I posted the following in response to discussion on Facebook about this essay.

    Dear Mr. X,

    Thanks for the feedback. As I said in my piece, reasonable minds can differ on whether Trump is fit for the office. He wasn’t my choice in 2016, and while I haven’t made up my mind for 2020, I would consider a defensive vote for Trump just to keep the current crop of socialists in the DEM party out of power.

    Consider this: Trump with a 2nd term, and the DEM party still gunning for him, will owe his continued occupancy in the WH to the GOP. Perhaps they can impose some discipline. It’s not a great plan, but the DEMs are advocating policies that lead to genocide in the 20th Century. So what’s the alternative?

    If you are upset that Trump is making some coin on being POTUS, then are you equally outraged that Obama entered office with a net worth less than $1M, but is now worth over $100M? I haven’t seen the evidence that Trump is personally profiting from being POTUS. Have you? Or are you surmising? What if the G7 summit results in him breaking even and the U.S. Govt actually saves money?

    But if you are correct and during his increasingly likely 2nd term, it is uncovered that he did personally profit, then impeach and remove him. Fine by me. I can live with a President Mike Pence.

    I don’t expect you to respect Trump. I’m not sure I respect him. But I can, and must respect the process that put him in power and I can’t agree to short-cuts to remove him. The rule book is the rule book for everyone. Why is the “impeachment inquiry” being conducted in secrecy? Since when does America condone Star Chambers?

    As for your claim that the environment, education system and international relations are ruined, let me take those one at a time.

    1.) Please cite the constitutional text that empowers COTUS or POTUS to regulate the environment? Shouldn’t that be an interior local matter regulated by state and local government? Instead of asking if Trump is mismanaging the environment, perhaps we should be asking why any POTUS is given that power.

    2.) Education? This is even more attenuated than the environment. The founders would categorically reject any and all tampering with such a sensitive subject by the national government. There is no constitutional mandate for involvement in this sphere. If the national government is one of limited and enumerated powers, where is this power to teach found in our national charter? Please cite article, section and clause, or amendment if one got passed that I overlooked.

    3.) International relations. You got me there. I haven’t approved of America’s foreign policy since approximately 1948. But I will concede I’m in the minority there. If the U.S. is to have client states like S. Korea, or the Philippines, or Taiwan, or Israel — then they should be offered statehood. Otherwise, they should fend for themselves.

    My politics are closest to Rand Paul and Mike Lee if you need currently elected politicians as an example.

    But I also respect your opinions and acknowledge that Trump is a polarizing figure. But given the growth in the size and scope of government documented in my piece, perhaps we need our politics shaken up a bit because we are headed for insolvency and a police state if we don’t change course.

    My two cents.


      The left’s demand for Nazis (for The Two Minutes Hate) outstrips the supply… so some must be invented…


        So it seems that two white guys (apparently UConn students) shouted what has come to be called the “N-word” while walking through a deserted off-campus parking lot. There was no violence, no confrontation, and nobody else involved, and without a video that someone took through a window overlooking the parking lot, that would have been the end of it.

        There is no law against “hate speech” in this context. Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, the state law criminalizing “hate speech” would be unconstitutional.

        But the left’s goal is to overturn Supreme Court precedents and get the courts to discover a new previously unsuspected constitutional right not to be offended, which would allow “hate speech” laws to be upheld as a-OK. (If it worked for abortion…)

        Once this principle is established, “hate speech” laws will be invoked against white Christian deplorable gun-owning bitter clingers, mostly men.

        They will not be invoked against the left’s political allies. NYT #MediaJackal Sarah Jeong’s anti-white tweets clearly violated this state “hate speech” law. Was Sarah Jeong arrested and prosecuted when she visited Connecticut this year? Of course not.

        “Hate speech” laws are the First Amendment equivalent of “red flag” laws when it comes to the the Second Amendment. Both will be used against people the left hates.


          Excerpts from this article:

          Younger, the biological father and an Orthodox Christian, is morally convicted that this is all wrong and is also concerned about the possible side effects of the hormone treatments his ex-wife plans to introduce to his son, which include lifelong infertility from chemical castration. He says that when James is with him, he identifies as a boy and “violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home.” But he lost his case. As a result of the jury’s decision, Younger will likely be forced to take a class on transgenderism to correct his wrongthink.

          Government should not be interfering with Younger’s attempts to stop this injustice. It should intervene on his behalf to protect James by stopping child gender “transitions” entirely.

          Why does Texas not have a state law preventing irreversible chemical castration of minors, especially when there is sworn testimony that the child appears not to want it, and at the very least only one parent is pushing for it?

          If this castration can happen in the supposedly conservative state of Texas, it can happen anywhere. If the Texas legislature fails to enact such a law at the next available opportunity, we should draw our own conclusions about the fate of the state (and perhaps the rest of the nation).


