You Are Foolish If You Support Trump

Do NOT pay attention to the heading on this . . . .rather please take the time to listen to this man. He is a Conservative Constitutionalist and he supports Trump!

I have no idea why the heading is as it is…. But I promise you,,, ,you need to take the time to listen to this guy and share this with others !!!

Send This To A Never Trump And See What Happens

I don’t think that if a patriot reads this and still won’t vote for Trump, well . . .

VDH Nails the Never Trumpers


RUSH: There is a column today by Victor Davis Hanson at National Review Online, and the headline title… I don’t know that he wrote the headline. I’m just giving you the identifier here.  “Never NeverTrump.” 

This is the definitive piece criticizing the Never Trumpers for their decision to oppose Trump at all costs, even if it means the election of Hillary Clinton.  And when I say it is the one, it’s the definitive.  It’s the piece that everybody who is really bothered by the Never Trumpers and can’t understand why in the world they would do anything that would facilitate the election of Hillary Clinton — although we do know why.

You get in trouble mentioning why because it offends them.  But, I mean, they’re… I don’t know.  There are a couple dozen reasons, but three or four primary reasons why the Never Trumpers are Never Trumpers. But Victor Davis Hanson slices and dices it.  It prints to 10 pages, so I can’t read the whole thing.  It’s well worth your reading. So I’m sure by now Koko is gonna link to it, and I will highlight certain aspects of it as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears today.


RUSH: Here Jim in San Antonio.  I want to grab a phone call as I always try to do in the first hour.  Jim in San Antonio, I’m glad you called, sir. It’s great to have you with us.  What’s up?

CALLER:  Rush, it’s a pleasure to speak to you, first off.

RUSH:  Thank you.

CALLER:  Yeah, my thought is I’ve been listening to a for an awfully long time, and I hear people talk about, “You know, if the Democrats win, we’re gonna have to wait four years before we can do anything.”  My premise is that with Supreme Court nominees, with legalizing the illegals, with opening the borders and all that, my premise is that I do not think the conservatives can win another national election for the foreseeable future.  You’ve got —

RUSH:  You know, Trump —

CALLER:  Sorry?

RUSH:  Trump is saying that this may be the last election the Republican Party can win.

CALLER:  I think this is —

RUSH:  I know what he means by that. Who are these people that are saying we got four years?  “Eh, if we lose we got four years to put it all back together.” Give me the name.  Can you tell me the type of people saying that?

CALLER:  Well, I mean, I listen to you, I listen to Beck, I listen to Hannity, but, I mean, some of the No Trumpers right now, some of our leaders in the GOP party and all that, you know, your McCains, all those people and everything.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: But, you know, I think this will spill over even to some of the statewide elections.  You know, midterm elections we’re gonna have a chance. I just do not think we’re gonna have a chance with the electoral vote situation and everything.  I think it looks pretty bleak.

RUSH:  Oh, I think you’re right.  I don’t… There is no… The people that are saying, “Hey, you know, if we lose, we’re gonna really be setting ourselves up for a massive win in four years ’cause after four more years of this, it’s gonna be so bad…”  They’re missing the boat entirely.  This is it, in a lot of way.  Not that there’s not gonna be an America.  There’s always gonna be an America.

It’s just what kind of America it’s gonna be and who is going to be leading it and what kind of character and morality and value system is going to be dominant, and that’s what’s at stake.  And some of the Never Trumpers don’t think there’s any such crisis at all like that.  This is a good transition for me to lead the next hour with excerpts from Victor Davis Hanson’s piece that I talked about earlier at National Review.  It’ll dovetail exactly with what you’re talking about.


RUSH:  All right, stick with me, folks.  This is really tough to excerpt. I tell you upfront because it deserves to be read in its entirety, and I simply don’t have to the time or the ability to do it.  It’s tough, interpretative reading of others’ words.  There’s probably nobody better at it than me.  I could probably command your attention if I wanted to read the whole thing, but that would not be the best way to approach this.  Excerpts and you following it yourself is.

It’s “Never NeverTrump,” Victor Davis Hanson, the phenomenal VDH, writing at National Review Online. Which is interesting in and of itself because National Review has many of the Never Trumpers who are trumpeting their Never Trumpism every day, multi times a day on the National Review site.  Victor Davis Hanson is not naming any names, doesn’t have to, but the people would read his piece would know who he’s talking about. But let me do my best to excerpt this.  It begins thus:

“Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red.” Have you ever seen that map, red and blue counties? (scoffs) We dwarf ’em. We don’t dwarf ’em in the population centers but, I mean, 98% of this country geographically is Republican.  You go to the coastal areas and some state capitals like Chicago and other big cities, and it’s all union Democrat. California, for example.

“Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.”    That’s exactly right.  Ministry of Truth.  State-Controlled Media.  News isn’t news anymore.  News is what they do in order to move you to arrive to agree with the “correct” opinion of things.  Story after story, person after person.

“In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney … were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie,” such as It’s a Wonderful Life. “When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car.

“If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney … chose the decorous path of dignified abdication.” What this means is that these mild-mannered, moderate/centrist Republicans, when they were being systemically cut up and destroyed right there in front of their faces, sit there and let it happen because it’s the polite and establishment way to do it.  You simply do not fight back. You simply do not!

Candy Crowley asserts herself in that debate and saves and rescues Obama on the whole subject of Benghazi and foreign policy, and Romney sits there and lets it happen.  Mr. Hanson here is saying: These are the people we think can beat these people?  These are the people we think we’d rather have than Donald Trump?  These are the people we think are gonna fight back against what’s wrong?  We already know Romney didn’t fight back!  We already know McCain didn’t fight back, and even if they had chosen to they were destroyed before they would have started.

This is part of a slow buildup to his belief that Trump is the last hope that we have of stopping the path that we are on, that Victor Davis Hanson concludes is national suicide.  And along the way he excoriate these Never Trumpers for their focus on the preservation of this movement or that movement or delaying the inevitable for four more years. “Maybe we can get it back in four years, but we can’t ever do anything, if this guy becomes president.

“We will ruin our party! We will ruin conservatism if Trump wins.”  This is what they say.  And Mr. Hanson here says (scoffs), if Trump loses, you aren’t going to have anything.  There isn’t gonna be a conservative movement, and there isn’t gonna be a Republican Party.  Now, there will be a conservative movement, but it’s not gonna have any political oompff.  It’s gonna be made up of the same figures that make it up now that can’t even win a Republican primary.  But he takes 10 pages to get there.

It’s the final two-thirds of his piece where he really, really lays into what is going on.  Here’s a section called: “Never in My Name? The only missing tessera in Trump’s mosaic is the Republican establishment, or rather the 10% or so of them whose opposition might resonate enough to cost Trump 1-2% in one or two key states and spell his defeat. Some Never Trump critics would prefer a Trump electoral disaster that still could redeem their warnings that he would destroy the Republican party; barring that, increasingly many would at least settle to be disliked, but controversial, spoilers in a 1-2% loss to Hillary rather than irrelevant in a Trump win.”

Let me translate this, not take this out of context.  He’s really contrasting these people.  He’s saying these are the guys — the Never Trumpers — that long ago forecast Trump couldn’t win diddly-squat and predicted Trump wouldn’t win the primary and if he did win the primary, couldn’t beat Hillary. He’d get shellacked by 70-30%, 40%. It was gonna be just a disaster.  And Mr. Hanson is saying now that they’re really concern is not being shown to be wrong.

For the sake of their reputations, they want the Trump to lose big so that they can say they were right, and a Trump landslide defeat is exactly what they want in that case.  But what happens if Trump loses by just a point or two?  Well, that’s okay, as well.  They would settle for being disliked, ’cause if he loses by a point or two, it could be said that it’s their fault, the Never Trumpers.  But Victor Davis Hanson concludes that they would still rather Trump lose than have Trump win and themselves become irrelevant.

Meaning if Trump wins after all this Never Trumper opposition, is Trump gonna offer them anything in his Regime? Is Trump gonna offer them anything? They’re gonna be left out.  They don’t want to be left out.  So Trump has to lose, Mr. Hanson theorizes, for the Never Trumpers to have a future.  Notice it’s not Trump has to lose so the country has a future.  The proper question… Oh, let me read the preceding paragraph to this.

“To be fair, Never Trump’s logic is that Trump’s past indiscretions and lack of ethics, his present opportunistic populist rather than conservative message, and the Sarah Palin nature of some of his supporters (whom I think Hillary clumsily referenced as the ‘deplorables’ and whom Colin Powell huffed off as ‘poor white folks’) make him either too reckless to be commander-in-chief or too liberal to be endorsed by conservatives — or too gauche to admit supporting in reasoned circles.”

So again I will explain this.  He’s acknowledging that the Never Trumpers have a logic and the logic is that Trump’s past — his bombast, his indiscretions, his apparent lack of ethics, his populism… Not conservatism. He’s not a conservative.  His populism and the Deliverance characteristics of his supporters.  Mr. Hanson’s saying it’s not just Democrats that think Trump’s supporters a bunch of hayseed hillbillies.  It’s the same Republicans who didn’t like Sarah Palin.  It’s the same like Colin Powell calls “poor white folks.”

And because Trump has “those kinds of people” supporting him, he just can’t be trusted. He’d be too reckless to be commander-in-chief. This is so bad! These kinds of people supporting Trump, we can’t join them.  That’s what he’s saying here.  The Never Trumpers are looking at people at the Trump rallies and people that support Trump and they see a bunch of Deliverance hayseeds and they’re compared.  They can’t acknowledge being for Trump and being in the same group with that crowd!

