In the past couple of weeks, two superb essays came out castigating conservatives who are going to do anything but vote for Donald Trump, whether that means voting for Hillary, Johnson (a closet Democrat who’s been Hillary’s echo chamber), or what’s his name the Mormon. For me, the bottom line is that Hillary will absolutely most certainly totally be a president who cements Obama’s legacy, whether it’s executive overreach, hard-Left legislation from the Supreme Court, an open border ensuring permanent Leftist domination at the polls, crony capitalism, or America’s dhimmitude before Islam.
I tend to submit my name to various political campaigns, both Republican and Democrat, so that I can see their emails. Most of the emails are open begs for money, and they are predicated on fear — the other side is winning, we’re cornered, we need your help. As Scott Adams points out, fear is a very good motivator and Hillary, especially, likes to use it. The problem with fear is that one eventually gets inured to it. For example, if you read diaries from people who experienced the bombing campaigns in either London or Berlin, what you see is a gradual transition from blind panic to something akin to zen resignation. Eventually racing to bomb shelters just doesn’t seem worth it. All you can do is hope that the next bomb isn’t meant for you.
In terms of Hillary’s fear campaign, I don’t think that her most devout, ideological followers are going get inured to her warnings that Trump is a mad man. I do think, though, that they’ll cease to remain enthused for her. At a certain point, they’ll say in a robotic monotone, “Yeah, he’s crazy and I’m going to vote for Hillary, but I really don’t like Hillary very much. . . .” That is, fearing Trump doesn’t transform into liking Hillary and, to the extent voter enthusiasm matters, this isn’t a good thing.
Going back to the Scott Adams link above, Adams says that Trump had a very good week. He did three smart things: He gave calm, normal speeches; the calm, normal speeches contained core truths that most Americans (even loosey-goosey Lefties, if they’re honest with themselves) recognize as true; and he hired very media savvy campaign advisors — and this is true even if Ben Shapiro is correct in his claim that Stephen Bannon is the demonic Mephistopheles to Trump’s Faust.
I don’t particularly like a friend one of the Little Bookworms has, although I feel quite sorry for the young woman. She’s in her late teens, with staggeringly low self-esteem that she buries by indulging in drugs, alcohol, and gender fluid sexual engagements. I don’t worry, though, that she’ll be a bad influence on my child who has – thank goodness – a solid moral core that resists this type of depressing debauchery. In any event, my child is a legal adult and can consort with whomever she likes.
The reason I mention this unhappy young woman is that my Little Bookworm met the young woman’s latest boyfriend. Of that young man, my Little Bookworm had this to say: “He’s a really interesting guy in his early 20s. He’s a total straight arrow. He doesn’t drink, smoke, or do drugs.”
I asked the logical question: “What’s he doing with your friend then?”
The answer surprised me. “He’s a drug dealer.”
Well! I immediately told Little Bookworm that, while I have no legal control over her social life, she would do well never to socialize with either the friend or the boyfriend again. I reminded my children ad nauseum when they were growing up that San Quentin (which we can see from our home, so it’s a very real place to them) is filled with prisoners whose primary mistake was to have the wrong friends. If the boyfriend gets arrested while my Little Bookworm is in the same apartment he is, Little Bookworm will find herself in an adjoining jail cell.
Having delivered myself of this practical advice, I begin to think about the difference between apparently moral trappings and genuinely moral conduct. After all, other than the small problem of drug dealing, the boyfriend sounds great – clean cut and clean-living. The package looks good, but the core is rotten.
Looking back in time, we all know about that famous dog-loving, non-smoking, teetotaling vegetarian who sent six million Jews to the gas chamber and started a war that claimed 40 million or so lives within just six years. Hitler, like the boyfriend, was a mass of objectively virtuous behaviors that hid another rotten core.
The opposite can be true too. That is, there are people whose lives appear superficially vice-ridden, but who nevertheless have a strong moral compass. Take Winston Churchill, who was in so many ways Hitler’s opposite during WWII.
Churchill was undoubtedly an alcoholic. He showed exceptionally bad judgment during WWI, leading to the Gallipoli disaster. Many have credibly accused him during WWII of promoting plans that led to unnecessary loss of life, whether of his own troops or German civilians. In addition to loving his wife, mother, and daughters, he had a strain of misogyny that revealed itself in some of his most brutally memorable insults to women who got under his skin.
Despite all those behavioral problems, Churchill had a rock-solid inner morality, one that allowed him immediately to take Hitler’s measure and to be a sure compass during the dark, dark days of WWII. He was Hitler’s light-filled antithesis.
