Posted tagged ‘Never Trumpers’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Bumpy Ride of Our Flight 93

September 11, 2016

The Bumpy Ride of Our Flight 93, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, September 10, 2016

flight-93-view-from-the-sacred-ground-sized-770x415xt‘Flight 93’ – View from the Sacred Ground

There is a scene in the first episode of Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie’s Jeeves and Wooster series that bears on the current presidential election. Bertie Wooster, at the direction of his Aunt Agatha, has motored down to Ditteredge Hall, seat of Sir Roderick and Lady Glossop, to cozy up to their hearty daughter Honoria. The former head-girl at Girton is not keen on the match: “He doesn’t shoot, he doesn’t hunt, . . . he doesn’t work even.” But Lady Glossop points out that Honoria will be twenty-four the following week. “He is not all your father and I would have hoped for you, I agree, but . . .”

But consider the alternative.

Regular readers know that I have not been part of the Donald Trump Cheerleading Cavalcade. I first wrote about him a year ago July. After saying that I didn’t think he would be the candidate, I concluded with this advisory:

He has raised some issues that the high and mighty dispensers of conventional wisdom would do well to ponder. Moreover, he has done it in a way that, though terribly, terribly vulgar, is catapulting Trump to first place in the polls. What does that tell us?  That the people are stupid and need to be guided by the suits in Washington?  If you believe that, I submit, you are going to be profoundly disappointed come November 2016.

Well, as Samuel Goldwyn remarked in another context, we’ve passed a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Back in June, Donald Rumsfeld summed up the position that, in subsequent weeks, many (not all) anti-Trump conservatives have come to adopt. Reprising his famous epistemological mot that distinguished between “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns,” Rumsfeld said that, of course he was voting for Trump. Trump was an “unknown known,” perhaps dubious in some ways, but all the world knew exactly what Hillary Clinton represented.

This was the essential point made in a more colorful way in the most remarkable essay I have read in some time, “The Flight 93 Election,” which appeared a few days back in that indispensable journal, the Claremont Review of Books. I have no idea who “Publius Decius Mus”—the putative author—really is, though I speculate on stylistic and philological grounds that he is not unacquainted with the works of Leo Strauss.  The historical Decius Mus was a Roman consul during the first Samnite and Latin wars. In 340BC, he sacrificed himself at the Battle of Vesuvius in order to secure a great victory for the Romans. That story, for those who are interested in such things, is told in Book 8 of Livy’s The History of Rome.

Presumably, Claremont’s Publius adopted the name of that self-sacrificing Roman in order to remind his readers of the existential stakes in this election (as well as, of course, concealing his real identity from the wrath of NeverTrump vigilantes). Publius reworks Donald Rumsfeld’s point with a metaphor—with two, in fact: “2016,” he begins, “is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die.”

You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain.

Here’s the second metaphor:

a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

I think this is about right—or, rather, I used to think this about right.  I’ll come to my second thoughts in a moment. First, let me quote a bit more from this sinewy and intelligent essay. Publius begins by noting some of the contradictions that beleaguer contemporary American conservative thought. On the one hand, conservatives have a long list of dire diagnoses that, if accurate, spell doom. If, says Publius, conservatives are right about the national debt, about the fabric of society, about national security threats, and on and on, then “they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.”

But—and here’s the “on the other hand”—it is quite clear that they believe no such thing. On the principle that actions speak louder than words, what they actually believe is that things will putter along more or less they way they always have.

Well, which is it?

To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.

Which brings us to this uncomfortable observation:

If you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.

What do you think? I think that #3 is indisputable, as is # 2, and that the protasis of #1 is mistaken: things cannot go as they have without fundamental change, ergo we need not admit, on this argument, that conservatism is wrong about human nature, politics, etc., etc.

Two more bits from Publius. First, on what a Hillary presidency would look like: “A Hillary presidency,” he writes, “will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments.” Yep. And that’s not the worst of it:

It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.

I think this is correct. And I think Publius is right that the demonization of the Right would only accelerate in a Hillary Clinton administration. Which brings Publius—and me—to Donald Trump. “Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect, “ he admits. “So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time.” Publius goes further than I would. “Trump,” he says,

alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.

There were others, in my opinion, who fit this bill, including Ted Cruz.  But Ted Cruz is not a candidate for the presidency in 2016. Donald Trump is.  Which brings me back to my second thoughts about Trump. As recently as a few weeks back, I was a lesser-of-two-evils, reluctant Trump supporter: classic Russian roulette vs. the loaded semi-automatic that is a Hillary Clinton victory.

But then Trump embarked on a series of high-profile speeches and rallies.  I liked what he said about taxes and economic policy. I liked his list of possible SCOTUS nominees.  I liked what he said about supporting the police and the plight of blacks in the inner cities.  I liked what he said about combatting Islamic terrorism (what Barack Obama calls “workplace violence”). I even liked most of what he said in his immigration speech in Arizona.  I thought it was courageous and “presidential” for him to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. I thought he did the right thing in going to lend moral, and even a bit of material, support to the victims of the floods in Louisiana. I was grateful when he released a video commemorating the canonization of Mother Teresa. I was happy to see him supporting school choice, standing up for religious freedom, and criticizing those who mock Christians and people of faith.

I know there will be some who object, “But how do you know he will do all things things.” The answer is, I don’t.

But I do know what Hillary would do: Obama on steroids. She’s a known-known.  She would, as Publius warns, complete the “fundamental transformation” of this country into a third-world, politically correct socialist redoubt.