You know what? There’s an analogy.  The establishment pro-choice Republican who hate the Christian right — always have — are embarrassed to be at the Republican convention with ’em.  They always have.  You know, here comes Falwell’s Moral Majority and these other family rights groups, and the Republican establishment, the moderate Republicans always say, “Ew, ew! I just wish they weren’t in my party.”  Mr. Hanson’s saying there is a strain of that among today’s Never Trumpers.

They just can’t imagine being in the same group of people that they see at a Trump rally.  And then he says, “Perhaps. But the proper question is a reductionist ‘compared to what?’ Never Trumpers assume that the latest insincerely packaged Trump is less conservative than the latest incarnation of an insincere Clinton on matters of border enforcement, military spending, tax and regulation reform, abortion, school choice, and cabinet and Supreme Court appointments.” Mr. Hanson says, “That is simply not a sustainable proposition.”

You cannot say that Trump is less conservative than Hillary, and he is aghast that there are Never Trumpers on the right who are trying to claim Trump’s disqualified ’cause he’s not conservative enough, when compared to Hillary Clinton, he is. Which is a point I tried to make last week and apparently got savaged for it.  Conservatism isn’t, as we know it, on the ballot this time. So what do we do?  Well, we have to start making comparisons.

And we know that Hillary isn’t, and we know that Trump is much closer to it than Hillary will ever be because she will never be it.  And Trump, when it comes to his policy statements on border enforcement, military spending, tax and regulation reform, abortion, school choice, Supreme Court? Compared to Hillary, there isn’t any comparison.  So why are the Never Trumpers still insisting that Trump’s not conservative enough for ’em when the question is: “Compared to what?”  Yeah, maybe Trump versus Cruz, yeah.  Trump’s not.  Maybe Trump versus Rubio.  Trump versus — I don’t know — Huckabee. Pick a name out of the group that lost in the primary.  But Trump versus Hillary?  What are we talking about here?


RUSH:  There’s another very, very interesting paragraph.  Now, remember, the Never Trumpers, they can’t stomach Trump because he’s so odious, he’s so uncouth, he’s so unsophisticated, he’s so intemperate, he’s so ill tempered, he’s so rude. He just speaks like an uneducated dimwit.  So Mr. Hanson writes, “Is Trump … all that much more odious than the … present incumbent,” Barack Obama, “who has variously insulted the Special Olympics, racially stereotyped at will, resorted to braggadocio laced with violent rhetoric, racially hyped ongoing criminal trials”?

Barack Obama who has “serially lied about Obamacare and Benghazi,” Barack Obama who “ridiculed the grandmother who scrimped to send him to a private prep school,” Barack Obama who “oversaw government corruption from the IRS to the VA to the GSA,” Barack Obama who “has grown the national debt in a fashion never before envisioned? Yeah, “Trump on occasion did not recognize the ‘nuclear triad,’ but then he probably does not say ‘corpse men’ either or believe we added 57 states.”

So this paragraph is sort of another little stick of dynamite to the Never Trumpers.  Okay, you guys think Obama is Mr. Sophisticated? You think Obama’s the gold standard? Yeah, he went to the Harvard, Ivy League, is properly spoken, very intelligent sounding? He’s lying, conniving, dividing, unproductive. Just go through all the things that Obama has said or done.

How in the world, the question is, can you Never Trumpers look at Trump and see this big blob of unsophistication and boorishness and look at Obama and not be similarly appalled?  And that is the question, folks.  You know, in all of us, the acceptance of all of these negatives and problems of Barack Obama because he’s “one of us,” he’s an establishment guy. He’s got his Ivy League pedigree. He went to Harvard. He represents himself well when he speaks. He sounds intelligent.  But look at what he’s done!

Does that not matter?

So Mr. Hanson is wondering how in the world can a guy like Obama, who has really demonstrated that he knows how to destroy things and divide people and split this nation wide open and promote the division and promote the hatred — how does a guy like Obama — get a pass and Donald Trump is held up to some standard that nobody could meet?  He has his answers to his questions. If you’ll read the whole piece, you’ll found out why he thinks the Never Trumpers are doing this. It’s essentially self-preservation and fundraising and a number of other things.  But in the process he says if this goes on — if there’s four more years of this with Hillary and everything that she’s gonna bring along with it — we are committing national suicide.

We are killing that America that was founded and that we have all grown up expecting to exist in perpetuity.


RUSH: Just one more thing from the Victor Davis Hanson piece and I’m gonna leave the rest of it up to you to find and read on your own.  Again, it is yet another piece, maybe the one, the definitive piece aimed at Never Trumpers asking them, “Do you really know what you’re doing here?”

