Lion of the Blogosphere

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama endorses Trump today

Very big for Trump! Cruz wanted his endorsement badly. Could help move some votes from Cruz to Trump on Super Tuesday. Especially considering that Cruz always praises Jeff Sessions whenever he has the opportunity; the guy Cruz himself has sanctified as the Senatorial authority on immigration restriction supports Donald Trump.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 28, 2016 at 5:41 pm

Posted in Politics

81 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Unless my senses failed me, Sessions just endorsed Trump at a rally in Madison, AL. Looks like it nearly broke my live stream, haha. And Trump just said “All. Lives. Matter.” Here we go.


    February 28, 2016 at 5:48 pm

  2. Prominent conservatives who are supporting Trump:
    Schafly, Coulter, VD Hanson (silently), Drudge and now Sessions.

    These aren’t riff raff. These are very intelligent members of the conservative movement of long standing, but they are supporting Trump because immigration is far and away the most important issue facing our country, as everybody who isn’t completely retarded understands.

    Unfortunately, TruCons are completely retarded. Thankfully our savior Trump is destroying Conservatism once and for all.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 28, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    • Senator Sessions is a TrueCon par excellence, my friend. He has been widely suspected of having ghost-written Trump’s various policy papers, including his radical pro-rich tax plan.

      As Trump wins more and more TrueCon endorsements expect to see the puppet strings come out and Trump starting to dance more and more to the orthodox tune.

      Don’t forget — these things go both ways. People don’t endorse out of weakness or fear of missing out. They want influence. And they don’t want to influence Trump to be more of what he already is.


      February 28, 2016 at 6:02 pm

      • If Sessions influences Trump on immigration, that’s a good thing.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 28, 2016 at 6:06 pm

      • I didn’t think it was any big secret that there was heavy Sessions influence in his immigration policy paper (not sure about the others). I remember seeing, probably on Trump’s website, but if not there on major news outlets, that Sessions had provided assistance, and you can basically read between the lines from there. Given this, I’m kind of surprised it took this long for Sessions to officially endorse Trump.

        Jokah Macpherson

        February 28, 2016 at 6:16 pm

      • Sessions’ two main concerns are immigration and foreign trade. His views on both of them are rooted in nationalism and populism.

        Lewis Medlock

        February 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm

      • “As Trump wins more and more TrueCon endorsements expect to see the puppet strings come out and Trump starting to dance more and more to the orthodox tune.”

        I’m worried about this too. Hopefully once he wraps up the nomination he comes out with some more un-Republican economic and fiscal policy during the general election. The problem is his advisors seem to be all traditional Republican types, and his campaign hangers on increasingly will be.


        February 28, 2016 at 7:52 pm

      • Trump is a Republican. He’s going to work for a Republican/conservative tax and fiscal policy. (Tax cuts for the 1%!!!).

        If you’re so concerned about rich people, then your play is to hope that Trump vigorously enforces anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. (How would an Christie AG be on this I wonder?) Wealth earned legitimately via healthy competition should not be taxed highly. This is the American way.

        Andrew E.

        February 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm

      • An American way developed for a pre-industrial scarcity economy.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 28, 2016 at 8:51 pm

      • “Sessions’ two main concerns are immigration and foreign trade. His views on both of them are rooted in nationalism and populism”

        Yeah Sessions has been virtually alone in the senate fighting both bad trade deals and bad immigration schemes. He’s a prototype of the new nationalist version of the Republican Party Trump might create if his forces win the current civil war. So it’s natural that he would endorse Trump. I’m just surprised he did it so early. I figured he would wait further down the road, because the second you endorse Trump in the Senate, McConnell’s dogs will be on the attack.

        Mike Street Station

        February 28, 2016 at 8:56 pm

      • Christie’s wife is a very highly paid employee of Angelo Gordon a large investment bank/hedge fund/private equity firm. I don’t anticipate an AG Christie to go after Wall Street, not in a way that fundamentally impairs its current parasitical structure. Christie would be a bad choice for AG.


