You Go, Girl! Candace Owens Blasts Dems For Splicing Her Video To Fit Their Despicable Narrative

Prager University's Candace Owens appeared in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to testify about white nationalism in America. In typical liberal fashion, Democrats on the Committee attempted to spin Owens' previous words explaining nationalism.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) decided to play a 30 second clip of of Owens' video of her explaining how she feels about national[ism].

Owens never condoned what Hitler did. She explained what nationalism actually is. Owens said what most Americans feel: there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a nationalist. You can be patriotic, love the nation you live in and want it to prosper without causing harm to others.

Hitler took nationalism to a whole different level. As Owens explained, Hitler's goal was world domination, or globalism, whichever term you prefer. He wasn't about making Germany strong and powerful. He was about making himself the most powerful man in the world. He was about taking over the world and killing those who stood in his way. That is completely different than patriotic Americans saying, "We want to put America first. We want our interests to come before the rest of the world's problems."

Of course, Democrats love to try and trash Owens for standing up for the idea of nationalism because somehow if you love America and you want her to succeed then you're a white nationalist who hates everyone else. The Left paints those of us who take pride in America as old, white men who are crazy. But in every other nation being a nationalist is seen as a good thing.

When Owens responded to Lieu's statement, she trashed him and called him out for his attempt to sling her through the mud. And somehow Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) thought she was calling Lieu "stupid," even though that was not what she said.

No, Trump’s not a populist – he’s a breed all by himself

I have called Trump a Populist in other essays, like this one, becaue I didn't associate poplism with evil.  I may have been wrong.  Here's an intersting - and valid - take by F. H. Buckley (no relation to William F. Buckley - or Natioanl Review, thank God).

You should never let your opponents define you, because they’re not looking to do you any favors. That’s why Republicans, especially those who voted for President Trump, should object to being called populists.

Populism was one of the nastiest of American political movements. It was inevitable, therefore, that Trump would be called a populist. But that doesn’t describe Trump, or the Republican Party he re-invented.

It’s true that, like most populists, Trump thinks that tariff walls that keep foreign goods out of the country might help American workers. But then Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley thought so, too, and they weren’t populists.

It’s also true that, like most populists, Trump championed an underclass unjustly held back by an aristocracy of wealth. But then Karl Marx and socialist Eugene V. Debs thought the same thing, and they weren’t populists. And like most populists, Trump decried the influence of money in politics. But then so did Hillary Clinton and Liz Warren, and nobody called them populists.

Here’s what the accusation of populism really means. It’s a smear meant to link one to people like “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, one of the vilest characters in American political history. Tillman was the governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894 and served as the state’s representative in the US Senate for the next 23 years. He invented Jim Crow laws in his state, defended lynch mobs and boasted of the African-Americans he had killed.

Trump is something new in American politics. He’s not Andrew Jackson, or a plain-speaking Harry Truman. He’s not Ronald Reagan. He’s unlike anything we’ve seen before, for the simple reason that he’s up against something we’ve never seen before: a left that’s given up on the American dream of a mobile and classless society, that defends economic immobility and aristocracy.

Trump isn’t a populist. He’s a conservative nationalist. As a conservative he favors socially conservative institutions and free-market solutions to political questions. As a nationalist he is middle of the road or liberal when it comes to taking care of Americans who have fallen behind, through a generous safety net.

That might sound like an unnatural union of opposites, but similar parties have had a long history in our sister parliamentary governments. Benjamin Disraeli was another conservative nationalist. As a parliamentarian, he opposed Sir Robert Peel’s free-trade policies and in the process created a new Tory party.

And a year before Friedrich Engels shocked readers with his description of the wretchedness of East End London in “The Condition of the Working Class in England” (1845), Disraeli had written no less passionately about economic inequality.

Then, as the Conservative prime minister, Disraeli extended the franchise to all adult male heads of households in the 1867 Reform Bill.

In a speech on the bill, Disraeli described what he thought the Tory Party should be, in terms that also define Trump’s Republican Worker’s Party:

“I have always considered that the Tory party was the national party of England . . . It is formed of all classes, from the highest to the most homely, and it upholds a series of institutions that are in theory, and ought to be in practice, an embodiment of the national requirements and the security of the national rights.”

As a nationalist, Disraeli and his party wanted all Britons to prosper. He could never have called one group of his countrymen deplorable, or ignored half the voters because they were in the wrong identity group.

By reaching out to all Britons, he took the Whig’s issues away from them, just as Trump did in dishing the Democrats.

Not much has changed, and the American who wishes to understand the shape of things to come might do well to read up on the “Tory Democracy” of Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston’s father) or observe the similarities between Trump’s agenda and the National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald’s Tory Party in Canada.

They were conservative, but because they supported generous social-welfare policies they were sometimes called Red Tories. And they’re the ancestors of Trump’s Republican Party.

That's a definition of Donald Trump I can agree with.

Pat Buchanan: Donald Trump’s Rise Is Rejection of a Quarter Century of Bush Republicanism

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Pat Buchanan declared that Trump’s rise represents a rejection of 25 years of Bush Republicanism— an ideology which Buchanan says has destroyed America’s once-great manufacturing core, flooded the country with low-skilled workers, and drained the treasury with ill-advised foreign adventures in the Middle East.

“In the GOP nomination race, the chickens of a quarter century of Bush Republicanism have come home to roost,” Buchanan told Breitbart. “Trump’s triumphs to date are due to his recognition of, and identification with, the Middle American revolt against Bush family ideology and policy, and what it has produced.”

Buchanan explained that “America is rejecting the Bush immigration policy,” which has “proffered amnesty” to “12 million illegals… because it said the United States is helpless to do anything about their presence here.”

“America’s establishment has failed America,” Buchanan said, “The single clearest message in the presidential campaign of 2015-2016 is that the American people would like to cleanse our capital city of its ruling class.”

Buchanan exemplifies the strain of American culture that identifies with Middle America, populism and nationalism. The Bush family is part of the Ruling Class, Trump (despite his wealth) is part of the Country Class.  Trump is the beneficiary of the vision Pat articulated in 2008. The chickens are finally coming home to roost.

By a margin of nearly five-to-one, the American people believe these so-called free trade deals lower wages rather than raise them, according to Pew polling data.

Read the whole thing.