David Horowitz writing in Breitbart
* * *
I don’t think I speak for myself alone when I confess
utter bewilderment at the number of conservatives – among whom I count
long-term friends – who seem to have lost their marbles when assessing the
presidential candidacy of Donald Trump.
* YOU AND ME BOTH, BROTHER... YOU AND ME BOTH!
The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, to take one
example that can stand for many, is an astute analyst – in my view one of the
best political commentators writing today. Yet he is the author of this opening
paragraph in the Wall Street Journal, which leaves me scratching my head, and
embarrassed for my friend:
"The best hope for what’s left of a serious
conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic
president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive
liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to
healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan.
I can’t think of anything that is right about these
sentences.
* NEITHER CAN I. HE'S JUST A WACKO!
* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... ONE GOOD THING ABOUT ALL THIS
INSANITY IS THAT THESE CRETINS ARE UNMASKING THEMSELVES FOR WHO AND WHAT THEY
ARE.
The president’s first business is the nation’s security.
Did Reagan really repair the damage that Carter did? It is true that he pulled
the nation back from Carter’s policies of appeasing our enemies and disarming
our military. But he failed to retrieve Carter’s greatest foreign policy
disaster.
It was Carter who brought down America’s ally, the Shah
of Iran, and brought the Ayatollah Khomeni back from exile, thereby
transforming Iran into the first jihadist state, and America’s deadliest enemy.
Neither Ronald Reagan nor both George Bushes could undo that.
* TRUE. SADLY TRUE.
Could a Republican Congress – assuming that there would
be a Republican Congress if Trump lost – hold a Democratic president like
Hillary Clinton “in check.”
* NOPE. AND IF THE PAST FIVE YEARS HAVE PROVED ANYTHING,
THEY'VE PROVED THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS ARE MORE IN LEAGUE WITH THE
DEMOCRATS THAN AGAINST THEM.
How did that work out during the destructive reign of
Barack Obama?
* CASE IN POINT...
(*SHRUG*)
With Republican majorities in the House and Senate Obama
had no real problem in becoming the first American president to build his
legacy around a policy that can fairly be described as treasonous – providing a
path to nuclear power and ballistic missile capability to an Iranian regime
that is our nation’s mortal enemy, has already murdered thousands of Americans,
and is ruled by religious fanatics who have made no secret of their
determination to destroy us.
* AGAIN... IT IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION TO NOTE THAT THE
REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT HAVE LARGELY WORKED WITH OBAMA IN ENACTING OBAMA'S
AGENDA. (FOLKS... PARTICULARLY YOU "NEVER TRUMP" PEOPLE... YOU NEED
TO UNDERSTAND THIS... YOU NEED TO SWITCH TO "NEVER RYAN" AND
"NEVER RINOs.")
Bret Stephens and an all-too-prominent cohort of
inside-the-beltway conservatives want to turn the presidency over to Hillary
Clinton “to save conservatism.” What can this mean?
* IT MEANS THEY'RE CERTAINLY NOT
"CONSERVATIVES" IN ANY POSITIVE SENSE OF THE WORD.
Have they forgotten who Hillary Clinton is?
* DOUBTFUL. (THEY JUST DON'T CARE!)
As Secretary of State she was the foreign policy captain
in an administration that abandoned Iraq, thereby betraying every American and
Iraqi who gave his or her life to keep that benighted country out of the hands
of the terrorists and Iran (not that any Republican had the temerity to say
so).
ISIS is as much her godchild as Barack Obama’s. In
creating the vacuum that ISIS filled Hillary was only carrying on the
Democratic foreign policy tradition that Jimmy Carter inaugurated of
sacrificing America’s security to pie-eyed internationalist delusions.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the
overthrow of an American ally in Egypt and its replacement by the Muslim
Brotherhood - the fountainhead of al-Qaeda and ISIS. She colluded in the
overthrow of an American ally in Libya – a country posing no threat to the
United States – thereby turning it into a base for ISIS and al-Qaeda.
* YEP. (I'D SAY CALLING GADDAFI'S LIBYA AN
"ALLY" IS A BIT OF AN OVERSTATEMENT, BUT... GADDAFI WAS COOPERATING
WITH US MORE THAN WORKING AGAINST US.)
It was Hillary who was behind the gunrunning scheme to
al-Qaeda rebels in Syria that led to the Benghazi disaster. She denied
Ambassador Stephens – her American pawn in Benghazi – the security he requested
in order to cover Obama’s retreat in the war on terror (it was election time),
and then lied about his murder and that of three American heroes to the
American people, to the mothers and fathers of the dead heroes, and to the
world at large.
* I WISH MORE PEOPLE CARED. THINK ABOUT IT FOLKS... THOSE
OF YOU WHO DO CARE... JUST PONDER HOW MANY OF YOUR OWN FRIENDS AND FAMILY...
DON'T.
(*SIGH*)
According to the official version she approved insulting
the prophet Mohammed was the problem - not the terrorist onslaught that she and
Obama had helped to unleash.
Now we have learned that she willfully violated America’s
Espionage Act, resulting in tens of thousands of her emails, classified and
unclassified falling into the hands of the Russians and other adversary powers,
and leading to how many future American casualties we can only guess.
* AGAIN, FOLKS... THINK OF HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU KNOW - AND
EVEN PEOPLE YOU LOVE - WHO JUST... DON'T CARE.
* THIS NATION IS IN DEEP TROUBLE, MY FRIENDS.
This is the president that Bret Stephens and Bill Kristol
and George Will think would be better for conservative values and conservative
concerns than Donald Trump, a man who has raised an admirable family (a
character-reflecting feat his detractors always overlook) and whose patriotism
in the course of a long public life has never been in question.
(*NODDING*)
Nonetheless, it is Hillary Clinton – this serial liar,
this traducer of the nation’s trust, this corrupt taker of $600,000 speaking
fees and multi-million dollar gifts from foreign governments while acting as
Secretary of State – this wretched individual who in their eyes is “survivable”
should she become president.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
And what isn’t survivable?
[The answer from the dead-enders:]
“What isn’t survivable is … a serial fabulist, an
incorrigible self-mythologizer, a brash vulgarian, and, when it comes to his
tax returns, a determined obfuscator.”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
I blush for my friend making these charges, first because
they are sins common to most politicians (with admittedly less flair than
Donald Trump) and second because of the reason he gives for why they should
matter:
“Endorsing Mr. Trump means permanently laying to rest any
claim conservatives might ever again make on the character issue.”
* TWO WORDS: DENNIS HASTART.
(*SIGH*)
* NEED I GO THROUGH THE LONG LIST OF RINO SCUMBAGS?
The character issue! Oh yes, that vital conservative
weapon. And how did the use of it actually work out when it was put before the
entire nation?
Approaching the end of Clinton’s second term, Republicans
made a political season out of his bad character and actually managed to
impeach him for abusing women and lying to a grand jury. But when it was over,
there wasn’t a pundit or pollster around who didn’t think that Bill Clinton
would have an odds on chance of being elected to a third term in 2000 if the
22nd Amendment had allowed him to run.
This is not serious stuff, yet it is being peddled by
first-rate conservative intellects and the fate of our nation may yet hang on it.
The greatest obstacle to a Republican victory in November is the fratricidal
war now being waged by the “Never Trump” crowd against the only person who
might prevent the disaster awaiting us if the party of Obama and Kerry and
Hillary and Sharpton prevails in November.
Their Trump hysteria notwithstanding, I still have the
highest regard for the intellects of Bret Stephens and George Will and their
comrades-in-arms. But I am hoping against hope that they come to their senses
before it is too late.
* AMEN.
No comments:
Post a Comment