Our Trumpian Moment



J.G.A. Pocock once wrote that the Machiavellian Moment was when we are at the cusp of a crisis, there needed to be someone of cunning to revive the idea of classical republicanism.  Pocock thinks this is possible.  Assuming he’s reading Machiavelli correctly, this is our moment.

The media is trying to swing the election who, in league with other fifth columnists, are running a narrative that is all about Trump’s alleged “vulgarity.”  It is almost as if they forgot that they once had an intense love affair with 50 Shades of Grey.  Back then, they loved Dominants, and Dominant men in particular. Only they appeared to forget that consent was the linchpin of it all.

But this is entirely beside the point, and the regime is at stake, for the larger issues as it pertains to Hillary Clinton, her fleecing the American public both for the Clinton Foundation, and while losing $6 billion as Secy. of State (where is the public’s money?), or vowing to keep the status quo in foreign policy, in the economy (did I mention she thinks the economy is really not that bad?).  We could go on, of course.

No matter the scandals and manufactured scandals about potty mouth presidents–like that’s never been a reality because no president would boast publicly he likes to have sex with girls(?) in his car–this election is about the regime.  We are at a moment, and it is a moment before the decline.  It is a moment before the beginning of the decline.  We are at Cataline.  But that is an opinion, my opinion, and an opinion meant to be stated as such because much of what passes as “news” these days is really propoganda.  Hillary is Cataline for she has for all intents and purposes trying to overthrow the United States for a common government that is borderless, while also doing so for her own gain, thus bypassing the consent of the governed (voter fraud anyone?  Most of the illegal activity is in favor of Clinton presently).  She also seeks to evade taxes and pocket foreign donations (Snopes by the way lied about this and focused on the strict use of words, the only time the Democrat organization has believed in strict construction, as Chris Plante–former CNN employee–has noted nearly every week on his show). ALL of her actions are an example of power over republicanism. Nothing Trump has said jeopardizes the Republic; everything Clinton has done puts us closer to the demise of it.

If it is true that we are at this moment, then it is up to Trump tonight to set things right, in speech, public speech, to persuade the public the stakes at hand.  Trump needs to perform like Cicero.  However, Trump is different.  He is the only one, as we have argued for over a year, that has the shamelessness to expose the Clintons in their endeavor.  Like Cicero he is nouveau riche.

We live in the modern world.  To suggest that we can wax piety over of the way people talk today–and they are more than the pious left or right–is a fantasy.  To persuade, Trump needs to appeal to the modern voter, and sink in the rhetorical dagger.


Trump and the Illiad’s ‘Hottest Girls’

Editorial Note:  This post is NSFW.  If we are going to have an honest discussion about sex and marriage in relation to Trump, then it needs to be done in full honesty.  So, for all the negative unmanly ninnies in the so called conservative movement (that means you National Review, the unimaginatively named Erick Erickson, this is your trigger warning, and the Weekly Standard, especially the presently gleeful Stephen F. Hayes).

Late last night we found out that Trump spoke in a private moment about a woman he lusted over when he was single, in 2005.  What did he say?  Well, this [unedited]:

I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.  I did try and fuck her. She was married.  And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

I received many messages about the shock that I had nothing to say about it.  Well, that was because of this small thing called a hurricane, but why quibble.  The moral cowardice of some on the “right” is palpable.  Many others sent me notes saying  “it’s over” and “Trump will lose now.”


Why?  Because we already knew this about Trump 1), and 2) because Hillary—an obtuse candidate as ever in my lifetime—just strolled into Trump’s playing field.  Thank you Hillary!  However, the smiling “conservatives” on TV, and Fox in particular, have outed themselves for the moral cretins they are.  I agree with Decius:  there will be no reconciliation for many.  I will go one step further as to why.  Because you who claim we are friends have no shame and will do anything including throwing over your “friends” to maintain your position.  Aristotle speaks of friendship in books 9 and 10 of the Ethics, and in it he notes that an imperfect friendship is one that is one sided, based on some sort of interest or advantage to oneself.  Those friendships often fail because one is using the other.  That’s you, well many of you, who did not seek a friendship based on an equal station, so to speak.

A real friendship should bear “good will.”  This absence is what most on the right have revealed about themselves.  These “friends” used to, at least so I thought, understand many of the things we learned together or discussed from afar, about the human condition.  Alas….