This segment of the piece is entitled “An Overdue Reckoning” and it deals with the people who are out there on the Never Trump side criticizing Trump because he’s not conservative, not conservative enough, not a real conservative. He’s gonna destroy the conservative movement. If we vote for this guy, if we support this guy, we’re throwing the conservative movement overboard.  If we support Trump we’re essentially saying that everything we believed in for the last 30, 50 years has meant nothing if we’re willing to invest in this guy.

There’s a lot of Never Trumpers that think that, that they would deal conservatism a mortal blow if they were to compromise their beliefs and support Trump.  And in a certain set of circumstances, yeah, there would be no doubt that there is true.  But in this set of circumstances where conservatism is not the most important thing at stake — watch me get savaged for that.  But to a lot of people conservatism is the most important thing at stake.  It is the only thing at stake here, that and maybe the Republican Party.  And look, I understand those people who think that way.  If it’s their livelihood, if it’s their living, if it’s their future, I get it.

But Mr. Hanson’s argument here is that it’s not the most important thing going on at the moment, conservatism, conservative movement.  But more than that the very people out there — that’s what this next segment’s about.  The very people in the Never Trump crowd who are calling Trump out for not being conservative, he-he-he, may not be all that conservative themselves.

“The old Wall Street Journal adherence to open borders was not so conservative — at least not for those on the front lines of illegal immigration and without the means to navigate around the concrete ramifications of the open-borders ideologies of apartheid elites.”

Again, let me translate.  We all know here the Wall Street Journal editorial page has been open borders forever because the Chamber of Commerce buys a lot of spots and even if that didn’t happen, the Wall Street Journal editorial board is on the same page as the Chamber of Commerce.  And whatever Big Business wants the Journal is gonna be in favor of.  The Journal is their Bible.  And Big Business wants open borders.  So here comes the Journal, ostensibly a conservative place.  If you want to find out what conservative finance and economic news is, you read the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Mr. Hanson is saying, Really?  I mean, these guys are not conservative about their immigration position.  They’re for open borders.  And that’s not conservative for all of those people who are not in the elites, who are not in the establishment, those people are out there on the front lines of illegal immigration and do not have the means or the resources, the money to navigate around the very real ramifications of what open borders means to communities.  Hey, the Wall Street Journal can afford to throw their conservatism on this aside because they’re not gonna live with the results of open borders.

“How conservative was a definition of free trade that energized European Union subsidies on agriculture, tariffs on American imports into Japan, Chinese cheating or peddling toxic products, or general dumping into the United States? For two decades, farmers and small businesses have been wiped out in rural America; that destruction may have been ‘creative,’ but it certainly was not because the farmers and business owners were stupid, lazy, or uncompetitive. By this late date, for millions, wild and often unpredictable populist venting became preferable to being sent to the library to be enlightened by Adam Smith or Edmund Burke.”

Meaning real events in real people’s lives brought about by so-called conservatives who believed in free trade and open borders is decimating the communities where these people live.  There isn’t anything conservative about it, and there isn’t anything positive about it from their standpoint. And they’re told that supporting Trump, who wants to try to protect them, who claims that he is going to stop all of these things ruining their lives, for the Never Trumpers to come around and say, “He’s destroying conservatism,” they better realize it’s gone beyond conservatism now.  It’s not a debate over who’s conservative and who isn’t and who, thus, deserves to receive a vote and who doesn’t.

“Outsourcing and offshoring did not make the U.S. more competitive, at least for most Americans outside of Wall Street and Silicon Valley.” This is a great line coming up here. “Boutique corporate multiculturalism was always driven by profits while undermining the rare American idea of e pluribus unum assimilation — as the canny multimillionaires like Colin Kaepernick and Beyoncé grasped.”

“Boutique corporate multiculturalism was always driven by profits.”  You could also include boutique corporate climate change support.  You go to the grocery store, how many products have you seen that have some relationship to green this, green that, organic here, organic there?  And his point is these people aren’t really into all that ideologically.  They just think you are and they’re just trying to separate you from your money so they’re going boutique climate change, boutique multicultural to make you think they are hip and up with it, when all they want is your money for their profits.  There’s nothing wrong that. That’s what businesses are out there to do.

But these businesses get away with throwing out their conservatism, they get away with abandoning their conservatism, and they’re not called out on it.  They’re called good citizens. They’re called interested in social justice and all that.  His point is who are all these conservatives claiming Trump isn’t one?  Are they really?

“Long ago, an Ivy League brand ceased being synonymous with erudition or ethics — as Bill, Hillary, and Barack Obama showed. Defeated or retired ‘conservative’ Republican grandees were just as likely as their liberal counterparts to profit from their government service in Washington to rake in lobbyist cash. So hoi polloi were about ready for anything — or rather everything.”

