“Yes, we’ve actually nominated someone that sounds like he was created in a lab by Michael Moore.”


Ben Howe’s stature in my mind has grown leaps and bounds in the last few days… here’s a peek into things he has to say that are reasons why:

I’ve been beating the drum of #NeverTrump everywhere I go the last several days and have been fortunate enough to have some networks offering me the air-time to do it.  Interestingly, many on the right side of the aisle keep “warning” me that I’m being used by the lefty media who wishes to co-opt my message to fulfill their own dirty narratives.

The problem with that warning is that I’m in full agreement with the dirty narrative being described.

For the first time in my career, I am completely aligned with the talking points of the left on the GOP presidential nominee. He is a dangerous sociopath who uses xenophobic & racist dog whistles to stoke fear in masses of uninformed voters so that he can get to Washington and use the power of the pen to push billions of dollars to corporations as he cuts deals behind the scenes that benefit the most powerful and corrupt people in the world.

Yes, we’ve actually nominated someone that sounds like he was created in a lab by Michael Moore.

The most disturbing part of this is the fact that most pundits & politicians on the right don’t even entirely disagree with my assessment. They’ve all said as much, over and over, throughout this primary season.

But now that Trump is the presumptive nominee, they’ve all gone silent and some are completely reversing saying that we must unify around planet Trump.


Unifying around Trump is the absolute worst and most dangerous thing we can do. For the next 6 months, there can be many different narratives that take shape. The only one we can be certain about is how Trump will be described which I’ve already helpfully done above.

It was Hilaire Belloc, the great defender of the Catholic faith, who wrote:

“We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.”

Donald Trump is that barbarian and I, and Ben Howe (thank God for him), and many others, will not take part in handing to him the reins of power.

God help this country should Trump gain those reins.

{Image source}

Originally published at Brutally Honest.

Great-Grandmother Shoots and Kills Intruder
Blackness Doesn't Protect Liars
  • Hank_M

    Barbarian eh?
    Seems his family, ex’s, and present and former employees may beg to differ.
    As do a large large segment of voters.

    But yeah, it sure would have been better to nominate someone more principled, someone more polite, someone who doesn’t fight back, defend themselves, defend the party or defend the majority of Americans from the tyranny of the left.

    No thanks. In case you haven’t noticed, the left is where the barbarians live.

    • I’ve seen my share of barbarians on the right…

    • Brett Buck

      Exactly, bizarro types like Rick want more mealy-mouthed, never-stand-for-anything inoffensive types (like McCain, Romney, Kasich) who will politely conduct their campaign and lose, and maintain the supposed dignity of the process. While the foaming at the mouth leftist maniacs just keep advancing their toxic and suicidal agenda.

      • Bizarro being defined as anyone who thinks differently than Brett Buck…

        • Brett Buck

          No, bizarro being defined as living with a series of polite losers while the country is systematically destroyed.

          • I might suggest that there’s nothing more bizarro than trusting Donald Trump as the country’s savior.

          • Brett Buck

            *It doesn’t matter if you wanted someone else as your candidate any more. I did, too, tough sh*t.* (Read that 50 times until you get it)

            It’s Donald and Hillary. You can interpret that as life giving you lemons if you want. How would you propose to make lemonade?

            Is it sitting around sulking like a two-year-old that didn’t get his way – or in this case, repeatedly proclaim your moral superiority by whining about it for the next six months and then sitting out or writing in John Kasich or Jeb Bush, which amounts to the same thing? Or are you going to grow up and play the hand that has been dealt?

            Even you should be able to see that Hillary winning would be catastrophic. To prevent that, you have exactly one option. Sorry it’s not the option you would prefer, but it’s the one option you have.

            This may be really hard for you, but you had damn well better get a grasp on reality here or you (and many like you) are going to piss away the country. Is your potential embarrassment worth throwing away everything?

          • Mark Shea speaks eloquently to that kind of mindless drivel, paritcularly of course to practicing and faithful Catholics like myself but to anyone really with an open mind and heart:

            20% of Americans want abortion on demand without apology. 20% want it outlawed. 60% of Americans don’t like abortion but also have no intention at all of tell some woman in a crisis pregnancy what she has to do. They don’t want to think about it and they wish it would all go away. Our two major candidates have to navigate that to win and two basic strategies dominate (and have for 30 years). Trump knows his audience of suckers. He speaks of abortion as little as possible and only to signal his approval of abortion and support for PP to the mainstream while lying to prolife people that he totally hears them and is on their side. His deluded “prolife” supporters then do the heavy lifting of splitting hairs and rationalizing their support for him when he has, in fact, made clear he will not change a thing in the law and that he likes Planned Parenthood just fine. He makes crazy statement about punishing post-abortive women to please the fanatics out at the end of the bell curve and then rescinds them quickly to tack to the center. He has to do this to fool a crowd of suckers that wants him to lie to them and has demonstrated time and again that the most transparent cynic can get their passionate support if he just wears a Precious Feet pin.

            Clinton, in turn, has to please her base so she says out loud what Trump can’t say about her passionate support for the other 20% (early in the campaign) and later will tell the mainstream (who don’t like abortion but don’t want to ban it) that she will keep it “safe, legal, and rare” as the campaign goes on. (Obama did the same stuff. Remember the Freedom of Choice Act he was going to sign on Day One of his Presidency? It vanished into thin air the moment he was elected.)

            So the reality is that they are identical. Both will maintain the status quo and behave in identical ways in office. Only prolife Trumpkins are dumb enough to think otherwise. And the practical result? Prolife Trumpkins will now spend the rest of the campaign and (God forbid) next four years prostituting themselves to defend, not the unborn, but all the other evil things that Trump actually cares about in the hope of having a place at the table.

            That is the inevitable result of prostitution to Trump. Prolifers will get nothing from him. He will get from you the willingness to make war on the Church on a dozen fronts. He will offer you the kingdoms of the earth, but only if you bow and worship him. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

            Be more prolife. Listen to the Church, not the GOP and sure as hell not Trump.

          • I see absolutely no reason to believe that Trump wouldn’t be as catastrophic as Hillary. None. And I can’t understand people who do. Talk about not getting a grasp on reality…

  • What you mean we?

  • jim_m

    It’s really easy to rail against the candidate for his/her flaws in isolation and saying in a high minded tone that you would never support such a despicable individual.

    However, you fail to take into account the cost of the fact that by refusing to participate you are effectively supporting that candidate’s opponents. If that candidate’s opponent ends up winning the election they will have done so in part due to your refusal to act against them.

    SO please tell us now that you are supporting Hillary, why it is that a known felon, someone who is directly responsible for the deaths of US citizens abroad and who has seriously compromised national security, placing our nation in a precarious position with regard to foreign policy; tell us why you believe she is the best person to be President for the next 4 years.

    Because deny it as you certainly will, it is exactly what you just said.

    • Umm… no. It’s exactly what you just said I said… and there’s a freakin’ world of difference between that and the truth.

      • jim_m

        My point is that you are saying that Trump is dangerous and you won’t vote for him. My point is that Hillary is even more dangerous and you are effectively handing the very reins you say you won’t give to Trump to her.

        • They’re both dangerous in my view… exceedingly… and yet I can’t concede to your assertion that Hillary is more dangerous… in fact, I can’t see how you can say so with confidence for it would have to mean that you think Trump is credible when he says things. How can you arrive at that conclusion? Honestly? How?

          I will not be voting for either… I’m entertaining writing someone in…

          Maybe this guy.

          But never Hillary… and certainly never Trump.

          • jim_m

            I don’t believe that Hillary’s record proves that she is better

          • In fact, her record proves that she is abysmal… and Trump’s record is similar… he hasn’t an iota of credibility… and his own record of what he has to say proves that he has no philosophical foundation other than furthering that which furthers him, and to hell with anyone who might get in his way.

          • jim_m

            I share your misgivings about Trump. I guess it is the difference between fear and certitude. I have certitude that Hillary will do what I fear.

          • Brucehenry

            One day after assuring Americans he is not running for president “to make things unstable for the country,” the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, said in a television interview Thursday that he might seek to reduce the national debt by persuading creditors to accept something less than full payment.

            Asked whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

            He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”

            Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

            Experts also described Mr. Trump’s vaguely sketched proposal as fanciful, saying there was no reason to think America’s creditors would accept anything less than 100 cents on the dollar, regardless of Mr. Trump’s deal-making prowess.