These “friends” also do not particularly like America or believe in its Idea.   Now, I see you no different from the Clinton Crime Family in your political acts and writings because you are propping them up.  And because you accept the left’s hypocritical position on sex and marriage even while in places like WS and NR you defended Silvio Berlusconi, former prime minister of Italy who dealt in porn and led a lifestyle far more extravagant than Trump.  Classy.

Hillary wrote about Trump’s tape: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.”  Jeb Bush mustered enough energy to post to her wall how much he agreed.  Newsflash to Hillary Clinton:  some people actually like sex (more on that below). Since Hillary commented on the story that her campaign had no doubt planted, then game on.

Hillary called disabled children “fucking retards.”  She, as I know from my personal discussion with Dick Morris, drained an entire kitchen of its dishes and plates, and assaulted Dick and Bill, while throwing shards of glass at them for…does it really matter what for?  She’s violent.  She publicly took on a case and, in a laughing recounting, noted how she slut shamed a 12 year old, then blamed said 12 year old for wanting to be raped.  Then she praised herself for getting the rapist off with time served:  two months.  We could go on and on about how she called Monica Lewinsky a Narcissistic looney toon, how some believe their life is in jeopardy, hence living in fear.  Sally Miller is another of those.

Then of course, Bill Clinton is fair game in all of this because she says she wants him to be in her administration. She wants him to hold a position of power again.  It’s germane folks, sorry and no “Bill has nothing to do with this” blather is persuasive because, you see, Bill will be back and one of her partners in the new government. Given these facts, then, what about his rape of Juanita Broaddrick?  We could go on and on with this.  Does Hillary support Bill and his rape and his brutal assault (real assault not fake assault) of his sexual conquests?  Trump should ask if she repudiates his presidency in light of her comments about Trump’s private Billy Bush moment.

Then there’s Alicia Machado. Machado the one who threatened to kill a judge and had sex on TV while being engaged to someone else.  Hillary supported and applauded her and her “honor.” Then she denied she was in a porn film (and be assured there is another more graphic tape of Machado engaged in anal sex floating around). But let’s not forget Machado objectified men in the most despicable way, again all condoned by Hillary.  And what did Machado say…on tape?:  “Oh your dick, my love, what a tasty dick.  Your dick is divine!”   Then of course, she had sex…on tape…with him…praising his body parts and skill.  So, do women talk of men in similar terms?  Well, the left sure admits they do!  How demeaning!  And the smiling grinches on the right know this.

None of this matters, though, in political terms. In fact, this turn of events will fire up the electorate because of the self congratulation and phony moral grandstanding of the media and the useful props on the “right” about sex and marriage that they have no care for when it’s a Democrat in the mix.

But there is something more important here. Men and their desire, their eros, has always been a part of the human condition.  With Trump we are talking about private speech about his erotic mind. We are not talking about public acts here in relation to sex.  He has not acted against the will of another, like Bill, and like Hillary, to assault or destroy another because he did not get laid, or because someone was standing in the way of his drive for power (drives in the Nietzschean sense here).

Trump is no different from what we KNOW from the ancients.

In the Illiad we hasten to add that Thersites was jealous of Agamemnon because he always got, and was around, “the hottest girls.”  Trump in many ways represents in his speech in question, the desire of a younger person to be with an attractive woman.  This does not mean that Trump is a moral example, but it does mean he exemplifies something of this life that all men, while they may not talk like that, have in them innately—to be with someone they consider good looking (we are leaving aside here the beauty question, and will for the sake of argument proceed with the incorrect idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder).  But the complaint against Agamemnon is that he seems to have it all—bronze, gold, riches, and of course, girls.

The point here is not to equate Trump with Agamemnon (though surely some will ignore that and write I wrote that), but to note, the condition that even the ancients knew was present.  The accusers of Agamemnon were jealous and babblers—they wanted what he had, but their position and talent did not afford them this position.  At least even Hillary Clinton has noted such.

In book one of the Republic, Plato notes that Cephalus had many “mad masters.”  Those masters were what we might call, sexual drives and desires.  Cephalus had a sense of being guilty about all he did in his younger days, and he sought to redeem himself in his old age by going to the gods in hopes he would be rewarded in the afterlife.

