?From Peter Simms:
My open letter to Senator Ted Cruz:
Your endorsement- or whatever you’re calling it- will not motivate any significant number of people to vote for Trump.
If your supporters were the type that idolize a man enough to follow him above principal and conviction- they would already be Trump supporters. But the typical Cruz supporter, like me, believes in the ideals you stand for and the foundational documents of our faith and our Republic.
We didn’t support your platform because you so eloquently and passionately persuaded us; rather, we were thrilled to support you as someone who so courageously championed the ideals and policies we already believed in.
The most frightening thing about our culture today is the lack of strong voices standing up to the crushing tide of progressivism and Godlessness. It seems every day another traditional institution crumbles, another minister of the Gospel swallows heretical theology, and another elected official turns their back on their promises to serve the electorate.
For a brief time, you appeared as a shining beacon on a rock amid the flood of phonies and we rallied to your side- not as fawning groupies blindly following a political rockstar, but as kindred voices, thankful for a conductor who sings our song.
I don’t regret the hundreds of hours I spent working on your campaign, and I know you believe you are doing the right thing with today’s announcement. Your conscience is your own. But I am sorely disappointed in your decision to use your platform, provided to you by God-fearing conservatives and lovers of liberty to support an individual who foolishly rejects God’s forgiveness while actively incurring His wrath, and who loves only himself.
This public statement will, in my estimation, not result in any significant support for Trump from your supporters. Our consciences won’t allow it. It also won’t produce any meaningful crossover from the Trump camp to yours in 2020. Their pride won’t allow it.
By your own reasoning, you trust Trump to do what he’s said in regards to policy, nominations, and the like. It is precisely because he rarely if ever does what he says that we opposed his candidacy in the first place. (That, and he’s a scoundrel of epic proportion) Well-meaning conservatives funding and voting for feckless politicians who reverse course at the first whiff of power are the reason for Trump’s rise in the first place. Most of us recognize the sad irony in this of course, and we realize he isn’t trustworthy, and therefore deserves neither our support nor our vote. It was your eschewing this political norm that classified you as the true outsider in the race.
If you, Senator, like many other constitutional conservatives, decide to cast your one vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils, that’s a personal choice I won’t condemn. But to use your good name to encourage others to do the same casts a shadow on everything you and WE have been fighting for the last 18 months.
It is clear now that the Republican Party allies itself with the enemies of Liberty and Constitutional government. It is the current GOP that must be defeated if we are ever to have a true alternative to the left’s Marxist agenda.
Our movement needs men of integrity that stand on principle, defying the contemptible and the corrupt in Washington. We are still willing to stand with you, but not if you stand with them.
?Trump is not motivated by conservative principle. Neither is Hillary Clinton. Without that motivation, we are merely one rationality away from tyranny. For my money that’s a working definition of evil.
And the difference is that if Trump gets into office his failures will be blamed on conservatives and will have hell to pay trying to a conservative in the office again.
If you believe that we are capable of recovering from the damage that Obama has done, then we are certainly capable of recovering from anything that Hillary Clinton will impose on us. But we can’t recover it all without the conservative movement being strong and healthy.
With Trump it will die and with it the country.
Addendum. In response to some feedback ask yourself a serious question. The GOP has successfully buckled every time Obama wanted something. Do you really think that they’re going to stand up Trump when he tilts left?
Socialism is a great theory, if you can ignore the fact that it runs counter to human nature. The problem with socialism is that it simply does not work, from PJ Media:
Socialists argue that socialism is inherently better than capitalism in every way. They claim it’s more free (it’s not, by definition), it’s more fair (ditto), and it’s just the bestest best way to provide for everyone.
Well, in Episode 23,432 of the always popular, always predictable “Let’s Mess With the Supply/Demand Curve,” socialist Venezuela is now having to import American oil …
Hat tip: Ace of Spades.
I suggest that the concept of hate speech is generally put forward by people who can’t control the conversation by other more logical means
?So if advocating the removal of armed protection from presidential candidates is encouraging violence against said candidates, isn’t advocating the removal of guns from private hands of American citizens advocating violence against said citizenry?
The Clinton News Network is trying to whitewash Mrs. Clinton’s responsibility for starting and perpetuating the Birther movement, from CNN:
On Friday, the former Washington bureau chief for McClatchy, James Asher, tweeted that in 2008, Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal told him “in person” that Obama was born in Kenya. Blumenthal denied the claim to CNN’s Dan Merica, saying Trump “is the one who embraced and promoted the birther lie and bears the responsibility for it.”
CNN has attempted unsuccessfully to reach Asher for comment. He told his former employer, McClatchy, Friday that he met with Blumenthal in 2008, and that the newspaper chain dispatched a reporter to Kenya to investigate. Nothing came of it. He said there already had been stories published with the allegation before that meeting.