We grow them like that at home too – people whose external behavior is at odds with their true moral (or immoral or amoral) center. Jimmy Carter is Southern Baptist who has always lived a life of traditional rectitude – he is a committed husband, a devout church-goer, and someone who regularly donates his time and energy to building housing for the poor.
I should admire Carter, but I don’t. I loathe him because that pious mantel is wrapped around a man who is a committed anti-Semite, one who routinely sides with the debauched death cult that is Hamas and its followers, a group of people who seek Jewish genocide, murder homosexuals and Christians, suppress women, and use children as shields for their children. No matter how conventionally pretty Carter’s little acts of selflessness, he is (to my mind, at least) a fundamentally bad man.
And of course there are the Clintons. What can we say about the Clintons? Hillary has been married to only one man (although he did allegedly tell an adulterous girlfriend that she cheated on him constantly . . . with women). She’s stood by her man through thick and thin, which seems like the act of a solid, faithful spouse. Still, one cannot help but suspect that her decision to stick it out was driven, not by a commitment to her marriage vows, but by her understanding that she would need someone whose charisma could pole vault her from one job for which she was unqualified and in which she did badly to another job for which she was unqualified and in which she did badly, a pattern that Hillary planned (and plans) to repeat right up until she sits behind the desk in the Oval Office.
To those of us who don’t respect Hillary, the fact that she’s held positions of importance (in all of which she’s conducted herself badly) or that she pays lip service to every Leftist political shibboleth of days past and present does nothing to hide her toxic soul: Hillary is a compulsive liar, a user, a shamefully unindicted felon, and a person motivated by a greed so deep and pure that many of us cannot even begin to contemplate what drives her from one act of crime and corruption to another.
You’d think that after having grubbed in $150,000,000 over a sixteen-year period, Hillary’s greed would be satiated and she’d lie low, but she can’t. Hillary is compulsively greedy and dishonest, a manifest fact that shocks those who believe core morality matters and a fact that, even more shockingly, couldn’t matter less to the legions of Leftists who will do anything to get her into the White House.
Bill is in a class by himself too. He’s such a charming, compassionate man, who really does seem to feel everyone’s pain. A more naturally gifted politician it’s hard to imagine. While I suspect most Americans would cringe at the thought of having Hillary seated next to them at a dinner party, I’m pretty sure most Americans, even those who hate the Clintons – both their politics and their corruption – would have a good time if they ended up with Bill as their dinner partner.
These superficial virtues, though, cannot should never allow us to forget that Bill is almost certainly a rapist, he’s definitely guilty of sexual assault short of rape, he’s a workplace harasser, he’s best buddies with a pedophile, he’s a perjurer and, like his wife, he will do absolutely anything, including selling out his own country, to fill his coffers. His soul is black. But there’s that charm. . . .
As they do with Hillary, the Left so desperately wants to ignore that black soul and forgive Bill his sins, never mind that he has no interest in forgiveness. It’s that need to pin atonement upon him, when he hasn’t really atoned at all, that resulted in one of the most perverse posts I’ve ever seen at the Wonkette blog, home to a hardy, and somewhat . . . um . . . intellectually esoteric collection of rabidly Leftist feminists.
A Leftist named Rebecca Schoenkopf gamely, and rather admirably, decided to tackle head-on an interview that Katie J. M. Baker did for Buzzfeed with Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who has claimed for almost forty years that Bill Clinton raped her.
The interview is a good one and deserves to be read. Broaddrick has never changed her core story in the 38 years since she alleges that Bill trapped her in a hotel room and raped her. Moreover, she’s mostly kept out of the limelight, so she cannot be accused of having made a profitable or high-profile career out of slandering Bill Clinton. Indeed, she might have stayed quiet still were it not for Hillary’s “feminist” insistence that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”
For the 73-year-old Broaddrick, whom Hillary did everything possible to silence and discredit, these assertions were a bridge too far. Suddenly, on Twitter, she started speaking out. “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.”
Broaddrick comes across as a credible woman who was used badly by both Bill and Hillary and who never got the justice she deserved. But I want to return to Ms. Schoenkopf who, having read the interview, felt compelled to address it.
To her great credit, Schoenkopf has to concede that Broaddrick’s story is credible. To those who challenge Broaddrick, whether because her story has become more detailed over the years or because she speaks with right-wing organizations, Schoenkopf points out that (a) rape survivor’s do that as they grapple with the event and (b) Broaddrick hates Hillary so she’ll naturally be drawn to those who support her as she speaks out against Hillary. Schoenkopf notes that, once one addresses these points:
that’s pretty much all the “I don’t believe Juanita” crowd has. Her friends found her with bruised lips, crying, right after the rape allegedly occurred. That’s what we call “contemporaneous evidence” when we believe women.