So you got all these people shouting out that they’re conservatives, and we’d rather have this erudite Ivy Leaguers who make us proud because they don’t sound like cowboys or hayseed hicks, but you’re trying to tell me that Bill Clinton is erudite, that Hillary Clinton is sophisticated and erudite and Obama?  And in all these people, Republican or Democrat, are scoring big personal paydays off of their government service.  And they’re excoriating Trump for being insincere, disingenuous, and not conservative.

“In sum,” writes Mr. Hanson, “if Trump’s D-11 bulldozer blade did not exist, it would have to be invented. He is Obama’s nemesis, Hillary’s worst nightmare, and a vampire’s mirror of the Republican establishment. Before November’s election, his next outburst or reinvention will once again sorely embarrass his supporters, but perhaps not to the degree that Clinton’s erudite callousness should repel her own. … It may be discomforting for some conservatives to vote for the Republican party’s duly nominated candidate, but as this Manichean two-person race ends, it is now becoming suicidal not to.”  And that’s how it concludes.  I didn’t read the whole thing, but it’s Victor Davis Hanson at National Review Online just to give you a flavor.


RUSH: St. George, Utah.  This is Kelly.  Great to have you.  I’m glad you waited.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  The amount of time that conservatives spend complaining about the media bias is such a waste of time.  We need to accept it. We need to get in it and change it like you have done.  Fox News, the blogosphere, we need to become part of the media machine.  You know, conservatives by design are polite. We don’t want to offend. So we need to be vocal. We need to speak up with humor like you and like Greg Gutfeld.  Your thoughts?

RUSH:  My thought…? Well, I’m just a little confused, ’cause you say we need to get to be part of the media like I do like Fox News.  Who isn’t doing that? Who are the people you’re talking about that haven’t done it and need to?

CALLER:  Well, we’re just so quietly busy. We’re working. We complain about the media, how biased it is.  We have got to speak up, be more vocal in our local situation. We’ve gotta become part of the media. We need to speak out. We need to be smart and funny like you and instead of complain about it, we’ve gotta become part of it.

RUSH:  Okay.  I know what you mean.  You’ve got a two-prong bit of analysis going here.  On one hand you’re saying all of this cataloging and commenting on media bias, we’re way past that. Everybody knows that.  Conservatives have been doing that and basically all that accomplishes is us whining about how unfair thing.  Instead of doing that, we just need to forget what they’re saying about us and just go be who we are everywhere, right?

CALLER:  Absolutely.  And, Rush, you can never retire.  What will we do?  I understand, you know, your effort. You’ve gotta turn it over to somebody funny — Mark Steyn, somebody like me. You’ve got to —

RUSH: (chuckling)

CALLER: You’ve got to take care of us after you’re gone.  You can’t just leave us high and dry.  You’re too big a part of what’s happening. You’ve gotta supersede the media. The politicians have got to supersede the media. You’ve gotta speak to the people and override them because they’re a negative, horrible force in our country.

RUSH:  Yeah, you know, it becomes increasingly — and, by the way, thank you.  I think you overblow it there a little bit, but I appreciate your thoughts very much.  The whole concept of media, it’s just an adversary.  The media is another adversarial force.  I’ve regaled people with these stories I don’t know how many times over the years, but we still have way too many people that are totally — even though they think they’re not, totally — dependent on what the media says before they’ll form an opinion of their own.

People on our side.  It’s frustrating in one sense, understandable in another.  I think the big disconnect is we call them “the media,” and it’s funny to me now to read. The media is written about by other members of the media, as not a news gathering operation or business, but rather as an opposition force to Republicans and conservatism, and as a support group for Democrats and liberals.  They’re openly written about this way!  The media is written about as a built-in obstacle.

The media is written about as a political entity, not as a bunch of people in the business of gathering information and reporting it to people that didn’t know it, which is, you know, the Journalism 101 textbook definition.  Well, that’s long out the door.  That hasn’t been in practice in I don’t know how long.  But yet I think we still have a lot of people who treat the media as a giant blob that can be shaped and molded to befriend us or to reflect our point of view, if we massage them, if we hang out with them, if we feed them, if we give them leaks and so forth.

I think there are a lot of people on our side who think they’re part of it, only in the conservative branch or the conservative wing of the media, because all of media that you’re talking about fits right in with the ruling class establishment.  They are every bit the members of the establishment that the elected officials and the CEOs and all the other cronyists are.  And yet they are looked at — erroneously, mistakenly — by some people as not being that.  So the approach to them…

largeI mean, if you are going to focus on that, if what you like to do is to chronically inform people about media bias, then you must occupy a position in which you believe that can change. Otherwise why tell people about it?  Well, there’s another reason.  You tell people about it so they can learn to identify it on their own and not be so affected by it.  But in the process of chronicling media bias for people — your friends and so forth — and telling them how to spot it and so forth, you’re almost acknowledging the fact that they can be better or they can be improved or whatever.

