Prager Explains Never-Trumpers

Denis Prager had an interesting response to the Never-Trumpers here:  Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

Prager was pretty generous in his interpretation of Never-Trumpers behavior and motivations — though honest enough to tick them off (if you want to read a lame response to Prager, see Jonah Goldberg’s).

Trump is too far from their ideal leader for some conservatives to support him.

When people you know well and admire, and who share your values, do something you strongly oppose, you have two options: (1) Cease admiring them or (2) try to understand them and change their minds.

In the case of my conservative friends who still snipe (or worse) at President Trump, I have rejected option one. The reason — beside the fact that I simply like many of them — is what I refer to as “moral bank accounts.”

Every time we do good, we make a deposit into our moral bank account. And every time we do something bad, we make a withdrawal. These conservatives have made so many deposits into their moral bank accounts that, in my view, their accounts all remain firmly in the black.

That means my only choice is option two. But to try to change their minds, I must first try to understand their thinking. I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake. While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

That is why, after vigorously opposing Trump’s candidacy during the Republican primaries, I vigorously supported him once he won the nomination. I believed then, as I do now, that America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president. With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016. To my amazement, no anti-Trump conservative writer sees it that way. They all thought during the election, and still think, that while it would not have been a good thing if Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn’t have been a catastrophe either.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Many conservatives, including me, believe that it would have been close to over for America as America if the Republican candidate, who happened to be a flawed man named Donald Trump, had not won. Moreover, I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton.

In other words, I believe that Donald Trump may have saved the country. And that, in my book, covers a lot of sins — foolish tweets, included.

The Never Trump conservative argument that Trump is not a conservative — one that I, too, made repeatedly during the Republican primaries — is not only no longer relevant, it is no longer true. Had any Never Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally Assad after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall; appoint a U.N. ambassador who regularly condemns the U.N. for its moral hypocrisy; restore the military budget; and work on lowering corporate tax rates, among other conservative achievements — that Never Trump conservative would have been jumping for joy.

So, why aren’t anti-Trump conservatives jumping for joy? I have come to believe that many conservatives possess what I once thought was a left-wing monopoly — a utopian streak. Trump is too far from their ideal leader to be able to support him.

There is also a cultural divide. Anti-Trump conservatives are a very refined group of people. Trump doesn’t talk like them. Moreover, the cultural milieu in which the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives live and/or work means that to support Trump is to render oneself contemptible at all elite dinner parties. In addition, anti-Trump conservatives see themselves as highly moral people (which they often are) who are duty-bound not to compromise themselves by strongly supporting Trump, whom they largely view as morally defective.

Finally, these people are only human: After investing so much energy in opposing Trump’s election, and after predicting his nomination would lead to electoral disaster, it’s hard for them to admit they were wrong. To see him fulfill many of his conservative election promises, again in defiance of predictions, is a bitter pill. But if they hang on to their Never Trumpism and the president falls on his face, they can say they were right all along. That means that only if he fails can their reputations be redeemed. And they, of course, know that.

But there is another way. They can join the fight. They can accept an imperfect reality and acknowledge that we are in a civil war, and that Trump, with all his flaws, is our general. If this general is going to win, he needs the best fighters. But too many of them, some of the best minds of the conservative movement, are AWOL. I beg them: Please report for duty.

Never-Trumpers, one might say, are too much like the leftist establishment; they are snobs, too far removed from the regular people, they are utopians and idealists (in the worst sense of the word) and they are convinced they are correct and everyone who disagrees in an uneducated moron.

Aside from their similarity to Pharisees (that I noted earlier), they are conceited, being so pathologically prideful they cannot bear to lose face by changing their position on Trump.  Prager, unlike many conservative establishment types, may have been wrong about Trump at one point, but is intelligent and humble enough to revise his opinion and wishes to convince others to do the same.  Sadly, it seems unlikely they will do so, preferring to cut off their nose to spite their face by opposing Trump and refusing to work with him.  Trump is caught between two sides, the Left and the “Principled Right,” which both work tirelessly to sabotage him.