Once having accepted Broaddrick’s story as true, however, Schoenkopf seeks to rehabilitate Bill without any help from Bill himself. She first says that it was probably just an 80s power thing that had him respond to a woman’s repeated noes by assaulting her so badly she was left bruised and bleeding.
I lived through the 1980’s in America. They were not like the 880’s in the Muslim Caliphate nor are they like the 2016’s in any ISIS-controlled region. Even back in those benighted times 35 years ago, men understood that trapping an unwilling woman in a room and using brute physical force as a way to have intercourse with her was a criminal act, no just macho posturing.
Bad as that bit of historical rewrite is, the worst thing Schoenkopf does it try to cleanse Bill’s criminal, blackened soul without demanding that he make any effort himself in that direction:
To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.
Sorry, but stopping committing crimes is not good enough. There’s no indication that he stopped because of conscience. There’s every indication that he stopped only because the higher his profile, the harder it became to get away with rape and other forms of sexual assault. In addition, the higher his profile, the easier it was to get women to bed him without his having to make any effort. He has no remorse. He has never repented.
Bill – charming, brilliant, even lovable – is a rotten apple who can be forgiven only if one re-writes entirely the definition of remorse and repentance so that those concepts have nothing to do with the actor’s soul and everything to do with his sycophants’ desire to resurrect his credibility.
The last joker in this deck of presidents and president wannabes is Donald Trump? It’s actually hard to get a grip on Trump’s behavior because of the foul miasma that the drive-by media has created around him. After a youth and midlife spent womanizing (but not raping), he seems to have settled down to marital fidelity. He’s also temperate in his behaviors, because he doesn’t smoke nor drink, and apparently has never done so. One could characterize him as an older man who, having sown his wild womanizing oats, has settled down and has the external morals of an elder statesman.
The Left, however, cannot accept a temperate, normal Donald Trump. The fever swamp that passes for a media today insists that (a) he’s an amphetamine addict and (b) that he’s a NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) devotee. The last is especially funny because this is put forward as the reason he’s hiding his tax returns – as if an internationally known businessman would place front and center in his returns a charitable write-off to a pedophile organization.
The media derides Trump as a monster who tries to boot old ladies out of their homes, while his supporters (many of whom have known him personally for decades) characterize him as a generous, spontaneous, compassionate man who doesn’t hesitate a moment to help out people in need. He’s either a corrupt, inept businessman who’s sued constantly, or a pragmatic man who takes minimal risks, turns real profits, and has a knack for cutting through the red tape and getting the job done. He’s a bully or a warrior. He’s a genius or a fool.
The real question, though, is whether any of the above tell us about the real Trump, the man beneath the weird hair, the crazy outbursts, the crude attacks, the savvy business deals, the generous charitable contributions, the teetotaling (and tweaking?). I don’t think so. Everything I’ve described is window-dressing, none of which is an insight into the man’s soul.
I do have some hope, though, that Trump is one of the good guys and that’s for a reason personal to me: Just as I immediately recognized Obama because he was identical in affect and behavior to a handful of malignant narcissists who have been in my life and made me quite unhappy, Trump reminds me strongly of a dear friend.
Trump and my friend have so many traits in common: quirky, original, often brilliant minds; explosive tempers; mountains of eccentricities; pit bull-like fighting instincts, that include the inability to walk away from an argument or insult; loyalty; and great charm. That’s my friend’s outer shell, just as it’s Trump’s outer shell.
With my friend, this shell is a difficult, prickly one, but the rewards of calling him a friend are tremendous. He has such a deep, strong moral core. You can rely on him for insights about difficult times and help during times of need. He knows what is right and what is wrong. For now, until proven otherwise, I’m going to hope that, once one wipes away the slime the media throws at Trump, he’ll be just like my friend: brilliant, difficult, brave, and truly worth the effort.
[It occurs to me that someone who ought to be included in this post is Oskar Schindler, a ne’er do well who had one of the strongests consciences to emerge in Nazi Germany.]
The Marx Brothers’ Horse Feathers came out in 1932. It’s not a very memorable movie except for that one classic tune:
I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I’m against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.
Your proposition may be good,
But let’s have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I’m against it.
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.
I’m opposed to it,
On general principle, I’m opposed to it.
[chorus] He’s opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he’s opposed to it!