Trump is now married to Melania.  By all intents, he has settled down, and has been domesticated. In at least one interview, Melania speaks about it.  And then there’s this one:

Conservatives should rejoice shouldn’t they?  I mean, is this not what they praise marriage for doing? Making men responsible, and settling them down?

I guess that only applies to globalist, open border, war prone, candidates. Then, they grew, or saw the light. But it is this failure to recognize that Trump gives you what you have said you always wanted and were open to, that now makes you exposed, for all our “lying eyes” you never meant it.

Jeet Heer’s Potential Libel & Friends


It should come as no shock the dishonesty that perpetrates the media, especially old media.  Jeet Heer wrote a rotund article that misspelled a person’s name who is a part of the Scholars and Writers for Trump, and then misrepresented–that is fabricated–a conclusion to a past event regarding said scholar. As noted in at least two places–PJ Media and the Daily Caller–the “article” can only be concluded as a smear at best, and libel at worst.

Heer wrote (for it could hardly be considered an “argument”) that Christiana Jeffreys (sic) [note he got her first and last name wrong!] was a part of something sinister:

The website American Greatness has compiled a list of “Scholars and Writers for Trump” and there are some very odd names on it, including the historian Christiana Jeffreys. In 1986, Jeffrey had been hired by Ronald Reagan’s Department of Education to review proposed federal funding for a course on the Holocaust. Jeffreys was hostile to the course, arguing in her evaluation that “the program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan.”

This prompted the record to be set straight by David Goldman:

Filling out an evaluation form of a Holocaust studies program, Prof. Jeffreys responded to an inquiry about the “objectivity and balance” of the program ironically. More pointedly, Jeffreys attacked the program in question for not properly explaining the development of Nazism, as the program linked the attempt to exterminate all the world’s Jews with the lynching of blacks in the American South. It’s just a poor representation of history, Prof. Jeffrey argued. For this, she drew ire — and slander — from some liberals.

 And then from NR in 1995 on the alleged “incident”:

Tracy Lee Simmons wrote in 1995 in National Review:

[Prof. Jeffrey] was asked for an “overall assessment” of the grant application. In the last of four paragraphs, she wrote, “The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view, and it is not presented; nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan. The selection of only two problem areas, Germany and Armenia, leaves out many others, many of which are more recent. I am thinking of the USSR, Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Ethiopia among others. No explanation of this selectivity is given.”The program as written, she thought, had failed to account for the origins of the Holocaust, origins that would only be obscured furtherby the imputed linkage between the lynching of blacks in the American South and the government-sanctioned murder of Jews in Nazi Germany. In short, this effort to “clarify values” made for bad history.

Mrs. Jeffrey wasn’t alone in her criticism of “Facing History and Ourselves.”

Writing in 1990 for Commentary, Holocaust scholar Lucy Dawidowicz agreed:  “Putatively a curriculum to teach the Holocaust, Facing History was also a vehicle for instructing 13-year-olds in civil disobedience and indoctrinating them with propaganda for nuclear disarmament.”

Mrs. Dawidowicz also said the last chapter of the proposed text supplied “exercises in outright political indoctrination in currently fashionable causes.”

If Jeet were to do, I dunno, maybe a little investigating he might have found this:


Jeet is not a careful thinker. It’s almost–how to say–comical.  After now two full days, he still has not corrected Jeffrey’s name. He has a history of recklessness, however.  As noted in First Things, Jeet maligned another scholar:

In the most reflective of these polemics, Canadian writer Jeet Heer concedes that “None of the Straussians so eloquently described the nature of this philosophic friendship as Jaffa.” (Heer claims some familiarity with Straussian scholarship, having studied at the University of Toronto.) But he goes on to make fantastic claims, such as “The famous Straussian division between esoteric and exoteric writing can itself be seen as a metaphor for the closet.”

But Jeet is not the only irresponsible “journalist.”  Another, at The Week, decided that the Scholars for Trump were so wrong headed, he posted (before it was deleted) a sinister response that it was “nice to have all their names listed in one place.”


His response?  “I don’t want anyone to think that was implied.”  What was implied?  Something “menacing.” Menacing of course means “threatening.”  To that comment he writes that he did not want “anyone to think” that’s what he meant.  He did NOT write, that is not what he meant, only that he did not want others to think so.

How quaint.

But what would one think about someone who has a history of this sort of thing?  Peas in a pod?  Pot meet kettle?  Birds of a feather?

