the night before in Beverly Hills, and that he had received an advance copy of her book in March, finally cracking it open in May. That coincides with his insertion of that issue into his campaign announcement in June…
    I just had to share this personal recollection and see to it that one of my favorite authors and pundits gets her due, and share of the blame! I hope this is of interest to my fellow GoV readers…..and I do intend on reading some Diana West very soon, thank you very much!

    Ron of Frazier

  7. Several times, I have gone out to the voting booth and voted for the RINO’s that the
    Republican Party has put up. Years of wasted votes, years of having to endure more
    of the Democrats and the Washington ruling elites’ tone deafness and games.

    Obama has been a disaster. I am ready to try something different from the same old
    song and dance. – I like Cruz; but I’m beginning to think that Trump has what it takes
    to hold Hitlery’s feet to the fire and send Bill and her all the way back to Arkansas
    where they belong. (Ha Ha)

    Thank you, Good Lord for any help you will send us! I also pray for the safety of any
    brave enough to challenge the ruling class.

  8. I love Trump! Why do so many people have a problem with someone who tells the truth? Whatever experience he lacks, he can make up for by hiring the right assistants, as he always has. BTW, the whole system is so corrupt, even the supposedly conservative Daily Mail is giving Trump the pariah treatment.

      • Many thanks for this piece and the comments. This fills a lot of the gaps in British media coverage of the Trump phenomenon.
        The DM is slick operation with a large online readership, attracted mostly by its oodles of celebrity garbage, but it plays a sly fence-sitting game politically. I don’t think it is a matter of class. The bottom line is, in the present climate, no mainstream British newspaper dares to fully embrace the anti-mass immigration (AMI) platform. They know that the migrant-invasion story sells and that 80% of the people hate what is happening, but at the same time they feel obliged to atone and signal their virtue by regularly attacking the ‘far right.’ They’re two-faced xxxxs interested only the bucks.

  9. Trump is the only person who can save America in particular ,Western civilization in general. And guess what , I’m writing from Australia ? So those of us with ringside seats and no axe to grind can see that only one man has the courage of his convictions and is able to act decisively and for the commonweal.And that man is Trump.Trump 2016 or bust -quite literally.

  10. I trust trump less than Cruz. I doubt Cruz will have the ability to get things done unlike Trump. But I still prefer Cruz’s intellect. However I’d bet trump will get more cross over votes. But that takes me back to the first sentence.

  11. As I see it, there is little time left to quibble about various background issues. Job one should be prying the claws of the GOP establishment from the levers of power. To wit: we get rid of Obama enabler John Boehner only to have him replaced with Paul Ryan who devises an Omnibus bill funding Obama’s “Transforming America” schemes including Planned Parenthood, Third World immigration, sanctuary cities, Islamic refugee resettlement, increasing H-1B and H-2B visas, and on and on.

    Trump is the only viable candidate to stop this nation-destroying process.

  12. A wall will solve nothing, we Latins are stubborn, which would be wonderful if it weren’t for the fact that most put said stubborness in getting to the USA instead of working to improve their own countries.

    What the USA needs is a more strict policy regarding both, incoming immigrants and the ones already there. Deporting immigrants that are already there for ANY offense to the law, and only taking in those that can prove to be political refugees rather than economic could be a place to start on a stricter policy.

    I do not particularly trust Trump, and I believe that the 2016 elections are the ones with no “good” candidate, and I believe that US Democracy will be weakened for a LONG time after this… However I think that Trump might be the least damaging candidate, so if I were to vote in US elections, I’d vote for him.

    Ironic, coming from a Colombian

    • The biggest obstacles to improving countries south of our border is the level of corruption and the lack of a rule of law, especially regarding property. These prevent the rise of a robust middle class. Without a middle class, there is no foundation for prosperity.

      That’s the cultural divide between the South American continents’s countries whose founding harks back to Spanish rule vs those of North America, which grew from Anglo-Saxon – i.e., northern European – culture.

      America is fast becoming the same kind of banana republic.

      [OTOH, look at what northern Europeans did to Africa]

      • You are right on the spot, and it is sad to see such things happening, I will only say that we had at times the leaders and political will to improve things (Colombia in 1812, 1865 and 1930 for example) but it was all lost in the inter-party struggles.

        The US was sucesssful in gaining independence while retaining the basic structure that existed before independence (the 13 colonies simply turning into States within a wider Union) we tried that here, but it was all undone by the second wave of independence (1816-21) when the previously existing structures we could have used were entirely dismantled, then re-built in a shaky way.

        Also, in most of Latin America, the Cold-War Era gave rise finally to a middle-class with some strength, however the current policies are undermining it, and with it, any chance we might have to improve. If we put our stubborness to improve ourselves rather than getting out, I’m sure we could reach a level close to what Venezuela was in the ’50s (almost first world) in 1-3 decades. Central and South America have the resources and population… we lack however, the will to use them properly

  13. Maybe Trump is the best but I wonder about the chance of his being a little reckless and whether he has enough wisdom. No one else is perfect either. I’m afraid that we may have a war with Iran so that I measure candidates as to how comforting they would be in these worst-of-all-possible worlds. I wish Christie had a better chance of beating the Dems.

    Good businessmen-entreprenuers are risk takers and bluffers and we may not want too much of this. Imagine a nuclear confrontation. We may need ice and deep knowledge of our opponents. But, nevertheless, he may be the best in the field that can win. I like him.

  14. “They may put her beyond the pale but they have yet to find a way to silence her.” They put her beyond the pale because in their way of thinking that excuses their unwillingness to argue with her. They’ve had it, haven’t they? All that remains to be seen is who will take over the reins.

  15. As an outsider (but with a legitimate interest in US politics, which affects most of the world), and an admirer of Diana West’s (thanks to GoV), why the ongoing obsession with Planned Parenthood?

    Here in the UK, there were recent scandals over the callous behaviour of a particular NHS trust, with regard to dead babies (not foetuses) being harvested for organs without the parents’ consent, and the bodies of dead newborns being disposed of insensitively.

    Appalling to be sure, but this hasn’t led Brits in general to write off our National Health Service, which enjoys widespread (some might say not altogether justified) public support.

  16. Looking in from the outside (UK) Donald Trump would make a great no nonsense leader but whatever group lurks in the shadows pulling strings will never allow this to happen. The best contribution he has made is to open the can of worms (immigration and islam) to the general population and build some desire from the people for these issues to be fixed.

  17. Thomas Paine ignited the minds of his colleagues and adversaries whose eventual conflict became the fire and the crucible in which this nation was formed. Mr. Trump, at his best, fills that same function today, but neither would be appropriately placed at the helm of a government.

    One might welcome the affect of their words, and this part of changing an odious government is most important, but the affect of their actions on the Constitution might not be good.

    • In what ways would you find Mr Trump to be harmful to the Constitution. Would that be more harmful than the last three presidents, or just about the same?

      I am asking sincerely – not snarkily – for the specific actions which you could envision him performing which would endanger the Constitution?

  18. As usual I’m late to the (reading) party, but the smartest person I know, Dymphna, actually believes Cruz is part of a plot to bring Bush forward. Why isn’t it simply possible, make that probable that Cruz got carried away with himself in making a “bizarre “altar call'” for clergy to lead the way for him?

    Mike from Brooklyn

Comments are closed.