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I’m against it.
And I’ve kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I’m against it!
For many Americans, this is a Groucho Marx election. Most Leftists don’t like Hillary and, indeed, Bernie supporters hate her, but they fear Trump even more. Most conservatives don’t like Trump, but they fear Hillary even more. I fall into the latter category. I’m doing my darndest to learn to like Trump, but it’s hard work. The one thing I know for certain is that, while Trump might be bad, Hillary will certainly be bad. At the end of the day, I’d rather bet on a worrying possibility than on a downright scary sure thing.
There is a sad running debate going on between the Left and Right in America today: Which party’s candidate is the biggest liar? Both Hillary and Trump appear to have, at best, only a passing acquaintance with honesty. For every article saying that Trump is a liar, there’s another article saying that Hillary is a liar — and both are correct. The only obvious difference between the articles is that the Trump articles get printed in media outlets with greater circulation than do the Hillary articles (which is, of course, a shame).
I did wonder, though, if there’s a more subtle difference between these two mendacious candidates than the fact that Trump’s lies are exposed to a wider audience. That is, do they tell different types of lies? I think there is a difference, although it may exist now only because Trump hasn’t had the career scope Hillary’s had when it comes to lying. Let me explain:
What the two candidates have in common is that both tell lies of self-aggrandizement. Donald Trump is staggeringly boastful while Hillary loves to buff her resume, whether she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (who gained fame after she was born) or landed under sniper fire in Bosnia (when all was peaceful at the airport).
The Hillary supporters amongst whom I live are thrilled to pieces with the report that 50 GOP “national security experts” have signed a letter calling Trump potentially “the most reckless president in American history.” I certainly understand their concern about putting reckless people in charge of America’s national security. Just think of all the damage a reckless person could do:
A reckless president could deny that radical Islamists are waging war against us and, as part and parcel of that denial, scrub Islam from all national security guidelines. Oh, wait! Both Hillary, during her State tenure, and Obama have already done that.
A reckless president could begin a war without Congress’s approval to kill a national leader who is no longer a threat to America’s interests, destabilizing the region so severely that it becomes a haven for the worst kind of anti-Western terrorists. Oh, silly me! Hillary and Obama have already done that too.
A reckless president could refuse to give proper security to consulates in dangerous regions and then, when danger appears, refuse to send aid and lie about everything after the fact, ending up with the selfish insistence that, once people are dead, it no longer makes a difference what she did. I’m talking to you, Hillary.
A reckless president could withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq without leaving a force behind to secure a hard-won victory, allowing Iraq to become completely destabilized and turning it into another haven for the worst kind of anti-Western terrorists. Oh! Don’t tell me — Obama and Hillary already did that, didn’t they?
A reckless president could invite tens of thousands of people from a Middle Eastern region rife with terrorism to enter the United States, despite acknowledging that America currently has no way to vet them for terrorist ties nor is it making any effort to fulfill the core government obligation of protecting against infectious diseases. I did it again, didn’t I? Obama already did that, didn’t he? And Hillary promises to continue that course of action, right?
Up until 2008, although the media was already reliably Leftist, it still kept up the pretense that it was objective. In every election year, it interspersed its cheerleading for the Democrat candidate and put-downs for the Republican candidate with occasional stories that praised the Republican with faint damns, and that damned the Democrat with faint praise. In that far distant time, journalists still spoke about reporting as if their profession required them to relay facts instead of spinning them.
Everything changed in 2008. With the first black Democrat candidate for president, the Leftist collective that is the American media felt that it had a moral imperative to ensure that Obama won. It began the righteous charge, therefore, by destroying Hillary during the primaries (clearly, a “first sort of black president” trumped a “first sort of woman president”).
Then, having performed that job, the media turned its collective wrath on McCain, even while singing endless paeans to the wonder that was Obama, the magic negro, the racial healer, the smartest person in every room, and the guy with the great crease in his pants. The media was so committed to its mission that it ignored entirely basic reporting obligations, such as determining whether Obama’s academic record supported his much-vaunted intellect; whether his professional career suggested a competent man; whether his Christian faith comported with core Christian doctrine or was just a weekly anti-American grievance gathering; and whether his associations throughout his life were of the type (anti-American, anti-semitic, anti-white, etc.) that might give ordinary voters some concern.
Indeed, rather than reporting on Obama, the media did the opposite: anyone who did good, old-fashioned legwork to learn more about the man who wanted to take the helm in America was a racist. If you wished to avoid that repellant label, you took Obama at face value, reserving your reportorial skills for destroying Sarah Palin (whose life, unlike Obama’s, was already an open book).