        February 29, 2016 at 12:56 am

      • Senator Sessions is not a particularly creative or unorthodox Republican. Look at any of those conservative ranking sites. He’s always up there with Cruz in terms of the most loyal to the TrueCon line. More orthodox than Rubio, certainly more orthodox than Christie or those RINO congressmen who have endorsed Trump so far.

        Super pro-life, super pro-war, super-pro tax cuts for the rich.

        Being a hardliner on illegal immigration isn’t actually a very fresh or interesting position for a GOP politician to hold. The Gang of 8 bill didn’t get passed, after all. Really, for all intents and purposes, Cruz and Rubio basically have the same position on the issue as Trump does, Trump just over-promises in a more cartoonish fashion. Trump’s Republican critics, in both “TrueCon” and “GOPe” factions, have always hated far him more for his style and historic ties to Democrats than his immigration positions.

        I used to think Trump was going to run in the general election as a pseudo-liberal, or at least a centrist populist. But now that TrueCon types are making peace with him, I increasingly I think he’ll just run as a boring, conventionally right-wing Republican.


        February 29, 2016 at 1:49 am

  3. Mark Levin will have a heart attack.


    February 28, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    • Mark Levin is a TruCon schmuck. He can vote for Hillary with the rest of the TruCon filth.

      And Sessions is not a TruCon. He is a nationalist-populist with so-con personal beliefs. He isn’t a TruCon because being a TruCon requires that one also be a total retard who puts “muh constitution” and abortion over saving the country from being invaded by the 3rd world.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 28, 2016 at 6:22 pm

  4. How are people who support Trump because they want to restrict immigration going to feel if Trump, who has changed his party affiliation and stands on issues so blithely in the past, becomes president and then doesn’t do a thing to restrict immigration?


    February 28, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    • As if Marcio “Amnesty” Rubio would be better than Trump?

      Trump will do something because it’s his #1 campaign position and he has a mandate to do it. He doesn’t want to go down in history as the president who reneged on his mandate.

      The wall is just a big construction project. It’s not like sending a man to the moon or anything complicated like that.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 28, 2016 at 6:25 pm

      • We’ll see what happens when the election is over and Trump no longer has to win over GOP primary voters, but instead has to make deals with Democrats in Congress and the bureaucracy. Does he really care about immigration, or is he just talking like he does in order to win the primary?

        As for “going down in history,” we know it is lefties and diversity types who write the history books; if Trump wants glowing reviews in future texts he will mellow out and appeal to the cultural elites.


        February 28, 2016 at 6:38 pm

      • The wall, as such, is less important than the enforcement mechanisms that occur in the “backfield”.

        Indeed, if you have proper enforcement mechanisms throughout the country, that are actually enforced, you don’t really need a wall. Though of course Trump will have to build “something” just so people can’t say “where’s the wall you promised us?”


        February 28, 2016 at 9:07 pm

      • I hope the wall stuff was just rhetoric. We don’t need a wall, we just need enforcement of the laws as they now stand, nothing more.


        February 29, 2016 at 12:58 am

      • You guys are exactly right. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country have simply over-stayed their visas. This idea that our biggest immigration problem is shifty Mexicans tip-toeing across the border in the dead of night or whatever is a dumb cartoon version of the problem that is only compelling to people who haven’t actually researched the issue. Increased use of e-verify would do more to get a handle on the problem than some dumb wall.


        February 29, 2016 at 1:55 am

      • The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country have simply over-stayed their visas.

        Absolutely wrong. Ann Coulter covered this in her book Adios America. The 40% illegals being visa overstayers is only approximately true if the overall number is the 11 million we’ve been hearing about for 15 years. But if, as Ann argues, the real number is 30 million or more then the % of visa overstayers drops significantly.

        Andrew E.

        February 29, 2016 at 10:15 am

      • I hope the wall stuff was just rhetoric. We don’t need a wall, we just need enforcement of the laws as they now stand, nothing more.

