America Saves Europe (Again)


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Europe today feels (or should feel) equal parts thankful and humiliated. America has come to our aid again, showing more bravery and decisiveness in an instant than we have shown in years.

On Friday, on a train travelling from Amsterdam to Paris, a Moroccan terrorist – armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and various other small arms – opened fire on random passengers. After being resisted unsuccessfully by several civilians, two off-duty marines (together with a third American) tackled the piece of filth, overpowering him (one marine getting shot for his troubles, and another being stabbed), trapping him in a chokehold until he lost consciousness. After the terrorist was incapacitated, other passengers piled on and the gunmen was disarmed and then tied up. It is believed – but not yet confirmed – that the Moroccan had ties to ISIS and had been on the radar of the French secret services for some time now.

What kind of tragedy was averted by this heroism? For an answer, we must cast our minds back to the Mumbai attacks in 2008, and specifically the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (railway station) shootings. On that occasion, two Kalashnikov-wielding terrorists managed to massacre 58 (fifty-eight) people before the attackers chose to leave the Terminus in search of more prey. Over 100 other civilians were also shot at the station but survived.

A Thalys high-speed train, like the one targeted on Friday, has a capacity of 377 seated passengers and well over 400 allowing for standing passengers. In reports issued since the attack was foiled, the service running that evening has been described as ‘packed’. We will assume for our purposes that the population of the train numbered at least 377.

A single attacker moving through packed carriages with a fully-automatic rifle could have quite easily killed a hundred people. Incapacitated by fear, femininity, old-age or childhood, many civilians would not have stood a chance against a young, fearless militant unconcerned with death and legal or moral repercussions. The security services on board we now know were cowering (cowering!) in their staff quarters, leaving no obvious impediment to the attacker other than a feat of spontaneous bravery, which, thank goodness, was forthcoming.

Even though it was averted, we should treat this attack as though it was successful This was an attempted assault by ISIS on the people of Europe. Those who believed ISIS could be quarantined to the Middle East must have this delusion beaten out of them. This is war, no less real than in 1939. A far-reaching licence of special powers must be granted to our governments until this threat is diminished to manageable proportions.

If any Muslim resident in Europe has suspected links to ISIS (and that can be as little as ‘liking’ ISIS propaganda on a facebook post), that is more than enough reason to deport him/her. Stop building Mosques. Stop all Muslim immigration (Bravo Slovakia!). Stop pandering to Muslim causes. Man the f*** up!

America (and the American spirit) will not always be there to defend us. We must develop that spirit within ourselves if we are to survive another millennium.



Death (Wish) of the West?


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bernie Sanders

On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, radical leftism would appear to be growing in popularity. In America, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders looks primed to wreck Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first female President. In Britain, the squirrelly-featured Marxist (and virulent anti-Zionist) Jeremy Corbyn looks set to become the next leader of the Labour Party, a movement that had until recently been planted firmly in the ideological centre. In Spain, the far-left Party ‘Podemos’ – founded in 2014 – has risen to become the second largest party in the country. France meanwhile is falling into a political sinkhole as the industrial establishment holds the economy hostage using the socialist government as its guarantor. And in Greece, although an exceptional case subject to exceptional forces, the populist Syriza movement has already pushed out the mainstream with a speed and emphasis shocking to commentators across the continent.

How on Earth could this be happening? Europe has not been in a more sickly condition since the Second World War, and the virus afflicting it can be easily identified (even by the most blockheaded everyman) as decidedly Left-wing in origin. Poor economic growth, pathetically short working weeks, incontinent welfare spending, over-unionised labour, governmental bloating, reckless borrowing, budget deficits, idealistic immigration policies, Islamist penetration… Which of these toxins was ever recommended in a right-wing manifesto? None of them were, and yet the right-wing is pushed further into the shade with each passing day. Has the continent lost its mind?

Of all the plausible explanations for this folie à plusieurs, the most convincing to me is that a feeling of exhausted morbidity has struck the European psyche, overpowering and disabling its rational faculties – a ‘death wish’ if you prefer, a longing for nothingness, for all this business and trauma to be resolved, as quickly as possible, with whatever consequences an early settlement will have for the long-term future of our civilisation.