Once Obama became president, it was pretty obvious that the media had oversold him. He wasn’t a racial healer, he wasn’t the smartest man in the room, he wasn’t a competent manager, he wasn’t a committed Christian, and he was still palling around with anti-American activists, although his palling around now took him all over the world. He elevated Muslim and illegal immigrant concerns over American rights, was (and is) hostile to the Constitution, hated Israel, lied like a rug about Obamacare, and generally was at his best only when he was slow jammin’ on late night talk shows. Everything else . . . meh, not so much.
In 2012, the media did exactly what it had done in 2008. It reported positively on Obama, and negatively on every Republican during the primaries and on Mitt Romney after the primaries. However, possibly nervous about a wholesale repeat of its 2008 campaign for Obama, the media still practice a little bit of reportage that included damning Obama with faint praise, and praising Romney with faint damns. For the most part, though, the media made it clear which candidate it thought should win.
I mistakenly believed in 2012 that the American people, educated by the chasm between the Obama promise and the Obama practice, would have been put wise to the fact that they were not getting actual news (that is, “just the facts”) but were instead on the receiving end of a steady diet of Democrat-party campaign material. Given how bad things were for Democrat players and politics in 2012, I therefore assumed that a savvy public would understand the propaganda and vote Obama out of office. I erred.
While I may have erred in 2012, the media learned its lesson — it can say anything, and it can hide anything, and the uninformed will follow its lead . . . sometimes even as that same credulous public mumbles despairingly that the media is no longer publishing actual, you know, news.
Indeed, the relationship between the public and the media today reminds me of an old cartoon showing a man and a woman sitting at the breakfast table. The man has a newspaper open before him, and says to his wife, “It says here that you shouldn’t believe everything you read.” To which the wife quite naturally responds, “Don’t believe it.”
Of course, having sinned twice and been rewarded, the media is now sinning with over-the-top gusto. No more feeble attempts at even-handedness. Reporters are openly feeding at the Jon Stewart trough. There are no MSM stories about Trump’s success as a businessman, about the people loyal to and respectful of him, about the generous or moral stands he’s taken over the years, or about the fact that his business success shows that he’s actually rather risk-averse, rather than the opposite. Every news report first claims that everything he says is a lie, only to back off from those claims days later, in small print or lost links.
Instead, the media is in a shark-feeding frenzy, with Trump as the chum. Having propped him up during the primaries (“Let’s promote the most unelectable primary candidate for the Republican party”), reporters are going in for the kill. Moreover, they’re going in for the kill with shoddy, dishonest reporting, and they refuse to back down even when proven to have lied. For them, every story about Trump is a successful example of the “Big Lie.”
Meanwhile, when it comes to Hillary, the media is happy to let her vanish for 246 days. They’re happy to report her press releases as news. They’re happy to downplay the fact that she proved to be the greatest national security risk in American history. They’re happy to ignore the fact that she sold out America to fund herself and her husband. They ignore the lies, the physical problems, the mental weirdness, the corruption, the repeated job failures, and all the other stuff that should be on the front page of every paper along with the reporting on Trump.
You’ve notice, I’m sure, that I didn’t put any hyperlinks in the above narrative. Instead, I’m going to link here to a series of articles that prove my point:
The really sad bad news? Nobody is listening to conservative media except for those who have already bought into the conservative premise. The MSM owns American brains.
Matthew Vadum has an in-depth, well-sourced discussion of the points I made above.
No, Donald did not mock a disabled reporter; the media just spun it as if he did.
So-called journalists who should be reporting on Hillary are instead cheering for her (after lobbing meaningless softball questions at her).
Negative articles about Trump overflow every MSM outlet, while the negatives on Hillary don’t even make the bottom of the last page.
And don’t forget Pat Caddell’s scathing denunciation of Reuters for gaming the polls to promote Hillary.
Oh, and speaking of Reuters, both Reuters and Getty have almost surreptitiously published photos of Hillary practically being carried up some stairs. That is, the photos are uploaded on their sites, but they haven’t used them in any stories. Unfortunately, Drudge found them anyway:
There’s something very wrong with Hillary and Scott Adams is right to say that the American people should demand to see her health records (and Trump’s too, for that matter).
Honestly, I’m at the point where I’m going to vote for Trump just as an act of hostility to the American media.