            “No one on the other side would pick up the phone if the secretary of the U.S. Treasury tried to make that call,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP. “Why should they? They have a contract” requiring payment in full.

            Not showing properly as a block quote, sorry. Here’s the full article:


            But sure, Hillary is the dangerous one.

          • jim_m

            Yes, he sounds so much more preferable to a man that claimed that the “Seas began to recede and the Earth began to heal”, when he was nominated. Because we all know that claim was perfectly rational and based in truth.

            Look, Trump is a hot mess, but he remains better than the fascists and communists being put up by the left.

          • Brucehenry

            We’re comparing Trump to Hillary not Obama.

          • jim_m

            “What difference at this point does it make?”

          • Brucehenry

            Obama didn’t, and Hillary wouldn’t, suggest the US government might just decide to renege on its debt. Even coming from a nominee this kind of talk could roil world markets. Can you imagine what it will be like when the buffoon Trump shoots his mouth off as president? Not to mention an absolute idiot in possession of nukes. He’s no smarter or more qualified to run a country than Kim Jong-Un.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, he might draw a “red line” or something really stupid.

          • jim_m

            Or he might try some idiotic “reset” button bullshit.

          • jim_m

            Or he might conspire with his staff to lie to the American public about a film to conceal his incompetence.

          • jim_m

            O he might conspire with his staff to fool the American public into supporting his deal with our enemy, Iran, that will ultimately give them nuclear weapons while we pay them billions.

          • Brucehenry

            Or he might suggest the US will not pay its obligations and crash the fucking world economy.

          • jim_m

            Hmmm. The lefty phrase “too big to fail” comes to mind.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I knew you would find a way to support this idiot. Right now it’s just “He’s the lesser of two evils,” but by October he will be a Good Man Unfairly Maligned By The Liberal Media and a positive good for the country.

          • jim_m

            I am consistent in saying that he is terrible. I am consistently saying that he is less terrible than Hillary. If that is support then call it what you wish.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes so far but it’s early days. I predict one of Lawson’s “preference cascades” among erstwhile anti-Trump Wizbang commenters, including you. I hope you prove me wrong.

          • jim_m

            I would love to see a viable alternative emerge.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and preference does not mean support.

          • Brucehenry

            There’s still time to send a check to Bernie.

          • jim_m

            I’d rather the crazy loose cannon to the hard core communist that thinks starvation and bread lines are evidence of progress.

          • Brucehenry

            There you go again. Pure fantasy, pure lies, pure bullshit.

          • jim_m

            Bernie is on record saying that bread lines are evidence of social equality, which is what the left considers progress.

          • Brucehenry

            Let’s see the whole quote. I think you’re full of shit as usual.

          • jim_m

            Sanders loves bread lines

            When asked about the food shortages provoked by the Sandinistas’ voodoo economic policy, Sanders claimed that bread lines were a sign of a healthy economy, suggesting an equitable distribution of wealth: “It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing!

            Of course he also claims that in America people are starving to death, which is bullshit. So you want to vote for a man who falsely believes that people are starving to death in the US and that the real solution is massive rationing of food so everyone goes hungry.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes expressing approval in 1981 that the poor were being fed in Nicaragua means that breadlines are a positive good thing. You’re an idiot.

          • jim_m

            Gotcha. You are in favor of communist despotism and mass starvation. I suppose you believe the Holodomar was a really good thing. How many millions need to die before you question your ideology?

          • Brucehenry

            LOL. “Gotcha!” exclaims Jim. What a dumbass.

          • jim_m

            got•cha (ˈgɒtʃ ə)
            interj. Pron. Spelling. got you (used to indicate comprehension,)

            F off dumbass. Learn colloquial English you stupid tool.

          • Brucehenry

            I know what a gotcha is, Jim. I also know what an imaginary gotcha is. Here’s a colloquialism for ya: “wishful thinking.”

          • jim_m

            Jesus. You really think I was playing gotcha on that? Are you really that paranoid or are you simply so prideful that you can’t admit that you misunderstood my comment. Grow the f up already. Or is this just a result of your 3rd grade education?

          • Brucehenry

            LOL yes I did think so I stand corrected you are so smart that you just tripped me right up and oh my god I’m so embarrassed that you ferreted out my secret support for Stalin starving the peasants 20 years before I was born.

          • jim_m

            You can agree with something that happened before you lived. For instance, there are many people that feel that the Holocaust should be completed (mostly your pali friends). People can support historic actions.

          • jim_m

            To the point: DO you support Lincoln having gone to war in the Civil War?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I guess you’re right about that. For instance I think Lincoln was right and Lee was wrong, unlike you and your friends.

          • jim_m

            Didn’t Scalia just have this discussion with you about Lee and his position on slavery? Or do you forget stuff that quickly?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes (well, no, not exactly, since Mr Gravitas is kinda not speaking to me lately LOL) and it boiled down to, in my opinion, the definition of “ardently.” When I pointed out that Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass, and Charles Sumner were people who “ardently opposed” slavery and that Lee didn’t belong in that group he didn’t say any more.

            So no, I didn’t forget, but looks like you did.

          • Scalia

            I’m really not interested in discussing anything with Bruce. I was interacting with “pennywit” about Lee’s opposition to slavery. Bruce’s infantile “LOL” below gives me no incentive to break with that.

          • Brucehenry

            Infantile or not, your interaction with Pennywit occurred because I took issue with your assertion that Lee “ardently opposed” slavery.

            The evidence that we have that Lee opposed slavery is from one letter TO HIS WIFE, not any public stand taken. And that he freed slaves his wife inherited, but only after he wrung a few years labor from them and it was convenient for him to do so. And that he allowed a “school” on his plantation. On the other hand he, you know, led an army that fought to preserve slavery as an institution. And oh yeah, offering and paying a reward for the return of runaway slaves under his control.

            Not what I would call “ardent.”

            Lee’s opposition to slavery can be compared to Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to abortion. Praying for it to end in God’s good time, not personally having an abortion (or owning a slave), and meanwhile just going along with everybody else — hey, it’s legal ain’t it?

          • Scalia

            I replied to all of that in my interaction with pennywit. As I stated, I’m not interesting in having a conversation with you, and this is not an open thread. If you want to continue commenting on Lee with respect to slavery, you may do so on the appropriate thread. This exchange closes it for here.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure whatever Jim brought it up.

          • Scalia

            And I let your reply to him stand. You, nonetheless, tried to shoehorn it in here with a follow-up. No more.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said, sure, whatever.

          • jim_m

            I’ll note that I posted the quote and you failed to admit that I was correct that he had said it. Unwilling to apologize for your mistakes per usual.

          • Brucehenry

            Three sentences, excerpted from a much longer interview, folded into a hit piece from “Reason,” is not what I call the “whole quote,” You know this. Why you always lyin’?

          • jim_m

            You asked for the quote. It was not out of context. He says that bread lines are a form of progress, he implies that people are starving to death in the US. Never mind that the whole nation was starving in those bread lines. He, and you, are happy to see mass starvation as long as some of the people you have an axe to grind against are starving too.

          • Brucehenry

            OK Jim sure you and Mr Gravitas are giving me a headache so sure you’re right.

          • mikegiles

            People starve to death in every country on the planet, even the US. That’s unquestionable. The correct question is why? Do the have anorexia? Are they spending money on drugs and not food. Or is there no food available?

          • mikegiles

            In what way is Trump any different from Hilary? Have you even been listening to what he’s saying? Or has his usual gibberish so confused you that you only hear what you want to hear?

          • jim_m

            If you bother to read my comments, which quite obviously you have not, you would see that I have been pointing to Hillary’s criminality and her contempt for the national security, civil rights and lives of Americans. Regardless of Trumps political positions (which I grant are not all that different from Hillary’s when we start talking about social policy, etc), he has not demonstrated that in any way as clearly as she has.

            But perhaps the plain language of my comments confused you because you are a pathetic dumbass.

          • mikegiles

            All those thing you bring up are things Trump has supported because until not so long ago he supported Hilary. Not only that but he has changed his positions so often, how can you be sure of where he stands on any issue.

          • jim_m

            The reality is that I believe that he rhetoric will largely be ignored, which I know that Hillary’s criminality will go unchecked and we will see a loss of our civil rights and a destruction of our economy that will make this country end up looking like Venezuela.