There is a fair amount of hysteria among NeverTrumpers about “The Flight 93 Election,” which I guess underscores just how potent its argument is. (The fact that Rush Limbaugh read it aloud on his radio show redoubled that potency.) As I say, I’ve come around to thinking that there are plenty of good reasons for someone of conservative principles to support Trump. I know, and have repeatedly rehearsed, the standard litany of criticisms about Trump.  But they fade if not into insignificance then at least into near irrelevance in the face of his actual program (see above) and, most of all, in the face of the horror that is his opponent. I’ll give the last word to Publius: “The election of 2016 is a test . . .  of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.”

The great James Burnham once remarked that where there is no alternative there is no problem. Fortunately, we do have an alternative, and, my, we do have a problem.  I was wrong when I predicted that Donald Trump would not be the candidate. I hope I will be proved wrong about my prediction that, were he the candidate, he would not win. The trends are promising, I think, but it would be foolish to deny that there are madmen in the cockpit or that many of the passengers are scared, apathetic, deluded, or just plain cowardly. We need a real-life Decius Mus who is willing to say “Let’s roll” and make a concerted charge. It may be the last chance we have.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers, Western civilization
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will the Clinton Foundation Mark the Fall of Our Republic?

August 29, 2016

Will the Clinton Foundation Mark the Fall of Our Republic?, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, August 28, 2016

bill_hillary_clinton_roman_empire_banner_8-28-16-1.sized-770x415xc

No matter how extreme the future revelations of Julian Assange and others turn out to be, the truth about the Clinton Foundation is already clear. Whatever its original intentions, this supposed charity became a medium to leverage Hillary Clinton’s position as secretary of State for personal enrichment and global control by the Clintons and their allies.  We also now know—as the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel made clear in her recent oped—why Hillary decided to hide all her emails on her “infamous server.”

To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done in the history of the United States government. It calls to mind, if anything, the United Nations’ scandalous Oil-for-Food program in which millions were siphoned off from a plan to feed Iraq’s children during the war.

It could even be worse, because of the national security implications. The Clinton Foundation and the State Department were commingled to such an extent we may never know the truth, certainly not before the election since that same State Department has refused to release Hillary’s official schedule before then.

This means, quite simply, that the United States of America has abandoned the rule of law. Maybe we did a while ago. In any case, we are now a banana republic—a rich and powerful one, at least temporarily, but still a banana republic.

The election of Hillary Clinton—our own Evita—will make the situation yet more grave. Consider something so basic as how you raise your children in a country where the president is most probably an indictable criminal and most certainly a serial liar of almost inexhaustible proportions. What do you tell them? What do their teachers tell them? A far cry from George Washington, isn’t it? What does this say about our basic morality and how does that affect all aspects of our culture? The fish, as they say, rots from the top.

Equally importantly, what does our government do as further actionable information emerges as it inevitably will? The Department of Justice, as we have seen, is already corrupt, unable to indict those in power, indeed colluding with them aboard airplanes. The same personnel will undoubtedly be in place. Can we rely on congressional oversight for justice and/or a potential impeachment? What if the Democrats control the Senate?

In the far less serious Watergate era, Republicans like Howard Baker stood up against Nixon. Democrats, however, cling to power the way they accuse Republicans of clinging to their guns and religion and will no doubt avert their eyes, pretending, with their friends in the media, that nothing out of the norm is happening. But plenty is and will. Look to Sweden for the future of America.   And with expanded entitlements and immigration, Syrian and otherwise, don’t look for a Republican revival in 2020. Those days will be long over.

“A republic, if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin reportedly said when emerging from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Yes, it may be apocryphal, but so are many important statements that are true in concept.

2016 is about to mark the year we lost that republic. It could well be an historical date like 1066, 1215 and 1776. Think about that one.

Which leads us to Donald Trump (as usual).

He is, like it or not, the last man standing to prevent this. He and all of us. And that includes you, NeverTrumpers. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, that Trump has ever done that comes remotely within the proverbial spitting distance (even from a dragon) of the malfeasances of the Clinton Foundation. The big difference between Trump and Clinton is this: What distresses us about Donald is what he says. What distresses us about Hillary is what she does. Anyone with an IQ in the also proverbial triple digits knows which is worse.

It’s time for the NeverTrumpers to abandon what’s left of their crusade for the sake of the country.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton character, Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Corruption, Democrats, Department of Justice, Department of State, Donald Trump, Never Trumpers, Republicans, Unsecured server
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Don’t Be like the Man Who Married His Mother-in-Law

August 21, 2016

Don’t Be like the Man Who Married His Mother-in-Law, American Thinker, Clarice Feldman, August 21, 2016

There’s a strange story out of India in the Daily Mail about a man who divorced his wife to marry his mother-in-law and now regrets his decision and is trying to undo it.

In a way this reminds me of conservatives whose preferred candidates lost the nomination and now as NeverTrumpers are making the election of Hillary more possible. It’s a variation of the song “You Can’t Always get What You Want”, but instead of the next line being “but you can sometimes get what you need”, it reads, “but you can get what you don’t want or need”. In this case, Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt politician in U.S. history, a decision impossible of reversal or even to hold in check once done.

If you are torn about the Republican voters’ choice of nominee, but still unhappy about the notion of Hillary, America’s nightmare mother-in-law, winning (and certain that the independent candidates are no better and, in any event, without a chance) here are some writers whose views may help you overcome your reluctance to cast the vote for Trump.

1. The Claim That Trump’s Just Not Presidential

(A) He’s More Presidential than Obama or his designated successor Hillary

While Hillary and Obama vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, there’s been a disastrous flood in Louisiana and a large humanitarian crisis as people’s homes and possessions are destroyed and aid difficult to get to those who need it,

When people chided Obama’s non-response, he issued “a 16-page guidance “in which he “warned Louisiana recipients of federal disaster assistance against engaging in “unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency).”