            The occasional anti-Trump snarking in the linked article notwithstanding, its core point seems to me to be correct:

            Washington never seriously grappled with how to leave Syria in a way that satisfied Trump and maximized U.S. interests…. key American officials proceeded as if the president’s oft-stated preferences were not relevant… attempted to ignore Trump’s stated aims…

            This is not a new phenomenon. The Deep State pursues its own agenda no matter who happens to be in the White House. Here “key American officials” refers to the Deep State. The difference today is that President Trump has made the machinations of the Deep State more visible.

            Anti-Trumpers were happy to applaud the Deep State when it undermined the president’s Iran policy (which even Sen. Cruz noticed). Or work against the border wall. Or get him impeached. Now the Deep State screwed up the Syria withdrawal, to the benefit of America’s foreign policy rivals.

            The question is whether the Deep State will ever be held accountable for its anti-constitutional activities. If the answer is “no,” we know who really runs the country.


              Two more points:

              1. Facebook has a habit of censoring conservatives. It is true that it is not as bad as Twitter, so we can give Zuck some credit for this. But “not as bad as Twitter” is a pretty low standard.

              2. It’s interesting that the WSJ editorial board never mentions other possible laws to remedy the problem, like this proposal:

              The “principle” that we can’t tell a private business who it must do business with is no principle at all. We accept that discrimination can be curbed, leaving only a debate over what kind of discrimination should be curbed…

              So, why not bar political discrimination in social media, internet infrastructure (like search engines) and in business in general? We correctly bar racial discrimination because it is unJudeo-Christian and unAmerican to create a caste of second-class citizens by denying some people the ability to equally participate in society. The political discrimination we see today bars citizens from full participation in society and in their own governance. A citizen who cannot express his ideas is crippled; a citizen who loses a bank account or can’t buy a gun to protect his family because some software maker doesn’t like the idea of peasants having pitchforks is no longer a citizen but a serf. Why should conservatives allow themselves to be morphed into second class citizens? Isn’t our liberty enough of an interest to warrant government protection?

              If the WSJ editorial board wants to argue for no non-discrimination laws, then their position would be libertarian and free market and consistent. But if the government is to enforce non-discrimination through force of law, which the WSJ agrees is a good idea, when why not apply that principle more broadly and justly? Even if it offends Zuck?


                Excerpt from this editorial:

                Mr. Zuckerberg is making what seems to be a good-faith attempt to support free speech while defending Facebook’s business model, and the company must now deliver on his vision. With even the U.S. Supreme Court under attack from the left, creating a “Facebook Supreme Court” for free speech that commands public confidence will be no easy task.

                I think the editorial board has abandoned its usual skepticism of self-serving claims made by powerful CEOs. There is a long list of deplatforming actions by Facebook that is inconsistent with “a good-faith attempt to support free speech.” Why was Illinois Gun Owners Together axed? Why was a pro-Trump page with 3 million fans deleted? And so on. These are not the actions of a CEO making a “good-faith attempt to support free speech.”

                Looks like Zuckerberg’s private dinners with conservatives are paying off. Instead of asking pointed questions, the leading conservative newspaper’s editorial page is now defending Facebook instead. Maybe the catering and wine at those dinners were really good.


                  Tonight’s agenda:


                  “Consideration of a resolution declaring support of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution”

                  Good for Sevier County. I’ll make a point of visiting when I’m in the area–time to visit the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

                  The great news is that Sevier County is part of a growing trend of sanctuary cities and counties. The good kind, not the other kind.

                  This won’t make much of a difference under a President Trump. But if a President Warren/Harris/Clinton/etc. signs an anti-constitutional gun confiscation order, well, the Feds have been warned.


                    The site now says:

                    This site is under maintenance and will be up shortly with all new mapping of recent Trump Donors.

                    In reality these data are publicly available. Just go here, for instance, to see Trump donors in the Belly of the Swamp Beast itself, zip 20001: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?committee_id=C00580100&contributor_zip=20001&two_year_transaction_period=2020&min_date=01%2F01%2F2019&max_date=12%2F31%2F2020

                    But the government being the government, it doesn’t produce the nice map overlay. And more importantly it doesn’t take the next step of calling every single solitary Trump donor a “racist.”

                    First we were called bitter clingers. Then we were called deplorables. Now we’re called racists. And racists have no place in polite society–they’re worse than ax murderers, who at least can redeem themselves by taking lots of goodthink reeducation extra-diverse anti-racism classes in prison. Racists can never be redeemed.

                    Race-blind Normals are getting woke to what the left really wants to do to them.

                    1. 1

                      Zerohedge links to this Reuters article:


                      Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democrats (CDU), Merkel said allowing people of different cultural backgrounds to live side by side without integrating had not worked in a country that is home to some four million Muslims.

                      “This (multicultural) approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, south of Berlin.

                      Merkel faces pressure from within her CDU to take a tougher line on immigrants who don’t show a willingness to adapt to German society and her comments appeared intended to pacify her critics.

                      It is one thing for Merkel to express some misgivings to save her political fortunes. It is another thing to change the law to end immigration until the flood of arrivals can be assimilated. Or change the law to send as many of the refugees as possible (the ones with no right to stay permanently in Europe) back home.

                      It is unlikely that Merkel will do either of those things.