Either way, a person was unjustly maligned.  One did the maligning; another did the cheering.  Shame on them.

This is, as Chris Plante says, “fake journalism.”

We could also call it propoganda.


Addendum:  Here is the author at The Week stating that Trump voters are a problem, a problem that should be “solved.”


Constitutional Law & Trump



Many criticized us a year ago for recognizing something that has been a Trump theme since the beginning–the return of Constitutional Politics.

Trump has been on a rhetorical and Declarationist roll in the last 2 weeks.  Part of that is because he is less reliant on the ad lib, and more reliant on his notes, and the teleprompter.  But, here he lays out his Constitutional argument, while also calling out Clinton and the Democrat Party for being bigots and taking advantage of minorities.  the economic numbers don’t lie.  They are worse off.  Time to come home:


Marini on Trump, Greatness, and America



There is a specter afoot. It’s haunting America, but it’s not Donald Trump.  No, it’s the administrative state, propped up by its oligarchic faction.

Recently, John Marini and the Claremont Institute, published what we think is the best commentary to date on the “American crisis.”  Part of the problem in America that Trump has tapped into is the Progressive attempt to bypass political opinion, or public opinion:

Once elected or appointed, politicians and bureaucrats have utilized their will, in both domestic and foreign policy, in an unrestrained manner on behalf of bureaucratic rule.

Trump had the ability to address the concern surrounding the shortcut of the public will.  Our elected officials have transferred to the administrative state and agencies the responsibility for interpreting, and in some ways, actually writing law.  Therefore, Congress used the Progressive understanding of expertise that staffed the modern administrative state and employed it as political cover so that they would note have to make any tough political decisions.  It’s a win-win!

If Aristotle is right about man being political by nature, then this was bound to fail.  People are naturally political and they have a sense they should determine the direction of the government, even if it is based on policy decisions set up by the “experts.”  This natural fact of life is why it is not only the Republicans who are experiencing consternation, but the Democrats too.  They are equally capable of implosion this cycle for they are the owners of the attempt to transcend human nature through their progressive attempts to conquer it.  As Harry Neumann always reminded us, you may show Nature the front door, but eventually it will come roaring through the back.

As Marini notes, there are so many expert organizations and groups, that we have no idea what is and is not legal any more.  We also wonder to ourselves just who consented to this web of rules and regulations.  Certainly the average citizen does not believe he or she did.  No, there is something troubling about the Administrative State that seeks to strike down, or subjugate, the individual, and subtley strip from him his citizenship.

Coupled with this is the politics of identity.  Now everything is about this or that group.  The Republicans are not immune from this temptation of modern politics.  At the DNC, there were speakers who were actually speaking for many personal afflictions they suffered through.  Almost everyone on the first day had a “problem” that defined them.  However, they were both at once, afflicted, and better for overcoming their malady.  Marini notes something more:

When progressive intellectuals lost confidence in the idea of progress and Enlightenment reason, they abandoned the hope of a future good and began to revise the meaning of the past. When Nietzsche analyzed the malady posed by historicism’s abandonment of its rationality, he came to realize that “the excess of history has attacked the plastic powers of life; it no longer understands how to avail itself of the past as hearty nourishment.” The politics of our time is dependent upon how we avail ourselves of the past—whether as “hearty nourishment” or as a life-threatening poison.

Post-modern intellectuals have pronounced their historical judgment on America’s past, finding it to be morally indefensible. Every great human achievement of the past—whether in philosophy, religion, literature, or the humanities—came to be understood as a kind of exploitation of the powerless.

We have made the argument here that Trump represent a return, and that return is real progress.  But as Marini notes, the idea of progressivism has been to obliterate knowledge.  Of course this leads to dire and deadly consequences, but it also leads to the death of reason, or the belief in its capabilities.

Make America Great Again is but a slight tip of the hat at this reality.  Trump wants to restore the Republic of Reason, tempered by the restoration of our Faith, even though he is not so outwardly faithful.

When Marini states that Trump is making an appeal to the common good, this is how he is trying to transcend the cesspool of progressivism.  He’s the only Republican candidate to make that attempt since Reagan, and before him, it was Coolidge.

