A Candidate To ‘Kick The Crap Out Of All The Politicians’

Ilana Mercer

Since he announced for president, real-estate tycoon Donald Trump has distinguished himself from the pack of Republican presidential hopefuls.

Trump claims he opposed the invasion of Iraq. If this is true, it would make him better than almost all his Republican competitors, who mulishly continue to justify the most disastrous military campaign in American history (besides the War Between The States).

Decisive and to the point was Trump about liberalizing ties with Cuba: “It’s time!” he stated. The man who wrote “The Art of The Deal,” however, would rather a “deal” with Cuba favored ordinary Americans and Cubans, and would know how to “deliver the goods.”

We inhabit a world of managed, not free, trade. Trump is no rent-seeking political rat like every other Republican competing for the throne (besides Ben Carson, who is similarly motivated). Better than any self-interested politician, Trump can probably negotiate winning deals on all Treaties in Force, to the benefit of Americans.

“I’m really rich,” Trump swanked disarmingly. Being independently and stupendously wealthy means that this American individualist can continue to march to his own drumbeat; be as blunt and bold as he wants and pander to nobody.

“His fellow GOP presidential candidates,” explained Trump, are “totally controlled by their donors, by the lobbyists and by the special interests. If we have another politician, this country’s going down. … I’ve watched the politicians, I’ve dealt with them all my life. They will never make America great again. They don’t even have a chance.”

In the productive, non-parasitical economy, Trump has been enormously successful. Career politicians have created the hot mess that is America. The Founding Fathers wanted regular citizens to serve the public, not live off it as a vocation. Such upstanding Americans were to return to their careers after serving.

The consummate homo economicus, Trump is a rational actor in the market place. Unlike the rest of the GOP contenders who’re guided by political calculations; Trump speaks like a man to whom rational economic choices are second nature. And so he gets that the “stock market is bloated”; that the Stock Exchange is a laughing stock, and that soaring stock prices are a consequence of centrally planned, monetary stimulus.

The business mogul surprised Bill O’Reilly with the revelation that he’d “have a great relationship with Vladimir Putin.” This is a good thing. Whereas in the past, Trump was motivated by the sense that the nimbus of great power that surrounds the U.S. was dissipating—he now seems prepared to search closer to home for the causes of America’s economic inertia.

Also to O’Reilly, Trump “promised to build a wall along the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. ‘The Factor’ host stated that there’s no way they will pay for it.”

Although Bill is likelier than Dana Perino to comprehend the workings of tax and trade policy, Trump opted to calm the host down: “You have to let me handle that. They will pay for the wall, and the wall will go up.” D.C. insider Perino hit the roof: “On what planet is that actually true? Do you think you can make Mexico pay for a permanent wall between Mexico and the United States?” You can do that?”

A guide to the perpetually perplexed: Trump must be thinking of taking the populist path advocated by Pat Buchanan, whose patriotism is unimpeachable: tariffs. Levying a tariff on Mexico could indeed pay for a wall. Trade tariffs are not this libertarian’s bag. But walling off the deluge of Democrats crossing the southwest border is.

Finally, Trump is annoying the right people—from the liberal media to regimist neoconservatives like Perino and Charles Krauthammer, to noise making socialist Neil Young. In particular is the MSM furious about Trump’s matter-of-fact, informed assertion as to the quality of America’s largest immigrant population.

Donald Trump: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with [them]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards, and they tell us what they’re getting.”

Brooke Baldwin, CNN: “… The notion of calling Mexicans rapists, people lose their jobs over words like those. And this is a man running for the president of the United States.”

Barbie, Trump created his job. He owns it.

And The Donald has certainly apprised himself of the facts. Perhaps he is reading Ann Coulter’s data-driven “Adios America!” in which she writes: “The U.S. government admits that at least 351,000 criminal immigrants were incarcerated [by] the United States as of 2011—the vast majority of them Mexican.” (Report to Congressional Requesters, 7 and 10.)

By the General Accountability Office’s “extremely conservative figures, Mexicans alone—forget other immigrants—have murdered a minimum of 23,000 Americans in the last few decades,” as compared to the Jihadis’ 4000 for the same time-frame.

