Why the UK Repeatedly Stumbles Heading for the Brexit

MAGA–hat owners would feel right at home on the streets of London. Moseying along wary of a sneak attack by leftist thugs, they’d be secure in the knowledge that in the UK, just as in the US, government institutions are run by individuals adamantly opposed to them and any public policy they support.

Daryl Cagle

Specifically, those individuals are leftists who are currently very disenchanted with democracy. In both instances, the disenchantment dates back to 2016.

As Christopher Caldwell — author of ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’ — explained at a recent Claremont Institute discussion, the 2016 UK referendum on whether or not to leave the European Union (Brexit for short) was a throw–away gesture on the part of then Prime Minister David Cameron.

The referendum was proposed with the same sincerity that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell employs when he promises to balance the federal budget or repeal Obamacare. Cameron called for the vote to silence anti–EU critics in his own party. After the vote failed, he could go on about the business of transforming the UK into a wholly–owned subsidiary of the trans–national elite.

That was a predictable mistake. Caldwell explains, “The Tory party is 75 percent pro–Brexit at the base, but not at the leadership level. Cameron never thought Brexit would pass.”

On June 23rd Brexit did pass by a 52 to 48 percent majority in an election with the largest turnout in UK history.

Four months later democracy failed again when Donald Trump was elected president.

As 2017 began conservatives in both countries learned the Resistance in the US and Remain in the UK had more than a consonant in common.

Brexit supporters quickly discovered, in Caldwell’s words, “At the heart of Brexit all the decisions are being made by the institutions that were repudiated by Brexit.” That’s why three years after the vote to leave, the UK is still in the EU. The Remainers are acting against the will of the electorate.

Just as only one presidential candidate was legitimate in the eyes of the left here, in the UK only “one outcome [was] legitimate in terms of the Brexit referendum.”

Besides delay, the Remainder counterattack to Brexit reveals what low and dishonest creatures they truly are. Led by their pet newspaper, The Independent, Remainers are now proposing another election, as if referendums, like marriages, are something you keep doing until you get it right.

Brexit on the rebound is termed either the “Final Say” or “People’s Vote,” meaning if the right people vote this time we’ll win,

And they aren’t content with just another bite of the same apple. This vote is clearly designed to defeat Brexit. Three choices are proposed: 1. Remain. 2. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit Deal. 3. No Deal.

The two Brexit alternatives are designed to split the Brexit vote while concentrating the Remain vote. It’s election as sham. Remain would win with a plurality, which is close enough for government work.

Here the response wasn’t a new election. It was to nullify the votes of 63 million people. As White House Senior Advisor Stephen Miller told the Washington Examiner, “[Anti–Trump] career federal employees believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically, it’s heads I win, tails you lose.”

That’s why Trump can’t build a wall, can’t deport illegals, can’t limit legal immigration and can’t penalize employers who hire illegals. His short attention span doesn’t help, but even if Trump had the focus of LeBron James chasing a Chinese endorsement contract, he would still be fighting for every inch of progress.

The stakes are cosmic for conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. In Caldwell’s view, “Brexit is crucial in that it is the moment that does or does not roll back trans–national organizations.” The fight will decide whether or not the UK can set its own course for the future.

Here Trump against the Resistance may well be the last chance to control our borders and decide who is and who isn’t a citizen of the USA.

The left’s distaste for the results of the 2016 election remind me of East German communist playwright Bertolt Brecht’s joke, “Some party hack decreed that the people had lost the government’s confidence and could only regain it with redoubled effort. If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people and elected another?”

Sounds like a plan say Resistance and Remain.

Conservative Culture Options: Fight Back or Hope for Endangered Species Listing

Readers may be totally unfamiliar with the term ‘David French–ism.’ That doesn’t mean you can ignore it. David French–ism and its proponents are one of the reasons conservatives and Christianity have been almost routed from the pubic square. David French–ism is the failure of corporate and think–tank conservatism that resulted in a revolt of the rank–and–file and the election of Donald Trump.

New York Post writer Sohrab Ahmari coined the term in an article titled: “Against David French–ism.” Naturally, French took umbrage. Last week the Institute of Human Ecology sponsored a face–off in Washington, DC.

Ahmari defined David French–ism as, “A program for negotiating Christian retreat into a safe private sphere.” It’s his belief, “Too much intellectual firepower has been devoted to lawyers. There are cultural battles that can’t be fought in the courtroom, but must be fought anyway.”

Ahmari’s problem at the debate was a mirror image of French’s. He was all strategy with no tactics. And French was all tactics and no strategy.

It would have been useful for Ahmari if he’d spent some time mapping out steps conservatives could take to begin the outside–the–courtroom offensive. What Ahmari offered instead was a passionate, sincere warning about our “5–alarm culture fire.”

In contrast, French was smug, superior, condescending and worst of all lawyerly. In this current age lawyers are our gnostic rulers. French revels in his command of special wisdom and jealously guards it. French is doubly gnostic because he also has the secrets of “classical liberalism,” a term that means nothing to most of conservative America.