People who criticize Trump for not accomplishing more so far in his presidency should rather wonder he’s been able to do anything.

 

Advertisements

Time to ditch modern universities

If Universities no longer actually educate, but have become institutions of “academic narcissism,” why are we still paying to attend them or send our kids there?  Places of indoctrination, lacking in critical thinking, aren’t exactly a good deal for the thousands people pay them.  University no longer equals place of higher learning.  These places are long overdue for being abandoned and replaced.

If you need another reason to ditch the contemporary college model, then there’s this type of student behavior, most recently demonstrated at Evergreen College but rampant on many (if not most) college campuses.

Students said they were protesting institutional racism.

A group of protesters sent the following statement in a news release to The Olympian last week: “What started out as anti-black comments on social media has turned into the dismissal of the rights of students and femmes of color, physical violence by police, and false sentencing of students protesting. Black trans disabled students are actively being sought out and confronted by campus police constantly, police are refusing to explain their actions and harassment. Students will not stand for this anymore, as students of color have never felt comfortable on campus and have not been treated equally.”

Tensions reached a new high after the public airing of an email exchange between school employees over a planned Day of Absence event.

The Day of Absence, based on a play by the same name, dates back to the 1970s at Evergreen. The day is part of two days of race and equity-related events, and in previous years minority students voluntarily left for an off-campus discussion.

This year that event was swapped: White students were asked to leave and minority students remained on campus. But the event had space for 200 students – only a fraction of the roughly 4,800 overall student body, Powers said.

Rashida Love, director of the First People’s Multicultural Advising Services program, sent an email asking for some white students to volunteer not to be on campus for the event, to leave the college more open for students of color, Powers said.

Professor Bret Weinstein then sent back an email saying that asking white students to stay off campus is an “act of oppression in and of itself,” the Journal reported.

Some students have since protested Weinstein, calling him racist and asking the administration to fire him.

The protesters’ statement is so over the top it makes me wonder if it’s for real: “Black trans disabled students are actively being sought out and confronted by campus police constantly.”  For real?  People get trolled and made fun of with stuff like this.  Did these dumb students really say that in all seriousness?!

Of course the professor that objected to their asking all white students to leave for the day is being called a racist.

Definitely time to seek education elsewhere.

Tigers = White Supremacy

LSU is the latest example of college insanity.  A petition is currently circulating to ban and change the sports team name and mascot, Tigers, because it is a symbol of “White Supremacy.”  Wait?  Isn’t it ok to shout about “black power!” and revere the Black Panthers?  Why not the White Power Tigers?

According to the author of the petition—a user going by the name “LaMallori LSU”—the nickname was chosen by “powerful white males” as an homage to the Confederate “Louisiana Tigers” regiment, whose members “were known for their propensity for violence on and off the battle field [sic].”

“It is incredibly insulting for any African American to have to attend to a school that honors Confederate militantism,” the petition declares. “It is already hard enough to be black at LSU, and these symbols must be changed.”

Almost as an afterthought, the author adds that “it’s also cruel to cage a wild animal for the amusement of privileged white people” who have “never been in a cage!”

It concludes by quoting Dr. Charles Coates, an LSU administrator from 1893-1939, who explained the origin of the Tigers mascot in a 1937 alumni newsletter.

Describing the school’s initial foray into college football in 1895, Coates does in fact directly attribute the team’s name to the state’s Civil War heritage, noting that he found it appropriate because the original Louisiana Tigers were known for “getting into the hardest part of the fighting and staying there, most of them permanently.”

Moreover, Coates recounted, the selection fit in with the contemporary custom of naming football teams after “vicious animals,” such as the Yale Bulldogs and the Princeton Tigers.

The petition presents this account as indisputable evidence that the mascot had racist undertones from the very beginning, labeling it a “symbol of white oppression” that must be eliminated.

“We must speak truth to power, and continue to march toward justice,” it declares. “That day is coming, the day when every symbol of white oppression is torn down.”

