Victor Davis Hanson on Trump Resistance

Share Button


An article below by Victor Davis Hanson, author and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, that reminded me of this famous passage by Robert Bolt, in his play, “A Man for All Seasons:”

Sir Thomas More: “What would do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

Roper: “I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.”

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the best minds alive in this country today. Read his following article, and read his blog:


When legal bloodhounds and baying critics fail to take out Trump, what’s next? The Resistance wants Trump’s head — on the chopping block.

On the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence. Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground. Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its strange continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2016 election.

Indeed, the aim of the so-called Resistance to Donald J. Trump is ending Trump’s presidency by any means necessary before the 2020 election. Or, barring that, it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent. It has been only 16 months since Trump took office and, in the spirit of revolutionary fervor, almost everything has been tried to derail him. Now we are entering uncharted territory — at a time when otherwise the country is improving and the legal exposure of Trump’s opponents increases daily.

First came the failed lawsuits after the election alleging voting-machine tampering. Then there was the doomed celebrity effort to convince some state electors not to follow their constitutional duty and to deny Trump the presidency — a gambit that, had it worked, would have wrecked the Constitution. Then came the pathetic congressional boycott of the inauguration and the shrill nationwide protests against the president.

Next was the sad effort to introduce articles of impeachment. After that came weird attempts to cite Trump for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. That puerile con was followed by plans to declare him deranged and mentally unfit so that he could be removed under the 25th Amendment. From time to time, Obama holdovers in the DOJ, National Security Council, and FBI sought to leak information, or they refused to carry out presidential orders.

As the Resistance goes from one ploy to the next, it ignores its string of failed prior efforts, forgetting everything and learning nothing. State nullification is no longer neo-Confederate but an any-means-necessary progressive tool. Suing the government weekly is proof of revolutionary fides, not a waste of California’s taxpayer dollars.

Anti- and Never-Trump op-ed writers have long ago run out of superlatives. Trump is the worst, most, biggest — fill in the blank — in the history of the presidency, in the history of the world, worse even than Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, or Hitler. So if Trump is a Hitler who gassed 6 million or a Stalin who starved 20 million, then logically Trump deserves what exactly?

The book industry is doing its part. Mythographer Michael Wolff’s hearsay Fire and Fury suggested that Trump was a dangerous child despised as much by his friends as by his enemies. As  FBI director, James Comey leaked confidential memos, lied to Congress, misled a FISA court, admitted that he based his handling of the Clinton-email investigation on the assumption she’d win the presidency, misinformed the president about the status of his investigation. And the now-former director book-tours the country slamming Trump hourly on the assumption that he would certainly not be former, if only his prior obsequious efforts to appease Trump had saved his job. Comey is building perjury cases against himself daily with each new disclosure that belie past sworn testimonies, but that is apparently less scary to him than simply ignoring Trump.

Robert Mueller and his “dream team” were long ago supposed to have discovered proof of Trump’s collusion with Russia. A year later, they have found nothing much to do with this mandate. Then the alternative scent was obstruction of justice. Then the chase took another detour to follow some sort of fraud or racketeering. Now the FBI is reduced to raiding Trump’s lawyer in an effort to root out the real story on Stormy Daniels. One wonders what might have happened had Michael Cohen panicked and destroyed 30,000 emails before Mueller seized his computers. No matter, Mueller’s legal army presses on, even as it leaves its own wounded on the battlefield, as resignations, reassignments, and retirements for improper conduct decimate the Obama-era FBI and DOJ hierarchies.

Trump has left the intelligence community unhinged. John Brennan (“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you”) and James Clapper (who called Trump a veritable traitor working for Putin) have both admitted to lying under oath to Congress in the past, and with their present invective, they have discredited the very notion of a Washington intelligence elite. At some point, Mueller’s zealotry will remind federal attorneys that equality under the law demands indictments of those with far greater legal exposure, regardless of the exalted status of Comey, Andrew McCabe, and — in the matter of lying under oath, leaking classified materials, and destroying evidence — John Brennan, James Clapper and Hillary Clinton.