When Ahmari discussed particulars, French responded with the big picture. When Ahmari focused on the big picture, French got particular. It might be a great media debate technique, but it just made French look slippery and disingenuous.

Much of the evening revolved around Drag Queen Story Hour. This is an unholy event where deviants are brought into a public library to expose very small children to the joys of the alphabet lifestyle. Drag queens entertaining children was Ahmari’s cultural fire alarm, while French couldn’t be bothered.

He pooh–poohed Ahmari’s concern. “That’s the threat? I just don’t see it. It’s one of the choices people make in a free society.”

As he dismissed the example of deviants being celebrated by government at the expense of children I was reminded of something R. R. Reno wrote regarding “our fifty-year-long celebration of transgression. We have removed the moral guardrails in our society. It’s no surprise that more and more people are skidding off the road.”

Ahmari would like to replace the guardrails.

French contends conservatives should do everything in their power to preserve “viewpoint neutrality”, which is the welcome mat for drag queens. It’s the legal doctrine he’s used to win court cases requiring government to allow Christian organizations to use some abandoned storeroom for a Bible study.

Ahmari feels French–ism’s piecemeal gains “are not proportionate to the reverses we’ve suffered.” While French is impervious to the fact that 50 years ago Christians had the entire building.

Mark Bauerlein agrees with Ahmari, “David French’s commentary on the Oberlin College penalty pinpoints exactly the problem. Conservatives have lost battle after battle in higher education for 50 years, and when we get the rare pushback against leftist tyranny, establishment conservatives hail it as a game-changer. They have been proven wrong again and again.”

Besides libraries already exercise viewpoint discrimination. That’s the reason you don’t find Huster magazine in the periodical rack.

Ahmari likened French’s drag queen disinterest to his previous failure to recognize the impact of homosexual marriage in 2006. French later admitted that his laissez-faire attitude to a disaster for Christians was wrong. French ignored him.

He is a proceduralist who’s learned nothing. French is always on the deck of the battleship Missouri fighting for better surrender terms while the ruins of the culture smolder behind him. That’s why he’s still working to defeat Trump in 2020. The conservative judges Trump appointed are irrelevant.

When a lawyer in the audience said, “you spilled a lot of words talking about due process” but due process is at the mercy of judges. “When you have lawless judges on the courts nobody has due process.”

French airily dismissed her, “I reject the notion that everything stands or falls any given four years of judicial appointments.”

And there is smug, superior French–ism in all its glory. It’s why voters rejected it in 2016 even before Ahmari decided it was worth rejecting.

French’s hands remain pure, unsullied by any Trump support. He’s already negotiated his small comfy perch. The rest of you should do likewise.

Besides the central tenant of French–ism is: In the long run, we’re all dead.

A Wake–up Call for Snooze Alarm Conservatives

‘The Hunt’ has hit a shunt and count me among the deeply disappointed. The Hollywood Reporter informs us, “Universal has decided to scrap the release of ‘The Hunt’ — an R-rated satire in which elites hunt “deplorables” for sport — following a series of mass shootings across the country.”

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle

Many conservative commentators hail this as a victory. Take that, Hollywood degenerates!

Only they’re wrong. Any time conservatives are celebrating censorship we’re both losing and hypocritical. Second, the more conservatives who see this movie the better. Banning it only helps the left.

‘The Hunt’ is a visual demonstration of just what Hollywood, Ivy League elitists and the Twitterati really think of Trump voters. The Sonderkonservatives who believe their Never–Trumpism or I–only–voted–for–him–because–of–trade–policy disdain will save them from being lumped in with MAGA–hat wearers are in for a shock. Paying the illegal mowing their lawn more than the minimal wage won’t erase the stain.

In culture wars anyone who’s not a leftist is the enemy. One of the victims in the movie is targeted because he’s not blood thirsty enough.

His mistake was being Pro–Life.

The movie would’ve proved to be Jolt Cola for the country’s complacent conservatives who sleep placidly, safe in the mistaken belief the left’s animosity doesn’t involve them. When some washed up female ‘comedian’ poses with a picture of Trump’s decapitated head, they’re briefly aroused and paying attention. Then they hit the snooze button again.

It’s not their concern. They don’t own a MAGA hat. They aren’t a baker or a florist. They don’t make political contributions. And Roscoe will be sick the day gender–benders come to Show & Tell.

Besides, Trump has Secret Service protection.

Only the people being hunted in this movie aren’t White House staffers, political appointees or activists with a Trump bumper sticker on the pickup. They are rank–and–file Deplorables. Sitting in a darkened theatre listening to the audience laugh when people like you die in a ‘satire’ would have proven to be an enlightening experience.

Prey people in this movie can be found at any gas station, Walmart or football stadium. They wear caps, cowboy shirts and own guns.

Fox News reported, “The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals.”

THR shares this bit of dialogue from one of our unhappy betters, “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen Deplorables.” The action that follows ‘features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.’”