Westerners are tired. Our rulers have become unresponsive to our agonies and we no longer trust them to act in our interests. Our elites treat us with nothing but contempt, viewing our problems as completely separate to their own private destinies.

In this world of torment, Leftism offers a soothing slide into narcotic bliss and short-term paradise. With a far-left government, our quality of life will (for a while) skyrocket to levels we never dreamt of. The poor will be given borrowed money, as will the struggling Middle Classes. The Muslims will be kept at bay with a foreign policy of unconditional surrender. We will be able to use air and public transport without fear of terrorism, for there will be no reason to attack us. Our soldiers will all be brought home and the money spent on their equipment will be redirected into free childcare. The doomly scenarios of climate change will be prevented by the installation of a forest of wind-turbines. Every child will be allowed to go to university free of charge. And so on…

The dream will last until the creditors stop lending. And then, for those still around, the nightmares will begin.

I understand the appeal Leftism can have to a miserable country, just as I understand the appeal diacetylmorphine can have to a miserable person. In both cases, it is never the right option, and in both cases, those who choose wrongly end up regretting it.


Trump, Kelly and the Corporate Right.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


They say you know you’re onto something when your opponents begin to lie. Donald Trump will be more keenly aware of this than anyone right now.

As you’ll be aware, during the first Republican debate, the Billionaire became embroiled in a battle of emotions with the aggressive Fox anchor Megyn Kelly (who was co-hosting the debate). After Kelly asked Trump a stupidly personal, off-topic question about the candidate’s views on women, Trump responded with a witty one-liner which sent the audience into hysterics. To this, Kelly’s reaction was one of visible annoyance, if not rage. Later in the day, when asked about the exchange, Trump mentioned the anger apparent on Kelly’s face, adding that he could see “blood coming out of her eyes, out of her ears, out of her wherever…” before moving quickly onto a different point. Having nothing better to beat Trump with, the media then collectively agreed to a fraud of deliberate misunderstanding. The “wherever” in Trump’s statement was portrayed as “obviously” referring to Megyn Kelly’s vagina, making the otherwise innocent comment a lewd reference to the presenter’s menstruating cycle.

This is old news for America now. The public was not fooled at the time, and they are not fooled now. But it is worth dwelling on in order to take the temperature of the American mood regarding Mr Trump, and also to reflect on what the scandal says about the American right-wing.

Fox News (with the possible exception of Sean Hannity) would appear determined to end Trump’s campaign. It is obvious who they prefer and wish to succeed, and that is Ted Cruz (not a bad choice, but inferior, in my opinion, to Trump). Never prone to subtlety, the behaviour of the Fox hosts during the debate was childish, manipulative and insulting to the independence of their audience. They went for Trump with a naked bloodlust, a rabid determination and yes, with blood (metaphorically) pouring from their eyes.

It is an obvious but frequently overlooked fact that the corporate right-wing is very different to the intellectual right wing. While the latter operates for primarily ideological motivations, the former does so for money and ratings. This could be the reason why the Fox News gang went for Trump, a man who is so confidently right-wing that the corporate right-wing can only lose by his success.

Fox News thrives best during Democratic administrations. That’s when the conservative population is most angry and in search of a voice sympathetic to their mood. When a Republican is in office, the Fox Network can prosper only by moving to the right of the President (a relatively easy manoeuvre in the Bush eras).

But if we take Donald at his word, a Trump administration would follow through on every policy the Fox audience endorses.

What would Fox do then?


Malala And Your Children


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


My darling niece came to visit at the weekend. When she arrived, she was already dancing with happiness because my sister had taken her to a bookshop from where she had purchased a small pile of hardbacks. Thrilled for her joys, I shuffled through them adoringly – most of them were about princesses and princes – until I reached the last volume, a larger book entitled ‘Malala: Warrior with Words’

My heart having sunk like stone, I began to flip lazily through the pages.

“I don’t like this one.” I said, eventually, putting it face-down on the table.

“Why?” she asked. I couldn’t answer her, but let me be more explicit with you. I think it is scandalous for a child to read a book dedicated to a Hamas financier and Islamic entry-wedge. Parents be aware.