Some 2008 staffers told CNN that Blumenthal was not officially part of the Clinton campaign, and a CNN check of Federal Election Commission records shows no payment to Blumenthal from the campaign.
Balderdash. The Clinton Criminal Clan is Sidney Blumenthal long running meal ticket. He would not be spreading rumors about Mrs. Clinton’s primary obstacle, with Mrs. Clinton’s explicit knowledge and approval. A man of limited talents such as Blumenthal simply will not risk alienating his meal ticket, from from Politico:
Yet Blumenthal’s financial and personal connections to the Clintons and their allies have emerged as subjects of intense scrutiny as Clinton seeks to gain momentum for her presidential campaign.
Blumenthal’s concurrent work for the foundation, the Brock groups and a pair of businesses seeking potentially lucrative contracts in Libya underscores the blurred lines between her State Department work and that of her family’s charitable and political enterprises.
Reminder to Mrs. Clinton, while you can put lipstick on a pig, but she is still a pig.
The Snark of the Day: Colin Powell.
“A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still d–kng bimbos at home (according to the NYP),”
Hat tip: New York Post.
Give the General one.
via, Stacy McCain:
[Mrs. B.J.] Clinton said Monday night she’s “met a high standard of transparency” about her health and didn’t think the pneumonia was “going to be that big a deal.”
Clinton said she felt dizzy and lost her balance Sunday, but did not lose consciousness, and is now “feeling so much better.”
“I was supposed to rest five days — that’s what they told me on Friday — and I didn’t follow that very wise advice,” Clinton told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in a phone interview.
So the best excuse the woman formerly known as the Smartest Woman in the World can muster is that she was too stupid to follow her doctor’s advise. Assuming, against all odds, that Mrs. Clinton is telling the truth this one time, what does say about her judgement. The mere fact that she impugns her own judgement, or lack thereof, is in of itself damming.
In the view of the elite media, the health, or lack thereof same, of Big Thigh, b/k/a Mrs. B.J. Clinton just went from wacko right wing conspiracy to legitimate campaign issue, from the WaPo:
Hillary Clinton falling ill Sunday morning at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days.
“Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen,” spokesman Nick Merrill said. “During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter’s apartment and is feeling much better.”
If you examine the linked video, you will see that Mrs. Clinton is being
assisted carried into her van before she does her face plant. This not a picture of a woman in good health. The media can no longer sell its lies about Big Thigh’s (rapidly) failing health.
If Big Thigh somehow gets elected and survives to January 20, she will not serve out the day as President, from the Twenty-Fifth Amendment:
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
The democrats have a history running dying candidates for President.
?Folks in all honesty, the issue is no longer whether or not Hillary Clinton will be president. The issue is whether or not Tim Kaine will be president.
And guess what? He came running at the top of the ticket wouldn’t be getting nearly the response that Hillary Clinton has.
I’ve been saying all along that Hillary Clinton would eventually eliminate herself in the process. That has all but proven correct. At this point it’s just a matter of time
Big Thigh, a/k/a Mrs. B.J. Clinton, has called some supporters of Little Finger, a/k/a Donald Trump deplorable. Who is Bill Clinton’s wife to call anybody deplorable. Mrs. Clinton is fervid defender of legal infanticide, abortion on demand, and staunch opponents of secure borders. Mrs. Clinton has devoted her time in public service protecting her sexual predator husband. She would rather let in unvetted Muslim immigrants than allow law abiding American to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
But Big Thigh’s passion is using public service to amass private wealth. Mrs. Clinton a person of modest abilities, and scant achievements, has an immodest lust for money. At least Little Donny gouged his money from the private sector. In contrast Mrs. Clinton has gotten rich feeding off the taxpayer’s money, for which she thinks she deserves a promotion.
Given that the green environmental
warriors wackos tell us their theory of, and prescription for, so-called anthropogentic global warming should be regarded as a fact because the science is settled, as a claimed 97% of scientists purported to believe in the theory
Therefore, Mrs. Clinton is too sick to serve as President, because the majority of responding physicians, from PR Newswire:
Hillary’s Health Concerns Serious, Say Most Doctors Polled by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 8, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health are “serious—could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.,” say nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20% said concerns were “likely overblown, but should be addressed as by full release of medical records.” Only 2.7% responded that they were “just a political attack; I have confidence in the letter from her physician and see no cause for concern.”
Does anybody dare to dispute the science?
Phyllis Schlafly the most important woman in American politics of the previous century has died at age ninety-two, from American Power:
Phyllis Schlafly, whose grass-roots campaigns against Communism, abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment galvanized conservatives for almost two generations and helped reshape American politics, died on Monday. She was 92.