The El Paso shooter had his manifesto. This is the Hollywood manifesto.

In a nice bit of symmetry Hillary Swank stars as a hunter. She’s killing the voters her candidate Hillary Clinton first called ‘Deplorables.” Swank’s murder of people just like you and me is described as “deeply rewarding.”

We know ‘The Hunt’ is a fantasy because rich leftists know how to use a gun. An accurate movie would have had the One Percenter’s security team – people a notch above Deplorables and willing to take orders – do the killing while ‘asylum seekers’ acted as beaters and drove the victims toward their death.

The One Percent would watch via drone on a Jumbotron.

Regardless of its rich Democrat portrayal, finally this movie should make you snooze alarm conservatives start thinking.

Swank takes the role of conservative killer convinced she will suffer no damage to her career. Jason Blum knows the movie won’t hamper his next effort to produce a picture. Universal knows approving the movie won’t harm its stock. And theatre chains know showing the movie won’t cause a riot.

This is an entire chain of individuals and companies that know with certainty they are immune to any repercussion.

That alone should begin to worry you. Where else do the losers of an election freely discuss killing government supporters? Certainly not in a genuine fascist state. When Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, with only 37 percent of the vote, Fritz Lang wasn’t making movies about hunting Brown Shirts.

Hollywood feels free to do it here because they know Trump isn’t really a fascist and there is no danger. The left controls the culture, college, government education, corporate boardrooms, the media and the permanent government bureaucracy.

All the Deplorables had was their vote and that has condemned them in the eyes of the left.

There are no neutrality agreements or conscientious objectors in this culture war. It’s binary. You are with the left or you are the enemy. It’s high time snooze alarm conservatives woke up and smelled the culture burning. Seeing ‘The Hunt’ would have helped.

Trump Says “Adios” to Birthright Citizenship

Ending birthright citizenship, better known as dropping the anchor baby, is the most significant illegal immigration reform the President Trump has announced. With a single executive order, he unplugs a beacon that attracts scammers from the world over. He also attacks a visible manifestation of the Foreigners First mindset that has infected the State Department, and the rest of the federal bureaucracy, since the 60s.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

For those late to the discussion, birthright citizenship is the GPS theory of national allegiance. If your pregnant wife was sitting in the stands at Lambeau Field and she got so excited she gave birth, the resulting baby would not be entitled to season tickets for the rest of his life. But if your wife, Consuela, was an illegal alien in a sanctuary city, who gave birth in a sanctuary maternity ward, your new child would be a Yankee Doodle Dandy. An instant US citizen with all the welfare rights that come with the birth certificate.

Trump will end that.

As is customary in these situations the left and its propaganda arm the Opposition Media instantly sprang to the defense of this devaluing of US citizenship. Even worse, the OpMedia had no trouble recruiting reflexive anti–Trumpers like Paul Ryan (R–INO). Ryan evidently liberated by his banishment to private life, stabbed Trump in the back using his favorite tactic of preemptive surrender. He claims anchor babies aweigh will require an amendment to the Constitution.

The left’s defense of birthright citizenship relies much on sentiment and sad stories and is light on facts. The talking points read like Shotgun Joe Biden wrote the memo. Here are the main defenses of this nonsensical geography theory of national obligation:

  1. The plain language of the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship.
  2. Birthright citizenship has been a part of the US since the beginning.
  3. The Supreme Court has ruled illegals are entitled to birthright citizenship.
  4. Throwing anchor babies overboard required amending the Constitution.

Each point is factually incorrect. Here is the plain language of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The author of the citizenship amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard, who ought to know what he meant, explained, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.”

This was tested in the case of Elk v. Wilkins where an Indian sued, contending he had birthright citizenship. Elk lost. The court ruled, “No one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” It took passage of a law in 1924 to grant birthright citizenship to American Indians.

The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of birthright citizenship for illegals. The case defenders cite, Wong Kim Ark, concerned two Chinese diplomats who were in the country legally and had a child. In their wisdom, the judges used subjectship under English common law, which the Founders had specifically rejected in the Declaration of Independence, to arrive at a decision that would be overturned today. The case said nothing about aliens in the country illegally.

Mark Levin said, “Not until the 1960’s [was] the Constitution …interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy.”

The federal bureaucracy is controlled by Trump, intermittently at least, so he can tell the executive branch to close the border maternity ward. An amendment isn’t necessary.

Trump should make the order retroactive to the first day of the administration. Certainly, the left will file a lawsuit and fall into a trap of their own making. This is the defining case that can overturn Wong and restore the original intent to the 14th Amendment and not the Hallmark Card legal philosophy that the government has followed for over 50 years. That’s a victory that will last long after the Trump administration.

Finally, Paul Ryan’s back–stabbing response when asked about Trump’s most important policy reinforces my advice to conservatives. Go on strike when you vote in congressional races. Conservatives should vote for every Republican candidate except Representatives. On that line write “On Strike.” Without the conservative base, always taken for granted, Republicans can’t win. In 2020, after the country club conservatives who survive have learned their lesson, resume voting as normal.