Donald Trump is a successful businessman and a teetotaler who is undoubtedly bombastic and vulgar. None of those are traits of mental illness, either ideopathic or because of an injury, or of addiction. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been showing genuinely strange behaviors on the campaign trail — weird, extreme head and eye movements; uncontrolled laughter; uncontrolled coughing; a bizarrely long break during a debate; barking like a dog; and, of course, throughout her career, a continued lack of ordinary, human empathy. (And of course there’s the fact that she’s never accomplished anything concrete other than self-promotion, destroying a fairly stable ally in Qaddafi, and heartlessly presiding over and lying about the deaths of four Americans — but never mind, this post is about mental illness or brain damage/disease.)
The always-interesting Paul Joseph Watson spoke to several medical professionals and reported back some of their possible diagnoses for her strange behavior. Even if you don’t believe any of the diagnoses, it’s an interesting video and it leaves the distinct impression that something is wrong with Hillary and that those closest to her are working with the media to hide that problem from the American people:
During the primaries, I was a #NeverTrumper, because I preferred Ted Cruz’s more constitutionally pure political ideology. Unfortunately for me, Ted Cruz didn’t win the primary. The iconoclastic, highly eccentric, often bombastic, and really rather vulgar Donald Trump did.
What I did not do when Trump became the Republican candidate was go off in my cave and sulk because he will destroy the purity of the conservative movement. What I did, instead, was look at his political opponent and think “She cannot win. Our constitutional republic will no longer exist after another four years of a hardcore Leftist agenda; an agenda, moreover, that willfully denies that the West is engaged in an existential battle with nihilistic fundamentalist Islamism.” I’m no longer voting for a candidate, I’m voting for my country and, by extension, for the candidate who is least likely to do irreparable harm — i.e., Donald Trump.
The #NeverTrumpers, however, aren’t looking at the bigger picture, which is the battle for America’s soul between a statist vision that sees Americans as useful cogs in a brow-beaten, self-loathing socialist nation and an individualist vision in which Americans are still masters of their own destiny in a proud country with a constitutionally inclined Supreme Court, the right to bear arms, and a military committed to America’s protection. The #NeverTrumpers are so focused on ideological purity that nothing else matters to them. They will bow to the altar of purity even as America follows Venezuela to starvation and ruin (and that downfall, you will recall, happened with remarkable speed, clocking in at about ten years).
Not only do I not like what’s happening, I’ve seen this movie before and can tell you that it ends really badly. The movie, of course, is Bridge on the River Kwai. The rest of this post will be spoiler city. If you don’t mind that fact, continue reading. If you hope one day to see this epic movie and still be surprised by the ending, STOP READING RIGHT NOW.
For those who have forgotten or never known the plot of Bridge on the River Kwai, here’s a summary of the salient points:
The movie begins in 1943, in a Japanese prisoner of war camp in Burma run by the sadistic Colonel Saito. He announces to the prisoners that all of them, regardless of rank, will be working as slave labor constructing a railway bridge over the River Kwai that will connect Bangkok and Rangoon. (The movie is based upon the true story of the Burma Railway, built from 1942-1943, at the cost of 13,000 POW lives and the lives 80,000-100,000 men from all over the Malayan peninsula whom the Japanese dragooned into working on the bridge.)
The senior British officer, Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson, objects that this plan violates the Geneva Conventions and is promptly tortured for his efforts by being locked in a hot box in the blazing equatorial heat. At the same time, three prisoners attempt to escape, with only Commander Shears succeeding.
Despite the terrible treatment he’s receiving, Nicholson will not compromise. The other POWs, who are already working have on the bridge, do their best to sabotage the effort.
Eventually, however, for reasons unimportant to this narrative, Colonel Saito releases Nicholson from the hot box, and Nicholson finally gets to see the bridge in progress. Perhaps a little bit unhinged by his torture, Nicholson is appalled by the shoddy Japanese plan and decides that British pride demands that he and his men build a better bridge. Over his officers’ protests, he has POWs who are engineers design a better bridge, to be built on a better site, and then begins to supervise the POWs’ work in dead earnest.
Meanwhile, the escaped Commander Shears, whose back story is also irrelevant here, ends up as part of a secret, four-man commando team that has as its mission destroying the bridge. As was true with the actual Burma Railway, in the movie preventing the Japanese from having a stable, efficient supply line is absolutely necessary to help advance the Allied efforts in the Pacific theater.
Even as the British and Americans are plotting the bridge’s destruction, Nicholson is increasingly obsessed with its completion. In his mind, a perfect bridge will prove to the Japanese how superior the British are, never mind that it will help the Japanese win the war. He is so focused on this goal that he even convinces Colonel Saito to lend him Japanese labor to make the project go faster.