It is a real gamble Trump is playing, and he may be unsuccessful for we do not know how to reason anymore.  Therefore, Trump is giving it to us in modern speak.  He does not sound sophisticated, and many of those who loathe Trump are aghast, so aghast they they have rarely said a word about Hillary who is, in reality, a personally violent warmonger with blood on her hands and who employs DNC speakers who support Sharia.  But as Marini notes, intellectuals left and right are dependent on the system as it now works because they get their bread buttered from the present arrangement.

Even those who are in the minority are happily so, because, well, they got something out of it and who knows what lies beyond.  They suspect it won’t be much for them.

Marini correctly notes that Trump is going over the head of the established whatever (media, politics, bureaucracy, etc) to take his case to the people.  This is a first.  As Samuel Kernell noted in the 1980s in his book Going Public, doing that only works so many times, usually two, Reagan did it three times to some success.  Trump needs to swing for the fences to get it right, and he is doing it right despite the hysterical hair being lit on fire by ALL of the press, including Fox.  The positive thing for Trump is there more of the many than the elites, and the elites look rather unintellectual these days.  Their days of persuasion are over.

This does not mean that Trump is assured a win, nor does it assure the movement will succeed. Hillary understands this and is trying to kill the entire idea of Greatness.

If Trump IS successful, then it might be possible to put the country on the long road to rediscovering the “fathers” and “natural right” as Marini notes.  Trump is not talking about these matters outright, because as Marini notes, the ability to talk about unchanging things is difficult.  Our entire education system is shot through with nihilists.  Donald Trump Jr. noted this when he said that public schools, backed by an public union and elite, are failing to really educate our children.

Trump represents a return to the Constitution because he is trying to make a Constitutional majority–one that can really govern.  We may disagree with the manner he is making that attempt, but it is the most Manly and brave attempt in the last 40 years.

The Straussian Internecine War



Larry Arnhardt posted his latest claim that Trump is exactly like Hitler, and was so aghast at the Claremont Review of Books, that he also called out Charles Kesler for saying things that were just too kind about Trump, in his opinion.

Arnhart then had to suffer numerous amounts of ridicule from the common sense crowd who pretty much said he was a slave to his ideology to make such a comparison just like…the Nazis.  We found some jocularity in that.

Arnhart also invented conclusions of an article by Hedley Wright at VDARE by saying that author is contending for an ethic racial nation.  He then stated that the Trump is a racist because he would stop temporarily the immigration of certain peoples. If we did not know better we’d say that Arnhart is one of the #RepublicansforHillary.  Arnhart is so wrong on the manner of America, it behooves us to point out the obvious:

US Constitution art. 1, section 8 Congress has the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers.”

And then there’s this:  The US Code 8 USC §1182: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Arnhardt purports to speak for West Coast Straussians about what West Coast means, and then generally, about what Leo Strauss would have done, and who he would have supported.  More Soothsaying afoot here, but again, no sooth.

It is preposterous to think one can KNOW what a deceased person for over 40 years would have chosen politically.

If there is one thing scrambled in the Trump phenomenon, it is the fact that he has in a way, unmasked certain conservative for really being a sort of leftist elitist.  We are sad to see this in several respects.  Hysteria breeds contempt from those who still know what it means when one employs the word “self-evident.”  And no the word does not mean “obvious.”  But it is obvious that in terms of Trump, to suggest he is “just like” X is to devalue the intellect (in irresponsible ways) that we have respected for years.

Update:  I should have linked this post, as the primary posting on the Trump is Hitler claims.

American Greatness is Back


With the demise of the Journal of American Greatness, we have its resurrection in the American Greatness blog.  We regret on a certain level it is not an anonymous blog, for there is a value to posts not connected to specific people.  It forces us to deal with the argument made in print.

However, that there are actual authors linked to the articles in a public, and manly manor, we are appreciative of the display and the thoughtfulness of the effort.

Every citizen of these states should read the “Declaration of Independence from the Conservative Movement.”  Of many thoughtful lines is one like this one:

Today, movement conservatism offers the American people not a choice, but an echo of the Left. Because of this, American Greatness is not an alternative to movement conservatism; it is a refounding of a distinctly American conservatism based upon the self-evident principle of human equality and the rights that flow from it. Just government exists to protect and promote these rights and is therefore necessarily limited, constitutional, and republican in its form.

The notion of “conservatism” (a useless word if there ever was one) has decayed in the pursuit of factional politics:

We hold that America—much like movement conservatism—has lost her way. The nation has succumbed to  division and faction, infected by the insidious and  foreign virus of identity politics which has robbed Americans of our true identity as one people. We’re undermined further by an ever-growing centralized administrative state, which robs us daily of the opportunity to participate in governing our own lives as free and equal citizens under the rule of law.