Trump flew down there in his own plane, talked to local leaders, toured the devastation and donated an 18-wheeler truckload of supplies. A resident of the area, Courtney Falker Peters, posted a description on Facebook of what Trump’s visit was like and what it meant to the stricken residents:

Ok since the media will not tell anyone about this I will at least tell my friends and make this public so y’all can share and tell yours as well because I think it needs to be said.

[snip]

Donald Trump visited Louisiana today. He brought with him a truck loaded with food, supplies, and toys that he personally passed out. He also donated money to a flood relief charity. He went and walked flooded houses in a community. He didn’t ask for state police or military security, I imagine he may have had his personal security with him but hey he pays them so not my business. He didn’t ask for any road to be closed to bring him in or an escort to his destination, matter of fact he didn’t inform the government of his visit at all. He didn’t care if the government knew he was coming, he just came and brought needing people needed supplies. And the news covered it about 15 seconds and then used it as a hit piece to plug Obama’s visit that will happen. It was just wrong on many levels. No matter [i]f you agree with Trump political are not what he done today was honorable and good, and he did it without making a big deal of himself. I hope more people of his statu[r]e will do the same in the same way, without all the hype of announcing their visit with intent of a public photo op.

Of course, now that we have a Democratic president who tardily agreed to show up there this Tuesday (after he attends Bill Clinton’s boffo birthday bash on Martha’s Vineyard), the same people, including Hillary and Obama, who criticized Bush for waiting to land his plane in New Orleans when it was struck by Hurricane Katrina because he did not want to overwhelm local authorities with a presidential tour, now criticize Trump for going in and helping without requiring local police and responders to pave the way for his visit.

(B) Attention to Detail

On one hand, we have Hillary (and Obama), “big thinkers” who can’t be bothered with details and have made a hash of everything they touch. On the other hand, we have someone who keeps his eye on things.

Here’s an account in Forbes by a man with first-hand knowledge of this, having engaged in a significant negotiation with him:

The first thing I noticed about Mr. Trump was that he was a stickler for detail. As a politician, he may affect a breezy platform style, but in the office, he was all business. Right off the bat, he corrected my team’s estimates of future financing requirements. He must have phoned an expert minutes before the meeting, because he said that by the latest market information he had, our current interest rates were off by 0.1% [snip] In the end, I can say that Mr. Trump drove a hard bargain. But he was honest, and he was a square dealer. When we were through — in less time than we had expected — we had reached an agreement that was ethical, profitable and fair to all parties concerned. It was also an agreement that meant good jobs for working people and healthy tax revenues for the local government.

If we didn’t come away from the table liking Mr. Trump, there’s no question that we came away with a lot of respect for him. He was a tough, shrewd, no-nonsense executive who knew how to get things done, and done quickly. He was also an adversary whom no one would want to mess with.

Isn’t that what really matters in a president?

2.The Claim that He’s a “Racist”

The term has become so overused that it now just means he says things the left disagrees with. Nevertheless, people — including those who know better — are flinging it about with no evidence to support it but their own bilious dislike of him. On the other hand, no less than Thomas Sowell, the brilliant black economist from Stanford, and David Horowitz, champion of civil liberties and a real conservative, both found his speeches on the Democratic Party’s destruction of blacks compelling. (Here are transcripts of his Dimondale and West Allis speeches for those who didn’t see it and whose news sources didn’t bother to publish them.)

Here’s Thomas Sowell:

Who would have thought that Donald Trump, of all people, would be addressing the fact that the black community suffers the most from a breakdown of law and order? But sanity on racial issues is sufficiently rare that it must be welcomed, from whatever source it comes.

When establishment Republicans have addressed the problems of blacks at all, it has too often been in terms of what earmarked benefits can be offered in exchange for their votes. And there was very little that Republicans could offer to compete with the Democrats’ whole universe of welfare state earmarks.

Law and order, however, is not an earmarked benefit for any special group. It is a policy for all that is especially needed by law-abiding blacks who are the principal victims of those who are not law-abiding.

[snip]

Education is a slam dunk issue for Republicans trying to appeal to black parents with school-age children, as distinguished from trying to appeal to all black voters, as if all blacks are the same.

Education is an issue with little, if any, down side for the Republicans, because the teachers’ unions are the single biggest obstacle to black youngsters getting a decent education — and among the biggest donors to the Democrats.

[snip]

As long as blacks vote automatically for Democrats, while the teachers’ unions insist on getting their money’s worth, it is all but inevitable that the education of black children will be sacrificed in the public schools, wherever Democrats are in control.

[snip]

Blacks voters are not the property of the NAACP, and they need to be addressed directly as individuals, over the heads of special interest organizations that have led blacks into the blind alley of being a voting bloc that has been taken for granted far too long. [/quote]

And here’s David Horowitz:

Trump’s Dimondale speech was a pledge to African Americans trapped in the blighted zones and killing fields of inner cities exclusively ruled by Democrats for half a century and more, and exploited by their political leaders for votes, and also used as fodder for slanders directed at their Republican opponents.

[Snip]

But here is Trump articulating the very message we have been waiting for — support for America’s inner city poor – a message that should have been front and center of every Republican campaign for the last fifty years.

[Snip]

Tying the fight to liberate African Americans and other minorities from the violent urban wastelands in which Democrats have trapped them to his other proposals – secure borders, law and order to make urban environments safe, jobs for American workers, putting Americans first – these are a sure sign that Trump has an integrated vision of the future towards which he is working. Call it populism if you will. To me it seems like a clear-eyed conservative plan to restore American values and even to unify America’s deeply fractured electorate.

[Snip]

Not to forget the #NeverTrumpers on the Republican side. These defectors are among the loudest slanderers, smearing Trump as a racist and a bigot when he is obviously the very opposite of that. In fact, when you look at what Trump is actually saying and actually doing, Never Trumpism appears as the newest racism of low expectations.