Conservatives will never see change in Congress until they change who’s in Congress. Going on strike is the place to start.

The Constitutional Work–Around for Term Limits

I’ve always wondered why the National Education Association (NEA) and the country club conservatives in the Republican House and Senate leadership aren’t allies, instead of enemies. Both organizations use the same tired talking points to defend inert members from the forces of accountability.

When education reformers urge legislative bodies to adopt merit pay for teachers and thereby reward the best teachers with the most money, the NEA counters that experience is crucial and paying teachers according to seniority rewards that excellent system.

Bill Schorr, San Clemente, CA

In the same fashion, when congressional reformers urge House and Senate leadership to adopt an amendment adding term limits to the Constitution, leadership rejects the proposal out of hand, claiming seniority is crucial to keeping Congress the paragon of competence it is today.

It’s no accident that education, Congress and penal institutions all grant more privileges based solely on how much time you’ve served.

Cong. Francis Rooney (R–Doomed) wants to remove Congress from that list. Rooney has formulated a brilliant method of implementing term limits that does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Rooney’s Thomas Jefferson Public Service Act would place no limits on how long a member could warm a seat in Congress — that requires an amendment — instead Rooney would reduce a member’s paycheck to $1 per year after they served six terms in the House or two terms in the Senate.

My wife is skeptical. She believes after 12 years our ‘public servants’ have already made themselves millionaires, so the $173,999.00 pay cut won’t bother them. She is not alone.

FedSmith.com downplays Rooney’s bill, too, “…most Congressmen make a career out of remaining in Congress (often moving on to the Senate). Many become millionaires within a few years after their election and, of course, they also receive a pension under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS).”

What both overlook is the loss of status if Rooney’s bill passes.

When Newt Gingrich was running the show, Republicans imposed term limits on committee chairmen. In the House and Senate, Republicans are limited to six years as the jefe of any committee.

At the end of their term as chairman these members must surrender the gavel, without any reduction in salary or benefits. Many retiring chairmen look upon that gavel as the closest thing to Thor’s Hammer they will ever wield. Giving it up is such a personal Ragnarök that they retire from Congress rather than revert to being hammerless rank–and–file member regardless of their salary.

I’m thinking not getting an envelope on payday would have the same effect. It’s one thing to talk about being a ‘public servant.’ Becoming one and working for free is something entirely different.

I’m willing to grasp at Rooney’s straw if there’s even a slim chance of success.

Rooney is so serious he’s prepared to become very unpopular with his colleagues. In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Rooney correctly termed arguments against term limits legislation as “elitist paternalism.” He already has seven co–sponsors for his bill and he intends to put the heat on nominal term limits supporters.

“There are 90 co–sponsors on term limit by [constitutional] amendment bills and there’s something called the ‘Term Limit Caucus.’ Let’s see what they want to do,” Rooney explained. This is where Rooney drops off Christmas card lists.

Co–sponsoring a term limits constitutional amendment is exactly like promising to repeal Obamacare. It’s showy and consequence–free.

The chance of the amendment coming up for a vote is exactly the same as the chance of Donald Trump being named Man of the Year by La Raza. If the unthinkable happens — see Obamacare vote — and term limits comes to the floor, co–sponsors will cheerfully betray their voters just as Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins did.

Rooney’s bill will put these poseurs on the spot. There are 26 members of the Term Limits Caucus, yet only two are co–sponsoring his bill. Rooney should have 31 co–sponsors and that’s before he goes after the amendment popinjays.

Baier went to Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell for a comment on Rooney’s bill. In a voice dripping with disdain, McConnell gargled, “I would say we have term limits now, they’re called elections, and it will not be on the agenda in the Senate.”

True and the current system has given us McConnell as an example of what term limits would prevent.

Rooney’s only misstep so far came in his announcement. He quoted former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R–Great American) who said Americans “are frustrated with the federal government.” True again. But Coburn is no longer in the Senate, because he imposed term limits on himself.

I fear the time–servers Rooney is trying to persuade will hear that name and ask themselves, “yeah, and when was the last time Coburn was on TV?”

More Evangelicals Selling Their Soul to Support a Loser

It’s sad to say another Christian group has decided to maintain access to DC power rather than tell the truth regarding the shortcomings of a prominent politician. Maybe it’s the ego rush when calls are returned. Or maybe it’s the meetings in off–limits–to–the–public Capitol hideaways that persuades these organizations to publically support a man who’s repeatedly failed to live up to expectations.

Their support would make perfect sense if I was referring to Donald Trump. His personal failings are legion, but he’s delivered. I’m talking about the Evangelical embrace of Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell. His personal life lacks ‘hos and handsy–ness, but his public life is steaming pile of defeat and insincere promises.