Yep. They want to destroy every symbol of “white oppression” in the country.  Good luck with that.  You’re gonna have to start destroying pretty much everything built by whites. And all those Europeans who founded our country?  Wipe them from the history books too and change the names on everything named after them (goodbye, Washington DC you rotten symbol of white oppression; hello, M. L. Kingstown).  Time to reprint all the money too.  Heck, even the Lincoln Memorial has to go because President Lincoln was actually rather racist in his views on blacks.

And while we’re at it, can we please just change all the names of all the sports teams in the US, everything from Little League to the Pros?  They’re all offensive and violent and white (either that or they’re culturally appropriating things like “Redskins”).  How about things like “the Butterflies” or “the Puppies” or “the Kittens?”  Oops, that’ll probably offend PETA or the environmentalists.  Oh, well, we’re just going to have to abolish sports entirely.  But that’ll put a lot of blacks out of work – no biggie they can just go on welfare like the rest.  But…

Once you start down this road of offense-taking insanity there is no end.

Paris Climate Agreement: a scam we’re lucky to escape

President Trump just outed the US from the Paris Climate Agreement: cue outraged hysteria.

After days of drama and suspense, President Trump announced Thursday that his administration will exit the Paris climate agreement.

“So we’re getting out,” Trump said. “The Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States.”

Trump’s decision fulfills a campaign promise and satisfies strong Republican opposition to the global climate deal but also isolates the U.S. and is certain to bring condemnation from world leaders and critics in the scientific community.

But even people who think “climate change” is a “real problem” don’t think that the Agreement would have done much of anything to fix the “problem.”  It just would have further crippled the US economy.

White People Are Always Worse

In the face of Islamic terror attacks, Gavin McInnes takes on the Myth of White Terrorism:

Another common refrain regarding Islamic terror is groups like the SPLC reminding us that “In America, the face of terrorism is white.” This was made perfectly clear in a viral video circulated by AJ+ that featured lots of American skinheads Sieg Heiling next to images of dead babies and quotes such as “White supremacists are more responsible for terror attacks than people acting in the name of Islam.” WHAT?!
***
They like to start these studies on September 12th, 2001, but I ain’t buying it. I start the day before and that gives us 2,996 deaths. Then we had seventeen killed by the Beltway Sniper in 2002. Fort Hood left thirteen dead in 2009, and the Boston Marathon bombing four years later left six dead (with 280 brutal injuries, including the woman who lost her leg and just married the man who rescued her). In 2014, a jihadist beheaded his boss. Sixteen were killed in San Bernardino in 2015 and the Orlando nightclub shooting left fifty dead. That’s 3,099.

The white-supremacist deaths are around the “death from spider bites” level. There was Klansman Frazier Glenn Miller, who hated Jews so much he shot three men in an old-folks’ home he assumed were Jewish. There’s also that guy who came to NYC to kill blacks and got one. Finally, we have the member of the “Alt-Reich” (never heard of it) who stabbed a black student to death last week. That’s five.

How you make 3,100 look less than five takes some backbreaking mental acrobatics. Fort Hood and the Oklahoma beheading are considered “workplace violence.” They include “plots” and count virtually anything suspicious that either happens to a minority or is done by a right-winger. Any of those sovereign-state nuts who murder a cop is counted as white-supremacist terrorism, no matter what the race. If a white guy kills a pedophile priest for raping him, it’s neo-Nazi terrorism. They count that sad nut who flew his plane into an IRS building as domestic terrorism. A prank call to a synagogue is an act of domestic terrorism, and now a goofy 13-year-old is just as dangerous as Osama bin Laden. I’m not exaggerating. The above attacks are counted as “incidents,” so 9/11 only counts as one and the Alt-Reich kid counts as the same. We’re reaching a level of disingenuous where you have trouble believing they believe their own rhetoric.

The mental gymnastics are easy because, as we know, Islam is a religion of peace and white people are evil.  Facts shouldn’t get in the way of this.  But those pesky facts keep intruding:

Even if you take their numbers at face value, we have a serious Islamic terrorism problem in America. Muslims represent barely 2% of the population. According to their parameters, “Nazis” are about half the population. Assuming terrorists are almost always male, why are 80 million people coming up with the same kind of crime stats as less than 3 million? Probably because they have a predilection for terror (we knew this already because one in four American Muslims age 18–25 thinks “suicide bombing is sometimes or often justified”). Whoops, your propaganda just disproved your propaganda!