The movie’s dramatic finale begins when a drop in the water level exposes the wires that the commando team used to connect the explosives to the detonator. When Colonel Nicholson notices these wires, instead of keeping silent or otherwise aiding the commando team, he promptly notifies Colonel Saito. The Japanese immediately attack the British commando squad. Although Colonel Saito dies, so do three of the four members of the commando team. Only Commander Shears remains to try to detonate the explosives. Fatally wounded, he swims across the river, dying at Colonel Nicholson’s feet before he can trigger the explosives. Nicholson realizes that Shears is his former, escaped campmate.
Only at this moment, with three commandos dead, a fourth dying, and a train full of Japanese dignitaries heading for an inaugural ride across the beautiful bridge he built, does Nicholson suddenly become aware where his obsession has led. That results to the famous close-up of a horrified Nicholson saying “What have I done?”
This being a Hollywood movie, rather than real life, the movie doesn’t end with Nicholson watching the Japanese train travel successfully across the river, knowing that he handed the Japanese a victory in an epic showdown between civilization and tyranny. Instead, he gets hit by mortar fire and, mortally wounded, stumbles towards the detonator, collapsing on top of it in time to blow up both bridge and train.
The #NeverTrumpers, of course, are Colonel Nicholson. They’re going to prove to the world how wonderful they and their ideas are, never mind that their obsessive focus on ideological purity and their unwillingness to sully themselves by associating with a man as crude and unintellectual as Trump will hand victory to an ideology that will make it impossible for their ideology to function in America again for decades, at least. Moreover, because this is not a Hollywood movie, they cannot continue to be stubborn now, knowing that there’s going to be a satisfying ending with the #NeverTrumpers, on the morning of Tuesday, November 8, 2016, suddenly having their “What Have I Done?” moment and, with their dying breaths, destroying Hillary’s presidential campaign. No. The #NeverTrumpers need to have their “What Have I Done?” moment now if we are to prevent disaster.
And make no mistake: If Hillary wins, we are looking at an epic disaster. As Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, and other committed, principled, highly intelligent conservatives have realized, the time for ideological purity is over. In an existential situation, with a binary choice between bad and dead, morality demands that you choose bad.
President Hillary Clinton will:
- Turn the Supreme Court into an activist, hard-Left engine of permanent change;
- Narrow the First Amendment to the point of meaninglessness, giving government the final say over who gets free speech (and you can see what this will look like by visiting any college or university in America except for Hillsdale);
- Narrow the Second Amendment to the point of meaninglessness, giving government the absolute right to seize all privately held arms;
- Grant full amnesty and voting rights to all the illegal aliens already in America;
- Abandon any effort at controlling our Southern border;
- Continue to turn the American military into a vast social justice and climate change experiment;
- Continue to destroy the American economy by (a) funding crony-style climate change initiatives and (b) making it impossible for ordinary Americans to get affordable energy from clean coal, oil, and natural gas;
- Raise taxes to pay for her war against the climate;
- Deny the existence of Islamic fundamentalism, something exceptionally cruel, not only to non-Muslims killed by Islamists, but to those peaceful Muslims who need someone to partner with them to help bring about an Islamic reformation;
- Cultivate her close ties with rich, radical Islamists, aided by Huma Abedin (scion of the Muslim Brotherhood) and by all of her other long-standing Islamic funders;
- Turn her back on Israel, a nation she’s always approached with hostility, abandoning it to the Islamic/Arab savagery that surrounds it;
- Destroy the last remnants of a free market in America by tightening her cronyist connection to Wall Street and her regulatory control over businesses and individuals;
- Be exceptionally vulnerable to blackmail from all those nations that are sitting on her emails, both the 30,000 she destroyed, as well as the ones already in FBI hands; and
- Continue to divide America by focusing on victim groups in order to retain those groups’ fealty to the Democrat party.
Nothing Donald Trump does can or will be as bad. While Hillary, as the “first woman” president, will get full cooperation from all Democrats and all RINOS (which means most GOP Congress critters), Congress will rediscover the separation of powers when Donald is President, reining in his greater excesses. In addition, Donald has indicated that he will:
- Appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court;
- Look to conservatives for advice about his executive management;
- Control our out-of-control bureaucracy (and his management experience indicates that he can do this);
- Reinstate enforcement of America’s existing immigration laws and border policies;
- Maintain Americans’ right to keep and bear arms;
- Maintain Americans’ right to free speech;
- Continue to chip away at the mind-control that is political correctness;
- Stand by Israel;
- Acknowledge that we are at war with radical Islam and turn to the best minds to help us wage that war successfully; and
- Speak to all Americans, not just special-interest groups.