In addition, a media, found to be more than 90 percent negative in its coverage of the Trump administration, sought to delegitimize the president. Journalists declare that disinterested reporting is impossible in the age of Trump — and therefore believe that Stormy Daniels or James Comey’s Dudley Do-Right’s memos are a pathway to accomplish what they are beginning to concede Robert Mueller cannot.

Everything from the NFL to late-night comedy shows have become Trump-hating venues. Almost every sort of smear from scatology to homophobia has been voiced by celebrities to turn Trump into a president deserving such abuse — and worse. Late-night television host Steven Colbert was reduced to incoherent and repellant venom: “You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c*** holster.” Actor Robert De Niro has become deranged and dreams of pounding on Trump’s face. But then so does former vice president Joe Biden, who on two occasions boasted that Trump is the sort of guy that a younger he-man Biden used to take outside the gym to give a whippin’ to.

Each cycle of hysteria demands another, as the race to the bottom has descended into which celebrity or politician can discover the most provocative — or crude — Trump expletive. “S***” and “f***” are now the ordinary vocabulary of angry Democratic politicos and officeholders. Are we reaching a point in the so-far-failed Resistance where little is left except abject violence in the manner of the Roman or French Revolution? The problem for Trump’s pop-culture foes is not whether to imagine or advocate killing the president. That’s a given. They just need to agree on the means of doing so: decapitation (Kathy Griffin), incineration (David Crosby), stabbing (the Shakespeare in the Park troupe), shooting (Snoop Dogg), explosives (Madonna), old-fashioned, Lincoln-style assassination (Johnny Depp), death by elevator (Kamala Harris), hanging (a CSU professor), or simple generic assassination (a Missouri state legislator).

The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

Now the Democratic party — whose presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, hired Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump with the aid of Russian sources to warp the 2016 election — is suing President Trump, alleging collusion with the Russians. If Clinton were called as a witness, what would she say under cross-examination — that she did not hire Steele, that he never purchased Russian dirt, or that there was no collusion effort to enlist foreign nationals such as British subject Christopher Steele and Russian propagandists to warp an American election?

Insidiously and incrementally, we are in the process of normalizing violence against the elected president of the United States. If all this fails to delegitimize Trump, fails to destroy his health, or fails to lead to a 2018 midterm Democratic sweep and subsequent impeachment, expect even greater threats of violence. The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

Instead, like the French revolutionaries’ Committee on Public Safety, the unhinged anti-Trumpists assume that they have lost public opinion, given their venom and crudity, and are growing desperate as every legal and paralegal means of removing Trump is nearing exhaustion. Robert Mueller is the last chance, a sort of Watergate or Abu Ghraib that could gin up enough furor to drive down Trump’s poll favorability to the twenties and thereby reduce his person to a demonic force deserving of whatever it gets.

After the prior era of hysteria, between 2005 and 2008, when books and docudramas staged the imagined assassination of George W. Bush, and celebrities like Michael Moore and activists such as Cindy Sheehan reduced Bush to the status of a war criminal, the Left in 2009 demanded a return to normal political discourse and comportment, with the election of Barack Obama. A newly contrite and apologetic America was abruptly worth believing in again. In 2009, the CIA and FBI suddenly were reinvented as hallowed agents of change.

Bush careerists, including Clapper and Brennan, were now damning the very counterterrorism practices that they once helped put in place, while offering Obama-like politically correct sermons on the benign nature of Islamism. Surveillance and jailing were appropriate punishments for suspected Obama apostates (ask James Rosen or Nkoula Basseley Nakoula). The IRS was weaponized for use against Obama’s ideological opponents. Suggestions that the president was unfit or worse became near treasonous. Unity was the new patriotism. The assumption was that Obama had ushered in a half-century of progressive norms, not that he so alienated the country that he birthed Donald Trump.

The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.

We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary.