          • Brucehenry

            Kind of like the Zimbabwe style inflation you have predicted was just around the corner for the last 7 1/2 years?

          • Brucehenry

            And the guns! Obama has only a few months left to grab your guns! He’d better hurry up! You’ve been saying their confiscation was IMMINENT since Jan 22 2009.

          • jim_m

            Not true I have said clearly that confiscation was 0bama’s aim. Nothing he has done makes he think otherwise. Just because he could not achieve it does not mean that he didn’t want to.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh yes you’re right sorry. I just assumed since you so obviously believe all the other boilerplate talking points you posted above that you believed that one too.

          • Brucehenry

            So you think that Trump’s unhinged rhetoric will “largely be ignored” and won’t matter, but Obama bowing too low to a Saudi prince or giving a gift of his own speeches to the Queen had DIRE CONSEQUENCES. Not to metion Obama’s “red line” was the most worstest thing a president could ever say because credibility but Trump saying we won’t pay our debts is something the whole world will just say “whatever” over.

          • jim_m

            I think that the bowing was silly.

            I think that the continuous stream of slights and offenses to our allies has lead to the erosion of US power. If you believe that 0bama has left the US stronger than he received it you really are a fool.

          • Brucehenry

            See the two links I posted below. The world’s opinion of the US, as a whole, is higher than it was in 2008.

          • jim_m

            Polls of schmucks on the street are meaningless. Say it straight out that you believe that US standing amongst the other nations has actually improved after 8 years of 0bama being made to look like a fool.

          • Brucehenry

            “Schmucks on the street” — is that Elitist for “the people?”

            Say it straight out that you don’t believe there will be a “continuous stream” of foot-in-mouth blowhardism coming from Trump, as there has been during the campaign, if we must endure his presidency.

          • Scalia

            BBC World Service Poll.

            The poll, which was mostly conducted before the crisis in Crimea, showed people were more negative about Russia in the past year than they had been at any time since the poll began in 2005.

            It also found that views of the US and the EU had worsened.

            [B]etween December 2013 and April 2014, a total of 24,542 people were asked to rate 16 countries and the EU on whether their influence in the world was “mostly positive” or “mostly negative.”

            [V]iews of the US have deteriorated among citizens of Spain (where negative views are up 19 points), Germany (up 18 points) and Brazil (up 15 points).

            GlobeScan’s Lionel Bellier added: “It is probably not a coincidence that the nations that showed the sharpest increases in negative views of the United States – Spain, Germany, and Brazil – are ones where extensive US surveillance activity has been discovered and widely criticised.”

          • Commander_Chico

            Ya she is. A warmonger.

          • Brucehenry

            It is true that Hillary is more of a neocon hawk than I would like. But she has a more level head on her shoulders than the insecure, paranoid, stay-up-all-night-tweeting madman(?) Trump.

            If Gen Buck Turgidson implied he thought Trump had a small penis Trump would nuke Canada.

          • Jwb10001

            Hillary is at least as insecure as Nixon otherwise she wouldn’t have gone to such lengths to hide her Sec of State work from everyone including Obama. She is paranoid, insecure and completely dishonest. This is what is so frustrating about this situation.

          • Brucehenry

            I disagree. All one has to do is listen to each one of them talk for 15 minutes. One will be disjointed, incoherent, rambling, popping off insults and racist and sexist one-liners every so often, and the other will be logical, coherent, and sensible, even if one thinks she is wrong on the merits of her case.

            Trump absolutely cannot be trusted with nukes. He would be more dangerous than Kim Jong Un.

          • Jwb10001

            Bruce I didn’t once mention Trump. This was strictly about Clinton and her paranoia. But as long as you want to make that comparison, she is no more suited to be president than he is. She got the Russian thing wrong, she got Libya wrong, she’s in cahoots with Blumenthal and that arrangement stinks to high heaven. She has zero accomplishments as a senator and the only thing she tried to do as 1st lady was complete disaster. That’s what’s so frustrating about this cycle these 2 people are the worst candidates for president ever.

          • Brucehenry

            But you replied to my comment in which I was bashing Trump as being insecure and paranoid with the rejoinder that Hillary was too, so I don’t see the relevance of saying you didn’t mention Trump by name.

            I respectfully suggest you are perhaps giving too much credence to rightwing interpretations of Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State. And also to a quarter century of Clinton-bashing that makes the public susceptible to the “Oh, Jesus another Clinton corruption story where there’s smoke there must be fire!”

            As you know Bernie is my first choice, but of the two left standing I must insist the choice is clear. Never Trump, which means Hillary.

            I’m serious when I say that Trump could be goaded into any sort of military disaster if he thought it meant the world would think his penis is big. I mean that literally. I think you, deep down, might be nervous about that too.

          • Commander_Chico

            Trump’s recent foreign policy speech was anti-interventionist.

          • Brucehenry

            Trump’s recent foreign policy speech was self-contradictory, incoherent, rambling, and could have been written by a ninth-grade boy. It was widely panned around the world. The whole world is puzzled and dismayed by the rise to such an elevated position of this buffoon.

            “But experts called Trump’s speech rife with internal tensions. He declared that ‘America First’ would be the ‘major and overriding’ theme of his presidency moments before hailing America’s role in World War II — which was opposed by the isolationist ‘America First’ movement of the early 1940s. He trashed President Barack Obama for failing to follow through with his threatened September 2013 air strikes in Syria, while also lamenting the chaos that followed US military interventions in Iraq and Libya. And Trump vowed to mend ties with US allies who are fearful that America is withdrawing from the world, while insisting that they pay more for their own security.

            “The speech was ‘completely contradictory in the sense that the first message is that we should make allies pay not just for the cost of having troops in their countries but for the entire defense the US provides to Europe and Asia, which he estimated at trillions of dollars. And then in the next breath, he said that the US can’t be relied upon and needs to be a better ally.'”




          • And tomorrow he will have a different position.

          • Commander_Chico

            Glad to see you back. Was worried after Cruz dropped out. Not very, but a little concerned.

          • Oh I’ve been here, just didn’t see much that was worthy of comment.

          • Jwb10001

            See this is where you and I differ I won’t back the “team” just to win an election, in my opinion Trump is not suited to be president, in my opinion Hillary is no better. I clearly lean right and therefore put more credence in the things I read about her than you might but I believe there’s plenty of fire that goes with all this smoke. I went through Hillary’s senate record a while back when Paul was on some Hillary is accomplished kick and couldn’t find anything of substance, I honestly tried. I look at the mess that is now Libya and that clearly has to be laid at her feet. She has made more ridiculous statements trying to escape the Iraq vote than I’ve ever heard from a serious politician. Her level of dishonesty is on par with Trump. To me it’s a terrible state of affairs that people like me will eventually mean that we get Hillary but that’s what the GOP has brought on itself. On this we will just have to disagree.

          • Scalia

            I think her level of dishonesty is significantly worse than Trump. From her stance on marriage, to sniper fire to Benghazi, the ONLY reason she’s still viable is due to the MSM running interference for her. If she were a Republican, her continual stream of lies would be 24/7/365 on all news outlets until she pulled out of the race.

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough.

          • mikegiles

            Trump is in real estate. After a certain point you have to keep lending your debtor money, and/or renegotiate terms, or you’ll often end up being left with a half built property on which you will get none of your money back. Trump is silly enough to believe he can pull the same scam with the creditors of the US. What does he think will happen when creditors refuse to accept American dollars.

          • Mark Shea speaks for me here:

            Hadley Arkes offers what appears to be the Emerging Narrative from the Shut Up and Vote Trump Department of Minitrue:

            “Mr. Trump is a wild card, but he is likely to sign pro-life measures, and he is seeking advice now from the right people to appoint a plausible successor to Justice Scalia. In this Guide for the Perplexed, we may find reason to bite our lips and take the Wild Card over the brutal Sure Thing on the other side.”

            There is not a shred of evidence for this fantasy. And the counsel “Just shut your eyes and lunge, because who knows what kind of man he is.” is actively stupid.

            We know what kind of man he is. A man who takes vengeance on infants with cerebral palsy in spats over Daddy’s money. A man who spits in the face of POWs while bragging that his draft-dodging years of fornication were his personal Vietnam. A man who mocks disabled people and calls his goons “passionate” when they beat up homeless Latino and beat up peaceful black protesters screaming to set him on fire ad shouting “Sieg heil!” A man who forwards the tweets of white supremacists who fantasize about him gassing Bernie Sanders. A racist, misogynous swine who has bankrupted businesses four times. A man who has pledged to *force* the military to commit war crimes. A man who is transparently supportive of abortion and Planned Parenthood and who regards prolifers as useful idiots.