3. He’s a Threat

He is a threat to the entrenched elites who’ve made such a hash of things, but not to the country for whom Hillary is a far more dangerous threat, Dennis Prager makes that clear:

With either a Republican or a Democratic Congress, a President Donald Trump could be held in check, if that proves to be necessary. And there is always the possibility that he could be a good president — appointing conservative Supreme Court and federal judges, cutting taxes, and slashing regulations. But no Congress could stop a President Hillary Clinton. She will finish the job her predecessor started: to fundamentally transform the United States of America. Perhaps forever.

4. Not voting for him is a “Protest Vote”

There’s no such thing as a “protest vote.”  Bookwormroom put me on to this wonderful blogger, Clay Shirky, who said it best:

In 2016, that system will offer 130 million or so voters just three options:

A. I prefer Donald Trump be President, rather than Hillary Clinton.
B. I prefer Hillary Clinton be President, rather than Donald Trump.
C. Whatever everybody else decides is OK with me.

That’s it. Those are the choices. All strategies other than a preference for Trump over Clinton or vice-versa reduce to Option C.

People who believe in protest votes do so because they confuse sending a message with receiving one. You can send any message you like: “I think Jill Stein should be President” or “I think David Duke should be President” or “I think Park Eunsol should be President.”

Similarly, you can send any message you like by not voting. You can say you are sitting out the election because both parties are neo-liberal or because an election without Lyndon LaRouche is a sham or because 9/11 was an inside job. The story you tell yourself about your political commitments are yours to construct.

But it doesn’t matter what message you think you are sending, because no one will receive it. No one is listening. The system is set up so that every choice other than ‘R’ or ‘D’ boils down to “I defer to the judgement of my fellow citizens.” It’s easy to argue that our system shouldn’t work like that. It’s impossible to argue it doesn’t work like that.

5. Putting “Principle Before Party”

That sort of “electoral sabotage” is the justification of sore losers, observes Michael Walsh. People, he notes, who claim they are putting country before party” when, in fact, they are doing the opposite.

Their preferred candidates lost the nomination and now they want to attack the man who won and prevent him from winning.

Dismount from your high horses and vote for Trump or marry an insufferable, dishonest, and authoritarian mother-in-law.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump lacks experience but his detractors lack common sense: Spengler

August 10, 2016

Trump lacks experience but his detractors lack common sense: Spengler, Asia Times, , August 9, 2016

Gen. Hayden was perhaps the most prominent signator of a letter from fifty former national security officials who served in Republican administrations, declaring that Donald Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” required of a president and, if elected, “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

**********************

Last year I arrived early for a lunch address by Gen. Michael Hayden, who ran the National Security Agency and later the Central Intelligence Agency in the George W. Bush administration. Hayden was already there, and glad to chat. The conversation turned to Egypt, and I asked Hayden why the Republican mainstream had embraced the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the military government of President al-Sisi, an American-trained soldier who espoused a reformed Islam that would repudiate terrorism. “We were sorry that [Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed] Morsi was overthrown” in July 2013, Hayden explained. “We wanted to see what would happen when the Muslim Brotherhood had to take responsibility for picking up the garbage.”

“General,” I remonstrated, “when Morsi was overthrown, Egypt had three weeks of wheat supplies on hand. The country was on the brink of starvation!”

“I guess that experiment would have been tough on the ordinary Egyptian,” Hayden replied, without a hint of irony. As Tommy Lee Jones said in “Men in Black,” Gen. Hayden has no sense of humor that he’s aware of. He repeated the same point verbatim a few minutes later in his speech: It was a shame that the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt was overthrown, by acclaim of the majority of Egypt’s adult population, which had taken to the streets as the country careened towards ruin. Hayden, like Sen. John McCain, the Weekly Standard, and the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment, believes that America should try to foster a democratic version of political Islam. It lionized Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood in Washington, nurtured Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and armed “moderate Islamists” in Syria as a supposed democratic alternative to the Assad regime. Hayden’s specialty was signal intelligence, and by all accounts he was good at his job. He is clueless about foreign policy.

Gen. Hayden was perhaps the most prominent signator of a letter from fifty former national security officials who served in Republican administrations, declaring that Donald Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” required of a president and, if elected, “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Trump responded, “The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.” That is exactly correct. He might have added that they are incapable of learning from their mistakes and doomed to repeat them if given the opportunity.

trumpclubRepublican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks to the Detroit Economic Club at the Cobo Center in Detroit, Michigan August 8, 2016. REUTERS/Eric Thayer TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

The Republican Establishment believed with fervor in the Arab Spring. Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol went as far as to compare the abortive rebellions fo the American founding. It backed the overthrow and assassination of Libya’s dictator Muamar Qaddafi, which turned a nasty but stable country into a Petri dish for terrorism. It believed that majority rule in Iraq would lead to a stable, pro-American government in that Frankenstein monster of a country patched together with body parts taken from the corpse of the Ottoman empire. Instead, it got a sectarian Shi’ite regime aligned to Iran and a Sunni rebellion stretching from Mesopotamia to the Lebanon led by ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Trump is vulgar, ill-informed and poorly spoken. He has no foreign policy credentials and a disturbing inclination to give credit to Russia’s Vladimir Putin where it isn’t due. But he has one thing that the fifty former officials lack, and that is healthy common sense. That is what propelled him to the Republican nomination. The American people took note that the “experiment” of which Gen. Hayden spoke so admiringly was tough not only on the ordinary Egyptian, but on the ordinary American as well. Americans are willing to fight and die for their country, but revolt against sacrifices on behalf of social experiments devised by a self-appointed elite. That is why the only two candidates in the Republican primaries who made it past the starting gate repudiated the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

Common sense, to be sure, isn’t enough. Trump can’t swap spit with Vladimir Putin and let the witches’ kettle of the Middle East boil along by itself without dire consequences. As Bret Stephens complained Aug. 8 in the Wall Street Journal, some of Trump’s loudest supporters make a motley virtue of their ignorance. “There was a time when the conservative movement was led by the likes of Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol and Bob Bartley, men of ideas who invested the Republican Party with intellectual seriousness,” Stephens wrote. I knew the late Irving Kristol, who trained and promoted most of the cadre who ran the first Reagan Administration, and Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal — brilliant men from whom I learned a great deal, some of which I had to unlearn afterwards.