Christopher Weyant, The Boston Globe

McConnell’s failures are manifest in the Family Research Council’s scorecard on the 115th Congress. FRC tries manfully to make a silk purse out of McConnell’s ear, but the task is impossible. Once you get past the hyperbolic lead, “A record number — 245 Members of Congress — scored a perfect 100 percent…last year.” One realizes most of the votes counted for nothing.

If FRC rated on legislative effectiveness the scores would max out at 25 percent.

The House passed eight laws and one resolution used for scorecard evaluation. Four of those bills failed in the Senate. McConnell’s ‘accomplishments’ were so paltry, FRC had to use the routine confirmation of appointees for most of the scorecard.

That’s the legislative equivalent of giving participation trophies at the end of ballerina ball season.

Separating what the House passed from what the Senate failed to pass shows just how much damage McConnell single–handedly does to the conservative cause.

This political mastermind is responsible for the defeat of bills designed to stop funding Planned Parenthood and forcing Christian organizations to provide contraception coverage that conflicts with their Christian belief. McConnell is responsible for the defeat of the clean Obamacare repeal and it’s ‘skinny’ brother. And just this week McConnell passively watched the Pain–Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’s defeat even though it had a majority of 51 votes.

Yet there is zero criticism of McConnell’s serial failures! Instead FRC blandly refers to defeats requiring 60 votes without explaining why a simple majority of 51 isn’t enough.

This self–imposed 60–vote requirement is an internal Senate rule that only dates back to 1975. Before if a bill was scheduled to come to the floor and a senator or party opposed the measure, they had to conduct a genuine filibuster. This meant the senator had to hold the floor, blocking consideration of any other legislation or Senate business.

Senators read aloud, told stories or simply listened to the music of their own voice during their time at the podium. The filibuster was an around–the–clock affair and sympathetic senators had to continue the delaying drone by volunteering to take a shift. This took a physical toll and many filibusters ended because the opposition simply ran out of gas.

The other way to conclude a filibuster was a cloture vote to end debate. That’s what requires 60 votes.

Today if the minority party wants to filibuster a bill it simply informs McConnell and he considers the bill blocked until 60 votes materialize to bring it to the floor. McConnell could revert to the pre–1975 filibuster this week if he wished. Changing the rule only requires a majority and he has 51 votes.

Democrats would be forced to go public with their obstructionism. Voters would see which party is blocking the function of government and I don’t think Schumer could stand the heat.

But this small–minded, political coward won’t make the change. McConnell is a double–minded man who in his heart doesn’t believe in the conservative principles he claims to support. McConnell is a defeatist who fears success. That’s why he told AP “Republicans will welcome the [post 1975] filibuster when they return to the minority.” And he’s just the man to lead them there.

The thought that Republicans could pass conservative legislation that rolls back at least some of leftism’s excesses and puts the onus on Democrats to repeal those bills never enters McConnell’s mind. He just keeps the furniture dusted until his inevitable Democrat take over.

McConnell’s wasted an entire year in which Republicans controlled the presidency, House and Senate. It may well be one half of the time during the Trump administration when the GOP controlled all three branches.

An accurate FRC scorecard would give every GOP senator a zero rating, because their votes keep McConnell Majority Leader.

McConnell is a weakling who will never change Senate rules unless he’s pushed and pushed hard. It’s time conservative and Christian organizations told the truth about the man who is single–handedly blocking the agenda of the people who sent Republicans to Washington.

Steve Bannon’s Spontaneous Combustion

It’s been said that death was a good career move for Elvis, it remains to be seen if Steve Bannon’s Watch–Me–Burn–Down–My–Career Tour will be equally favorable for his future prospects. The coverage of his quotes and leaks in Michael Wolff’s new book ‘Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House’ has been nothing short of incendiary.

So far this week Bannon has alienated President Trump, driven away his largest financial backer and made himself look delusional by thinking he could successfully run for president. He now joins another Breitbart.com alumnus, Milo Yiannopoulos, in the firm of Persona Non Grata and Partners.

Right now, the only way Bannon could possibly make the situation worse would be for him to start dating Kathy Griffin or ask to borrow her Trump head.

I’ve been reading coverage of the book excerpts and making lists. I started with the list of people who thought Trump would lose the election and then moved on to the list of people who hold Trump in contempt. There is plenty of overlap, but the name that’s surprising is Trump’s!

Trump is on the roster of people who thought he wouldn’t win the election. That goes a long way toward explaining why he broke his first promise to his voters and didn’t self–fund the campaign. Trump doesn’t back losers. According to Wolff, his goal was to become even more famous and then cash in on his increased notoriety after the election and make Trump enterprises even bigger.

No wonder his campaign was composed of a thin veneer of consultants on top and large numbers of enthusiastic rally attendees at the bottom, with mostly nothing in between. Trump was happy with the adulation of the masses, the attention of the media and the consternation of the entrenched political class.

Trump was liberated by his low expectations.