I think they’re just not seen the proper way now by enough people on our side.  It’s not about news gathering.  It’s not about information gathering.  It’s not about reporting anything.  It is, as Mr. Hanson said in his piece right here, “The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth.  News seems to be defined now as that information necessary for people to arrive at correct views or opinions.”  So, you take an issue like ISIS.  The media is Ministry of Truth.  That means they are state-controlled. They work with Democrat governments, Democrat administrations.

And their purpose is to pass on information in such a way that everybody who hears it will agree with the administration view of ISIS.  And if you don’t, you are a “reactionary,” or some other name.  You are unstable. You’re an extremist.  If you reject the accepted definition, explanation of anything — a campaign, a candidate, a military unit, an enemy, another religion. If you accept the approved definitions and therefore subscribe to the correct view and opinion of it, you’re cool. You’re fine.

If you don’t, then the name-calling starts; you’re reactionary, you’re extremist, you’re racist, you’re sexist, you’re a bigot, what have you.  And there’s too many on our side who still seem convinced that they can make the media respect them, that they can cause the media to like them, that they can — if they work it right — make the media treat them fairly and properly and so forth. Thereby admitting that they fail to see what the media’s existence really is, at least for us.

It’s just another obstacle.  The media is part of the Democrat Party.  The media is part of any Democrat administration, and the idea that it can be changed, the idea that they can be persuaded to abandon the administration and be critical of them, is fallacious.  It can’t happen, and it won’t happen.  They have to be defeated just like you would defeat Hillary.  You’re running against Hillary and the media.


A Gift That Keeps On Giving for Hillary

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors

Wells Fargo fraud department inundated with calls from low-income Clinton supporters reporting repeated unauthorized charges

Hillary for America processed $94 in unauthorized charges to Carol Mahre's US Bank account.

Hillary for America processed a total of $94 in unauthorized charges to Carol Mahre’s US Bank account. This follows a pattern in which unwitting donors are charged multiple times, but always for a total of less than $100, which is a key trigger point for banks’ internal action systems. Photo: Courtesy Carol Mahre

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.

The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who call in will attempt to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”

The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people are getting overcharged by Hillary’s campaign and they have no idea.”

The source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department is yet to receive one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary’s doing is so messed up, she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.”

Carol and Roger Mahre.

Carol Mahre has been charged multiple times after signing up for a one-time donation. Her son, Roger Mahre, is an attorney who filed a complaint with Minnesota’s attorney general. Photo: Courtesy Carol Mahre

Wells Fargo recently came under fire after news broke that various regulators fined the big bank $185 million for opening 2 million phony customer accounts without their customers’ permission. This massive scandal resulted in the firingof 5,300 Wells Fargo employees.

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, is one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made. Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.

Roger, who is an attorney, told the Observer that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges. “I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments. “She’s very good with the internet so I know she only made a one-time payment.” Roger also pointed out that even if his mother mistakenly signed up for recurring monthly payments then she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, not multiple charges for varying amounts on the same day or in the same month. Furthermore, Roger said that after the campaign was made aware of this situation, the charges should’ve stopped but they never did.

The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, a grand total of $94 in fraudulent charges. The campaign’s overcharges to Carol were just a few dollars short of $100. This is in line with what the Wells Fargo bank source revealed to the Observer.

Since the campaign failed to amend the problem for Carol, Roger contacted her bank, U.S. Bank. However, he ran into problems when he asked U.S. Bank to refund his mother’s money. Roger told the Observer that the bank would not reverse the charges and that a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges. At that point, Roger decided to contact his local news and filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother. After local TV news Kare 11 ran a story, someone from U.S. Bank contacted Roger the next day and said that they had reversed and stopped the charges to his mother’s card.

A representative from Minnesota’s Democratic attorney general’s office told Roger that this problem wasn’t in their jurisdiction and that they had forwarded the case to the FEC. However, FEC spokesperson Julia Queen told the Observer they have no record of the case. “We don’t have it,” Queen said. The Observer contacted Swanson’s office and did not hear back.

Roger did eventually get a letter from a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign. In the letter, the lawyer wrote that his mother would be removed from their donor list; however, the campaign did not take any responsibility for the fraudulent charges.

“They basically said that they weren’t accepting responsibility for this but they’d remove my mom from the donor list,” he said. Roger is less than happy with the way the Clinton campaign has handled this nightmare for him and his mother. “This is a load of crap!” Mahre said. “The self-righteousness of politicians drives me insane. If you and I did this, we’d be thrown in jail. This is theft, fraud or wire fraud—it’s a federal crime!”