        Mestizos don’t process information the same as Anglos/Westerners. We understand well abstract concepts like equality before the law, constitutional rights, civic engagement. Mestizos will need to see a giant, physical object that they can feel and touch stretching the border before they fully internalize that things are now different and running north for freebies is no longer a viable option.

        Andrew E.

        February 29, 2016 at 10:20 am

      • You need to build a wall and enforce the existing laws. Plus pass a few new laws. The overwhelming majority of Mexican illegals, plus many from Central American countries, came here by sneaking over the border. They didn’t overstay their visas. They never had visas in the first place. That’s why they’re called the undocumented. Don’t give me MSNBC/WSJ talking points.

        Lewis Medlock

        February 29, 2016 at 10:44 am

      • “But if, as Ann argues, the real number is 30 million or more then the % of visa overstayers drops significantly.”

        Yes and if my uncle had boobs she’d be my aunt. Coulter’s 30 million number has been quite thoroughly discredited. It comes from her exaggerating a single 2005 Bear-Stearns report that wasn’t itself adequately sourced.


        February 29, 2016 at 3:49 pm

      • I believe the real number is more than the official 11 million or whatever it’s supposed to officially be.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 29, 2016 at 3:52 pm

      • You can believe whatever you like, Lion. But if one side has people pointing to specific figures drawn from empirical research and the other side has people making unfalsifiable statements about what they “feel” to be reality then it’s not much of a debate.

        10-15 million illegals is a very large number, and a very large problem. But it sounds like some people would rather pursue showy solutions that sound good rather than ones that actually address the factual realities of the problem.


        February 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    • This concern trolling is such bullshit. The only people who use it are either people who support open borders outright or stupid TruCons who think that immigration isn’t far and away the most important issue. In either case, we don’t want your vote.

      Trump will move us on in the right direction on immigration and EVERYBODY knows it. Those who insist on using the “Trump will betray you!” line are provocateurs who will be punished for their treachery after the revolution.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 28, 2016 at 6:37 pm

      • “are provocateurs who will be punished for their treachery after the revolution.”

        Watch out MaryK! If Trump wins, cuckservatives are no longer safe!


        February 28, 2016 at 6:47 pm

      • Your confidence and bloodthirstiness are impressive.


        February 28, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    • Well, if Trump wins the Presidency on his immigration platform, the first thing Jeff Sessions will do is introduce a bill codifying those positions in the next Congress, which will be controlled by the GOP. What GOP Senator is going to go against that bill in the wake of The Donald’s win? What GOP House member? And then when it gets to Trump’s desk you think Trump is going to veto it? If Trump wins, positive immigration reform is happening. Nothing can stop it.


      February 28, 2016 at 7:30 pm

      • Amen. That’s exactly right.

        Andrew E.

        February 28, 2016 at 8:43 pm

      • What legally can be done about sanctuary cities? Can President Trump issue an executive order banning them? (Remember: Kate Steinle was murdered in a sanctuary city.)

        This would be a powerful symbolic signal, and I think symbols are important. We have dozens of cities in the US, dedicated to flouting the law.

        Meanwhile, a registry clerk who doesn’t marry same sex couples gets jailed. I’m not a true-con but the difference is obvious, and disgusting.

        President Trump’s first EO should be to ban sanctuary cities.


        February 29, 2016 at 8:31 am

      • “What legally can be done about sanctuary cities?”

        Supremacy Clause. Federal law trumps state law. If illegals are illegal under federal law, states can’t make them legal. Trump can enforce the law, and even sue cities for violating federal law.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 29, 2016 at 8:43 am

      • ” Federal law trumps state law.”

        Love dat.


        February 29, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    • Trump MAY betray us.

      All other Republicans WILL betray us.


      February 28, 2016 at 9:03 pm

      • “Trump MAY betray us.

        All other Republicans WILL betray us.”