Clown or Prophet? – Glenn Beck and World History


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Glenn Beck is regarded by 90% of the world population as being unserious, someone to laugh at, make jokes about and treat with the same caution one would employ with a loudmouth drunk hollering about politics from a park bench. The left and moderate right are united in disliking him. I have more than once heard the phrase ‘to go/going chalkboard crazy’ in everyday conversation and this phrase almost certainly owes its existence to Mr Beck’s habit of scratching elaborate theories onto a blackboard in his various podcasts and YouTube shows. Beck’s heavy-handed and manipulative techniques (tearing up at the mere mention of the ‘constitution’ or the ‘troops’) have even led those in the self-declared ‘mainstream’ to question his mental well-being, although as to whether such concern is genuine or sarcastic must vary from person to person.

The media (with the possible exception of Fox News) is unquestionably part of this majority. CNN journalist Michael Wolraich (for example) spoke for millions when he wrote that Beck is “paranoid”, and that he dwells “in a land of make-believe” in which “devious enemies have infiltrated the government and are plotting to destroy America. Every significant phenomenon, from the recession to the BP oil spill, is part of their master plan. Their final objective is a fascist-communist-Big Brother-world-government-über-tyranny, and they will annihilate anyone who interferes, which is why Beck frequently asks listeners to pray for his safety.”

The 10% of the world population to whom the views above do not apply perceive things as differently as can be imagined. They do not regard Mr Beck as a clown or entertainer, but as a prophet, a seer, an Orwell, unappreciated by the majority simply because they are too scared to look at reality with an open mind.

I tend to fall somewhere in-between. I cannot deny that Beck obviously (and I mean obviously) hams up his delivery for cheap emotional effect. Nor can I deny that his willingness to advertise products ranging from vitamin supplements to insurance, gold-cash conversion services to security alarms is highly unorthodox and must count as evidence for his prosecutors.

But against this, I also cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the theories Beck scrawls on his blackboard have a strange tendency to prove accurate, not some of the time, but most of it.

The other day I watched a lengthy video Beck recorded many years ago. In the clip (using his trusty chalkboard) Beck outlines four forces he believes are jostling to decide the human future. The first is the force of progressivism, a loose and broad grouping of the international Left (or in American parlance, ‘liberals’) who have in mind the goal of a benevolent ‘one-world’ government and the abolition of the nation-state. The second force is that of the Globalists, the academic and business elites of the world who also wish to abolish national distinctions, but for largely economic and non-ideological reasons. The third force is the force of Jihad or militant Islam, the stated goal of which is a universal Caliphate, now represented clearly by the Islamic State and its supporters. And finally there is Beck’s preferred force, the Libertarian Conservatives, those who wish to uphold the old moral and national conventions and preserve liberty and the right of self-determination for the individual.

According to Beck (and to common sense) the first three forces are increasingly allied to each other, even though their eventual utopias differ radically. The Progressives sponsor and allow mass immigration, which enables the spread of Islam into the West. The radical Muslims confuse and delegitimise the societies to which they migrate, leading to a cultural hodgepodge conducive to one-world integration. The Globalists meanwhile are completely at ease with both forces. They lose nothing when Jihad strikes civil society, and may even profit from it. And as to the destruction of national identities, they couldn’t care less. Globalist capitalism strives to make the citizens of the world as similar as possible in order to simplify marketing and trade. The resisting force, that of Conservative Libertarian (often explicitly defined by Beck in religious terms) is thus very much the underdog, outnumbered, outspent and steadily being undone.

While Beck’s theory is imperfect (as any theory on this grand historical scale must be), who can really deny the basic gist of his argument? If the snobs who discount Beck as ‘mad man’ have a better explanation of the political zeitgeist, I would love to hear it.


Yes, Women Can Be Evil Too.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Over the past two years, a period in world history dominated by economic crisis and extreme violence, the Daily Mail newspaper has published small variations of the same story at least three times. It concerns the shadowy manoeuvres of a sub-division of ISIS called the al-Khansa brigade, notable for being made up exclusively of young women.

According to reports, the al-Khansa brigade is responsible for enforcing a harsh Sharia-compliant lifestyle upon women in ISIS controlled territories. If and when women fall short of Sharia standards (say, by wearing a veil of thin material, leaving it slightly transparent), members of the brigade are said to arrest the offending female and take her to a dungeon, wherein they pinch her, beat her, confine her and otherwise torture her within an inch of her life. If the offence is ‘severe’ meanwhile (some extremity of the body being entirely revealed, adultery, lesbianism etc..) the brigade arranges for the prisoner to be stoned to death.