Government has grown remote, unresponsive, and increasingly unaccountable. While many movement conservatives acknowledge these problems, they have failed to persuade a majority of American voters. What’s more, movement conservatives remain stubbornly unpersuaded by voters’ plain rejection of their solutions.  To their credit, the American people have, through common sense and hard experience, rejected the lie that their opinions about their interests and the laws that govern their lives are irrelevant. Likewise, most rank and file conservatives are unimpressed by the half-measures offered by a conservative movement that is more about conserving itself than conserving the people’s sovereignty.

The authors at AG tackle the messy problem with the word conservative, and ask the appropriate question of what it is we are trying to conserve.  The authors list trade, and immigration of course, as well as the deeper currents noted through Harry V. Jaffa as the Conditions of Freedom.

While we might quibble a bit wit the notion of assimilation as stated in the AG blog, it’s concern for the fate of the Republic is indeed something that should be considered–in its effectiveness, just who is not assimilated, etc.  The conditions of freedom demand an assimilation but on principles that perpetuate the Republic’s longevity.  Among those are the notion of enlightened consent.

We applaud the Greatness blog.  Welcome Back!



Our Ongoing Corruption: Unpatriotic Conservatives Redux


, ,

The magical exoneration of Hillary Clinton by the FBI Director is just one more in a long line of fixes in a rigged game.  And make no mistake, this was a fixed game in Clinton’s favor.  What is astonishing is that the rigging was so open.  Clinton verifiably lied several times about the use of the email, then lied about others using email, then lied about classified emails, then lied about the nature of the investigation.  Obama said she would not be charged in an interview.  Then, Bill Clinton boarded the AG’s plane, and then Comey came out and cleared her name.  However, one revealing comment deserves note:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

So, to be clear, others will be charged for doing similar things, but not Hillary Clinton.  That’s corruption; that’s a fixed game in favor of the strong and powerful.  Let’s be also clear, Clinton was fired as counsel during Watergate because she lied, but not the least was her arguments to deny others their Constitutional rights.  Ironical isn’t it?

To Clinton’s credit, she understands Machiavelli better than the Republicans who want to lose cheerfully.  And the last few days have moved at break-neck speed:  “for injuries done all together, so that, being tasted less, they offend less…” [p. 38].  Clinton understands one thing, to end the drip, it needed to happen now despite the appearance of something akin to the Black Sox Scandal.

Let’s keep in mind that while Comey did criticize Clinton, he never actually looked for the real scandal:  Clinton used the Foundation to fleece the public, take money from foreign governments, all at taxpayer expense, in order to secure her own political fortunes, and the monetary fortunes of her family.  Much of this money came from third world states, and states with connections to terror.

Even Chris Cilizza’s response is tepid, though he thinks it is bad for Clinton.  But in all of that, he means her campaign not the Republic.  This is a sad day when we are more concerned with her campaign than, say, the health and stability of the United States.

These are extremely perilous times.  We just celebrated our Independence, and the news was littered with what passes for smart journalism deriding this nation.  One, in the LA Times, called the flag a “rag.”  How nice, and how revealing.

It may not seem like the two events go together, but they do.  A Republic, once the affections for it become weakened, lead to the distant end of a Republic.  In this way, the #NeverTrump crowd are no better than the left.  In fact, they are the useful idiots of the left.  These are your new “Unpatriotic Conservatives” who essentially side with the left in order to effect a personal distaste for Trump, as if Hillary is better.  But they spill more negative ink on Trump, and essentially ignore the crook in the race: Hillary.  To think what they might accomplish if they kept their eye on the ball?

But the demise of the rule of law, and the support of those who would thwart the rule of law, go hand in hand.  The tolerance for those who would, end the regime and hence, the rights of others, is nothing that we should stand for as a people.  What Comey did today was hand the Clintons, and the Republic, a defeat, and it’s a defeat that could, we hope, play into the hands of Trump, who will be center stage tonight in my former hometown, Raleigh, NC.

Trump is justifiably on the offense here.  What we need now is a defense Greatness that is based on the Laws of Nature, the rights of ALL, and the rule of law, absent a mobile aristocratic elite.