Monday, 21 March 2016

Leading American conservatives have drawn up a list of Republicans to run as an independent candidate should Donald Trump become the party’s official presidential candidate. 
Bill Kristol,who worked for the Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr administrations and is a prominent voice in the conservative movement, said that people should seek to support Ted Cruz, the Texas senator running second to Mr Trump, before the nominating convention. 
However, if, as seems likely, Mr Trump secures the Republican nomination, key players in the party should seek an independent to run against him. More than 20 conservative leaders met at a private club in Washington late last week to consider several potential candidates. 
They included Rick Perry, the former Texas governor who has made two failed presidential runs, according to The New York Times. He was suggested as a consensus candidate, respected in the party and capable, at the least, of beating Mr Trump in Texas in a presidential election. 
Mr Kristol had circulated a memo to a smaller number of allies that also suggested Tom Coburn, a former senator from Oklahoma who stepped down last year to undergo cancer treatment. Mr Coburn has said that Mr Trump needs to be stopped and while he appeared reluctant to put himself forward, he has not completely ruled it out. 
Writing in the Weekly Standard, a publication that is regarded as the “neo-conservatives’ bible”, Mr Kristol conceded that there were arguments against such an idea. However, he advanced “persuasive answers” to such sceptics.

The Weekly Standard could more accurately be described as the "Neo-Conservatives' Torah" than the "Neo-Conservatives' Bible". Here is a link to his article there (link).

Bill Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, the founder of neo-conservatism, who said, as a child, that he had been taught to spit whenever he walked past a Christian church (link).

I'm struck by the parallels between Trump in America and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. Although their politics are diametrically opposite to one another, they have both, for various reasons, earned the disapprobation of the Jewish element in their respective parties. Once the decision has been made that they're not "good for the Jews", all the vast legions of Jewish journalists and influence mongers mobilise against them, sniping at them continuously and undermining them in public debate. And if anyone dares to take note of the phenomenon, they are of course branded "evil antisemites". The Jews have a right to mobilise as an ethnic group to advance their own perceived interests, but no one else does. Nor do the goy even have a right to take note of the fact that this hostile ethnic activism is occurring.


  1. Jews are, as individuals, the largest donors to both the Democrat and Republican parties. (For example, the Jew who is the largest single donor to the Republican Party donated $190,000,000 --- yes, no typos! --- and the next nine donors in descending amounts are also Jewish. With the Dems, it's the same picture and Hilary Clinton's main donors are all Jewish. Whichever party supposedly "wins" the American Election, the Jews are the real winners and the American People are the real losers.

  2. Sí, totalmente de acuerdo con el comentario anterior.

    No se puede decir mejor.