Why is the Left so intolerant?

Maybe because they started down the road of relativism long ago.

Relativism which might sound like a benign “you think what you want and I’ll think what I want — and we’ll all get along” has proved to be not so harmless.  More than a decade ago Pope Benedict had this to say:

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

He’s been proved correct.  The “dictatorship” has been increasing.  The intolerance of any opposing perspectives or opinions has increased to the point of people wanting to throw those who disagree in jail (Bill Nye on “climate deniers”) or ruining the livelihoods of those with the “wrong” ideas (Christian bakers, florists, etc.).  It has even gotten to the point that physical violence is justified against “wrong think” (“punch a Nazi” or Berkeley riots).

Benedict, as then Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his book Without Roots:

“In recent years I find myself noting, how the more relativism becomes the generally accepted way of thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance. Political correctness … seeks to establish the domain of a single way of thinking and speaking. Its relativism creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past. It presents itself as the only way to think and speak — if, that is, one wishes to stay in fashion. … I think it is vital that we oppose this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment, which threatens freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion.”

In 2013, Benjamin Wiker wrote Benedict vs. the Dictatorship of Relativism and accurately identified where this was headed: the destruction of our civilization and the persecution of Christians.

That last point is key. While appearing to be the very essence of neutrality and equity — “all views are equal and equally valid” — it actually undermines both the freedom of thought and the freedom of religion. As to the latter, it does so (ironically) as a new religion itself, “a new ‘denomination’ that places restrictions on religious convictions and seeks to subordinate all religions to the super-dogma of relativism.”

As Cardinal Ratzinger noted in his Truth and Tolerance, “relativism … in certain respects has become the real religion of modern man.” It has become, especially in Europe, but now increasingly in America, the religion that stands at the heart of modern secular civilization in the way that Christianity defined the heart of Christendom.

It is the religion, Pope Benedict insists, which the Church must combat in the third millennium for the sake of civilization itself. A civilization built upon dogmatic relativism is one that ensures its own destruction. It is also a civilization in which Christianity — challenging dogmatic relativism with the proclamation that Jesus Christ himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life — must be persecuted.

Sinking just a little lower

We already know the left is disgusting.  The latest anti-Trump social media stunt even had some liberals disavowing it.  Although plenty of folks had no problem with it.  One jerk even mocked Baron Trump’s reaction: Game-show winner Ken Jennings mocked 11-year-old Barron Trump for reacting to comedian Kathy Griffin’s beheading photo of President Donald Trump

As if Kathy Griffin’s photo with a mock severed head of Trump wasn’t disgusting enough, the photo was on tv where little Baron Trump got to see it.

It Was Just Revealed How 11-Year-Old Barron Trump First Learned of Kathy Griffin’s Photo — Horrific

Barron Trump, President Donald Trump’s 11-year-old son, reportedly “panicked” and became distressed after seeing Kathy Griffin’s now-infamous “beheading” photograph because he didn’t know who Griffin was or understand the context of the photo.

Trump tweeted this response: “Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!”

The left proves yet again that they have no taste, no sense of decency, and absolutely no thought of the well-being of children.  But these are often the same people who want to tell others how to raise their kids and impose more governmental control over parents and families “for the good of the children,” and to cry out for more gun control because “think of the children!”  These are the people who manufacture tears about children to manipulate people into agreeing with them.

These people don’t give a damn about real kids.

Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had done to Obama what Kathy Griffin just did to Trump?  There would have been no end to the outcry.  And someone might very well have gone to jail.

But this isn’t Obama; it’s Trump.  And Trump is apparently so evil that opposing him makes all fair game.  The only thing surprising really is that CNN actually fired Griffin.

UPDATE: Looks like Griffin might be quite pleased to upset Baron Trump so much – I really don’t have words for this witch…