But the Republican Establishment today is guided not by the likes of Irving Kristol, but by his epigonoi. His son Bill Kristol has never published a single essay of intellectual significance, and the same is true of Commentary Magazine editor John Podhoretz, son of the estimable Norman Podhoretz. To be a “neo-conservative” in the 1970s in the mold of Irving Kristol and former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz meant to repudiate the leftist views of one’s youth and make the leap to the Reagan camp. The original neo-conservatives knew how wrong they had been in their youth, and re-learned their politics after forty. Unlike their forbears, today’s neo-cons never have had a self-critical moment. Today’s guardians of the sacred flame of the sacred conservative flame are to the manure born.

The choice, sadly, lies between an unlearned interloper with common sense and an Establishment whose policy response is predictable as the emergence of a gumball from a supermarket machine after a quarter is cranked in. They are mediocre ideologues incapable of learning from past failures, clinging to their careers because they are unsuited for honest work. Trump may not know much but he is capable of learning. That can’t be said for his detractors.

“It isn’t just that the emperor has no clothes,” I wrote in a review of Angelo Codevilla’sbrilliant 2014 book To Make and Keep Peace. “The empire has no tailors.” Three administrations of Bush father and son have produced a monotone Establishment of functional foreign policy morons. One can’t find many prominent national security officials to oppose the signators of the anti-Trump letter because a whole generation of functionaries has been bred from the same stable. America will have to learn foreign policy from scratch. For my money, I’ll take the rough-edged outsider over the recidivist failures.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia Times. 

Categories: 2016 elections, Arab Spring, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Islamist "democracy", Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood, Never Trumpers
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Mr. Kahn – The Con. This Is Purely About Money.

August 3, 2016

Mr. Kahn – The Con. This Is Purely About Money, Town Hall, Bryan Crabtree, August 3, 2016

Kahn con

But, First…

The reason we have to elect Donald Trump is because we need to numb the American people to the distortion and lies of the media and politicians. The more of this hysteria we experience, the tougher our emotional skin will become.

Trump commented on Tuesday in a campaign rally that he could essentially find the cure for a terminal disease and the reaction from the media and his opponents would be negative. Essentially, there is no accountability for lies in our culture and very little incentive for the truth any longer. Sensationalism sells.

Even worse, the distortion of reality is so horrendous that people are afraid to talk, to express their feelings and share their concerns any longer (for fear of attack). By electing Trump, we ensure that these frauds are left alone on their island of lies. At some point, the American people will no longer be willing to listen to the punditry of outrage created by a sentence or two uttered by Trump in a minutes-long discussion. It just takes time for us to arrive at that point.

In essence, Trump will make it acceptable again to be candid, to push back on the wrongs of society, and to force change. This will happen because he sets the “PC-bar” so much higher than our current standard of political correctness will allow.

As an example, Khizr Khan, who spoke very negatively about Trump at the Democratic National Convention, has become a media sensation. During an interview on Tuesday with Eric Trump, Gayle King read a statement, “when you question a mother’s pain by implying her religion, not her pain, you are attacking…”  This is out of context and false. Trump did not question her pain or grief. He pointed to the fact that she didn’t speak.

In an interview on CNN, Mrs. Khan stated that their beliefs were that the husband was in charge outside of the household and that she was in charge inside the household. This is incredibly important because we have now discovered that Mr. Khan operates an immigration law firm, has written extensively in his support of Sharia Law, has ties to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and has associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Captain Khan is a war hero who made the ultimate sacrifice –  Mrs. Khan is clearly a grieving mother. Mr. Khan appears to be a con who used his dead son as a political shield in order to attack Trump. At first she had a medical condition, then she spoke. I think Trump nailed it.

Why did Kahn attack? If Donald Trump institutes a ban on Middle Eastern immigration it would essentially put Mr. Khan’s law firm out of business. This isn’t about his son; it’s about money. But America is scantily interested in all of the details because we’d rather be outraged or optimistically delusional as opposed to enlightened.

I have frequently said that it is a bad idea to listen to the political ideas of grieving parents.  The only exception would be in the case of Patricia Smith, who is telling a story of how  she was treated by Hillary Clinton after her son was killed in Benghazi. She has direct experience with the character of the Democratic candidate for the presidency. Kahn does not.

The Kahn story has nothing to do with Trump except that Mr. Kahn’s law firm would be financially harmed by Trump’s proposed ban on certain countries’ immigration-ban. In other words, he could no longer sell citizenship to the highest bidder with a President Trump.

Americans are progressively using their tragedies as manipulations and cover for their financial, political and social aspirations. Monetizing a family tragedy is purely evil. At some point every tragedy will make most conversations off-limits.

In this case it was a Gold Star family. But, how about the parents who demand your guns be taken away because some crazy person killed their son or daughter at a school? Do we have to be silent while those parents conflate their pain and grief into taking away our rights?

How about the dad who wants to pressure local politicians to close the neighborhood bar because some drunk killed his child driving home at midnight? Are we supposed to ignore that as an ‘off-limits’ topic. After all, it was the drunk’s lack of personal responsibility that created the accident – not the bar!