What the Opposition Media overlooks is the narrative of no expectation for victory completely undermines the ‘colluded with Russia to win’ fantasy. If a steely–eyed Trump was telling his meager staff to win at all costs, well it’s Putin on line #1. But if the campaign was a lark, an ego trip and a roadshow then it makes no sense for Trump to be looking to Moscow for help in beating Crooked Hillary.

The motive for collusion vanishes. Trump’s references to Russia and email were laugh lines at rallies and debates that grim, humorless, Trump–hating reporters purposely choose to take literally. Trump in the book was on a fun–filled romp — insulting other Republicans, attacking Hillary and generating unprecedented news coverage — that was going to conclude on election night.

He would have one last rally that night, claim Hillary stole the election and then start exploiting his new–found fame. Much of the staff planned on doing the same thing. According to the book, “The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their worldview one whit.”

A vote margin of under 10 points for a candidate with Trump’s negatives, would be impressive and help build the client list.

Colluding with Russia on the other hand would have been work. Serious business like that requires planning and long–term strategy, which were not a characteristic of the Trump campaign.

And that leads me to the tragedy of the book and the campaign.

A candidate who didn’t think he would win, won a stunning victory because he ran on issues that resonated with Americans who were tired of being told their beliefs were hateful or backward. These citizens were sick of being treated with thinly–veiled contempt by political, academic and corporate elites who intended to change the US whether they liked it or not.

These voters stayed with Trump through thick and thin and delivered an Electoral College victory. If Trump had been a candidate who left discussions of female anatomy exploration to experts like Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer, there’s an excellent chance he could have won the popular vote, too.

Reestablishing the rule of law, protecting borders, putting America First, protecting the unborn and rolling back the cultural depredations of the left are important issues and Trump’s victory may be the last chance conservatives will have. If his feckless approach to governing doesn’t deliver on his promises or Trump is forced out of office, no foreseeable Republican presidential candidate will embrace those issues.

It will be one complacent, country club Republican after another. A failed state of affairs that will make Trump’s outraged response to Bannon’s comments become poignant. Trump said his “historic victory…was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country.”

A failed presidency or one that betrays his promises will guarantee they remain “forgotten.”

Virginia Election Determined by Angry Swamp Creatures

The Virginia off–year election for governor demonstrates what would have happened last year if the Constitution didn’t require an Electoral College.

Crony Conservative Ed Gillespie carried 82 counties compared to Democrat Ralph Northam’s 13. The 69–county advantage didn’t mean squat though. All that counted was Northam’s 230,853 vote margin that put him in the governor’s mansion.

I assumed that Gillespie’s loss was due to his tepid embrace of President Trump’s populism and a generally uninspiring campaign. Gillespie’s issues may have been a hit with focus groups, but in the real world the campaign landed with a thud.

Gillespie is as much a conservative as Elizabeth Warren is a Comanche. Jeb Bush may have been low energy, but Ed Gillespie was low emotion. When a candidate speaks conservatism as a second language it’s tough to be fluent discussing issues important to the base.

Unfortunately, the numbers don’t support my case for conservatives and Trumpistas rejecting our lobbyist–in–waiting. It’s hard to evaluate intensity since Virginia doesn’t register voters by party. And you can’t compare the 2013 primary to the 2017 primary because in 2013 Republicans held a convention.

Since the big issue for Democrats and the OpMedia was the so–called Trump effect, it makes sense to examine counties carried by the president. It appears many Virginia conservatives were more tolerant of Establishment Ed and his amnesty background than I was.

Ballotpedia identified five counties in Virginia it terms “pivot counties” because they voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. These counties should be the home of swing voters and the type of voter Gillespie would have to hold to win. During the GOP primary the ineffectual but bombastic Corey Stewart won only two of the five counties, indicating swing voters found Enervating Ed an acceptable candidate.

In the general election Gillespie again carried all five of the “pivot counties.” In three his margin was less than Trump’s, but in the other two his margin exceeded Trump’s. Analyst Jim Crumley contends it was Gillespie’s failure to turn out the Trump vote that cost him the election. I disagree. Gillespie got 66 percent of the Trump voters to go to the polls in an off–year election, which is very good when you consider overall voter turnout was only 47 percent.

What beat Gillespie was the remarkable 71 percent of the Hillary voters that Democrats turned out. Then if Gillespie’s loss wasn’t due to conservative turnoff, what was the cause? Simple, this election was the revenge of the swamp creatures. Republicans in the House of Delegates lost a shocking 14 seats and a stunning 11 of those losers were incumbents.

Looking at a color–coded map of the state by legislative district makes my case. All but one of the flipped seats were either in the suburbs of Washington, DC; the government installation–heavy Norfolk area, government–centric Richmond and isolated Communist cells in the university towns of Lynchburg, Roanoke and Blacksburg.

A combination of Big Government and Big Dependency helped the swamp break through the levee and inundate neighboring House of Delegates’ districts. Government pounded the governed.

And who can blame them? Trump has targeted Big Government from his first days in office. It’s a public–spirited swamp creature indeed who would vote for the party of the man who claims to be draining their habitat.