In her time, Mrs. Schlafly was one of the most polarizing figures in American public life, a self-described housewife who displayed a moral ferocity reminiscent of the ax-wielding prohibitionist Carry Nation. Richard Viguerie, who masterminded the use of direct mail to finance right-wing causes, called her “the first lady of the conservative movement.”
Mrs. Schlafly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. By the time she got done the ERA was farther away from ratification than when she started.
The women running for President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief, is so incompetent that she would not be qualified to serve as junior level officer in the military. The woman has no clue on how to handle classified information and is too brain damaged as even remember being trained on it. I have not held a security clearance since 1989, yet I know more about handing and protecting classified information than does Mrs. Clinton, from Ashe Schow, Observer:
This woman, touted by many in the media and by Democratic politicians like President Barack Obama as the “most qualified” person to ever run for president, thought the “(C)” on her emails—which denotes classified material—referred to… paragraphs marked in alphabetical order. Yes, this allegedly competent woman thought people put paragraphs in alphabetical order and that, for some reason, only the third—or “C”—paragraph needed to be marked.
Clinton also couldn’t give the FBI “an example of how classification of a document was determined,” according to FBI notes. She said she didn’t remember “receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system.” Oh, and she also could not recall receiving training on how to treat classified material.
I doubt that a single McDonald’s franchisee holder would be willing to hire any person as incompetent as Mrs. Clinton to manage on of their restaurants. Would you?
?Billy Beck points up a quote last week…
“In my lifetime, we will see pedophiles protected by law, likely under the Americans With Disabilities Act.”
(Karen DeCoster Campbell)
Says Billy; ” do you doubt it?”
I don’t for several reasons. I’d like to get into a few of them here but first let’s look closely at the historical trend on this kind of thing.
I respond with a quote of my own to Billy.
“We have all had a moment when all of a sudden we looked around and thought: The world is changing, I am seeing it change. This is for me the moment when the new America began: I was at a graduation ceremony at a public high school in New Jersey. It was 1971 or 1972. One by one a stream of black-robed students walked across the stage and received their diplomas. And a pretty young girl with red hair, big under her graduation gown, walked up to receive hers. The auditorium stood up and applauded. I looked at my sister: “She’s going to have a baby.”
The girl was eight months pregnant and had the courage to go through with her pregnancy and take her finals and finish school despite society’s disapproval.
But: Society wasn’t disapproving. It was applauding. Applause is a right and generous response for a young girl with grit and heart. And yet, in the sound of that applause I heard a wall falling, a thousand-year wall, a wall of sanctions that said: We as a society do not approve of teenaged unwed motherhood because it is not good for the child, not good for the mother and not good for us.
The old America had a delicate sense of the difference between the general (“We disapprove”) and the particular (Let’s go help her”). We had the moral self-confidence to sustain the paradox, to sustain the distance between “official” disapproval and “unofficial” succor. The old America would not have applauded the girl in the big graduation gown, but some of its individuals would have helped her not only materially but with some measure of emotional support. We don’t so much anymore. For all our tolerance and talk we don’t show much love to what used to be called girls in trouble. As we’ve gotten more open-minded we’ve gotten more closed-hearted.
Message to society: What you applaud, you encourage. And: Watch out what you celebrate.”
The upshot here is this….
As a matter of political discussion and as a matter of trying to find our bearings, we ask ourselves ” At what point did things get out of control?”
Most certainly the answer to that question is not the most recent societal change, the most recent time when we gave up our values our principles, Who We Are.
It is however the first time. Long ago.
And we, some of us, laughed at those who in that long ago time, warned us that this would happen…. that it would steamroll out of control and ruin us in the process.
I dare to suggest you that one of the reasons that we’ve failed so miserably in keeping our definitions of what is wrong, is that we have failed so miserably in keeping our definitions of what is right. And why?
It’s difficult to stand up for what is right… Facing ridicule from those that are wrong. We don’t want to be seen as out of touch or cruel are old fashioned mean, or what have you.
In letting that happen, we let evil in.
It’s now to the point where there is no act, no behavior, that you can’t find some politician, or some professor somewhere to trot out and defend that behavior and say with great passion that the behavior, however vile or criminal and anti societal is perfectly normal and that we shouldn’t judge the people that do it because it’s perfectly normal. One example.
But, where did this come from?
Consider G K Chesterton…
But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself.
He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.
As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.’ (G.K. Chesterton,Orthodoxy, 1909)
Now, of course Chesterton is talking about the Russian Revolution.. but look closely and you’ll see many Americans doing precisely what he describes here, and unsurprisingly, many of them for the same reasons.
Now, ask yourself will Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump even make a dent in this problem? Because frankly, that’s the biggest problem we face.