How about actor Paul Walker’s daughter who decided to sue Porsche because he died in a fiery crash as a result of driving at roughly double the posted speed limit in California? Are we supposed to sit back, because of her grief, and say nothing while her lawyers slander a business due to her father’s irresponsible and reckless driving? His death is sad and tragic but regretfully, his fault.

Who was outraged about the fact that Black Lives Matters was chanting in the middle of a moment of silence for fallen police officers who were assassinated just prior to the DNC? Not the mainstream media!

The outrage and hysteria created by most of what Trump says is fascinating to me. It reveals an emotionally immature society who can’t handle even an ounce of candor.

I find it disgusting that Mr. Khan would use his hero son, Capt. Khan, as a political shield for his financial grievances (dragging his wife through such additional trauma) in the same way ISIS uses elementary schools full of children, as cover, to fire at our soldiers.

If you let situations like this affect your vote for Trump, you will be allowing the enemy to take control of your future.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Hypocrisy, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Khan con, Media, Never Trumpers, Obama's America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

There Is Nothing Honorable about Losing to Hillary

July 25, 2016

There Is Nothing Honorable about Losing to Hillary, American Thinker, Karin McQuillan, July 25, 2016

In 2008 we had John McCain, who was too honorable to criticize Barack Hussein Obama.  In 2012 we had Mitt Romney who again was too honorable to attack our first black President.  Now we have Ted Cruz who is too honorable to honor his pledge of party unity, too honorable to protect our Supreme Court from Hillary’s potential nominees, and too honorable to help us win.  We have all the Libertarians, so honorable they have a shot at throwing the election to Hillary.

We have a whole list of conservative pundits and websites, who could swallow the GOP betraying all their 2012 pledges, doubling our national debt and increasing entitlements, without a word about bolting the party, but Trump’s crude, honest talk is too much for their honor to bear?

We have Paul Ryan who is so honorable he has to rush to the microphones and join the media lynch mob criticizing Trump as racist, while the Dems’ race-baiting over 8 years has gotten a pass.  Ryan’s priority is to protect his own, oh so honorable brand, as a compassionate conservative, superior to the voters as well as Trump.

There is nothing honorable about choosing to lose.

There is nothing honorable about betraying your voters, who picked Trump because all those honorable leaders have been lying to us for years.  They pretend to support enforcing our immigration laws when they have no intention of doing so.  They pretend to be serious about the jihadi threat, while letting millions of sharia-supporting Muslims into our country.  They pretend to be fixing things in the Middle East, while giving the Gulf sheikdoms free rein to turn American mosques into jihadi propaganda centers.  They pretend to be serious about jobs, while refusing to confront the Chinese on currency manipulation.  They pretend to love America, but not enough to protect it from the PC onslaught on our constitutional rights.

Note to all you honorable liars and losers:  the voters are sick of you.  We want someone on our side and someone who will to fight to win.  That’s why Trump was nominated.

Ted Cruz – the honorable thing was to put your personal anger at Trump’s dirty fighting aside.  Yes, he called your wife and father mean, ugly things, completely reprehensible. That’s more important to your conscience than a Hillary Supreme Court?  You told the convention, “And citizens are furious — rightly furious — at a political establishment that cynically breaks its promises and that ignores the will of the people.”  You were talking about yourself, Ted.  You were in the very act of ignoring the voters who elected Trump, not you, and breaking your promise to support the nominee.   And you have the hypocrisy to label that principled.

Message to all you so very honorable constitutional conservatives:  Trump is a far better constitutional candidate than anyone we’ve had a chance to vote for since Reagan, who also had his flaws.  Without borders, we have no country and no rule of law, both of which are prerequisites to a constitutionally limited government.  Think you’re going to get smaller government with amnesty and open borders?

So Trump doesn’t make beautiful intellectual speeches about liberty.  He’s going to protect freedom of speech, religion and the 2nd Amendment, all of which are eroding by the week under progressive misrule.

So Trump isn’t pledging entitlement reform?  He does recognize the need to rein in government over-regulation, so crucial to both liberty and prosperity.  He will get rid of the Common Core federal take-over of education, with its curriculum designed to wipe out American values and love of country among our children.  He will take on special interests such as the environmental lobby, which has hobbled our energy sector, and limited growth.  These are not small improvements.

Hillary will finish destroying everything you hold dear.  Trump will not just hold the line, he will advance it.

It’s nonsense that Trump is a horror, but that Hillary is worse.  Trump gets the basics.

Which is far more than can be said of all you honorable men.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Honor, Never Trumpers, Republican Party, Republicans
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

GOP lawmaker: ‘Narcissistic’ Cruz just ended his career

July 21, 2016

GOP lawmaker: ‘Narcissistic’ Cruz just ended his career, Fox News via YouTube, July 21, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Never Trumpers, Republican National Convention, Ted Cruz
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why Trump Will Win in November

July 7, 2016

Why Trump Will Win in November, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, July 7, 2016

hj_1

Reprinted from Breitbart.com.

In elections generally – but this one in particular – things are not always what they seem. Take the apparent exculpation of Hillary by FBI director James Comey. The Democrats responded with a statement that the issue had now been “resolved” because the target had not been indicted. But not so fast. The failure to indict was not an exoneration, and what the public witnessed – the secret meeting between the head of Justice and the target’s husband, the job offer to her would-be prosecutor, and the FBI’s  dossier of her misdeeds – was in effect a second trial, and it came with a conviction. The former Secretary of State had lied to Congress and the public, and not about private matters like sexual escapades with interns. She had lied about national security matters, and was reckless in handling secrets that affect the safety of all Americans. Worse, the fact she appeared to be getting away with a serious crime was a dramatic confirmation of Trump’s campaign narrative: the system is corrupt, the fix is in, I will change all this.