            Don’t give that man verification of that assessment.‪#‎neverTrump‬

          • Someone not named Rick must…

          • Wild_Willie

            Rick, for an ‘alleged’ Christian and catholic, you sure do demonstrate your zeal for hatred and total lack of forgiveness and support. Just saying. Your stripes are showing. ww

          • Expound Willie… I’m not following your logic…

          • jim_m

            So you prefer a man who has a dubious philosophical foundation to a woman who has a foundation of criminality and willingness to sacrifice the lives of others for her own benefit. Gotcha.

          • I think it needs another edit…

          • I prefer neither… as I’ve stated.

          • mikegiles

            How about I take neither of the two, and vote for the Libertarian candidate, or just stay home. Then I won’t have trouble looking at myself in the mirror in the morning.

          • jim_m

            How about I was responding to someone else’s specific comments and not making conjectures about you, who haven’t been on the blog in ages? Sheesh!

            But as I said to Rick, there are 2 legitimate candidates. If you believe someone else has a legitimate chance at winning I would love to hear you explain how. I’m not holding my breath for a rational explanation.

          • mikegiles

            You keep missing the point. I will vote for neither of the candidates because I don’t believe that either one believe in the things i do. I realize this is difficult for some people, who vote strictly on party line, but that’s never been the way I think. Besides some Trumphole trying to guilt me into voting for that Orange buffoon, just gets on my nerves.

          • fustian24

            Actually Hillary’s record is one big nothing.

            What has she done besides refuse to provide security for Benghazi?

          • Um… let’s see.

            Consumed massive quantities of expensive alcohol while travelling around showing how much she can drink?

  • What you mean we, skirt boy.

  • I know who Rick can vote for:

    • Better Alf than Trump or Hillary.

  • Doc Musgrove

    Sociopath? Where did he get his doctorate? You quote pundits and politicians as if their OPINIONS are in any way valid. I guess a record number of voters are stupid, and the “establishment” knows what is best for us. They have done so much for us so far. This is a peaceful revolution, your diatribe is duly noted and filed under “apathetic verging on useless”.

    • If Trump isn’t a sociopath… no one is.

      • jim_m

        0bama is

        • Commander_Chico


  • jim_m

    To be perfectly fair one cannot “Make America a Laughingstock” since it has already been made into one by 0bama. When one looks at the plummet in stature our nation has taken globally under 0bama one cannot deny the truth of this. To claim that Trump would be the cause if the US losing stature abroad is to do the work of the feckless one by helping 0bama avoid responsibility for his failures.

    • Brucehenry
    • Obama isn’t relevant to this thread…

      • jim_m

        He is absolutely relevant to the claim that Trump would “make” America a laughingstock. As I point out, to many other nations the US is already a laughingstock. You cannot make something into a laughingstock if it already is one.

        • He plays little relevance to the abyss that is the future under Trump… or Hillary.

          • jim_m

            True, but my comment above was specifically to the one claim made. Certainly ALL parts of your post are fare game for discussion and not just the ones that you feel passionately about?

            That’s what makes the comments section robust. You post an article that has several points embodied in it and various people comment on the different parts that they find interesting or which they want to dispute.

          • I see no value on focusing on Obama’s failures at this point… it’s history… history we should learn from and instead, Republicans have anointed their own Obama clone… that should be the focus… his defeat.

          • jim_m

            I disagree that Trump is an 0bama clone. As you have already stated, Trump has no discernible philosophical foundation. 0bama has a very clear philosophical foundation, having been raised by a variety of socialists and communists and having spent his entire adult life in the company of avowed communists, self confessed terrorists and anti-Americans.

            We knew exactly what we were getting with 0bama. You have already stated multiple times that we do no know what we are getting with Trump. Please make an effort to be consistent.

            And just because you see no value in discussing 0bama’s failures does not mean that others agree with you. You are not required to participate in every segment of the comment thread.

          • jim_m

            Weren’t you just saying that comparisons to 0bama were off topic and shouldn’t be posted on this thread?

            Check the log in your eye hypocrite.

          • You make me smile jim… seriously man… it’s like you’re in a rut… and you just can’t seem to get out… you can man but you’re going to need help…

          • I’m thinking Trump’s philosophical foundation is “Does this shit work, or not? If not, replace it with something else or scrap it entirely.”

            Which, actually, is refreshing to see in a political candidate.

        • mikegiles

          I always believe that the Trumpbots were no different from the Obamabots of 2008, And now we have a Trump supporter pulling the Obama move of blaming everything on the last guy.

          • jim_m

            Bullshit. Or are you just defending 0bama because he’s black and therefore genetically incapable of being criticized?

            And if you bother to actually read my comments, I have consistently stated that Trump sucks so calling me out as a supporter is a bit of a stretch, even for a addled moron like yourself. If you could read with something akin to comprehension I was simply stating that Trump cannot make something that has already been made.

            Sober up next time before you come to the comments section.

          • mikegiles

            Lacking any other argument, you fall back on racism; as if no one of a different ethnicity has noticed the similarity between Trumpbots and Obamabots. Same blind worship, same inability to admit their changes of position, same inability to address their authoritarian streak. BTW, your seeing Obama as “black”, when he’s half white and culturally is a result of being raised by his white communist parents and grandparents, says far more about why you support Trump than you think it does.

          • jim_m

            If you bothered to read my posts. Read them and not be a fucking ignorant troll, you would see that uniformly I say that Trump is not my choice and I have said that for months already. But you are a fucking tool and can’t read. Or won’t.

            Regardless, you are a moron if you think I am a Trumpbot. I will note that you have nothing to say to the one person on this blog that really does support Trump: Chico.

            Too bad you are such a fucking dumbass that you cannot identify the one person who is unreservedly a Trump supporter. FucK Off Giles.

          • Commander_Chico

            Damn that is vituperative.

          • jim_m

            And deservedly so. I am ambivalent about Trump. I think he sucks, but sucks less than Hillary. I find it offensive that I am therefore tarred by the drunken Mikegiles as a trumpbot when the one person on Wizbang that qualifies for that description is you.

          • Commander_Chico

            You’re nuts. Mikegiles never defended Obama in those comments, in fact he attacked him and referred to Obamabots, yet you said he was defending him because of race. Au contraire.

            Racist? Drunk? Look in the mirror, chief.

          • Pretty much my thought about Trump. He’s not who I would have wanted, but he’s acceptable. (Walker would have been my first choice, voted for Cruz because Walker wasn’t available.)

          • jim_m

            And I will note that you indeed pulled the race card Fuck you,

          • Commander_Chico

            Mike, I will be polite. Why not support Trump? First, if you don’t like “Trumpbots,” fine. You have to separate the candidate and the likely effect of the candidate from the supporters. I also separate the coarse style from the substance.

            I respect anyone who would vote for Gary Johnson, I might vote for him myself if he becomes a competitor. But if not, the choice is between Hillary and Trump.

  • Better Donald than Hillary, as I allude to in my next blog post.

  • jim_m

    If there was any question about whether the Never Trump crowd has its full compliment of hypocrites it is this:

    [Lindsey]Graham says in a statement Friday he “cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative”

    Seriously? Graham can’t support Trump because Trump is not a reliable conservative? While Graham has lurched inadvertently into the truth here, he is missing the epic howler that he (Graham) is possibly one of the least reliable conservatives in the Senate. You could nearly find Dems that are more reliably conservative than Graham.

    • mikegiles

      Graham has an ACU Lifetime rating of 85.86; and you won’t find any gems more reliable than that. Let me guess – your problem with him is immigration.

      • jim_m

        Maybe if you actually knew something and weren’t a fucking dumbass you would know that Graham supports:

        – Climate change legislation (he has partnered with the dems on this)
        – Supported the nominations of both Kagan and Sotomayor
        – Came out against free speech saying that people burning the Koran should go to jail.
        – Member of the gang of 14 that consistently opposed GOP policy and worked to undermine the GOP Senate majority.

        Maybe you are just too stupid to pay attention.

        • mikegiles

          If you weren’t so uninformed you’d be smart enough to judge one on the totality of his record, not specific pieces of legislation you don’t like. On the contrary, you want to judge Trump on one or two things he said that you liked and are quite willing to ignore his past decades of favoring Demorats.