        That’s exactly right. Amnesty and open borders will probably be on Rubio’s “First 100 days” agenda, and even if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, it will be much easier to go along with it. MSM, donor money approval are in that direction; charges of racism and attack ads are in the other direction.

        So any non Trump President will do anything they can to deliver amnesty.

        Mike Street Station

        February 28, 2016 at 10:13 pm

  5. Even just having a President who makes public statements about building a wall will be a huge deterrent on illegal immigration, even if the wall takes 7 years or never gets finished. Once illegals immigrants hear about it their attempted entries will plummet, in the same way that all of those Latin American poor went berzerk and started postal mailing their children across the border when Obama started to muse about the Dream Act.

    And even in best-case scenario it won’t be one single construction project, anyway, it will fit the needs of each particular piece of land. The most important thing is the will to enforce laws and take another step, all of the sophisticated barriers in the world don’t help if you don’t have the will to man and maintain them.

    And the border states are willing to take care of the wall, whatever Trump gets in place will get support from each individual state going forward…


    February 28, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    • Right now the law carries a 6 month imprisonment sentence for employers who repeatedly hire illegal aliens. If Trump just enforced that law, employers would start hiring Americans instead of illegal aliens. A large portion of illegal aliens would self-deport.


      February 28, 2016 at 8:56 pm

      • Right, Trump doesn’t need congress, he just needs to use his executive authority to execute the existing laws. Which is actually the president’s Constitutional duty.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 28, 2016 at 9:00 pm

      • The problem is the law doesn’t actually prohibit hiring illegals. As an employer you are obligated to ask prospective employees if they are legally allowed to work in the US, If they say yes and present any of a number of IDs (some of which are easy to forge) you are required to believe them (unless the ID is obviously fake) and are not allowed to enquire further. As a result only very stupid (or reckless) employers are ever convicted of hiring illegals. Until the law is changed claiming you will crack down on employers hiring illegals is just way of appearing tough on immigration without actually being tough.

        James B. Shearer

        February 29, 2016 at 12:24 am

      • The problem is the law doesn’t actually prohibit hiring illegals. As an employer you are obligated to ask prospective employees if they are legally allowed to work in the US, If they say yes and present any of a number of IDs (some of which are easy to forge) you are required to believe them (unless the ID is obviously fake) and are not allowed to enquire further.

        But are you forgetting about withholdings? (income tax, SS and payroll tax paid by both employer and employee) If an employer is paying someone in straight cash or through a check without doing withholdings that employer cannot even try to claim that they were employing a W2 worker in the proper way.

        And I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants get either cash-in-hand or a direct check from the business petty cash. If an illegal is using a fake social security number to work there should be money going into income & payroll taxes (and the unemployment fund) against that fake SS number.


        February 29, 2016 at 1:35 am

      • I hear/read about “Mexicans standing in front of Home Depot” all the time. We have a Home Depot in Manhattan on 23rd Street and this doesn’t occur. Can anyone from the real America clue me in about this? Is this an urban legend or do they really do that?

        [I did once take a train to a very out of the way part of New Jersey, not SWPL territory in the least. It was me and dozens of Hispanic guys, all 5’2″, on their way to work somewhere.]


        February 29, 2016 at 8:36 am

      • Back when I worked for a government office located in Woodbridge, VA, I used to drive past a location where day laborers gathered to be picked up. So not an urban legend.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 29, 2016 at 8:45 am

      • The law is very clear that is illegal for an employer to hire an illegal alien. Furthermore the law puts the burden of verifying the employee’s work status on the employer (“good faith effort”). As an employer I have to make my employee fill out a I-9 form and keep records of their social security card and picture ID as proof that I verified. In the rare case the employee presents fake papers, I have EVerify to confirm that the employees papers check out.

        All this takes less than 10 minutes to do. Any employer who says he is duped by forged papers or cannot shoulder the burden of verification is lying. Employers who hire illegals do it willingly and w/o fear because the government has signaled that it will not enforce the law.


        February 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm

      • According to this 2009 source :

        “•Illegal immigrants are not “undocumented.” They have fraudulent documents such as counterfeit Social Security cards, forged drivers licenses, fake “green cards,” and phony birth certificates. Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment.”

        As I said employers are required to ask for ID. They are not required (or even allowed) to do much more.

        James B. Shearer

        March 1, 2016 at 12:44 am

  6. I just discovered a really good writer, Peter Novarro, who is being fair to Trump on his “clear understanding” of China trade, and who is calling bullshit on WSJ’s disgraceful coverage of Trump:

    Beyond the Trump angle, Novarro’s articles are must reading. Alarming.


    February 28, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    • Trump’s immigration policy statement on his website is very well thought-out, and was probably written largely by someone from Sessions’ office.

      On trade, Trump has the right instincts, but seems to lack an intellectual framework. He should link up with the Richmans on this. Their balanced trade idea makes a ton of sense:

      Dave Pinsen

      February 28, 2016 at 9:03 pm

      • Trump lacks “an intellectual framework”? Say it ain’t so! 🙂


        February 29, 2016 at 8:36 am

  7. Trump will win the nomination. Who knows what will happen in the general? He has a chance if he hits her very hard on the job she did as Secretary of State, because it’s true – she was an absolute DISGRACE as Secretary of State and everyone knows that the Middle East is a mess and that we have been disrespected by China/Russia. Attacking people in ways that are true and plain to see is effective. Trump knows that this is a good line of attack – he has used it before, such as in that clip where someone used a computer program to give him a British accent. It can be an answer to many things she says: on your watch, the world fell apart and America’s stature diminished.

    He did another anti-Koch tweet which is more incisive than his previous one: Little Marco Rubio, the lightweight no show Senator from Florida, is set to be the “puppet” of the special interest Koch brothers. WATCH!

    Still, why is “puppet” in quotation marks? Maybe that indicates that Rubio won’t really get the chance to be their puppet because he won’t win. I would have hyphenated “no-show.”


    February 28, 2016 at 7:23 pm

  8. I find Trump’s “I don’t know anything about David Duke…” on CNN yet another instance of strategic shakiness. He has previously said “I wouldn’t want his endorsement,” and in another setting said, “David Duke endorsed me? I disavow.” So why now say you don’t know anything about him? It’s blatantly inconsistent, and if you already disavowed him, why give Hillary ammunition about “Trump pretended he didn’t know who David Duke is because he wants the KKK vote?”


    February 28, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    • Genuflecting to the MSM whenever they imply he is racist is NOT what Trump or any other Republican should do. Good for him to refuse to give that scum from the MSM what he was looking for.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 28, 2016 at 7:54 pm

      • I agree with that (as I said in a separate post, before your follow-up and mine were up) but it makes no sense to disavow Duke multiple times and then say he knows nothing about him. After the CNN thing he even tweeted a clip of himself disavowing Duke.


        February 28, 2016 at 7:59 pm

      • Perturabo – I agree with you on the politics of it, but in truth I could imagine myself saying the same things as Trump did. I don’t know anything about David Duke except that he’s a Bad Guy and a Racist in the eyes of the media. I know we’re supposed to disavow him if asked, but I don’t know anything about the guy other than that the media hates him, and the media calls everyone they hate a racist (including Trump).

        Trump’s an amateur politician who bristles at the things he’s “supposed” to do, and while that tendency has benefited him many times in the past, this was one case where it was shrewdly exploited by a reporter trying to create a distraction.


        February 28, 2016 at 11:46 pm

      • Richard, you summed it up well. I can’t say I would have reacted differently either.


        February 29, 2016 at 12:17 am

      • @Richard,

        I agree w/Lion here – the desperate MSM is trolling Trump and his is refusing to their collective ass, but Duke is that rare case of a genuine racist, a really bad guy, and this is not the media and the ADL crying wolf. Check out his website if you disagree with me.

        Let’s see the media badger Hillary about her Goldman Sachs speeches. Goddamn their lying cowardly asses.


        February 29, 2016 at 8:40 am

      • “refusing to kiss their collective asses.”

        (I wish these comments had an edit feature.)


        February 29, 2016 at 8:41 am

    • With the exception of Wright was Obama asked to disavow the radical black militants and Nation of Islam types from that endorsed him? Will Hillary be asked to disavow Al Sharpton and his past tactics even though she actually met as a representative of the Black community?

      Asking Trump is disavow extremists is a smear tactic. It puts him on a defensive. Its like asking a guy to stop beating his wife. It makes him look bad even if he protests that he never beat his wife.


      February 28, 2016 at 10:38 pm

      • You’re right, but we know the rules for Obama are different. Repeating “I disavow” in the same tone of voice as on Friday (as if the reporter is tiresome) would have shut it down. “I don’t know anything about him” just doesn’t play well after he already indicated he knew enough to “disavow.” The inconsistency makes it just comes across as evasive. He made a mistake just when he was building up his “social proof” with Sessions.


        February 28, 2016 at 11:18 pm

  9. I will say though (sorry for the multiple posts) that it was very good that he refused to condemn a non-specific list of “white supremacist groups.” It was a BS question and Trump is probably aware that not-anti-white = white supremacist in the media’s eyes. But he should have stuck with the “David Duke? I disavow.” line after that.


    February 28, 2016 at 7:52 pm

  10. what is a ‘TruCon’?

    james n.s.w

    February 28, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    • People who believe in the anti-abortion evangelical stuff, plus also believe in the low taxes for the rich stuff, and also support W’s war in Iraq, like the staff at National Review.

      It’s not clear to me what TrueCons are supposed to believe about immigration, but TrueCons hate Planned Parenthood a lot more than they hate immigration as far as I can tell.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 28, 2016 at 8:24 pm

      • So in other words they are as bad or worse than the SJW (social justice warriors) kids and the smug SWPL (stuff White people like) liberals!!

        That is a bizarre combination of political positions.


        February 28, 2016 at 8:55 pm

      • I think of it as a term for people who invoke “conservative principles” in the abstract and point to secondary concerns such as “eminent domain,” tax-system gobbledygook, and Obamacare while not acknowledging that Trump is toughest on the most important conservative issue.

        I don’t think being pro-war-in-Iraq is particularly TrueCon – it’s natural to be in favor of crushing cartoon fist-shaking dictators like Hussein. If it makes sense on an emotional level it isn’t TrueCon. TrueCon is fakeness.

        Abortion is one of the worthy “conservative principles” – it’s a moral issue that people care about because they think it is wrong. That is the way people should approach the world. Furthermore, the feminist, morally-arbitrary, cavalier defense of abortion by the Left is disgusting.

        It’s possible anti-immigration is only the second-most important issue, actually, behind anti-feminism, because feminism is the source of much of our social despair. People are losing their meaning in life. Maybe the two issues are tied or immigration is a little more important – deal with immigration first and then feminism. None of the candidates are willing to tackle feminism, but an anti-“PC” candidate like Trump is the best bet there.


        February 28, 2016 at 8:57 pm

      • So “Trucon” = cuckservative?


        February 28, 2016 at 9:52 pm

      • So “Trucon” = cuckservative?

        Good question. The term became popular last year to insult FAKE conservatives, sell-outs, etc like Jeb Bush, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, etc and their supporters. Basically, anyone who claimed to be conservative but tried to win approval from liberals by being PC..

        Since the term became popular, the Trump and Cruz campaigns have split the conservatives into two groups — the social/fiscal/religious conservatives and the populist/nationalists. Cruz’s TruCon supporters attack Trump and his supporters as not “true conservatives”. Trump’s supporters respond by calling them “cuckservatives”.

        While the term didn’t originally apply to TruCons because they’re not fake, sell-outs, etc. It still sort of fits because they care more about their social/fiscal/religious views than immigration and saving the country. Which is arguably the most important conservative issue there is.


        February 28, 2016 at 11:37 pm

      • No, TruCon != Cuckservative. Ted Cruz and his supporters are TruCons, but they are not Cuckservatives. Jeb Bush is a Cuckservative but not a TruCon.

        TruCons: ex.: Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck. The people in this group are not cucks. They are anti immigration, often extremely so, and fiercely anti PC. However they are obsessed with abortion and “muh Constitution” and the bulk of this group has developed TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) despite the fact that if not for Trump, their man Cruz would be an afterthought in this race.

        Cuckservatives: ex.: most of the NR staff, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Erick Erickson. These are your typical limp dicked conservatives. Always on the defensive, always apologetic, always trying to prove that they aren’t racist, sexist or homophobic. They are usually obsessed with abortion/PP and either in favor of open borders or indifferent to them.

        Otis the Sweaty

        February 29, 2016 at 6:16 am

  11. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: There is a high probability that there will be an attempt to uh, “silence” Trump. You all can draw your own conclusions.


    February 28, 2016 at 9:35 pm

    • In a totally unrelated note, Ross Douthat has taken up target shooting for sport.

      Mike Street Station

      February 28, 2016 at 10:19 pm

      • Nice little twit message he made the other day. If that was done regarding HRC, it would be on the front page of the NYT. I think he was getting that idea out there, the little shite that he is.


        February 28, 2016 at 10:46 pm

  12. I don’t give anything emanating from a self-proclaimed “Confederate” state the same weight as from states never in rebellion. New Yorkers are rolling their eyes (not that they would vote for Trump anyway).


    February 28, 2016 at 10:37 pm

  13. As far as I know, Cruz doesn’t have a single endorsement from anyone known as an immigration hawk.. Trump has gotten them all including Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio and now Jeff Sessions. I knew Trump was the real deal back when he recruited Session’s chief strategist on the immigration issue for his campaign. As far as I’m concerned the Session’s endorsements answers once and for all who to support if your issue is immigration.

    Trump also managed to convince Phylis Schlaffly who may not be taken as seriously as she deserves by some because she’s religious and elderly. But she’s sharp as a tack and deserves to be listened to. She’s said the same thing I’ve been saying about immigration vs conservatism. Even if Trump isn’t as conservative as others he’s the only one who’s going to do something about immigration. Which is the key to winning social and fiscal issues. If you can’t stop immigration then you’ll lose the conservative issues anyway because 70-80% of immigrants vote Democrat.

    TruCons need to pull their heads out of their butts, put their little hurt feelings aside and do what it takes to save the country. Because right now they’re half the problem.


    February 28, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    • “TruCons need to pull their heads out of their butts, put their little hurt feelings aside and do what it takes to save the country. Because right now they’re half the problem.”

      Not to sound all conspiracy theory here, but I think the true state of American debility and indebtedness to China is purposely being kept from the American public by the MSM. Call it “Wall Street Journalism” call it what you will, but only a few people are telling the truth. If the truth were known, Trump would be selling out baseball stadiums. (Talk about a security nightmare.)

      My point being, I think that the TruCons are just genuinely ignorant of the problem and it’s not totally their fault. They’re in hock to a system. We all are. That doesn’t excuse whores like Kristol, Podhoretz, etc., though. They should know better.


      February 29, 2016 at 8:55 am

      • TrueCons believe that outlawing abortion would bring us to a higher moral plane, and then God would step in and save the country for us.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 29, 2016 at 9:03 am

  14. A Republican Party that is protectionist, and opposed to immigration and to some extent to an interventionist foreign policy, but otherwise wants to make life for the top 1% easier, effectively recreates the Republican Party of the 1920s.

    Electorally, no party in American history has dominated elections at all levels like the 1920s Republican Party, and this includes the 1930s and 1960s Democratic parties. In terms of policies, their willingness to let wealth concentrate into a few hands and to enable ordinary people to use debt to maintain their living standards contributed to the Great Depression, and resulted in the party being thrown out of power.