In February of last year — at the time I was on Cruz Control — I wrote a column about the best reason I’d seen so far to vote for Trump. A GovExec.com poll claimed that up to 25 percent of the federal workforce would consider quitting if Trump were elected.

It proved to be just another Big Government lie, but the survey was a useful indicator of attitude. The federal workforce and its various hangers on that include contractors, NGOs, lobbyists, handout seekers and crony capitalists see an unprecedented threat to their livelihood if Trump is successful. That fear and OpMedia–fed loathing led to an unprecedented negative, straight–ticket vote against Republicans.

They didn’t so much vote their pocketbooks as they voted to keep draining yours.

The question for Democrats is can they replicate this success in the 2018 mid–term elections? I’m doubtful. Metro can only export so many federal workers and camp followers to the surrounding DC suburbs. And it’s a cinch Trump isn’t planning to go on a nationwide federal hiring frenzy so he can send more Democrats to the polls.

That doesn’t mean Democrats won’t win by other means. If the Republican Keystone Kongress — the Gang That Couldn’t Govern Straight — doesn’t pass meaningful tax reform or repeal Obamacare; but does pass amnesty for DACA invaders, I predict a wipeout.

One in which I will gladly participate.

Discovery of Trumpophobia Would Help Deplorables

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This was a singularly unpopular column. Only one of the subscribing news outlets of the Cagle Syndicate chose to run it. See if you can guess why.)

The last couple of weeks have been so stressful for Trump voters that conversion to Islam is looking increasingly attractive as a means of avoiding media scrutiny.

The fact is both Trumpistas and the Umma bear a certain similarity. Trump voters and Moslems both adhere to the instruction of man whose example, in at least some instances, is wildly out of sync with contemporary mores — even if specifics differ.

[Note on “Moslem.” Muslim is an Arabic word. I’m not an Arab so I use the English term Moslem. Do we call the Germans the Deutschen? Are the Hindus the Hindoos? Of course not. Enforcing Muslim instead of the perfectly good Moslem is another example of the cultural coddling extended to Islam that is found nowhere else and is the basis of this column.]

Take women for instance. Both had multiple wives, Mohammed simultaneously and Trump consecutively. In parts of the Islamic world the attraction of women is viewed as so powerful they are hidden in gunnysacks. Trump is in agreement, but he paraded women in bikinis down a runway.

Trump speculated regarding the results of groping women, while Islamic scholars have rules for beating women. Islam is plagued by female honor killings, while Trump’s tweets claim some females are dishonorable. And both groups must contend with fallout from the more zealous adherents.

In the Moslem case it’s jihadis and in the Deplorables case it’s Trump.

Yet the aftermath after major Religion of Peace incident is the complete opposite of the recriminations that ensue after a major Trump incident.

In Barcelona jihadis attacked a crowd of pedestrians with a rented van. The resulting toll was 15 dead and 120 wounded. This attack was actually the second of three that began with the explosion of a bomb manufacturing operation and ended with another vehicle attack that saw five jihadis shot dead.

In Charlottesville, VA there was only one event, a Nazi and bigots protest in favor of retaining statues of Civil War heroes who also happened to be slave owners. Counter protesters appeared on the scene and in the resulting violence a woman that was part of the mob protesting the protesters was killed by one of the bigots.

In Spain, even before the last jihadi was caught, the media herd feared a potential outbreak of “Islamophobia.” Yahoo News warned, “Muslims Fear Anti–Islam backlash in Tolerant Barcelona.” While area hospitals were still treating victims in critical condition, one Moslem woman griped, “In the end Muslims are the main victims, for the deaths as well as for the social pressure.”

And the media doesn’t contact a single one of the real victims for a word in response.

Here in the US not only is there no concern regarding an outbreak of Trumpophobia after an incident, the Opposition Media is handing out infected blankets.

It didn’t help that Trumps thumbs are no more articulate than his lips. A tweet that was supposed to condemn ALL the violence in Charlottesville doesn’t measure up to the OpMedia’s content standards. Trump is therefore accused of giving aid and comfort to Nazis and bigots.

Trump wasn’t even part of the Charlottesville march, but the OpMedia contends he bears responsibility because the bigots were white and presumably some were Trump voters.

Naturally this means all Trump supporters are equally guilty.

Corporate CEOs on Trump advisory boards smell the tar bubbling and they begin to resign in a huff. A pastor on a religious advisory board can’t stand to associate with a man who tweets so poorly and he resigns.

The trickle–down opprobrium continues.

There’s a rally in Boston a few days later and one of the signs reads, “White Silence Is Violence.” What are the chances of ever seeing a sign that reads, “Moslem Silence Is Violence”?

Lest someone get the idea there is a nexus between terrorism and Islam, the Washington Post assures readers there is no fallout in Barcelona businesses run by Moslems. A computer storeowner is immune to bombing backlash, as is a nearby grocery store owner. I’m sure customers would be happy to step over the debris to shop if it meant staving off an outbreak of the dreaded Islamophobia.

Meanwhile here in the US the CEO of Camping World has told customers who agree with Trump to shop somewhere else. The guilt by association even extends to pre–Charlottesville bumper stickers. A week ago my wife made the mistake of driving down the road in Virginia with a Trump/Pence sticker on her car.

A tolerant advocate of peace and love began honking at her and making obscene gestures before she cut my wife off.

While Spain is avoiding “a post attack culture war” the opposition media and the commentariat here appear to be doing their best to fan the flames. Trump voters who own a business should be bankrupted. Trump voters who own a checkbook should shop elsewhere. Trump voters who attend college should take a vow of silence.

I suppose the only hope for relief is for Trumpistas to convince the OpMedia there are “moderate Trump voters” worth cultivating. It worked for the mullahs in Iran, maybe it will work here.

“Gde myaso?” Russian for Where’s the Beef?

Political campaigns are full of liars and fabulists. From the candidate who promises to repeal Obamacare root–and–branch, to the volunteer who lies about how many doors he knocked, campaigns attract people who are, as Mark Twain observed, “Economical with the truth.”

I know because I spent almost 40 years working in elections all over the US and in a handful of islands.

Think of all the disfunction and outrage you’ve ever endured in any organization where you’ve worked. Then condense the burned microwave popcorn in the break room, the idea–stealing colleague, the boss who doesn’t give the promised raise, the boasting braggart and the job description that changes monthly into a timeframe of only a few months.

That’s a political campaign.

The people outside the campaign who want to “help” are often no better. The relative that meddles, the donor with advice on campaign commercials and the family friend who has negative information that’s going to “blow the opponent out of the water.”

The Trump campaign had to deal with all these annoyance on the largest scale possible.

This brings us to Donald Trump, Jr. He’s a businessman with zero political experience. On June 3, 2016 he gets an email from a music publicist, who tells him a Russian singer says his dad met with the “Crown prosecutor of Russia,” who in turn said he had documents related to Hillary’s Russian dealings that would incriminate her.

The only difference between this and typical campaign fantasy mongering is the information wasn’t for sale.

Media hindsight is currently spinning this third–hand account of potential Russian government “help” as the latest confirmation of the Axis of Internet hacking conspiracy. What this “evidence” really proves is the Russia collusion scandal is the leftist equivalent of the Obama birth certificate conspiracy.

Neither the timeline nor the result stand up to objective scrutiny.

When Donald, Jr. received the initial email Trump wasn’t even the nominee. Instead he was the presumed nominee — although John Kasich had recently stopped taking his medicine and was attempting to organize other bitter–enders in an effort to seize the GOP convention.

Those of you who are counting may list this as the first attempted coup against Trump.

If you are as credulous as the Opposition Media it makes perfect sense the Russian security service, the FSB, would use a music publicist sending an unencrypted email as part of a nefarious plot to derail Our First Female President.

The situation was significantly different from Junior’s viewpoint. The message refers to a so–called “Crown prosecutor of Russia.” But it may as well have been the “Clown prosecutor of Russia.” The office is as imaginary as the documentation.

Google the phrase and you get 40,800 results that refer to the news stories about the email.

For Trump the primary motivation for the meeting isn’t a sit–down with some shadowy Russian. Donald, Jr. is maintaining a business relationship. The singer’s dad is a Russian big-shot Trump, Inc. has done business with in the past. The rule of thumb for operating in an oligarchy is: Keep the Oligarchs Happy! A meeting with a potential crackpot is a small price to pay to stay in the Russian market.

If the Russian “agent” does have information, so much the better. One thing his motivation couldn’t have been was joining some Russian conspiracy to steal the election. That’s because the alleged Russian DNC hack wasn’t announced until AFTER junior’s meeting.

The Russian scandal that had been in the news was in connection with Hillary’s ties to the infamous Uranium One deal.

As reported in the New York Times more than a year earlier, Sec. of State Hillary approved a deal where Russians acquired a majority stake in a Uranium One, giving Putin control of one–fifth of the uranium production capacity in the US.

That’s considerably more significant that gaining control of the Georgia voters rolls.

Uranium One was so grateful for Hillary’s generosity the chairman gave the Clinton Crime Foundation a total of $2.35 million. Hillary was still a government employee and couldn’t take a speaking fee, but Bill cashed a $500,000 check from a Moscow bank directly tied into the Russian government.

That is a genuine Russian scandal that actually happened.

Meanwhile Trump, Jr.’s meeting went like most of these negative hype–fests do. Rosa Klebb walked into the meeting, excuse me Natalia Veselnitskaya, and all she wanted to talk about was Russian sanctions, not Hillary shenanigans.

There was no Russian help. No Russian collusion. No beef at all.

The meeting was such a waste of time Jared Kushner walked out halfway through and resumed living a normal life. I would recommend obsessed members of the Opposition Media discard their tinfoil hats and do the same.