          • jim_m

            WTF? I should judge him by his record but I should ignore the legislation and actions that actually comprise his record? I should instead take the subjective rating of the ACU, which I do not completely agree with? I have thought Graham is dead weight for over a decade now. His consistent opposition to the party’s best interest puts him in the same category as McCain.

            And FUCK YOU already about Trump. I am not supporting him, I only say that Hillary is worse. What the fuck is your problem? Why not go after Chico, who really does support Trump? I know because you really are stupid. You can’t actually read with comprehension.

            And if anyone needed proof that you are an idiot it is found in your statement above that I should judge Graham by his record and not consider the actually things he does that are part of that record. Perhaps one of the dumbest things I have seen anyone say here and that includes the idiot that believed that we should change all spelling to be phonetic by the way words are pronounced locally.

          • jim_m

            So you believe that a man who said that the first amendment should be suspended in times of war is someone who we should look up to as a conservative?

            That’s not specific legislation, that is Graham’s political philosophy. Defend it dumbass. You just said that you want to defend his entire record. So defend it. This is not just a single piece of legislation, this is how the man thinks about freedom. This is something you clearly support.

          • Commander_Chico

            Graham is a deranged warmonger. Hasn’t seen a place he doesn’t want to bomb.

  • Jwb10001

    Endless bitching about having to hold our nose to vote for Romney or McCain, and now it’s hold your nose and vote for PT Barnum? Sorry I can’t do it. You all can blame president Clinton on people like me if you want but so far as I’m concerned if Trump loses it’s all on him and his failure to bring a broad enough group together to win. If he wins good for him the people will have spoken and I’ll accept that. I won’t participate in electing either of these completely unacceptable candidates. To me there is no lesser of 2 evils here only complete evil on both sides.

  • Vagabond661

    The only issue is SCOTUS. Which one will, no doubt, take the Court further left?

    • jim_m

      Exactly. Fools think that they elect a President for 4 years only, when in fact they elect the man who will shape the SCOTUS for the next 20 (average Justice serves for 16 years).

      • Jwb10001

        Which is a very good reason to try to nominate a known conservative, which sadly the republicans didn’t. So we’re left to trust that Trump can pick the right kind of judges, and know that Clinton won’t (one of the few areas where there maybe a lesser evil.) But there are additional long games at stake like holding the house and senate, not driving the party so low that it takes multiple cycles to recover. It will be bad giving Clinton 4 years to stack the court it will be much worse if the dems dominate for 3 or 4 election cycles. I hope that this Trump phenomenon doesn’t turn out like I suspect it will, if it does I hope that the damage is minimal. Either way this election pretty much makes a mockery of both party’s presidential selection process.

        • jim_m

          The GOPe refuses to allow a real conservative a chance at the nomination, so we end up with a non conservative in Trump.

          I’m hoping that this could be a much needed realignment in the political parties with them becoming more clearly defined by their favoritism/opposition to government control of our lives. Right now both parties favor government control while the public is moving in a more libertarian direction with heightened distrust of government in general.

          • But Trump’s populism would belie a movement toward libertarianism, would instead suggest that an authoritarian form of government is what the people are looking for.

          • jim_m

            Not necessarily. Trump is an outsider and his nomination suggests a distrust of the establishment. Trump is also not someone that has voiced an agenda of controlling people’s behavior, like the left has and like the Right has gone along with. As you mentioned, Trump is inconsistent with his rhetoric so it is difficult to pin down his positions, but there is no mistaking that his appeal is anti-government sentiment.

          • fustian24

            The idea that Trump is outsider just cracks me up.

            The man has every Wall Street banker on speed dial.

            There isn’t a brokerage house in the country whose head wouldn’t take the Donald’s call.

            By his own admission, the man has been buying and selling politicians for years.

            In what possible way is he an outsider?

            Trump IS the Wall Street candidate.

          • jim_m

            Beltway outsider. He is not someone who is considered a party insider for either party.

          • fustian24

            At the table where politicians are bought and sold, Trump has been sitting on the buy side. Now he’s moved over to the sell side.

            I just don’t see how this makes him an outsider.

          • Neither party has nominated a candidate for president at this point.

          • fustian24

            And yet I’m pretty sure I know who the nominees will be at this point. (grin)

            But even so, I don’t think you need to be the nominee yet to sell out.

          • jim_m

            By the simple fact that while he may have played footsie with the pols, he hasn’t been one. He hasn’t been sitting in their meetings planning their platform positions and how they will address policy. He isn’t a party insider and that is the point. He is not seen as one of them. It’s a club. You might think that there is little difference between him and them, but they don’t see it that way and the party insiders are the ones that count here.

            You don’t see the GOPe lining up to accept Trump. That is all the evidence I need of my point. You and the rest are arguing against the facts and evidence. Go right ahead. Believe that Trump is some DC insider. He isn’t, unless you want to call him one of the left. That I might buy.

          • fustian24

            I’ll grant you that he hasn’t been a politician.


            Most people feel that the elites are way too cozy with each other. People want somebody outside all that. Trump has been wallowing at the elites trough for decades.

            In a way, Trump is attempting to take out the middleman here.

            He’s not an outsider in any of the ways I think we need right now.

            And notice that Boehner and Trump are golfing buddies.

            And Hillary came to a Trump party.

            Some outsider.

          • jim_m

            Granted he isn’t a total outsider. But nor is he the same sort of insider that brings instant acceptance from the GOPe. We see a large swath of the GOPe feeling hat it is perfectly acceptable to withhold support from him. That doesn’t smack of the typical political insider. There are clear limits to what they pols will accept and he is outside of those limits. They love him for his money and little else. He is no longer offering them his money.

          • fustian24

            I think that our country has moved too far to the left and that many of our current problems require conservative solutions.

            This election has shocked me into realizing that the GOPe does not see itself as a conservative party. Until recently I did not understand that.

            My issue with Trump is that he is not an outsider in the sense that I think we need. Someone that is both a conservative and not part of the current corrupt system.

            Trump is neither.

            If the test is that you don’t want a politician and you want somebody that the GOPe doesn’t like, then George Soros also fits the bill.

            But I don’t like either of them.

          • fustian24

            Until the right makes inroads into the schools, the mainstream press, and the culture, the county belongs to the left.

            On what planet does it make sense that Bernie Sanders could make a run for the US Presidency?

            This is the fallout from us turning over so many institutions to the left.

          • Brucehenry

            Eugene Debs, Robert LaFollette, and Henry Wallace made pretty good runs for the US presidency, back in the days before your imaginary turning over of institutions to the left.

          • fustian24


            But that was before it was so clear that communism/socialism was such a horror. They used to put cocaine in coca-cola back then too.

            Socialism is the crack cocaine of political thought.

            We really should know better by now.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually Debs served time in prison on trumped up charges because of the belief that socialism was “such a horror.” Wallace was characterized as a Soviet stooge in 1948 but still made a pretty good run at the office.

            My point is that socialist/progressive candidates have a long history of making fairly strong bids (more or less) for the presidency so your question about “in what universe does this make sense” is kinda silly. Of course rightwing and kooky populists like George Wallace, Ross Perot, and Lyndon LaRouche have a long history, too, but none have ever come even CLOSE to being nominated by one of the two major parties, as Trump has.

          • fustian24

            I don’t have deep knowledge of the origins of socialism, but my understanding is that before WWII, many around the world saw some form of socialism as the future. Roosevelt, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler all saw themselves as part of a new progressive vanguard in which smart strong leaders were going to remake and perfect society. They may have been different distances along it, but they did all see themselves as more or less on the same path.

            It was WWII that truly showed the horror of socialism to those who would see. Before that time it was more about the trouble labor unions were making to government and business owners. My understanding is that Debs and other pre-WWII figures were treated more as troublemakers than anything else. Debs specifically was jailed for speaking out against our effort in WWI.

            It wasn’t until we saw full blown socialist governments and the wreck they made of things during WWII that it became clear just how bad socialist ideas were. It wasn’t until after the war that people who believed in socialist control of government pretty much had to take their beliefs underground.

            And today, believing that socialism holds answers to the ills of civilization simply goes to judgement. We now know beyond the shadow of a doubt that any country based on class war is doomed to fail. And in ways that cause many people to suffer terribly. Anybody that still claims to be a socialist in the face of such overwhelming evidence has to be viewed as willfully rock stupid.