The Comey episode also turned a lot of Republican heads – most notably Paul Ryan’s – that had been openly skeptical of Trump’s candidacy, and lukewarm in endorsing his campaign. Until that moment, the failure of some Republicans to rally behind the Republican nominee, indeed to refrain from seconding Democrat attacks, has been the chief weakness of Trump’s candidacy. When Trump objected to an obviously biased judge – a member of “La Raza” and opponent of securing the border – Ryan and other Republicans joined the Democrats in the ludicrous charge that Trump was a racist. (What Republican candidate in the last thirty years have the Democrats not slandered as racist?) But Ryan is not attacking Trump now. Instead he is calling on officials to remove Hillary’s security clearance – a strong signal to voters that she is not fit to be commander-in-chief, and a powerful reinforcement of Trump’s campaign theme.

At the moment, Trump is in a virtual dead heat with Hillary, which is remarkable considering the slanderous attacks on his character not only by Democrats but by the chorus of #NeverTrump Republicans who have also called him a sexist and xenophobe, and have compared him to Mussolini and Hitler. These negatives have hurt him but will ultimately fail for the same reason that the anti-Trump attacks in the primary failed. Trump is not an unknown quantity. He has been in front of the American public for thirty or forty years. Nothing in the public record would validate the charge Trump is a racist, let alone Hitler. Consequently these negatives are unlikely to over-ride the actual issues when voters make the judgments that will determine the election. At the same time, the obviousness of the slanders merely serves to confirm Trump’s narrative that corrupt elites fear him and will do anything to prevent him from upsetting their applecarts.

The reason Trump will win in November is that national security is at the top of voter concerns and Trump has been a strong advocate on this front. Beginning with his promise to build a wall, made national security issues – vetting Syrian Muslim refugees, rebuilding the military, “bombing the sh-t” out of ISIS and naming the enemy – have been centerpieces of his campaign. Of course he has also had help from the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino and Orlando, and from a feckless Obama who refuses to recognize the Islamist threat. But so did Mitt Romney, who had Benghazi and Fort Hood and the same feckless commander-in-chief to work with. Romney, however, chose not to do so. He took the war issue off the table when he embraced Obama’s foreign policy in the third presidential debate and never tried to make it central again.

Since World War II no Republican has won the popular vote in a presidential election where national security has not been a primary issue. The one seeming exception is Bush’s victory in 2000. But Bush did not win the popular vote even though he was able to get the necessary majority in the electoral college.  In this election, Trump has instinctively seized the high ground on national security. He has put the disasters of Obama’s Middle East retreats front and center, and challenged the crippling denial of the commander-in-chief and his failure to take appropriate measures to defeat our enemies at home and abroad.

Thanks to nearly eight years of a party in power that refuses to secure our borders and is more interested in disarming law-abiding Americans than confronting the terror threat in our midst, national security is now a primary issue on the minds of all Americans. Donald Trump speaks to those concerns in a way that the damaged and compromised Hillary cannot. Her fingerprints are all over the disastrous Obama policies in the Middle East. National security is an issue that crosses party lines and also gender lines. Even more important, it is an issue that unifies the Republican coalition, whose current disunity is Trump’s greatest weakness. With the fallout from Hillary’s server fail as a backdrop, Trump should be able to bring his party together at the upcoming convention, and go on to secure a victory in November.

Categories: 2016 elections, Corruption, Democrats, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, History, Lawlessness, national security, Never Trumpers, Politics, Rule of Law
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump

July 6, 2016

The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 6, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

FBI Director Comey intimidated that anyone except a former high-ranking Democrat government official currently running for high office as a Democrat would have faced serious consequences. The exemption granted to Hillary Clinton does not sit well with many if not most Republican and Independent voters; even the generally supportive lamebrain media are finally attacking Her. Nevertheless, She will get the Democrat presidential nomination and “likable” but befuddled Joe Biden won’t. All of that is good for Trump. 

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

I’m Guilty as Hell and free as a bird. This is for the little people.

Here’s FBI Director Comey’s statement on his decision not to recommend Clinton’s indictment:

The GOP posted this advertisement on July 5th:

Shortly after Comey made his announcement, ABC hailed it as having “lifted a cloud” for Clinton and Obama. [All bold-face type is in the original at News Busters.]

In the moments following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges for her private e-mail servers scandal, the cast assembled by ABC News hailed the “extraordinary decision” as “a momentous day” signaling that “a cloud is lifted” for Clinton to continue on with the presidential race and President Obama to give his own thoughts on the matter.

. . . .

Wrapping it all up, Stephanopoulos spun to Karl that “even though this report is kind of damning, the announcement of no indictment before that first joint campaign stop kind of clears the decks for [President Obama] as well.”

Karl gushed that “the timing is so extraordinary….to think you have that Air Force One on the tarmac ready to take them down to this first campaign appearance together, but this whole process has been a cloud hanging over the head of Hillary Clinton and her campaign so that cloud is lifted.”

“But as we pointed out — there’s so much bad here for Hillary Clinton. But ultimately when they get beyond this, they no longer have to have the possibility of an indictment,” he added.

According to a Rasmussen poll taken on the evening of July 5th,

37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

. . . .

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats agree with Comey’s decision not to seek an indictment of their party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans, 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party and 25% of Democrats disagree with the decision. [Emphasis added.]

Director Comey has agreed to appear before the House Oversight Committee on July 7th to respond to questions about his decision not to indict Ms. Clinton.

The initial lamebrain media reaction was trumped by its own later reactions. The media picked up on Comey’s shredding of Clinton’s practices, particularly calling her “extremely careless” with classified information and refuting her talking points such as that she didn’t send or receive e-mail marked classified on her unsecured system.