I know, stick to rape; murder doesn’t matter. Cited in “Adios” is a report from the Inter-American Children’s Institute. It seconds what the media-political-complex has submerged. “Latin America is second only to Asia in the sexual exploitation of women and children because sex abuse is ‘ingrained [in] the minds of the people.’ Women and children are ‘seen as objects instead of human beings with rights and freedoms.’” (p. 168)

Ann’s “Adios” provides a critical-mass of evidence for Trumps impolitic statement. A few of Latin America’s proud sons are:

• Ariel Castro (kidnapper, sexual sadist, operated out of Cleveland)
• Elias Acevedo (173 counts of rape, 115 of kidnapping, Castro’s neighbor)
• Ingmar Cuandique (killer of Chandra Levy)
• Matias Reyes (contributor, Central Park rape)
• Conrado Juarez and family accomplices (Baby Hope’s rape and murder)

“Adios” cites well-concealed official records to uncover a preponderance of “Hispanic child rapists,” rounded up (and often released again), in “Nebraska, Indiana, even Hawaii.” When rates of child pregnancies and births are factored-in as proxies for rape; Latin America’s rape culture on American soil becomes even scarier.

Trump is on to something elusive: the truth.

Red State’s Erick Erickson concurs (kind of). “Trump’s campaign,” he writes,” “makes a hell of a lot of sense in an age when people no longer think their vote matters, but they sure want the crap kicked out of all the politicians they blame for making their vote meaningless.”

Get cracking, Donald.


ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, “Return to Reason.” Ilana’s latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com.


  1. Is this meant to be some kind of satire? That fat fraud Trump has filed for Chapter 11 more often that I’ve had steak dinners. He’s been removed from CEO in disgrace a bunch of times. Although he donates to any politician he needs to get sweetheart deals and bail-outs, he’s donated more money to the Democrats than the Republicans. The guy is the definition of a parasite, crony capitalist.

  2. I will admit I do not know much about him, but from what I have seen and heard previously, he just strikes me as yet another face on the dodecahedron of ‘mainstream’ politicians. Another wealthy magnate, another mogul, another suit of well coiffured hair and stage-managed appearances.

    People who are wed-locked into the same core values, same corporate sponsors, same baby-kissing and civil-rights leader worshipping, ass kissing, rhetoric blowing, ‘patriotardism’ of the sort that nips around the edges of things but will never deliver the salvation of traditional America.

    That, like Margaret Thatcher, there will be some kind of “swamped” speech on immigration that gets people hopeful that something big will change, but in reality it will not, not least because of who controls American politics behind the scenes and who he would be indebted to if he made it into office. (They are apparently one of America’s “greatest allies” and visa-versa!).

    I’d look forward to being proven wrong. I would like a strong anti-immigration candidate who would halt and reverse the trends. I just don’t see it happening. All it may be useful for is bringing some difficult things to the forefront.

    As for the facts in Coulter’s book….. they are possibly very good and useful. The only problem with it as a strategy is that facts tend to fall at the knees of emotion. People place emotion before that of logic. You need to have righteousness and morality on your side, not just an armament of facts that damage the liberal-left.

    In addition, having to rely on “proving yourself” against the accusations of the liberal-left establishment is a gift to them, because it puts you on the defensive instead of them.

    They will not listen to the facts, just smear, insinuate, whoop, laugh, jeer to drown it out. It is fine for ‘considered debate’ and having the facts there to defend yourself, but this implies there will be a rational argument from the opposition and a willingness for them to concede to the truth. They will do neither.

  3. Donald Trump inherited a fortune of $250 million his father made on government contracts to build welfare housing. Even with copious government subsidies for his own projects, he managed to drive those enterprises into bankruptcy no fewer than four times. He is precisely, as you say he is not, a “rent-seeking political rat.” And that’s all he is.

  4. The Scottish hotel caper did not reflect well on Trump. His name is old British slang for a fart and I think this sums him up nicely.

Leave a Reply