About America First

White nationalist Ann Coulter expressly links America First as a national defense policy to America First as white nationalist immigration policy.

Peace through border security

During the campaign, Little Marco dismissed as unrealistic Trump’s proposed temporary suspension of Muslim immigration to our country — including the more than 2 million Muslims we’ve taken in just since 9/11. 

Instead, Rubio proposed we do something achievable, like remake the entire Middle East with wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan.

Trump, and only Trump, promised to put our country first and protect our interests when it came to immigration and foreign wars. 

He didn’t care that political correctness dictated putting America’s interests dead last.

But since becoming president, instead of draining the swamp, the swamp seems to have drained Trump. 

His agenda has been drowned out by the agenda of Washington’s Uni-Party.

That’s why all we ever hear about is tax cuts and war (unless Trump is speaking to one of his 30,000-person focus groups).

Rather than actually being like Reagan and winning the war we’re in, Trump has decided to continue Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty” — opposition to which gave the GOP stunning victories in 2014 and 2016. 

This week, he grabbed the hot poker of Afghanistan, allowing ecstatic Democrats to scratch that disaster off Obama’s Greatest Hits list. 

Now, it’s Trump’s war.

I don’t know why Trump would surround himself with people who oppose his agenda, but on Tuesday night he heard again from the people who see him as our country’s last hope. 

He should listen to them.

Actually, it was GW who gave us both the major and continuing wars in the Middle East and not Obama, first the one in Afghanistan and then the one in Iraq that has metastasized into Syria, slices of Turkey, and through ISIS to other Muslim areas of the world.

O just got himself stuck with the tar baby much as Bozo has now done, both of them buying the argument that we cannot allow the Taliban safety in, much less control of, Afghanistan, nor can we allow al-Qaeda safety anywhere, nor can we allow any organization that conducts or has conducted terrorism against the Occident safety anywhere.

Partly this is owing to the idea that control of or safe harbor in a country would make it easier for these folks to lay hands on nukes with which to threaten or strike the Occident.

Partly it is owing to the idea that Israel must be defended by the Occident.

And in both cases it is owing to the idea that the Occident must be defended and indeed led by the US.

Buchananites - though not AC right here - generally reply that the Occident can take care of itself without us, and of Israel as well if it so wishes, and that we in America are threatened by these folks and their friends only because of our wars against them.

More broadly, they say, their hostility toward us is a reflection of our global cultural and ideological imperialism that openly seeks to destroy their traditional Muslim ways in their own lands, which we ought in prudence to abandon.

Forcing drivers licenses for women and gay rights on Mecca, for example, only pokes the hornets' nest.

If the isolationist side of this argument is accepted then in the wake of 9/11 GW should have settled for punitive strikes in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and Taliban military installations instead of seeking regime change along with the utter destruction of that organization, and he should have let Iraq alone, altogether.

And then he should have backed away from the entire region.

But if the globalist side is right then so was GW.

As for the Buchananite argument against Muslims coming to the US that Muslims living or sojourning here pose a threat, it overlooks their own claim that the threat is due to our meddling in Muslim parts of the world and would evaporate if we stopped that.

If it's going to evaporate, whence the imperative need to block Muslims coming here?

Oh, and it's no accident that Buchananites, starting with their eponymous if perhaps merely notional leader, generally counsel acceptance of proliferation as inevitable.

Their view is that acceptance of proliferation coupled with American withdrawal from globalism would actually be considerably safer for the US than continued globalism coupled with anti-proliferation.