            I include Bernie.

            And by the way, nice try attempting to categorize Wallace as being a person of the right. He was a racist and a democrat. But I repeat myself.

            Same with LaRouche. He was a Marxist revolutionary from early on and the founder of the US Labor party.

          • Bernie’s still in love with what he thought the Scandinavian countries were doing in the ’70s and ’80s… when they started turning away to market economies. (Even then they could see it wasn’t working well.)

            When even Denmark’s going on record saying Bernie’s wrong about their government, it’s time to update your beliefs.

          • Brucehenry

            The Democratic Socialism of Scandinavia and much of the rest of Europe has virtually nothing in common with “Socialist” regimes like USSR and China. Hitler’s (and Mussolini’s) regime was “socialist” in name only, as you should know, but may not if you espouse the Jonah Goldberg/David Barton/Dinesh D’Souza school of revisionist claptrap “history.”

            That’s why in my opinion Bernie is not stupid but those who compare the brand of Democratic socialism he advocates to Stalin’s or Mao’s communism might be. Present company excepted of course.

            George Wallace was indeed a Democrat but at the time that didn’t preclude being a rightwinger, as you also should know but may not. In 1968, his running mate was Curtis LeMay, about the rightest of rightwing nuke-’em nutjobs around in his day. And LaRouche’s US Labor party made may have started as a commie group but by 1977 had become an extreme right and anti-Semitic organization.

          • fustian24

            Socialism reminds me of putting crap in your coffee. A little bit always tastes better than a lot, but in the end none of it is best.

            I am aware that the left is absolutely desperate to not have us associate Mussolini or Hitler with the left, but the contortions necessary are indeed impressive. Both of those guys certainly thought they were.

            Mussolini’s big idea was that he didn’t think people would fight for their class. But they would for their country. So he used Facism to bring the benefits of socialism to Italy. Stalin certainly thought he was a socialist, but could not convince Mussolini to be an internationalist, which is where the Soviets wanted to go.

            And Hitler didn’t get along with the Communists because they were political rivals, but not because he disagreed particularly with their socialist politics. From being a vegetarian right to his development of the People’s Car, he was a socialist through and through. It’s even in the Nazi name.

            Lefties have more words for socialist than the Eskimos have for snow. I’m sure you can find one of those subtle distinctions to claim that no failed Marxist is a TRUE socialist, but most of us don’t buy any of that.

            As for Wallace, I know that the democrats and the republicans were at one time the same party. The republicans split over the racist beliefs of the democrats. Lincoln, of course, was the first Republican Presidential candidate. For a long time the southern democrats were both conservative AND racist. Over time the democrats moved so far to the left that the southern democrats finally abandoned them and became republicans. And over time, the Republican party has acted as a moderating influence and much of the racism is at least lessened in the south if it is not yet obliterated (as it should be). Certainly the KKK which flourished under the democrats is now gone. Wasn’t Democratic Senator Byrd (the conscience of the Senate) once a member in good standing of the KKK?

          • Brucehenry

            “From being a vegetarian right to his development of the People’s Car, he was a socialist through and through.” And more cartoonish nonsense straight from Jonah Goldberg or someone equally as nutty. I love this one — “it’s even in the Nazi name.” Well, East Germany was called the “German Democratic Republic.” Was it a democracy? Hell, it’s right there in the name! MUST HAVE BEEN!

            “I know that the democrats and republicans were at one time the same party.” Umm,, no. There was a party called the Democratic Republicans that kind of sprang from the anti-Federalist faction of old. It evolved into the Democratic party. Then there were other parties, the most important of which was called the “Whigs.” It was mostly these “Whigs” who founded the Republican party, which indeed was largely motivated by opposition to the spread of slavery as an economic system to the new territories. But it’s over-simplistic and inaccurate to say that “the Republicans split over the racist beliefs of the Democrats.” As a matter of fact it can’t accurately said that the Republicans “split” from the Democrats at all, since most (not all) of them were former Whigs in the first place.

            I don’t know precisely where you picked up this revisionist newfangled version of history but you should probably re-read your 9th grade “Story of America” textbook if you can find it in the attic or somewhere. Though lacking in detail, it at least won’t try to spin history into this through-the-looking-glass version fed to you by cranks.

          • jim_m

            Please name the right wing policies that Hitler proposed. You know damned well that the ONLY reasons the NAZI’s were considered right wing is because of their nationalism and because the west wanted to separate them politically from the Soviets during WWII. It would not have done to compare their incredibly similar policies with our erstwhile allies.

            But you are too ignorant to understand this and are so easily lead that you believe anything your masters tell you.

          • And don’t forget the Soviet insistence that they could have no enemies of the left.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I DID read “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” which was considered the definitive popular history of the subject for many years, many years ago. And in it, Hitler is described as a politician “of the Right,” and of course Hitler considered himself a vehement anti-Communist and blamed a communist dupe/stooge for the Reichstag fire which he used as an excuse to imprison or kill most of the leftist intelligentsia of the country.

            This whole Goldbergian narrative is a recent invention which wingnuts have swallowed whole because it fits with their bogus bullshit about liberals being “the real racists.”

          • jim_m

            Yes, and that book was written when? And it made that assessment based on the very criteria I stated above did it not? Yes indeed it did.

            If you look at their political policies you will find they were socialists through and through. You will also find that their racism and antisemitism align them very closely with today’s American left as well as the islamists, another group the American left are aligning themselves with.

          • Brucehenry

            You and I have gone over this a thousand times. You are unhinged, an idiot, and a rube who will fall for any charlatan who gives you an interpretation that fits your ludicrous excuse for a worldview. Like Goldberg.

            So I’m just going to say we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, LOL.

          • jim_m

            Yes. Thanks for proving to everyone that you have no rebuttal other than to call me names. If you actually had something to rebut my comment you would furnish it, but you never have and never will.

            I pity you Bruce. Or I would if you were worth it, which you are not.

          • Hawk_TX

            Reagan said it best.

            “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

            ― Ronald Reagan

          • fustian24

            But Bruce. You just say over and over that the Nazi’s were right-wing. You never say why.

            So I went out to the net to read a few actual discussion on this matter to see why you lot claim he is rightwing. As near as I can tell from a quick perusal, the argument is that Naziism was not primarily about class. Hitler did aim to create a single class, and much of Naziism sounds like socialism.


            The Nazi’s were at core racist. And to be part of their grand society, you needed to first pass a racial test.

            So much of whether you believe Hitler to be a person of the right or the left comes down to whether you believe racism to be a product of the right or of the left.

            But interestingly the man himself in his bang-up opus Mein Kampf was pretty clear he was not a person of the right:

            Chapter VII:
            In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.

            Chapter 4:
            The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 

            If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

            Chapter XII:
            The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.

            I also liked this quote from Hitler spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:
            I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

            I think these are fairly definitive. Hitler was not a person of the right at all. He certainly saw himself as a man of the left. And the only thing really separating his philosophy from Marxism is his views on race.

            Finally, here is Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) who I think makes clear why Naziism as a form of government is still socialism:
            There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.

            The only place you can really make a stand after all this is that the left simply doesn’t want Hitler. So you guys search around and disqualify him on some technicality. Hitler certainly “self-identified” as a socialist.

            But, what would he know?

          • Brucehenry

            Hitler said a lot of things, many of them, like Trump, contradictory. We have always considered him “of the right,” however, due to his actions in power.

            He allied in the Reichstag with the Conservative party under von Papen to gain power in the first place, not the Socialists or Social Democrats who loathed him. He, once in power, imprisoned or killed or deprived of livelihood many if not most, of the leftist intelligentsia of Germany, and did the same when he later conquered Poland, Norway, etc. He blamed a Communist for the Reichstag fire, which he used to assume extraordinary powers and never looked back. Labor unions were made toothless and plutocrats got richer, not poorer, under Nazism. Yes he established a huge public works program to relieve unemployment — as did every country that successfully climbed out of the Depression. Yes he made a show of saying the German word for “socialism” often, but corporations retained all their influence and were not molested, industry never nationalized even as the war effort intensified.

            Not to mention that he was an ardent anti-Communist all his career, with his SA brownshirts fighting street battles with Communist thugs during his climb to power. He fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union in Spain for chrissake!