Since Carol’s story became public, Roger said he’s heard from other people who have been ripped off by the Clinton campaign. “I’ve heard this is happening to other small donors,” Roger said. “People will donate $25, but then when they receive their credit card statement, they are charged $25 multiple times.”

The incident hasn’t just left a bad taste in Roger’s mouth. Carol decided she’s not going to vote for Hillary even though she’s voted for the Democratic presidential nominee every election since President Dwight Eisenhower won reelection in 1956. “My mother is a lifelong Democrat and she’s voted every election in her life for a Democrat but she’s not going to vote for Hillary,” Roger said.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.

Another bank source told the Observer that Clinton’s motivation in purposefully overcharging donors is not only to rake in more money for her campaign but also to inflate her small donor numbers reported to the FEC. “This gives a false impression about how much money Clinton has raised,” the source said. “The money that the bank has refunded would not be reflected in the FEC filings till after the election. This gives off the illusion to the public that her support and the amount she’s raised is much greater than what it is in reality.”

A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.

Callahan also wrote that Matt McQueeney, who worked in the compliance and accounting department at Clinton’s campaign headquarters at the time, told her, “What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others.” McQueeney reportedly parted ways with the Clinton campaign shortly after this incident occurred. Backing up what McQueeney claimed, there were several incidents similar to Callahan’s reported in 2008. Callahan and McQueeney could not be reached for comment.

In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office. There was $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their then new estate in Chappaqua, New York. Multiple donors said that they had understood that the items they had donated during Clinton’s presidency were to stay in the White House as part of the 1993 White House redecoration project. Initially, the Clintons claimed that the items in question were given to them prior to President Clinton taking office; however, government records proved otherwise. Facing strong criticism, the Clintons decided to return several items including $28,500 in furnishings and they paid $86,000 for other gifts.

Murmurs of theft are nothing new to the Clintons. In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office, including $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their new estate in Chappaqua, New York. But Bill begs to differ.

He recently compared himself to Robin Hood and said that through their foundation he asks people with money to give to people who don’t have money. In reality, the Clintons steal from people who have little money and they’re robbing some of Hillary’s most impoverished supporters—including a poor elderly grandma—to fund her campaign.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

Flight 93 Election – Do “Never Trumpers” Dare to Read This

This article is an well-written explanation of the importance of this upcoming election. It attacks the logic used by the “Never Trumpers”.

If you are a true patriot, you will read this relatively long article. It is truly outstanding …

In a nutshell: If the intellectual Never Trump voter realizes that culturally, morally, our country is out of control. If they are astounded that our country cannot win wars against ISIS. If they are confounded by the poor education of our children and the many thousands of dollars our young adults pay for an education, then, they must realize that the country is in a downward spiral and this will probably be the only chance we have to remedy this condition.

Read the article from the website below

The Flight 93 Election

By: Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016

2016 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. To compound the 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.

To ordinary conservative ears, this sounds histrionic. The stakes can’t be that high because they are never that high—except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon. Conservative intellectuals will insist that there has been no “end of history” and that all human outcomes are still possible. They will even—as Charles Kesler does—admit that America is in “crisis.” But how great is the crisis? Can things really be so bad if eight years of Obama can be followed by eight more of Hillary, and yet Constitutionalist conservatives can still reasonably hope for a restoration of our cherished ideals? Cruz in 2024!

Not to pick (too much) on Kesler, who is less unwarrantedly optimistic than most conservatives. And who, at least, poses the right question: Trump or Hillary? Though his answer—“even if [Trump] had chosen his policies at random, they would be sounder than Hillary’s”—is unwarrantedly ungenerous. The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues—immigration, trade, and war—right from the beginning.

But let us back up. One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.

Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?

If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.

Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’ and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion.” That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the phrases that Continetti quotes are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals, and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.

Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.

Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. 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.

Let’s be very blunt here: 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.

If your answer—Continetti’s, Douthat’s, Salam’s, and so many others’—is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it.

They will say, in words reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism—but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented! To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions—above all welfare reform and crime control—have been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism that still engulfs our every—literal and figurative—shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your (our) victories are short-lived.

More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?

Only three questions matter. First, how bad are things really? Second, what do we do right now? Third, what should we do for the long term?

Conservatism, Inc.’s, “answer” to the first may, at this point, simply be dismissed. If the conservatives wish to have a serious debate, I for one am game—more than game; eager. The problem of “subjective certainty” can only be overcome by going into the agora. But my attempt to do so—the blog that Kesler mentions—was met largely with incredulity. How can they say that?! How can anyone apparently of our caste (conservative intellectuals) not merely support Trump (however lukewarmly) but offer reasons for doing do?

One of the Journal of American Greatness’s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.

As does, presumably, the argument that the stakes in 2016 are—everything. I should here note that I am a good deal gloomier than my (former) JAG colleagues, and that while we frequently used the royal “we” when discussing things on which we all agreed, I here speak only for myself.