Trump will be an imperfect president, but all presidents are imperfect. Even Ronald Reagan, in his heyday, did stupid things or things that his supporters disliked. It is inconceivable, though, that Trump could ever be as destructive as Hillary most certainly will be.
Don’t be a #NeverTrumper. Don’t get so caught up in ideological purity that you forget that we’re fighting a real war of ideas with only one winner and one loser. Do not be Colonel Nicholson and focus so obsessively on your wonderfulness that you hand victory to the political enemy. This is war and we get once chance not to destroy America. Vote Trump, no matter how much you wish you didn’t have to.
As you all know, Trump was my last choice during the Republican primaries but by default he’s my first choice against Hillary. I’m not the only one who has had to work my way to making peace with the situation as it is, rather than as I wanted it to be.
Wayne Gruden has written an argument for concerned Christians explaining why Trump, despite being a deeply flawed candidate, is still to be preferred over Hillary. He even addresses the concern so many people have that Trump, once he’s elected, will suddenly cast off the Clark Kent glasses and announce that he’s really “Super Liberal.
I cannot recommend Gruden’s article highly enough. Even though it’s written for Christians, every voter who hates Hillary and Trump equally, but who really hates the authoritarian Progressive agenda needs to read it and learn that turning one’s back on Trump is not the answer. Here are a few excerpts:
One of the parts of Hillary’s early history that people find most repulsive is the fact that in 1975 she represented a child rapist, Thomas Alfred Taylor, so successfully that she got him off with only two months time served. This video gives some information about that case, including Hillary’s own words after the fact. After you watch the video, I have a few comments (and if the video doesn’t play, go here):
Trump is an unpleasant mixture of bullying, bombast, and boasting. I don’t like his style. But to those who are worried about his authoritarian streak, I’d like to point out that there’s only one candidate on the presidential ballot who has called for weakening both the First and Second Amendments — and that candidate isn’t Donald Trump. Indeed, unlike all tyrants everywhere, Trump supports an armed citizenry.
It may be because Trump’s too much of a damn fool or an egotist to believe Americans won’t love his version of heavy-handed authoritarianism (as opposed to anybody else’s), but the fact remains that he’s willing to let us stay armed . . . and Hillary is not. Moreover, once Hillary’s done packing the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment will be a thing of the past, with the First Amendment rapidly vanishing in the rearview mirror of American life.
Moreover, as I keep pointing out, while Democrats in Congress will do anything Hillary asks and Republicans will be as cowed by cries of “sexist” as they were by cries of “racist” during Obama’s presidency, when it comes to the Donald, Congress critters, both Democrat and Republican, will suddenly discover separation of powers, checks, and balances, and some spine.
Conservatives have a choice — They can gamble that they will be able to save some pure form of the Republican party or conservativism if they vote for Hillary or sit out the election, or they can gamble that they will be able to save some remnant of our Constitutional republic if they vote for Donald.
My take is that the first tactic is not a gamble at all: It’s a sure loser. Whether Donald wins or loses, the Republican party and traditional conservativism are dead. If you like, you can think of Trump as the zombie remnant of the Tea Party. The Tea Party was enthusiastic, polite, and committed to the Constitution. Progressives and Democrats naturally wanted to kill it. The real shocker, though, was the vengeful glee with which the GOP slashed, stabbed, maligned, undercut, and otherwise destroyed a truly grassroots movement.
The Tea Party is dead and buried, and Zombie Trump has risen in its place — coarse, powerful, and very effective at getting into the heads of both Democrats and Republicans alike. The GOP can never be resurrected, but perhaps we can raise up a stronger, purer form of conservativism in the place of that which the GOP destroyed.
And what about the gamble of voting on Trump? The way I see it, it’s anybody’s guess now whether Trump will be sufficiently conservative to leave some salvageable remnant of a constitutional America, or if he’s the Devil in disguise and will destroy it. Definitely a gamble. But Hillary’s a sure thing — she’ll destroy the country from Day 1, expanding government, packing the court, limiting speech, destroying the right to bear arms, flooding the country with immigrants who will quickly become Democrat voters, refusing to acknowledge the Islamic jihad directed against us, abandoning Israel to the wolves, and entering into grotesque cabals with anyone, foreign or domestic, who’s willing to pay her in cash.
Bottom line, I’d rather take a gamble to save my country, then pretend I’m preserving a party and ideology that have already committed suicide before our eyes.