            Speaking of Spain, Franco’s platform was nearly identical to both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s, EXCEPT for the rabid emphasis on race, yet Falangist Spain has never been described, to my knowledge, as a “leftist” regime. That’s because it wasn’t — it was a right wing one, like Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Fascist Italy.

            You can cherry-pick quotes all day. Hitler said whatever he thought would help him gain and keep power (like maybe Trump?) but the actions he took to gain power and during his time IN power confirm the opinion of observers at the time — he was universally considered “of the right.”

            Again, Goldberg and D’Souza and David Barton and their ilk are either bad scholars and you are mistaken to believe them, or they are charlatans and you are a rube if you believe them. Sorry.

          • fustian24

            Well, I appreciate the detailed reply.

            But I’m not buying it.

            Much of your argument is based on the idea that that Hitler wasn’t nice to his political opponents on the left and that means he must have been on the right. That he was in competition with the communists for power is indisputable. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t share the ideology. In fact it’s pretty common for factions of the same ideology to have the greatest disputes. Look at Shiites and Sunnis. They kill each other willingly, yet they are all still Muslim.

            The rest is based on the technicality that Nazi Germany did not outright nationalize business. But they did embed their people at all levels German society and business. Which means that in effect the Nazis ran the business sector as they wished. The Hayek quote gets to the heart of this idea that to be socialist you need to formally take over the business sector. That’s just one form socialism takes. The Nazi form is another.

            I agree that the left is desperate to have Hitler be a person of the right, but it’s just silliness and it doesn’t pass the smell test.

          • Brucehenry

            Except that it smelled just fine to everyone at the time and didn’t start to stink — and still doesn’t except to those who bought the revisionist bs you seem to have bought — until Goldberg et al invented this interpretation.

          • fustian24

            Well, left and right are tricky concepts and they change over time. Originally being on the right meant you supported the monarchy.

            But Hitler had none of the attributes we think of as on the right today, which I’m assuming is what we’re discussing. He didn’t believe in small government. He did not believe in individual liberty. He did not believe in a color-blind society. He was not about freedom of religion.

            He did believe in Revolution and he saw himself as a revolutionary that needed to overthrow the old order. He was even in favor of gun control (especially for Jews).

            I know you guys are desperate to believe Hitler was on the right. You know you can’t actually make a compelling argument, so now you are making an appeal to authority.

            I bet if you were to gather a whole room full of leftist historians, they would all be in agreement on this subject.

            Proves nothing.

          • Brucehenry

            Nothing “desperate” in continuing to believe what one has always known for a fact. What is “desperate” perhaps is to do what Jonah Goldberg did — write a book spinning the facts of history into some bizarro-world version of reality, in order to associate his political adversaries with Nazis.

            But as you said, the concepts of right and left have changed somewhat over time, and as I said, it is stupid to correlate the actions of the right TODAY (or of the left today) with the actions of an opportunistic tyrant whose worldview was formed 100 years ago. If Hitler was a “rightist” in his day, that doesn’t mean the rightists of today are “just like Hitler,” and if he was a leftist, it doesn’t mean the leftists of today are, either.

            But I think it’s funny to adopt a revisionist view of history and then characterize those who espouse a more traditional view as “desperate.” To do so itself reeks of desperation.

            BTW do you think Franco’s Spain was a “leftist” regime?

          • fustian24

            Firstly, I cannot call Franco either a rightist or a leftist in the meanings of those words today. He was a vehement anti-communist, but he was also nothing that we could call conservative either. He was in favor of the old ways I guess and that would make him a man of the right in yesterday’s meaning. But he was also a tyrant and I usually equate that with leaders from the left. A belief in limited government doesn’t lead to dictatorships.

            I find myself wondering whether you actually read the Goldberg book you are poor mouthing or whether you just read about it. I skimmed a little bit of it yesterday, and in the parts I read, Jonah himself gives quite a balanced treatment of this history and lays out the arguments for and at least some of the arguments against.

            I find his arguments compelling.

            Unlike yours which simply make no sense. They are:
            1. violence = right wing.
            2. Hitler only controlled the economy. He didn’t explicitly take it over.
            3. all of my lefty buddies agree.

            And the fact that you have always believed the opposite means nothing. I’m quite sure you’re wrong about a lot of things.

            The left has been lying about history for a long time. Tell us a little about the famine in Ukraine. I read the reports from Walter Duranty in the NYTimes and apparently it didn’t happen!

          • Brucehenry

            OK dude carry right on

          • He has previously admitted that he has only read the critiques of Liberal Fascism.

          • jim_m

            In your fevered mind.

          • Hawk_TX

            Actually Germany did outright nationalize business. Nationalize is defined as to transfer from private to state ownership or control. There is little differences between a business that the government has taken ownership of and a business that ostensibly is privately owned but completely controlled by the government.

            The Nazis nationalized the entire German economy when the government took complete control over it. This occurred on October 18, 1936 when Herman Goring was given control over the German economy as part of the four year plan for rearmament and economic self sufficiency.

          • Scalia

            Correct. I made a similar point to fustain24 above. The notion that the Nazis were rightists is pure leftist fantasy.

          • Pure progressive propaganda.


          • jim_m

            Which party formed the Confederacy?
            Which party founded the KKK?
            Which party passed the Jim Crow laws?
            Which party stopped the creation of federal anti-lynching laws?
            Which party fought against desegregation?
            Which party opposed the creation of the Civil Rights Commission?
            Which party filibustered the Civil Rights Act?

          • Scalia

            Yes. Time and again, when you read leftist historians quote Hitler’s comments against socialists in Germany, they almost invariably leave out the fact that his opposition was rooted in their internationalism which was of course at odds with his nationalism.

          • Scalia

            I’ll have to take issue with a couple of things. First, Republicans, as in the GOP, were not part of the Democratic Party. The Democratic-Republican Party was an earlier and different movement. The GOP was formed by northern Whigs who were anti-slavery.

            Second, Southern Democrats were not conservatives. They were whole-hog FDR New Dealers which is light years away from conservatism. They also embraced the Great Society after sufficient growling about race. The idea that they were conservatives is an easily disprovable myth perpetuated by the Left to absolve themselves of their racist past. Southern Democrats were racist liberals.

            As to the Nazis, when we (Americans) use the terms Left and Right, we are referring to the scope of government. Conservatives want to conserve the government that was formed at our founding which was far more limited than it is today. Thus, leftists generally see government as the solution whereas rightists generally see it as the problem. In that context, any totalitarian or activist government is left-of-center, whether communist, Nazi, fascist or socialist. You are thus correct to observe that when American liberals call the Nazis “right wing,” they are misusing the term. The label is directly related to the Nazis’ nationalism which is racist. The liberal penchant for calling anything racist “right wing,” is on display here. That’s why they try to call Southern Democrats “conservatives.” When one examines Nazi economic policy, it is clearly left-of-center and bears no resemblance to a conservative form of government:

            *Large public works programs supported by deficit spending
            *Price controls
            *National labor group
            *Nationalization of major industries

            Moreover, the budget also tilts leftward:

          • Scalia

            I’ll have to take issue with a couple of things. First, Republicans, as in the GOP, were not part of the Democratic Party. The Democratic-Republican Party was an earlier and different movement. The GOP was formed by northern Whigs who were anti-slavery.

            Second, Southern Democrats were not conservatives. They were whole-hog FDR New Dealers which is light years away from conservatism. They also embraced the Great Society after sufficient growling about race. The idea that they were conservatives is an easily disprovable myth perpetuated by the Left to absolve themselves of their racist past. Southern Democrats were racist liberals.

            As to the Nazis, when we (Americans) use the terms Left and Right, we are referring to the scope of government. Conservatives want to conserve the government that was formed at our founding which was far more limited than it is today. Thus, leftists generally see government as the solution whereas rightists generally see it as the problem. In that context, any totalitarian or activist government is left-of-center, whether communist, Nazi, fascist or socialist. You are thus correct to observe that when American liberals call the Nazis “right wing,” they are misusing the term. The label is directly related to the Nazis’ nationalism which is racist. The liberal penchant for calling anything racist “right wing,” is on display here. That’s why they try to call Southern Democrats “conservatives.” When one examines Nazi economic policy, it is clearly left-of-center and bears no resemblance to a conservative form of government:

            *Large public works programs supported by deficit spending
            *Price controls
            *National labor group
            *Nationalization of major industries

          • fustian24

            It’s difficult writing about those periods because they are so different than now and much of the sturm and drang of the times do not resonate. Also the names democrat and republican mean different things today than they did in the past. But clearly what I wrote was much simpler than what happened.