                      Merkel had plenty of warning. Even back in 2015, a majority of Germans said they were scared or alarmed about the refugee influx, according to a Der Spiegel article at the time.

                      Hungary’s Nobel Prize-winning writer, the late Imre Kertész, wrote in 2014: “Muslims are flooding Europe to later conquer, or, in other terms, destroy it; about how Europe manages all this, on suicidal liberalism and brainless democracy; democracy and suffrage for chimpanzees. This is always what it concludes to: the civilisation arrives at an overbred condition in which it is not only unable but also unwilling to protect itself; when, seemingly mindlessly, it worships its own enemies…”

                      Sadly, it seems to be too late for Germany to set a different course. At least it can serve as an instructive example for the rest of the world.

                      1. 1

                        Thanks for the link. That was a good speech.

                        If you don’t have time for the whole thing (about an hour), here’s:


                        “I worry about the preservation of the republic…”

                        And on how this is not a political divide, won’t be resolved in an election, gap between two cultures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5rmMTS2elE&feature=youtu.be&t=1510

                        1. 1


                          Why are these would-be tyrants calling for the repeal of an already much-gutted Second Amendment? Because we’ve been nice. We’ve played “fair.” We’ve compromised. We’ve accepted so much of the progressive/socialist/communist agenda that the statists are salivating at the prospect of using any excuse, any tragedy, to take what’s left of our freedoms and turn us into slaves.


                          Don’t allow the United States of America to descend into another failed communist experiment. Far too many have already died, far too many still suffer under its yoke, all over the world.

                          We remain the last bastion of freedom and liberty on this Earth.

                          Don’t surrender our freedoms.

                          Refugees from former Communist regimes can be the best advocates for owning guns and preventing a tyrannical government from developing. They know the stakes.

                          Leftist disarmament enthusiasts (but I repeat myself) would do themselves a service if they read and understood essays like this one. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen. Things will continue to get worse.

                          1. 1

                            My first instinct was to feel sorry for these poor (figuratively and in some cases literally) freelance writers covering Hollywood. Their careers are in danger thanks to the “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” leftist Dems in Sacramento.

                            But then I remembered these freelancers are #MediaJackals. The first freelancer mentioned in the article writes articles for Yahoo listing “offensive” Halloween costumes including a border wall, arguing that there is an “environment of increasing political intolerance towards immigrants,” denouncing “fat shaming,” saying men should “stop acting like sexual predators,” and complaining about legal hunting. Another article accused President Trump of using Twitter to “manipulate and distract” Americans. And the Want To Be a Better Man? Get Into Therapy article must be real persuasive.

                            Days are short. There’s not much time to feel sorry for leftists screwed over by their fellow leftists.

                            1. 1

                              The text of Idaho Statute 18-3302J says that “no…city…may adopt or enforce any law…which regulates in any manner the sale…[or]…carrying…of firearms.”

                              Sandpoint could have accepted this as the law of the land and worked toward a way to protect festival attendees’ rights to defend themselves. They did not. They chose to spend taxpayer dollars on a lawyer to fight against gun rights. It invites speculation that city officials are more interested in revenue associated with the festival than in doing what’s right.

                              As a result of this bit of blinkered idiocy on the part of Sandpoint city officials, the entire festival staff has quit and it may not happen in 2020: https://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/local_news/20191010/festival_at_sandpoint_staff_resigns

                              Meanwhile the county (which is pro-2A rights) is starting to come up with a backup plan for the festival: https://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/local_news/20191016/county_forms_music_festival_panel

                              1. 1

                                If the video is any indication, the Phoenix police department did not want to arrest this abortion doctor. They were looking for excuses to avoid the hassle. They were looking for reasons to accept his risible “gun? what gun?” claim at face value. Perhaps it is easier to arrest drug dealers than a medical doctor who can afford a good attorney and put up a fight.

                                The date on which the abortionist allegedly pulled a handgun on a pro-life minister was October 10. For eight days, according to the video, the police (including an officer and supervisor) refused to arrest the abortionist. Then pro-life advocates posted the above video on YouTube. Four hours later the abortionist was arrested.

                                The police did not appear to be interested in justice. They were not interested in righting a wrong. They were interested in not looking like complete idiots on YouTube. The lesson here is to record and post everything.

                                1. 1

                                  The brief: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.124.0_1.pdf

                                  I would be wary of reading too much into a defense brief. And it seems that a lot of the linked article could be fairly characterized as wishful thinking about what may be on these BlackBerry devices.

                                  That said, I am mildly optimistic about William Barr’s tenure at DOJ. The Deep State has not won, completely, yet.

                                  1. 2


                                      1. 2

                                        “AB 5’s vague language prevents even the closest observers from understanding the full effects the law will have come Jan. 1.”

                                        …..which is one of the the m.o.’s of typical Democrats (a.k.a. Totalitarians): Follow our thoroughly unclear orders to the letter, or else.

                                        1. 1

                                          The article is correct. But it is incomplete.

                                          The only substantive criticisms the author levies regarding California are rent control, regulation count, and gig economy limits. He is right on all three. But there is so much, much more to say. Here’s a start.