While some have doubted the veracity of these reports (an understandable position when one considers the record of the Daily Mail), we have every reason to believe this brigade exists, and in the fashion described. Indeed, in an interview with Sky News (later reported in the Independent newspaper), an account of the activities of the brigade was recounted by a woman claiming to be a former member. The woman, then 20 years of age, told the journalists that her job “was to lash women who tried to escape or wore the wrong clothes” and that “the women who were caught trying to escape would receive 60 lashes, while women who simply wore heels or were not wearing the proper Islamic dress known as the abaya, were ‘given the ‘standard’ 40 lashes’.”

(Note: When reading of people being ‘lashed’ in the context of the Muslim world, one should never presume the lash to be a thin, flimsy or light, but thick and heavy like rope. People have died from being punished this way).

Of course it’s easy to understand why (among the thousands of cruelties exacted by ISIS fighters) this particular story has proven enduringly popular. Firstly, it appeals to the darkest recesses of the Western male mind – the unlit zone attracted to Sadism, Masochism and fascinated with the exotic and the forbidden. And secondly, it is because of the natural shock people feel when hearing of acts of brutality committed by the fairer sex, something seemingly incongruous and running against the universal grain.

But is it really so rare?

We in the West have become so used to perceiving women as victims of Islam that we probably forget there are women who want to be Muslim; that there are women who choose for themselves a very extreme interpretation of the Koran, often against the wishes of their spouse or family; in short, that women can be irrational and evil too.

Given this reality, I would say that dealing with Jihadi women should be no more morally complicated than dealing with their male counterparts. There is no feminine value left in the ranks of al-Khansa and so they must annihilated with the same ruthlessness (and with the same weapons) as IS’s frontline troops. If they are captured and refuse to provide information, they shouldn’t be spared ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ either. When you betray your sex to such a dreadful extent, you sacrifice the privileges of being that sex.


In Praise of Black People


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I’ve just finished reading a lengthy article on the ethno-nationalist website American Renaissance (Jared Taylor’s organisation) entitled ‘What I don’t like about Blacks’. It was written by a Black intellectual named Zora Wheatley and is presented as a polite and self-deprecating rebuke to Jared Taylor’s (uncharacteristically diplomatic) essay the prior month – “What I like about Black People”.

Here are three defining paragraphs from Wheatley’s article:

“The discontent you feel with yourself and blackness as a whole can be crushing. You discover that aside from the tall African tales of Alex Haley, Underground Railroad figures, and peanut proprietors, there’s not much there (in terms of Black historical achievements). And on top of that, these historical footnotes arise from a new world that is leaps and bounds beyond the stone-age existence in which your ancestors were found. As (Black academic James) Baldwin put it, ‘It is quite possible to say that the price a Negro pays for becoming articulate is to find himself, at length, with nothing to be articulate about.’….

“Mr. Taylor finds the way blacks speak English entertaining, and I would agree in part, though most modern black English is so dumb and vulgar that I wouldn’t be surprised if clicks and grunts will be making a comeback….

“One of the things that I don’t like about blacks (is) their tendency to lay claim to the building and resulting greatness of the West. Picking cotton, tilling soil, and whipping up sweet potato pies were helpful and important in their own way, but were nothing like the establishment of private property rights or the implementation of Enlightenment-era ideals in the New World, which guided the nation for generations. It would be akin to a Native American claiming that, because his ancestors shared corn and turkey with early European settlers one fine November day, they are as important as the descendants of those white settlers who would fight the British and build the America in which we live today.”

Though I admire greatly the intellectual detachment and personal bravery it must have taken to say these things about her own ethnic group, I must disagree with Ms Wheatley’s argument entirely.

It is sadly accurate that most Black contributions to history were enabled by contact with Europeans (and their technology), and that before this, Black history was a long and largely blank expanse of time. But since that great encounter with Europe, and the subsequent incorporation of Black people into European culture, Black accomplishments have been multitudinous and often dazzling.