Share Button

23 thoughts on “Victor Davis Hanson on Trump Resistance”

  1. An insightful piece of work. Very true in the disparity of the left. They are running out of options, but we live in a time now where we have much of the past to draw from that we could figure out (close enogh) what the next move is. Violence has always been an effective way to persuade other’s to an idea. However, it’s important to note, that we know something is coming and we can be prepared even If we don’t know what. If a revolution is what the left wants to achieve, let’s prepare for one and stop it before it takes more root. The revolutionary spirit is only a breath away, but it’s always been. Now is the time for diligence, and to face this challenge head on.
    Best wishes,

    1. MH, Good points. I think one reason a “Revolution” isn’t happening is because people aren’t poor enough yet. Melissa SD

  2. As silly as it may sound, when Obama was in office I made the bold decision to have a cwp. I carry it daily. Two years ago I began reading the Bible. I decided that my faith should never be in man and his antics, but in God. Say what you will, but I truly believe our founding fathers knew what to build this country on…and as I hear more and more liberals trying to ban both…strengthens my belief I made the right decision.

    Mary Ellen

  3. No one has exposed the depths of the Left’s hypocrisy more so than Donald Trump!

    Anyone who believes that Russia would prefer Donald Trump as President vs. Hillary Clinton, is not familiar with critical thought. Hillary has a long established reputation as a purchasable entity.

    Suppose every negative accusation the Left has painted Donald Trump with is true.

    Yet their candidate still lost…

    What does that say about their candidate?

  4. Methinks thou dost jump on the bandwagon too much. Is there really anything more than a variation in degree from what Mr. Trump receives compared to what Mr. Obama received (that he was a secret Muslim who was not an American citizen) or what Mr. Bush received (that he was a dimwitted puppet manipulated by Dick Cheney) or what Mr. Clinton received (that he was a murderer, whose wife recently ran a sex slave ring out of a local pizzeria)? Few on either side of the aisle can claim to have taken the high road. John McCain famously chided a woman who accused Obama of being a Muslim that, no, he was a good man with whom he had policy disagreements. But those who are reasoned and reasonable don’t get much airtime on any news outlet. And when it comes to revolution, the preppers and militias have grown quieter now that David Duke’s man is in the White House. But they are still better armed and organized to start a revolution as opposed to perhaps a riot carried out by those on the “left” with some grievance.

    It would be nice if every administration would be able to deal with terror threats like the Taliban under Bush or ISIS under Obama, or domestic problems like hurricane preparedness or mass shootings or rebuilding infrastructure, or international bad actors like Iran, North Korea and Syria, without having to fight the opposition at the same time on things like womanizing in the past, smoking pot (with or without inhaling) or any of a multitude of other distractions. If the ins and the outs could agree that, of the top ten issues facing America, three are worth working on together to achieve a level of progress, then over a decade’s time we might actually see some progress.

    But let’s not pity Donald Trump and his unfortunate lot. Much of what he suffers he brings upon himself. If he would put down his phone and stop focusing on the optics and instead put his shoulder to the wheel and focus on progress, then he wouldn’t have to worry about what others think. That is the job he was elected to perform and he should just do it.

    1. I agree it would be indeed be nice if there were some kind of bicameral cooperation for the common good of the nation, regardless of who is in the White House. I also agree that Mr. Trump would be better served if he were to keep most of his comments and opinions to himself.
      But I disagree with your implication that there was a comparable record of deliberate lies and vilification against former presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton. (Actually, I’ve never even heard of Bill Clinton being a murderer, or Hillary running a prostitution ring, but I’ll take your word for it.) You surely remember that the New York Times and the Washington Post both, as well as the four major news programs (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN), all quite rightly dismissed all the ludicrous birther claims and Muslim claims, with practically everyone ridiculing (again, quite rightly) Donald Trump for pursuing the birther narrative. Now, it is those same papers and networks who lead the charge in defaming Trump, to the extent that some people have been fired for reporting completely untrue stories without any attempt at due diligence or corroboration. A supremely ludicrous minor example was the solemn condemnation early on of Trump for taking the bust of Martin Luther King out of the Oval Office, when in fact it was simply out of view because Trump was sitting in front of it.
      And I never heard of anyone calling for the assassination of Obama, Bush, or Clinton; in fact, if anyone had called for Obama’s assassination in particular, there would have been completely justified calls for that person’s incarceration. If such a thing every happened, I never heard of it.
      Finally, I would suggest that you display a certain prejudice yourself by calling Trump “David Duke’s man.” I have no intention of trying to defend even a tiny fraction of Trump’s inanities (and if butchering the English language were a crime, he would currently be serving a life sentence, even ignoring the content), but he has done nothing to justify calling him “David Duke’s man.” If you can cite a single action he has taken that has had a negative impact on any individual black person, or the black population of the country as a whole, I will certainly rethink my position, but absent that, you have reduced otherwise cogent comments to the same ludicrous level of bias as the woman who accused Obama of being a Muslim.

      1. JP – It’s funny how you have in the past, and in the above response to the commenter wish there could be “bicameral cooperation”, yet your original post simply rails against the left as only this evil entity called “the resistance” that cannot possibly have any legitimate reason to be against this administration. Only the right hold beliefs that are worth fighting for by your supposition? Only the right has the option to fight back when those beliefs are being systematically destroyed? Some of us “libtards” were not pro-Clinton, and some of us sure were willing to give this administration a chance. But again, by your new found dogma of “all presidents lie” and other *they all do it* excuses, this sitting president has got a pass from you, because it’s your party in power. There has never been a president that has lied like this, and with such brazen impunity on things both little and things greatly important. There has never been an administration with as much brazen corruption and pro-corporation and elite as this, but somehow that party of the every-man has been co-opted into falling in lock-step with every missive? What happened to YOUR voice of reason? What happened to your moral compass? Many of us who are independent or undecided gave Trump a chance, which he promptly used to take a big steaming dump on our faith in the decorum of the presidency. He isn’t for the working man, and he isn’t for the greater good. He’s an elite huckster who isn’t in bed with the Russians like the conspiracy minded think he is, he’s simply soft on Russia because he and his other elite friends profit from many things Russia. It’s about money, and it has always been about money. Russian sanctions hurt the bottom lines of elites in both countries. His history is all easily in the public eye, how can so many be blind to this? Yeah, us libtards are resisting, because somehow we are villains in a Batman cartoon for being against the things people like our good blogger JP is supposed to be (but somehow stays silent), because just this week, another brick in the wall (pun intended) this administration gave another gift to coal mine owners, go ahead and start dumping toxic waste in the streams like it’s 1970 again. Those little things matter to us. People die when their water is poisoned, some rules actually matter, some regulations have, dare I say it, reasons. And when people die, us tax payers have to foot that bill, not the robber barons. That’s not just hating someone “just because”. That’s judging and administration by it’s actions, fairly and impartially. There’s a massive list of provable lies, a laundry list of policies that only make sense to further enrich the elite, Not to help the working man, yet somehow this all is excused by the right, because it sticks a thumb in the eye of those damn leftist, commie pinkos? You, JP; are as polarized one way as this resistance you rail against, and you do just as much damage to discourse and unity in the un-united states. What Clintons did, what Obama did, what the Bushes did, that’s irrelevant to today, to now, and to our future democracy. The liberals have plenty of things wrong, but the right does too. Liberal media is certainly guilty of hysteria and bashing. Conservative media is absolutely guilty of whitewashing and ignoring serious affronts to decency, decorum, and the very underpinnings of our democracy. BOTH things are not only possible, but it’s happening more and more every day. When the final verdict is in, and the corruption laid bare, plain to see, your media has now taught you to simply call it lies, and excuse it. How is that better than being hysterical and blowhard, but maybe, just maybe having some proof or these things called facts? Does the liberal media get it all right? Hell no, has any media ever NOT had to retract? Where would we be today without good and fair journalists who do still exist today? A 5 minutes Google search gets you as many provable lies/mistakes/oops we rushed to judgement by Fox News as it does CNN. If you think different, you absolutely are the problem, not the solution.

        Please excuse typos, murder of grammar, and mistakes. This site makes it tough to proof, and I’m out of time. I hope you will, as a man I consider to be intelligent, really give critical though to what I have said. I am not the resistance, I am someone who gave a fair shake to that guy, and he has failed on merit, not ideology.

        1. I think a lot of readers missed the thrust of Victor Davis Hanson’s “Revolution and Worse to Come.” Some people, like you, both on this site and on Facebook, took the time to write coherent and civil responses (I have deleted the obscenity-laden and snarky ones as too unimaginative to be worth posting), but all of you seemed to have taken the article as a defense of President Trump, rather than a condemnation of those people and groups who hate the president so much that, as Mr. Hanson put it, “any means necessary” are justified to delegitimize or impeach or otherwise remove Trump from office. Mr. Hanson also rightly condemned those people whose idea of intelligent criticism of the president is foul language or yuck-yuck-yuck calls for his death.
          I have no intentions of defending President Trump’s barbarous misuse of the English language or his behavior, both of which are frequently indefensible (“decorum” appears to be outside his ken), nor do I wish to go through a lengthy list of rebuttals to some of your claims, but I do have two questions, both for you and others who at least took the time to write civil responses.
          First: be very, very careful. If “any-means-necessary” are justifiable against Trump, will you not be outraged when conservatives utilize the same tactics if Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren, or Andrew Cuomo should become our next president? Sauce for the Republican goose will do very well for the Democrat gander, and when I say sauce, I’m referring not only to the ugly and moronic histrionics of Corey Booker, Tim Kaine, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, et al, but to actual violations of constitutional law. It should scare every American, progressive or conservative, when attempts are made to impeach this or any president for actions that are constitutionally his to make, regardless how you or I might disagree with those actions. Nor should activist judges ignore or reinterpret the law to suit their political convictions, for when the law is not equally applied—and I agree with Mr. Hanson’s assertion that it is not—none of us will be able to stand upright in the winds that will subsequently blow.
          Second: where do we draw the line between political or ideological differences and unthinking hatred? If anyone who disagrees with me is evil and “other” and should therefore be hated and ridiculed and ostracized, how is any kind of civilized debate possible? What is the difference between that kind of mindless hatred and the equally mindless hatred of radical Islam that believes every other religion should be wiped from the face of the earth? And how far down the evolutionary ladder do we wish to slide? Should Baptists and Methodists go at each other’s throats the way Sunni and Shiite do? Should Yankees and Red Sox fans wage open war on each other? Another reader quite rightly cited John McCain’s rebuke of a woman who accused Obama of being a Muslim. McCain defended his political rival as a good man with whom he disagreed politically. We could all learn from that. Minus McCain’s example, when civilized debate gives way to obscenities and name-calling, there is nowhere left to go except to violence, legally sanctioned or illegal, and I think that was what Mr. Hanson was attempting to caution us against. Should states really be allowed to flout laws they disagree with? How well did that work out for us in the Civil War? And why shouldn’t individuals then flout the law? It is certainly legal to dismiss all alternate points of view as racist or Nazi or sexist or xenophobic or whatever, and to make crude jokes about people we do not like; it is even perfectly legal to become incoherent with rage, but is productive? I disagree with much you have written, just as you disagree with Mr. Hanson, but at least we are having a civil discourse.

          1. I think we get the point of your post just fine. Yes, we would be happy to hold our Democratic politicians to the same standard, if they are corrupt or break the law, they should be accountable. This is not something new, do you forget your history, or is your memory selective? I seem to recall endless inquiries and investigations into the Clintons, Bush, and Obama.The problem we are having with you, is somehow you’ve only been able to find Trump guilty of bad English and Grammar. There are legitimate and deep concerns with this administration that conservatives are willing to overlook in the name of party first politics. I’m sorry, but your blog is riddled with “I’ve not heard that”, “I’ve not seen that” and “I am not aware of” missives, and either you are being deliberately coy, or you have not done the needed homework to be credible on some of these topics. You want to have civil discourse, but you don’t seem to be willing to put in the work and challenge what you think you know as fact. You must be willing to turn the channel once in awhile (yes, I do watch Fox News and read conservative websites as well as left leaning and centrist viewpoints ). You must be willing to be made uncomfortable. I’m sorry, I have read enough of your posts to see that you do not do this, and have a very limited world view. That is not an attack, it’s actually pretty common on both sides, and I accuse many of my liberal friends of the same. We take the view that it’s a “defense of Trump” because it is completely void of the many, many things he is plainly guilty of (provable and not hysterical), and it is far more troubling than poor grammar. Civil discourse requires you have empathy and have studied both sides of an issue, even if you feel strongly that you are right. When you put in the work, you might actually be able to see that you are not as right as you first thought. It takes a strong person to set ego aside. You are absolutely as polarized as the resistance you speak of, it’s all here in black and white in hundreds of thousands of words. Nobody is asking you to change your ideals, you’ve been asked quite plainly to just apply those ideals more evenly and fairly to your own leaders and pundits, and I submit to you; you have failed to do so. You are a good actor, and an interesting writer in many respects, but your objectivity is certainly quite lacking. If you only want to write for a limited audience, and stay in that proverbial echo chamber, hearing only “atta-boy”, that’s your prerogative. But if you want true discourse that serves to move all of us forward, and get out of this disgusting culture of attack and defend, you have to be willing to put in a bit more work. If we are to evolve as humans, we simply must quit being so lazy to think we can’t possibly be wrong, and stop being spoon fed information that agrees with our worldview. I do disagree with Mr. Hanson, because I find “slippery slope” arguments to be far too overused, and too easy of a cover for lack of a better argument or rational objectivity. If you just dig in and go to slippery slope defense, and not cite the merits of individual arguments and applications of law to specific circumstances, I find more often than not it’s just laziness. It’s like a spouse bringing up the past. Precedent is important in law, but only as guidance in application, you still have to argue the specifics. We should leave Trump alone for fear the same standards may be applied in the future to other politicians? Hell no. This arguments only holds water if you believe that 100% of the things being levied are witch hunts. They are not. Hyperbole and hysterics are absolutely awash in the liberal media, I’ve conceded that. But unless you are drinking the koolaid, there are plenty of deeply troubling and possibly illegal issues that merit at least basic scrutiny. You were an actor in the 80’s for God’s sake, you did episodes where the Russians were literally the BAD GUYS. To simply dismiss out of hand the very possibility that where there is smoke, there may be fire, is just insane to me. At the very least the entire Republican party seems untroubled with the FACT that Russians worked to undermine our elections and public discourse and are still doing so. This shocks me to my core. If we can spend millions of dollars and hours on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and her damned emails, then yeah; it is not only fair, but I say it is *right* to maybe ask some questions about Russia. Or ask why we can’t see Trump’s taxes. Or why is ok to lie about screwing porn stars and paying them off. There is no possible bizarro world that if this was Obama or Hillary that we’d not be hearing the same breathless hysterics from conservatives. The party is still chanting “lock her up”, so yes, some of these Trump things probably fall under a heading of proper scrutiny. Politically motivated, oh, heck yeah. But to claim the liberals invented this, ummm, no. Just because you agreed with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and her damned emails, they don’t get a pass as patriotic or due course, and then turn around and cry foul now.

          2. This will be both brief and my last response to this post, because I’ve got other things to do.
            Right now, I agree that it looks as though President Trump has been lying about a number of things, primarily about the Stormy Daniels issue, though he hasn’t done it under oath, so no crime has been committed. Nor do I give a damn about his sex life; if that were an issue, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton would have all gone to jail. (And Teddy Kennedy should have died in jail.)
            For the record, I was all in favor of the Russian investigation; however, I think it has now gone on far too long, wandered too far afield, and while nothing has yet been proven either way, I am deeply, make that DEEPLY mistrustful of the FBI. If you have any questions as to why, do the research on the FBI’s involvement in the following cases: Martin Luther King, the two Black Panthers shot in Chicago, Jean Seberg, COINTEL generally, Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidians, Malheur Wildlife Refuge, their treatment of AIM members, and most recently, their circumventing the law in the James Rosen case. In spite of all this, I was in favor of the Russian investigation initially, but it appears that agency played fast and loose with the law, both before the election and subsequently. It is time, to use a pungent phrase, for them to pee or get off the pot. If President Trump has committed a crime, then he should by all means pay the price. And so should those FBI agents who seem to regard the law as their personal plaything. But do I believe the Trump campaign colluded with Russia? Let’s put it this way: if that is true, then Russia deserves a refund, because Trump doesn’t seem to be playing nicely with them.

          3. (Seriously no need to post this as it’s just for you.)

            Thank you! You are far kinder than I would have been.


    2. Trump has been treated way worse by the media than Obama or Hillary. They continually bash him the majority of he time. They don’t like it when he defends himself. Yes, what he did what Stormy Daniels was wrong. But Trump is facing a much harsher treatment than Bill Clinton or Kennedy whose cheating was way worse. It’s obvious how biased the media has become.
      Melissa SD

  5. Not even going to lie, this is way over my head AND since I have a migraine I’m incapable of attempts to master it.

    But I did read your old post from July 2017, Kudos to Kimber. I have only 2 things to say. 1. You aren’t a moron. 2. You make me laugh.

    1. That is a good write-up. I too am familiar with the special Kimber tool. How such a simple device can lull you into complacency… LOL!

      If by chance you have yet to look at what Dan Wesson is doing with the 1911 design, I suggest you do so. Very nice!

  6. (Ginny’s back, migraine is but a distant memory. Is there a place you prefer comments? Here or on goodreads? Does it matter to you?)

    I probably don’t need to say this but in the last 3 elections I did not vote for a president because in all good conscience I simply couldn’t vote for the lesser of 2 evils. That is a still a vote for evil, in my opinion. In the last election, I wrote in a candidate, the previous 2 I merely left blank and then kept my mouth shut because I had no grounds for complaint. I take my right to vote and my voice very seriously.

    “it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent.” isn’t that what happened with both Clinton and Obama to some extent?

    This might be oversimplifying the resistance to Trump, but don’t you think it’s a natural result of our entitlement, win-no-matter-how-you-do- mentality? We have raised at least one generation thus far with the belief system that life owes them just for breathing and they don’t know what it’s like to lose because we give them trophies for showing up. Since they have no idea how to deal with loss and not getting their own way, they have to fight to discredit anyone and anything that they view has prevented their happiness.

    “Comey is building perjury cases against himself daily with each new disclosure that belie past sworn testimonies, but that is apparently less scary to him than simply ignoring Trump.” That (cases of perjury against Comey), unfortunately, will never see the light of day or the courtroom. Why should he stop building cases against himself if his only thought/wish/desire/passion is to discredit Trump. It all becomes simply a means to an end and knowing there will be no consequence (another fallout of the entitlement mentality) why not continue? Eventually, some time, some day, someone will listen to him and he will be named savior of American politics.
    (Maybe you and your lovely readers would wish I still had a migraine?)

    Don’t even get me started on the vile words used to refer to Trump. It’s the humble opinion (or not humble…you can decide) of this woman that only small minds use the same dang words repeatedly. The English language is awash with words–synonyms even, yet to hear Trump’s detractors talk there are a very few words. I would hope they would better their grasp on their mother tongue and expand their vocabulary exponentially. They would appear to be a higher intelligence level than pond scum.

    “Insidiously and incrementally, we are in the process of normalizing violence against the elected president of the United States.” Oh how greatly I miss the yesterdays, when we would lose and still have a high level of respect. When the office of the President of the United States was held in high esteem because of the position. Which is still what it is, a position, more than a person. I don’t have to like the person who serves but the fact that he is the ruler of the greatest nation on earth—that deserves my respect not my condemnation. I can respect and disagree, respect and not like, etc. It’s not an either/or scenario. Respecting the office/man does not mean I always agree or even always like what is done.

    I greatly fear, my new dear friend, that we are no longer living in these UNITED States. There is nothing at all that unites us, we have no unity. We’re just a jumbled mass of humanity, each insisting on our own way. We’ve forgotten that we are so much better, so much stronger together than we could ever hope to be apart. It has been sad and heartbreaking to watch the disunity of the United States.


    1. Ginny, I am glad your migraine is better. I agree with you that it doesn’t help Comey at all when he opens his mouth. If you don’t feel secure with either candidate running there is nothing wrong with not voting. As a Republican, I am getting tired of the Republican Presidents not doing what they said. I have a Governor’s race in my State which I might leave blank because neither Republican is running on Republican principals. I didn’t like what I read about the White House Correspondent Dinner. Wolf went too far. Everyone slams Trump for not attending. Unfortunately, I think the next race won’t be any better. Melissa

      1. Melissa, you are so kind. Thank you.

        I have no idea how old you are, but I’m plenty old enough to run for president. Maybe we should run. You could be CO. Whaddya say, you in? Since this is Jo’s blog, we’ll play nice and appoint him Ruler of All Things and he can be our speech writer.

        There. It’s all settled. Now who is going to pay for it????

  7. How would you describe me Mr. Parker? I actually voted for Trump. I did much more than just give the guy a chance, I helped elect this buffoon. I am not some frothing at the mouth teenager, I thought about my choice, and even though I had serious reservations as a woman, I thought we needed a change. Well, change we got. I am getting about $33 more a month for my big tax break, and I paid attention to gas prices and other real world things, and for gas am paying $1.36 more per gallon than when Trump took office. That $33 tax break that goes away in a few years does not cover even that, not to mention other things that have incrementally shot up it this “great economy”. Great for who? My husband was laid off 3 weeks ago from his construction job. Costs of materials are forcing builders to make cuts to keep profits level for shareholders, so the little guy get screwed. Do you see anything wrong with that? I’m going to pay for the rich guy’s permanent tax cut while I work until I fall into a hole and they bury me.


    1. The fact is had Hillary and the Democrats had total control of the government the gas prices would be much higher. They are all more or less on record supporting very high taxes on fuel to fund their global warming religion. $20 per gallon would suit them just fine!

      With that said, there is one thing I agree on. Regardless of who is elected many of us (most if not all) will get shafted. Elections have become a process of picking the party who will “rape” us the least. Unpleasant, but sadly also the reality of what we live in now and it will only get worse….SIGH.

    2. Kelly, ich wünsche euch, dass dein Mann schnell wieder Arbeit findet und alles gut wird….schau immer nach vorne, auch wenn es manchmal schwierig ist im Leben….denk immer positiv. … Manuela

  8. Each election cycle descends deeper into the cesspool. 2016 was the worse election of my lifetime (I’m in my 50’s). Those I know in their 60’s to 80’s agreed. (Sorry for the language), But it was the crooked bitch vs. the somewhat less crooked buffoon.

    I voted for the buffoon (voting for anyone else is a waste unless you could live with either one and I couldn’t) in part because at least he wasn’t in the government whereas Hillary already had an entire generation with her fingers operating the machine. Overall I would say things are better off with what we now have vs having her so I have no regrets. Of course there are a lot of problems, but his term isn’t over yet…

    With the above said the reality is Hillary lost because too many “People of color”, Marxists, Progressives, Socialists, Bernie followers, etc, etc couldn’t stand her so they abstained or voted otherwise.

    Now all the people who didn’t vote for Trump (this includes RINO’s and “Progressive” Republicans) are leading this charge to blow up the system as this Blog and linked story describe. In large part because Trump is leading his own charge to blow it up which is threatening the status quo that too many in the GOP and Democrats are profiting off of.

    Perhaps we get a civil war either way. Yes that is unpleasant, but maybe that was inevitiable as no nation has lasted forever. While I don’t like or agree with everything Trump is pushing for I definitely don’t wan’t to live under the Tyranny of the other side represented in this vile “opposition” either.

    All I know is right now I have much more optimism than I did 10 years ago when it comes to the economy and that’s some kind of progress–I’ll take what I can get.

  9. Call me old fashioned, but I’m still bummed about old Andy Jackson, rumored to have not been born an American citizen, slave holding, American Indian genocide inducing, anti-environmental bigot, racist, dueling JERK!!! Even with presidents like that, America still remains great(no matter the nay-sayers)–just sayin’…….L.B.

Comments are closed.