How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.

A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. 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.

It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys—and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.

If you haven’t noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them. Call ours Hannibalic victories. After the Carthaginian’s famous slaughter of a Roman army at Cannae, he failed to march on an undefended Rome, prompting his cavalry commander to complain: “you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one.” And, aside from 2004’s lackluster 50.7%, we can’t win the big ones at all.

Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”

Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our “leaders” and “dissenters” bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten dogs have more thymos.

Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.

It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?

Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.” For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their “natural conservatism” at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will. But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!

This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, 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.

Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.

Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.

Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?

Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say … “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.

Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.

But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.

By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.

Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.

And if it doesn’t work, what then? We’ve established that most “conservative” anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian sense objectively pro-Hillary. What about the rest of you? If you recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can’t stomach him, have you thought about the longer term? The possibilities would seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see … which, since nothing human lasts forever, at some point will give way to one of the other three. Oh, and, I suppose, for those who like to pour a tall one and dream big, a second American Revolution that restores Constitutionalism, limited government, and a 28% top marginal rate.

But for those of you who are sober: can you sketch a more plausible long-term future than the prior four following a Trump defeat? I can’t either.

The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final 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.

If it walks like a duck . . .


He is definitely a duck.
Keep this old adage in mind:
If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck;
have feathers like a duck;
eat like a duck and lay eggs like a duck;
there is a very high probability that you’re a duck!
Mike Gallagher, the 8th most recognized talk radio personality in the country, is heard
by over 2.25 million listeners weekly.
He compiled and wrote the following essay entitled, “Obama: It was You.”

President Obama
This is why you didn’t go to France to show solidarity against the Muslim terrorists:

* It was you who spoke these words at an Islamic dinner -“I am one of you.”

* It was you who on ABC News referenced -“My Muslim faith.”

* It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign

* It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict-“I will stand with the

* It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that -“I am a Muslim.”

* It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.

* It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning
Christianity and professing Marxism.

* It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us
have to pay.

* It was you who purposefully omitted – “endowed by our Creator ” – from your
recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.

* It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ’s Sermon On The Mount while
repeatedly referring to the ‘HOLY’ Qur’an.

* It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.

* It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the
building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World
Trade Center.

* It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to
host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.

* It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of
Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have
NEVER requested the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.

* It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.

* It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.
It was you who said that NASA’s “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim

* It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY individual who would speak in
favor of infanticide.

* It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the
White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.

* It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.

* It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.

* It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women
throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for
investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.

* It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of
radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82%
Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.

* It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.

* It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new
commemorative stamp.

* It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help “empower” the
British Muslim community.

* It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar
schools across our country.

* It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during

* It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past
criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.

* It was you who was uncharacteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim
Brotherhood to depose Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, formerly America’s strongest ally in
North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter
of Egyptian Christians.

* It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a
member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

* It was you who said this country is not a Christian nation.

– Yep, he’s a Duck alright.

> * It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that -“I am a Muslim.”
> * It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
> * It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning
> Christianity and professing Marxism.
> * It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us
> have to pay.
> * It was you who purposefully omitted – “endowed by our Creator ” – from your
> recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
> * It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ’s Sermon On The Mount while
> repeatedly referring to the ‘HOLY’ Qur’an.
> * It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
> * It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the
> building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World
> Trade Center.
> * It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to
> host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.
> * It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of
> Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have
> NEVER requested the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.
> * It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
> * It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.
> It was you who said that NASA’s “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim
> communities.
> * It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY individual who would speak in
> favor of infanticide.
> * It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the
> White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
> * It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
> * It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
> * It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women
> throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for
> investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
> * It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of
> radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82%
> Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
> * It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
> * It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new
> commemorative stamp.
> * It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help “empower” the
> British Muslim community.
> * It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar
> schools across our country.
> * It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during
> Ramadan.
> * It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past
> criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.
> * It was you who was uncharacteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim
> Brotherhood to depose Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, formerly America’s strongest ally in
> North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter
> of Egyptian Christians.
> * It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a
> member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
> * It was you who said this country is not a Christian nation.
> – Yep, he’s a Duck alright.

Click here to Reply or Forward
14.05 GB (93%) of 15 GB used
Terms – Privacy
Last account activity: 1 minute ago

If the Democrats would only watch this video

.: Bill Clinton in 1995 ——-    Sounds a lot like Trump

Subject: Bill Clinton in 1995

Only 1 1/2 minutes long, but an excellent speech by a Democratic President—unfortunately, his wife and the current Democratic Party hasn’t followed his advice.  Wouldn’t it be nice if all the major TV networks and radio stations would play this video clip every day for the next year???

President Bill Clinton in 1995 – State of the Union address.