The mainstream press across the dial commented on how this hurt Clinton’s campaign, played into the set narrative that she’s not trustworthy and called into question her judgment on matters of national security.

According to WaPo, a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy sycophantic long time advocate for Hillary,

THE BIG IDEA: Want to know why two-thirds of Americans do not consider Hillary Clinton trustworthy? Re-watch pretty much any public comment she’s made about her email use over the past 16 months and then watch James Comey’s speech yesterday.

The FBI director shredded so many of the talking points that the former Secretary of State and her top aides have used over and over again throughout this scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”

Rosalind Helderman, who has been covering this saga closely, writes that Comey “systematically dismantled” Clinton’s defenses. She juxtaposes Clinton quotes since last March against Comey quotes from yesterday. (Read her full piece here.)

— While Clinton dodged a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will dog her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was tantamount to a political indictment.

Obama still maintains that Hilary is Great. Here’s what He said at a Clinton rally a couple of hours after the FBI decision not to recommend indictment had been announced.

I guess it all depends on what sex most “qualified” in history means. Please see also, Hillary is Best Qualified to Finish Imam Obama’s Work.

As noted by Michael Walsh at PJ Media,

A day after the Fourth of July, we’ve come to a new low in the history of the United States of America and of the criminal organization masquerading as a political party that has seized power . . . .

If on November 8th voters still remember the Clinton non-indictment and Director Comey’s remarks suggesting than anyone else would have been indicted — and it seems likely that Trump, et all will remind them — the impact should be significant.

Even if they don’t remember, at least Hillary will be the Democrat candidate and Joe Malaprop Biden won’t be. On July 5th, Allen West wrote,

Of course, the news cycle is completely dominated by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement yesterday recommending no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. And my response is GREAT! I can’t thank Director Comey enough for coming to this decision. [Emphasis added.]

My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.

If the voters do remember or are adequately reminded, some NeverTrumpers may change their minds and vote for Trump; they should. A July 5th article at Maggie’s Farm posited,

Hillary Clinton is corrupt and corrupting of everyone she touches. President Obama has engaged in outrageous executive conduct so often as to be numbing. Those in powerful positions throughout this administration behave like lawless thugs and keep getting away with it. The courts have been packed with judges who find excuses to not enforce the laws or who create ones out of ideology contrary to intent. The major media shamelessly look away or cover up for the lawless and abusers, and seek every opportunity – or blow out of proportion every trivial thing – to damn opponents of the regime. Much of the Republicans in office lack the guts or integrity to fight back, outside of mewing noises.

Where does that leave us now?

The Tea Party movement occurred at a point in time between elections, and succeeded in electing many who promised to be better. Some have been. Many have been useless or become tools. Now, it is election time, and the demonstration we require is at the ballot box.

Donald Trump is far from the perfect leader. But, then it takes someone with gumption and determination who will not be intimidated to take on the rot that permeates our government and self-appointed ruling class. And, Trump is the only revolution we have available. [Emphasis added.]

Anyone deserves the end of our once-renowned Republic who stays home or turns coat or otherwise fails to stand up for recovering an America with basic laws and justice, an America which is not beholden to those who would exploit the government for self-aggrandizement or profits, an America with justice for all which does not favor the wealthy or powerful sycophants of state power. [Emphasis added.]

Donald Trump is not George Washington. But he’s the only revolution we have, and very probably our last chance. I have faith in the American people who will bring us back from tottering over the brink of ruination to make it work when Trump is elected. [Emphasis added.]

Get out and work for local candidates and for Trump. Otherwise, be part of the ruination. It’s that simple and brutal a truth.

Trump now has a very substantial chance of winning the November 8th election and the Hildabeast’s chances have diminished. For the “NeverTrumpers” and others who would otherwise vote for the Republican nominee either to stay home or to vote for the Hildebeast would be unconscionable. The nation might well not survive eight years of the Hildebeast, and the Republican Party almost certainly would not.

Don’t be “a day late and a dollar short.” Please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDEkm4QBXb4

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton e-mails, Democrats, Department of Justice, Donald Trump, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton indictment?, Law enforcement, Media, Never Trumpers, Obama and Hillary, Politics, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Comey delivered a body blow to #NeverTrump faction of GOP

July 6, 2016

Comey delivered a body blow to #NeverTrump faction of GOP, American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, July 6, 2016

A substantial faction of the conservative intelligentsia has convinced itself that Donald Trump is so unqualified for the presidency that Hillary Clinton is a better alternative. Some, like George Will, hope for a resounding victory for her, while others living in red states like New York aver they will write in someone else because their vote is irrelevant anyway.

But now we have stark evidence that Hillary Clinton is not only a flagrant abuser of classified information, but that she is above the law, and cannot, or will not be prosecuted for obvious felonious violations of the law.

A sign of what is to come is an essay at Maggies Farm by Bruce Kessler:

Donald Trump is far from the perfect leader. But, then it takes someone with gumption and determination who will not be intimidated to take on the rot that permeates our government and self-appointed ruling class. And, Trump is the only revolution we have available.

Anyone deserves the end of our once-renowned Republic who stays home or turns coat or otherwise fails to stand up for recovering an America with basic laws and justice, an America which is not beholden to those who would exploit the government for self-aggrandizement or profits, an America with justice for all which does not favor the wealthy or powerful sycophants of state power.

Donald Trump is not George Washington. But he’s the only revolution we have, and very probably our last chance. I have faith in the American people who will bring us back from tottering over the brink of ruination to make it work when Trump is elected.

Get out and work for local candidates and for Trump. Otherwise, be part of the ruination. It’s that simple and brutal a truth.

Eyes are opening.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton e-mails, Democrats, Donald Trump, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »