With the debate nearing, it’s time to remind everyone who and what Hillary is. I’ve also thrown in some relevant Black Lives Matter and gun posters. I hope you enjoy all of these. I know that I did.
Trump has an ideology and it’s a good one. Trump has an actual plan that explains his appeal. How do I know this? Because, for unclear reasons, Politico.com decided to engage in actual journalism. Rather than viewing Trump as Satan in the Church of Leftism, Joshua Mitchell, a Georgetown professor looked at Trump’s actual platform and came up with some surprising conclusions.
It turns out that Trump is not Hitler reincarnated. Instead, he’s breaking the existing political paradigm and coming up with new ideas in American politics (although I view some of them as tried-and-true traditional ideas that worked well for everyone before the Democrats in the old South and the new Progressive party perverted them):
If you listen closely to Trump, you’ll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.
These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens, working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been.
Put that way, how could I not support Trump?
The stabbing jihad at the Crossroads mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, ended with no civilian deaths and only nine wounded because, entirely providentially, Jason Falconer, a firearms expert and certified NRA firearms instructor, was on the scene to take out Dahir Adnan. Adnan, in the course of a few minutes, had already stabbed nine people. Thankfully for the people at Crossroads shopping center, Minnesota allows concealed carry and the mall made a minimal effort to enforce its “gun free zone” status.
Israel’s experience in the last year shows that, in a fight between a gun and a knife, the gun prevails. In Israel, during the ongoing stabbing intifada, most of the terrorists have been quickly killed or disabled by gun shots from armed civilians, police, or members of the military. Israeli civilians weren’t always armed, although mandatory military training has meant they all know how to handle weapons. Israel, however, long ago realized that jihad takes seconds, but official responses can take a lot longer. It therefore substantially loosened its formerly strict gun control laws.
That moment of American-grown DIY jihad — and the way it illustrated the fact that guns can save more lives than they take — brings into sharp focus the issue of Second Amendment rights in America under either Hillary or Trump. Even before the stabbing jihad happened, Trump had already reminded Americans that, while Hillary wants your guns, she believes her life is more precious than yours and therefore is deserving of armed protection:
Now you know she’s very much against the Second Amendment. She wants to destroy your Second Amendment. Guns, guns, guns, right? I think what we should do is she goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm. Right? Right? I think they should disarm. Immediately. What do you think? Yes? Yeah, yeah. Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, okay? It would be very dangerous.
The media immediate tried to claim that Trump is inciting Hillary’s assassination, but people with half a brain (i.e., not Leftists) understand perfectly well that Trump was making a hypothetical point to highlight Hillary’s hypocrisy. Her worldview is “guns for me, but not for thee.”
On the heels of Trump’s speech and the Crossroads jihad, the NRA has released a short, powerful ad that graphically shows a world in which Hillary has “armed bodyguards like you have never seen before,” while the rest of us — you, your family members, your friends — are disarmed, sitting ducks:
People living in Chicago know exactly what that woman feels like. The Democrat regime in Chicago has disarmed the law-abiding, leaving guns in the hands of feral young men who have no compassion, no empathy, and no conscience. We are one Supreme Court justice away from turning America into the United States of Chicago — and the next president gets to nominate that one justice. Hillary will nominate the justice who believes you are undeserving of a tool that allows you to defend yourself and others. And of course, if Hillary wins, it won’t just be guns that make us the United States of Chicago. It will also be government corruption, economic despair, high crime, and a whole bunch of other social and economic ills endemic to areas under total Democrat control.
I could go on and on and on, but I’ll spare you that. If you’re interested in my thoughts on the Second Amendment (and they are, if I do say so myself, decently explored and explained thoughts), let me recommend my ebook, Our Second Amendment Rights In Ten Essays, which can be yours for only 99 cents. I estimate that it will take between 1 to 2 hours to read, which isn’t a bad money-to-time ratio.
If you are constantly on the lookout for up-to-date, thoughtful material on current issues, check out WOW! Magazine, the new collaborative website with posts from members of the Watcher’s Council and their friends.
I’m going to divide this post into “Hillary stuff” and everything else. Let’s go to town and have fun.
Ah, Hillary’s “basket of deplorables.” It’s the gift that will keep giving and giving and giving. Scott Adams believes that the same people who feel guilty knocking her off their mental ballot just because she had the (ahem) “bad luck” to get pneumonia will grab onto the “deplorables” remark as the lifeline they need to vote against her. Since he’s been darn near psychic about everything else in this crazy election cycle, I’m inclined to believe he’s got a point.
Trust James Taranto to dig deep into what Hillary Clinton said. I love his observation about Hillary’s differing standards for Americans and illegal or potentially dangerous immigrants:
Apart from “half,” she stands behind every word she said on Friday, including these: “They are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
As Mollie Hemingway suggests, “They are irredeemable” is a strange thing for a professed Christian to say about anybody. Theology aside, it is a shocking thing for someone who aspires to the powers of the presidency to say about fellow Americans, even if she rightly thinks they hold deplorable views.
But according to Mrs. Clinton, “thankfully they are not America.” They are voting in an American election, which means by definition they are Americans. People beat up on Trump a while back for proposing an “ideological test” for naturalization. Here is Mrs. Clinton putting forth an ideological test for people who are already American citizens.
Assuming she makes it to the debate two weeks hence, a good question to ask her would be about the policy implications of all this. What if anything, as president, would she do about the “deplorables”?
David P. Goldman, one of the smartest, most objective conservative commentators around thinks that Hillary’s “deplorables” remark was the headshot that kills her campaign. From his keyboard to G*d’s ear, that’s all I can say.
What’s certain is that the Trump campaign is making hay out of the comment while it can:
WOW! Magazine, like the Watcher’s Council itself, is a collaborative effort. That means we all publish — and we all publicize. The latter task is a pleasure because I like the thought of sharing with you all these wonderful posts by my fellow Council members. It’s an especially great pleasure on a day such as today when I got calls from so many friends and family members that I didn’t make it to my computer until quite late in the afternoon. Knowing there are people who value my company offsets the stress for me — compulsive writer that I am — of not blogging.
And again, the current plan is to add to the site a section in which we link to articles by non-Council members that we think you would enjoy.
Hillary’s cough has sounded awfully familiar to me — and today I finally figured out what Hillary’s endless coughing jags bring to mind. To back up a minute, though. . . .
As anyone following the news knows, Hillary’s been coughing a lot . . . an awful lot. Just today, while campaigning in Cleveland, Hillary practically coughed a lung out. Moreover, she was rude enough to cough into her hand, which has been de trop ever since the swine floor, rather than her elbow, the more socially acceptable way to cough:
Watching Hillary hack away, I finally figured out where I’ve heard that cough before. Think back, way back, to the Ernie Kovacs Show. I’m too young to have watched it in its first iteration, but I did see it when it was replayed on PBS back in the 1970s. One of the images that stayed with me was Kovacs’ character “Eugene,” who brings sound effects to everything he does. Near the end of a sketch, he checks out the books on a shelf, with one of those books being Camille (the English translation of Alexander Dumas fils’ La Dame aux Camélias). I’ve queued the following clip to the correct moment, but if it doesn’t start correctly, go to 9:51.
Yup. Hillary sounds exactly like the consumptive prostitute coughing in Ernie Kovacs’ comedic moment. I won’t draw any analogies, although I can’t help but add that the prostitute in Camille was surprisingly virtuous, ending any actual comparison with Hillary. What I will say is that I’m glad to have chased down the fugitive memory that was haunting me every time I heard Hillary hack.
If you’re a Californian concerned about the draconian gun laws that recently went into effect, the time to act is now:
San Diego businessman Barry Bahrami has filed papers with the state Attorney General’s office to secure a referenda to repeal the six gun controls in “Gunmageddon.”
The new gun controls — which include ammunition background checks, a statewide ban on “high capacity” magazines, and an expansion of anti-“assault weapon” laws — were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown (D) on July 1.
Bahrami now has 90 days to collect 365,000 signatures to bring a repeal of the laws to a ballot. He plans to accomplish this by using gun stores around the state for signature collection. He said: “The only certainty is that it’s an impossible challenge if we don’t at least try. By my math we can do it if we hustle. We have more than two thousand gun stores in this state. We will be leveraging these gun stores and numerous volunteers from the communities to get the petitions signed.”
You can find more information here, at the “Veto Gunmageddon” Facebook page.
And a reminder: Time is very, very short. If you want to get in on this repeal effort, you must act now.
Blacks and Muslims should be angry at their criminal cohorts, not at us. In the context of an article about political correctness, Andrew Klavan said something I’ve been struggling to say for some time. He acknowledges that blacks are on the receiving end of much more police activity, something frustrating and insulting to law-abiding blacks, but that’s because the black community’s bad eggs commit a disproportionate amount of American crime. Likewise, because children have big mouths, perfectly nice Muslim kids in school find themselves being called terrorists, reflecting the fact that acts of mass violence all over the world come primarily from their co-religionists. That’s certainly not nice, but Klavan says that law-abiding blacks and Muslims are putting blame in the wrong place:
It seems to me if you are an innocent black person being troubled by the cops, if you are an innocent Muslim under suspicion from your neighbors, the people you should be angry at, the people to blame, are not the people acting on rational suspicion. The people at fault are the bad guys who have drawn that suspicion unfairly onto you.
A black man targeted by the police shouldn’t be angry at the police. He should be angry at the thugs and criminals who look like him and make his race a target. And before Muslims blame non-Muslims for the prejudice against them, maybe they ought to look to — and openly condemn — those Muslims who have given their religion a very bad name indeed.
The problem is prejudice, yes. But it’s the tribal prejudice that says we should blame others before we blame “our own.” “Our own” are the good guys, no matter what race or religion we are.
Someone should read those words out loud at the Republican Party Convention. They’re very important.
Gun control proponents have a problem. Irrefutable data shows that, since 1992, as American gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down. When pressed about the dramatic decrease in crime, the best that the Left can do is to point to anything but the increase in privately held weapons:
Possible reasons for the decline include the country’s high incarceration rate, an aging population and an increased use of security cameras and cell phone videos capturing incidents.
If gun grabbers were forced to grapple with the fact that the increase in guns tracking precisely with the decrease in crime, they’d also have to acknowledge that all the aging Americans, the imprisoned Americans, and the video cameras are irrelevant. Why? Because if more guns really meant more crime, as they insist, the 300 million guns in America today would more than offset age, imprisonment, and video.
The fact is — as even the CDC was forced to admit — that guns are used defensively as often as 1.2 million times a year. This short John Stossel piece gives a very down-and-dirty explanation for the fact that, while guns are a problem when they’re in criminal hands, they’re not a problem in the hands of law-abiding citizens (and, in America, most citizens are law-abiding or at least non-violent):
So what do you do if you desperately want gun control, but the data refuses to cooperate? Well, I can imagine Lucifer and his chief minion having a meeting that goes something like this:
The scene: A well-appointed office in Hell. Satan, in a snazzy red suit is seated behind a heavy oak desk. Standing in front of the desk, facing him, is Jezebeth, a pimply young demon, who’s one of his primary Earth operatives. The year: 2009.
Now that we’re the Banana Republic of America, I think it’s time for the #NeverTrump crowd to have a little “Come To Jesus” talk to determine whether they want Hillary the Untouchable, and her entire Leftist panoply of friends and goals, in the White House, or whether they’re willing to gamble on Trump, who at least gives lip service to a strong foreign policy that recognizes the problems with Islamists; supporting Israel; supporting the troops; supporting the Second Amendment; and supporting the pro-Life agenda.
This is not the time for holier (or “politically purer”) than thou. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is the time for imperfect emergency surgery to keep the patient alive, rather than an exquisitely rendered surgery while the patient bleeds out on the operating table.
And now on to the links:
No, Trump is not an antisemite. Trump’s Jewish son-in-law says stop listening to Leftist garbage — Trump is not an antisemite (or a racist) and he strongly supports Israel. Trump is being slimed by the Left and it behooves us to remember two things: First, the Left, from Marx to Hitler to Stalin and on forward to the present day, is the party of antisemitism in Europe and in America. Second, this sliming is coming from a presidential candidate who greatly admires Max Blumenthal, one of the most vile antisemites in America. The Left’s outrage is a con.
Online polls are, of course, totally unscientific because they don’t measure numbers, just passion. That is, the people who care most about the issue are the ones who bother to show up for an online poll.
As for me, I do love it when that passion favors my point of view, especially when the website running the poll is an avid opponent of my point of view. So it as that, as of now, MSNBC’s poll about open carry shows that 92% of respondents favor open care. If you’d like to add your voice, go here.