Perhaps the reason racists feel comfortable in denying these achievements is because they are not various and widespread but concentrated in a few particular areas, compact and neat enough to kick under the nearest cupboard and pretend not to have seen them. One can then focus on the map of absences – the absence of a Black Darwin, Brunel, Newton or Shakespeare etc…

But this is incredibly unfair and intellectually dishonest. Every racial group and culture has a speciality – something they do better than anything else. Austrians are better at composing music than they are at writing. English people are better at writing than they are at painting etc… A speciality should never be considered a limitation.

And what are the Black specialities? Well, the obvious starting point is music. Since the abolition of slavery, there has appeared no musical discipline that cannot be traced back to Black innovation. Rock n’ Roll, Jazz, Soul, Blues, Southern Folk, Disco, Hip-Hop, Swing – all of these are Black inventions, and very influential ones at that. They have changed our tastes, fashions and social norms, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. They have all been cheerily received by other races, understood and celebrated by all the varieties of mankind.

In the connected field of entertainment, Black people have also proven sublimely capable. Through their extroversion and wit, African-Americans have conquered the fields of comedy, film and presentation. Every facet of modern Western humour is informed by Black sensibilities. Their urban parlance has penetrated deeply into our vocabulary and can never be excised from it.

And in Sport, Black athleticism inspires the mind and spirit, dazzling, humiliating and surpassing our view of human capability. Through their determination, Blacks have even conquered sporting disciplines for which they have no natural advantage, like golf and tennis. And whatever sports the future may withhold, Black people will surely eventually dominate these too.

I write this in part to clarify my earlier posts about Black demography. We in Europe reserve the right to maintain a cultural balance favourable to our traditions, but this does not (or need not) imply a dislike of Africans themselves. Despite the contemporary plagues of violence and anti-aspirational politics afflicting the Black community, the fact remains that over the last two centuries, this great and gifted race has scaled the peaks of the Western world. Let that never be forgotten.


Muslim Sex Pests: A Second Warning


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


If you have visited this blog on a frequent basis, you may recall that in my post “Hyper Sexuality in Muslim Men”, I related the story of a female contact on facebook who had irresponsibly added Muslim strangers to her friends list and was now being deluged with perverted and inappropriate comments and messages.

Well, as an update on that situation, my friend posted a status the other day explaining that she was no longer adding men from the Middle East (read: Muslim world). Seeking to exonerate herself dodge the accusation of racism (she’s rather Left-wing) she explained that the men were frequently sending her photographs of their genitals and asking for her to respond with pictures of her own.

I don’t feel even remotely smug about this. I just fell immensely relief, both for her and for those of her friends who read her harrowing account.

Please heed her warning. If you are a woman (of any age or background) be extremely careful about making friends with or otherwise coming into contact with Muslim men online.


The Fraud: Anjem Choudary’s Quest for Notoriety


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


From relatively modest beginnings, ‘English’ hate-preacher Anjem Choudary has risen through the ranks of evil to become the star of the British tabloid press. After the hook-handed, one-eyed nightmare Abu Hamza was carted off to America to face overdue terror charges, and the equally horrific cleric Abu Qatada was deported to Jordan for similar offences, the red-top media has had to rely almost entirely on Choudary to provide their readers’ daily fill of anger and indignation.

If you sense a cynical tone in my words, you are right on the nail. The transformation of radical Islam into a pantomime, complete with quasi-humorous oddball villains is a very dangerous and inappropriate game in my view. No issue is more serious or more threatening to our country than Islam, and the reality is far darker than low-risk, smooth-talking pieces of shit like Choudary would suggest.

Serious (active) Jihadis don’t appear in documentaries, and nor do they jostle for supremacy with Sean Hannity and Pamela Geller in Fox News debate shows. They keep their rotten little heads down and plot the murder of women and children – that’s what they do. The people waving placards suggesting the murder of the Pope are usually cowards who do not have the courage of their own hideous convictions. Anjem Choudary fits that definition perfectly.

Choudary is certainly an Islamist (and an enemy of the West), but unlike some of his peers, he is a fundamentally spineless. He has never directly taken part in terrorist attacks (which, though nefarious, must involve a willingness to tolerate pain and the loss of liberty). Despite suggesting that others do so, he has refused to join his brothers in the ranks of ISIS, a refusal that makes no sense if one believes his claim to agree with their agenda. For all his hostility towards the British state, he continues to live off the British taxpayer, receiving thousands upon thousands in benefits every year. And according to certain reports (most of which he has denied), he cannot even resist the pleasures of secularism, like alcohol and casual sex with native women.

Choudary is a gigantic fraud and a gutless nobody. He doesn’t incite outrage to promote or protect Islam, but solely because he enjoys the limelight. Like a twisted Islamic Katie Hopkins, Choudary thrives on column inches and airtime, regarding himself as heroically honest, brutally articulate and historically essential.

Even Muslims are beginning to see through the act. I have read numerous accusations on social media alleging that Choudary is a state agent, hired by MI5 to whip up hostility against the Religion of Peace. He isn’t, of course. But the fact such accusations can be brought to mind is further evidence of his ideological amateurishness.

As you’ll be aware, Mr Choudary was arrested this past week on charges of encouraging support for Islamic State. While this is good news, I doubt it will lead to a satisfactory conclusion of the Choudary saga. The only fitting end would be the exile of this fake, freedom-loving con-artist to the cultural and economic wilderness he pretends to prefer.


Is It Crazy To Back Trump?


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The developing support for Donald Trump’s nomination for the 2016 Presidential election is seen by many intelligent people (at first consideration) to be a joke, a strange kind of satirical protest, a sigh of ideological exasperation. It can’t possibly be serious, they reason, for Trump is little more than a clown, a jumped-up celebrity, no more suitable for office than Paris Hilton or Honey Boo Boo.

On the rare occasion such people are persuaded the support is actually serious, they reflexively attempt to put out the flames of madness with a barrage of warnings, three of which I will try to answer here…

1. Warning No. 1: “Trump would destroy the economy”.

This objection seems to be largely based on the charge that Trump is an economic protectionist – and on the fact that protectionism has proven highly disruptive to the world economy when previously attempted by the countries of Europe. This can be answered simply with a correction: Trump is no more a protectionist than any other candidate. All Republican candidates (‘mainstream’ or otherwise) promise during election season that their administration will ‘bring back American jobs’ and transform the trade situation with China to one more favourable to American companies. This is not ‘eccentric’, as currently alleged, but entirely, almost boringly orthodox. The real question is whether Trump is more sincere in his electioneering than his rivals. And that, I suppose, can only be answered by the future.

2. Warning No.2: “Trump is a loose-cannon. He will crumble under the spotlight of an extended campaign, eventually saying the ‘N’ word or insulting the poor etc…”

This is not a groundless observation. Mr Trump is as straight-talking as human-beings come, and though that is an advantageous trait in the world of business, it can certainly be ruinous in politics. Thankfully, I do not believe Trump is the psychopath so eagerly portrayed by the left-leaning (and centre-standing) media. The glitches in his personality are not set in concrete, but can be tamed, altered and reformed by advisors, of which Trump will already have hired a sufficient number. Finally, it should be remembered that the charge of being a ‘loose-cannon’ was used (unsuccessfully) to stunt the ascendance of many great historical figures, perhaps most notably of all Winston Churchill, with all his loose, rash and reckless talk of a re-arming and nefariously-inclined Germany…

3. Warning No.3: “Trump’s nomination will guarantee a Hilary victory”.

This is nonsense. Despite all the hype, it seems increasingly likely that Hilary Clinton’s campaign will not be the bloodless coronation her supporters had hoped for. Bernie Sanders, a renegade, post-American socialist, is the new darling of the liberal establishment and will tear strips out of Clinton every bit as viciously as Obama did in 2008. The final outcome is uncertain, but whether the Democrats eventually field a confident and radical Leftist, or a brutalised and diminished centrist, a Trump vote will only get more attractive as the clocks tick down to 2016.


If you wish to see the final defeat of the Islamic State, the re-isolation of Iran, the strengthening of Israel, action to halt illegal immigration into the United States, the resurrection of the United States military and its global vision, then please do not write off Trump too soon. Have confidence in the ability of a great and iconic dreamer and embrace the possibility of connecting his passion to the potential still inherent within the material of America.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 301 other followers