    February 28, 2016 at 11:57 pm

    • Yet the top 1% has been doing outstanding during the Obama years. Ironic considering Obama’s class warfare campaign rhetoric

      Jay Fink

      February 29, 2016 at 12:21 am

    • Trump’s immigration, protectionist and interventionist positions are married to an anti-establishment populist streak. Which is the exact opposite of the 1920’s. Even if that weren’t the case, I strongly reject the idea that similar policies would necessarily result in a similar backlash because you can never recreate the same circumstances as before.

      Regardless, you’re argument that Trump will lead t an anti-Republican backlash is really just an argument to let the GOPe keep doing what it’s doing on immigration, free trade and intervention. The irony is that’s what’s causing the backlash right now.


      February 29, 2016 at 12:31 am

    • Ed,

      “their willingness to let wealth concentrate into a few hands and to enable ordinary people to use debt to maintain their living standards contributed to the Great Depression, and resulted in the party being thrown out of power.”

      This is actually not correct. Big business expanded in the 1920’s to serve the markets of Europe after the first world war. Expansion required huge debt increases to supply the additional market. American business got hammered when Europeans recovered from the war and were able to compete because their industries were not as debt-laden as American industry.

      Remember, WWI was a massive bloodletting of soldiers only. Aerial bombing of population centers and factories did not emerge until WWII. The result was that young men who otherwise would’ve gone to work during peacetime went to war instead, getting either crippled or killed. The surviving population was too small to staff European factories. Thus, production shortages occurred that the Americans tried to fill.

      Thing is, Europeans had large families. Younger sibling stayed home. As they got older, they were able to work. Gradually, Europe’s worker shortage disappeared. European factories were at full production and, without debt, were able to undercut American companies and even start exporting to America.

      Unable to match prices, American companies wanted the Smoot-Hawley tariff. When that did not take, they started going out of business.

      America’s lesson in depending on foreign export markets was well-learned. WWII allowed that to be corrected.


      February 29, 2016 at 12:43 am


    The guy just is not savvy. Doesn’t he have staff that can vet the stuff he’s retweeting as well as the accounts they come from? Every single thing should be vetted. There are plenty of people who are good with Google who would be happy to do it for a modest salary. I don’t care that he doesn’t know who said it – I wouldn’t have known who said it – but I would have Googled it before posting it to 6.5 million followers. I care that he tweeted it out without checking, and now it’s a round of “Trump’s a clown” – an avoidable round – from the MSM a day before Super Tuesday when it could have been a round of “Sessions endorsement…Trump way up in the polls…is the establishment accepting their fate?”

    This is on top of the KKK thing, which would not be a thing if he had just said “yes, I disavow them, how many times do I have to say it?”

    He didn’t handle it well either. He could have laughed and said he needs to be more careful on Twitter with the lib press out to trip him up. Instead he said, “it doesn’t matter who said it, it’s an interesting quote.” Of course it matters who said it…sheesh.

    I hope he learns from this and gets some assistance with the Twitter account. I wonder whether he is getting tired. His campaign is based on instincts and his instincts have been failing him. I hope this doesn’t mess up Super Tuesday. Trump needs an overwhelming win, because the Party will oppose him until doing so is indefensible.


    February 29, 2016 at 3:02 am

    • @Perturabo,

      There’s a good Trump, and a bad Trump. There isn’t one Donald – there are two. I was really rattled by Trump University and I settled down. Then I read the Snowden tweet: It’s Trump V. Goldman Sachs. Sometimes you gotta pick your team, and it’s the Dirty Dozen. We made an alliance w/Stalin. Deal with it.

      Oh, by the way, I agree with you. Now read my first paragraph again. Deal with it. 99% of our political class is traitorous.


      February 29, 2016 at 9:02 am

      • I think I’m roughly on the same page as you on Trump. For the record though, I hate Snowden!


        February 29, 2016 at 9:16 am

      • I hate Snowden, too, but the quote is great.


        March 1, 2016 at 9:24 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: