Some vital perspective

In an online forum, a professor asks where to place Trump on a list of world leaders.  Most likely blinded by Trump derangement syndrome, the professor concludes Trump comes in ahead of Stalin.  Another forum participant has a better analysis:

Professor ZZZ asks: “[W]here [would] you put Trump?”

No new, major land war(s) in Asia—so Trump is ahead of LBJ.

No missile crisis risking an exchange of nuclear weapons with a superpower—so Trump is ahead of JFK.

No wars of national conquest—so Trump is ahead of Polk (Texas) and McKinley (Philippines, Cuba).

No move to war after foreign power made full, reasonable efforts to amicably settle reasons for dispute—so Trump is ahead of Madison (War of 1812). Under Madison, we burned down the capital of British North America (York/Toronto), and they returned the favor in Washington. So Trump beats Madison.

No wars against native American tribes—so Trump is ahead of [fill in the blank—many such presidents could be listed here].

No wars based on poor intelligence or to prop up foreign absolute monarchies—so Trump is ahead of both Bush I and Bush II.

Trump has not interned 100,000s of US citizens based on race—so Trump is ahead of FDR.

Trump has not allowed a U.S. state or territory to go into civil war and then allow its government to be hijacked by the brigands who engineered the civil war—so Trump is ahead of Buchanan (Bleeding Kansas).

I still don’t know why President Clinton blew up an aspirin factory or why Secretary Clinton permitted NATO forces and materiel to blow up Libya—so Trump probably comes out ahead of both of them too.

Trump is ahead of Woodrow Wilson: World War I, and his resegregation of the federal civil service. I grant you that being ahead of Wilson is not saying much…but then, the nation survived Wilson, and no one today thinks of Wilson as having lowered the bar vis-a-vis future presidents. ((I do… he was more openly hostile to the Constitution than any president before him — Jemison)) Professor ZZZ seems to be worried about this. He wrote: “Having a POTUS so publicly awful along those lines lowers the horrible bar so dramatically that we will pay for years to come.” Really?—Will we pay for it in years to come, or is this just a shabby slippery slope-type argument? …

If words and pretty speeches are the measure of a president, then Trump comes up short. The question is whether that is the correct standard for measuring presidents in a dangerous world.

This is why knowing history is indispensable — it provides essential context within which to understand the present.  As for the last point in the quote, I remind those who gauge world leaders mainly by their oratory that Adolph Hitler was a rather gifted and mesmerizing speaker by all accounts.  For all his bluster and distracting patterns of speech, Trump has consistently pursued exactly what he promised to do during his campaigning.  In a world rightfully cynical about politicians who routinely fail to do that, this performance counts for a lot among his supporters.  It’s the key reason many voters are willing to overlook the baggage of Trump’s many personal shortcomings.  That our self-professed elites can’t understand that says more about them than it does Trump or his supporters.

A final thought: it appears Trump has survived one of the most nefarious political plots ever contrived against a president.  If that’s the case, and he successfully brings to public account the unelected bureaucracy that attempted it, his administration may well be remembered as one of the most consequential in our nation’s history.

(H/T: Instapundit)

Keep the pressure on

President Trump’s re-election campaign communications director throws the gauntlet down to the misleading mainstream press (click to enlarge):

I find the use of the phrase “reckless statements” to be interesting.  I don’t know that it’s the intent, but the phrase immediately brought libel law to mind.  Generally speaking, public figures have a harder time bringing libel suits than average citizens.  But libel has a very specific definition: “…making of defamatory statements (false and reckless) in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine, newspaper or online such as a website or a social media site like Twitter.”

The memorandum cites specific examples of various Deep State critters repeating the “collusion” and “treason” mantra, having claimed before the release of the Mueller Report that there was “clear evidence” of such.  Now that the report is out, the false and reckless nature of these claims would seem apparent.  Could it be Trump’s team is putting the Mainstream Media on notice that continuing to facilitate these fevered conspiracy dreams might result in expensive legal action taken against them?  If that’s the case, I say it’s long overdue.  Having a free press means it’s free to follow the facts wherever they lead, and to express opinions that are presented as such.  It should not mean freedom to build a public echo chamber of propaganda that lacks any semblance of evidence to support it.

The Left has had it rough the past few days: the Mueller Report, the arrest of Michael Avenatti, the Justice Department concurring with a Federal Judge that Obamacare is unconstitutional…  I pray it’s only the smallest beginning of a much needed reckoning.  And if it seems like I’m merciless in my current calls for vengeance, it’s only because the other side has clearly shown they will give no quarter in their pursuit of power.  All well and good, then: let’s hoist the black flag and get to work.  The Left must be destroyed.

There must be a reckoning

We finally have the Special Counsel’s report regarding whether the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia to rig the 2016 election.  As I expected, Attorney General Barr’s summary to Congress reveals the last two years of breathless media hype amount to much “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”  It was, in short, “a tale told by idiots:”

The Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) MUST face consequences for this unprecedented attempt to use “lawfare” to overturn a legitimate presidential election. DO NOT let them blithely pivot to another talking point to distract you. DO NOT let them self-absolve of any responsibility for two years of hamstringing the president, even as he demonstrably acted in the nation’s best interest on many fronts. DO NOT forget how far the Left is willing to go and who they are willing to destroy to gain and maintain power.

Sean Davis

In 2020, DO. NOT. FORGET. The Left has revealed both their goals and their willingness to use any means, however illegitimate and evil, to obtain them. They must not be simply defeated. They, and the fake media that sustain them, must be destroyed politically beyond any chance of recovery.  Our nation’s continued survival depends on it.

Now that they’ve “struck at the king and missed,” I look forward to the investigation of the Mueller investigation’s origins and conduct.  I suspect that’s where we’ll find the real “bombshells.”  Stay tuned.

Above the law

More examples of why I say we now have the ‘rule of men,’ not the ‘rule of law’ in this country:

First:  A woman pulled over for a traffic violation chooses to record the stop, and openly notes such to the responding officer… who then responds by physically assaulting her and putting her in jail overnight.  Note the arrogance and air of intimidation of the officer involved: “I know the law better than you” (when in fact, in this case, he didn’t).

Second: shouldn’t those who prosecute offenses against the law be prevented from violating the law in doing so?  In fairness, this particular example is still in play, and may yet result in an affirmation of the rule of law by the Supreme Court.  But in today’s climate (and given SCOTUS rulings in recent years) it would not surprise me if that isn’t the outcome.  Regardless, the known facts of the case illustrate how our legal system (based on an adversarial approach of prosecution and defense) is more about ‘winning’ than it is about ascertaining truth.  This needs to change.

Third: another day, another fatal no-knock raid in the ‘land of the free, home of the brave,’ all in the name of the War of Freedom Drugs.  (Be sure to check out other actions of “LA’s finest” at the end of this story.)  Given this story and the first example above, isn’t it time to revisit the idea of ‘official immunity?’  Should taxpayers continue to be on the hook for large settlements awarded after fairly egregious behavior?  Or is accountability only for the ‘little people’ who pay the bills of the ruling class?

Fourth: the mayor of New York City, a position increasingly known for nannyism by its former and current occupants, announces a major push for traffic safety… then his official caravan is caught breaking enough traffic laws that the drivers — if mere mundanes like the rest of us — would have their licenses suspended.  (Maybe New Orleans can give New York some pointers about holding officials accountable…)

Fifth: higher up the food chain in New York state, the governor’s ‘homeland security’ advisor not only illegally packed heat at work without a proper permit, but used the laser sight on his handgun as a ‘pointer’ during presentations.  (Remember, boys and girls, only the State can be trusted to be responsible with firearms…)  The governor swung into action quickly… retroactively granting the offending staff member a waiver so that he’s “legal” to play with guns at work.

Sixth: the nation’s ‘top law enforcement official’ — the Attorney General — is unable to explain to Congress the Constitutional basis for recent Presidential Executive Orders that modify, not merely execute, laws passed by Congress.

“Do what thou wilt (and can get away with)” seems to be the modus operandi of today’s ruling class.  But the principle still remains: governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  And any unjust power they accrue and exercise is also only possible when the people meekly assent to the abuses.

Do you consent to this environment, America?  If not, what are you going to do about it?