            The Republican party was formed in Wisconsin as an anti-slavery party. Yet the breakup of the Whigs was a major influence on the two parties today. The northern Whigs largely joined the Republicans while the southern ones eventually ended up as Democrats. And again, the issue was slavery. The anti-slavery party was Republican.

            I probably should read more about this period since it’s quite interesting. Originally the Republicans were the dominant political party in the Northeast. The Democrats were largely a southern populist party that believed in a more agrarian society. Blacks were almost entirely Republican. Now it’s all switched. While I know things about this switch, it would take a lot more reading to fully understand what happened.

            I think the Southern democrats are a complicated bunch in terms of left and right which makes them difficult to categorize accurately. Economically populist, they were also culturally conservative, and while they were democrats, racism was very active. The democrats WERE the party of the KKK, for example.

            One of the great jokes on us all is that the democrats have become the party of minorities after such a checkered history. I haven’t studied this in any detail, but my understanding is that the switch started during the New Deal. I have read that black leaders sold out their people in exchange for access to government largesse, but probably it is a more complex and interesting story than this. I do think it’s been a triumph of the left to convince black people that Republicans are the racist party. That’s pretty incredible.

            There are many ways to view left and right. To me the essence of the right is a belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility, while the left is about class war. The right believes in equal opportunity, while the left believes in equal outcomes.

            What makes classification more difficult is the way religion gets mixed in. Religious people that are culturally conservative often find more of a home on the right and they put their religion into the mix. Religious people that are more liberal find a home with the left.

            One of the many factors that makes classification difficult is that at the extreme, religious people of the right start looking a lot like their opponents on the left. Both believe that the average person cannot be trusted to follow the one true light and an intrusive government MUST interfere and force people on the straight and narrow.

            They just disagree on the religion.

            Whether Christian values or progressive values, the means the extremists wish to follow are largely the same.

          • Scalia

            I think it must be recalled that northerners were also culturally “conservative” if one is using race as a wedge. Although they were anti-slavery, you had de facto segregation throughout the North and extreme prejudice. In fact, it was often observed that some blacks felt more at home in the South because they at least knew where they stood with whites. Up north, many whites would attempt to be polite, but their racism bled through.

            Socially, liberals and conservatives were in essential agreement. Very few liberals would have endorsed gay marriage, abortion or sex-neutral restrooms in the 1800s and through most of the 1900s. The divide was one’s philosophy of government. The southern Democrats’ economic/governmental philosophy was clearly on the Left, so there is no other way to classify them. Today’s liberals call segregationist Democrats “conservative” because they want the electorate to believe that modern conservatives are also racist. That way, they kill two birds with one stone. They absolve themselves of their racist past and retain ignorant voters who don’t want to associate with racists.

            We, as conservatives, should never adopt the liberals’ narrative on segregation. We can prove that segregationists were liberals, so why should be allow them to falsify history so that they can paint us with the same brush?

          • fustian24

            I have heard this opinion from many black people.

            It’s also clear that there was a huge economic rivalry between the North and the South and that this played a large part in the Civil War too.

            Back in my college days I read a biography of Calhoun in which the author tried to make the case that the economics on slavery were not working out and that, left to their own devices, the south would eventually have left slavery behind anyway. We never tried that experiment, I wonder if it would have happened that way?

          • “One of the great jokes on us all is that the democrats have become the party of minorities after such a checkered history.”

            The question I’d have is how much do they really like minorities? Their support for ‘welfare’ has done a lot to destroy minority families. Affirmative Action is a noble idea, but the unintended consequences have been devastating in a lot of environments. Now the urging in colleges seems to be for ‘Diversity’ – which apparently means ‘keep to your own kind and avoid interacting with others’.

            I’m wondering just how much more ‘help’ the Dems can give them without destroying them.

          • More political/power than economics. The economy of the South was a shadow of that of the North, and their citizen population was far smaller, yet they enjoyed political parity…

          • Scalia

            I most definitely believe that slavery would have died out in the South. Advancing technology would have made slavery superfluous, and the North was out-producing the South agriculturally without slaves.

            Interestingly, Lincoln supported the Corwin constitutional amendment which would both have protected slavery and insulated it from subsequent amendment. It passed both houses of Congress and was ratified by three states, but since seven states had already seceded, none of them voted for its ratification. Had it been adopted, slavery would be legal today. It could not be written out by amendment.

          • jim_m

            Yes Bruce, we know that you are a great defender of utopian worker states such as the Soviet Union, Cuba , N Korea and Venezuela. Because socialism leads consistently to peace and prosperity.

          • Piles of the dead are certainly quiet, and the rats prosper… at least, those that managed to avoid the starving masses who believed enough to put a cult-of-personality dictator into power.

            Anyone have any stats on the rat population in NK? I know there’s reports (which may or may not be true) that they’re eating cats, dogs and birds in Venezuela…

          • jim_m

            Well, they are rationing food in Venezuela so we know that Bruce and Bernie believe that they are a model society that we should be trying to emulate.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, the type of socialism I defend actually HAS led to consistent peace and prosperity, for going on 70 years now, in places like Western Europe, which ignorant haters describe as some kind of hellhole but which ummm….isn’t.

            Very few in France, the Low Countries, Spain, or Scandinavia (or even the UK) would be willing to give up the type of social benefits Bernie advocates for here, nor would they embrace the type of dog-eat-dog devil take the hindmost capitalism so-called “conservatives” in the US espouse.

          • jim_m

            You mean the Scandinavia that, as has been pointed out here, is already dismantling their socialist infrastructures as they recognize that they are unsustainable?

          • Brucehenry

            The Scandinavia that is making some adjustments, yes, but, whether it has been “pointed out” here or not, the claim that the welfare state in Scandinavia is being “dismantled” is an overstatement. As you know but probably won’t admit.

          • jim_m

            I’m sure that you are in favor of the scandinavia where muslims account for nearly 100% of the rapes and women are now told to dress with their heads covered and even to dye their hair black to avoid being targeted by immigrants.

          • Brucehenry

            Separate issue from what is being discussed. But good job reminding us of your hatred.

          • jim_m

            Yes, unlike you I hate women being raped. Please tell us more about your advocacy for rape.

          • Venezuela had ‘Democratic Socialism’. They consistently ‘voted’ Chavez back into office.

            But hey, it’s gonna turn around any day now and become the Socialist paradise Bernie dreams of.

            Yep. Any day now.

            Any day….

        • Scalia

          Trump has suggested William Pryor and Diane Sykes and has asked the Heritage Foundation for a list of potential nominees. To counterbalance that, he also stated that his left-leaning sister would be a great choice for the court. On the whole, I think the courts and perhaps immigration are the only issues where Trump might be better.

          • Politicians never joke. Their humor gets surgically removed after their first election to office.

            Businessmen can, and do, make jokes about shit they’d never do.

            People keep expecting Trump to act like a traditional Politician.

      • fustian24

        If this was as important to people as you say, they would have voted in Cruz.

        And, frankly, I have no confidence that, in the very unlikely event of a Trump presidency, he would pick conservative jurists.

        Until he said he was a Republican, all of his opinions were lefty ones. And now and then, it still leaks out.

        The really sad thing is that many of his most controversial statements were probably meant to appease what he thinks his base is. The man is so thick, he refused to repudiate the KKK because he think Republicans would be offended!

      • Whatever a President does in office can take decades to shake out. Most items will be inconsequential or somewhat beneficial – but some start out as ‘good ideas’ and when the results aren’t good don’t get changed. (Looks at Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ as a prime example of ‘Yeah, it sounds good on paper but is a real mess in the long run.)

        We’re still dealing with Carter’s decision to lose the ‘War on Energy’ – I’m surprised he actually allowed the Alaskan Pipeline to be finished. Reagan’s decision to rebuild the military after Viet Nam caused a lot of heartburn on the anti-war side – but lead to the fall of the USSR and gave us a materiel surplus that was needed in the ’90s with the Gulf War 1 and later in the 2000’s. Like it or loathe it, you DO go to war with what you’ve got to hand – not what you wish you had. (As Bush dealt with after 9/11.)

        Clinton mostly kept his hands off the economy in the ’90s – leading to the tech bubble. Where he did fuck around with things (home loans for minorities) the end result was the housing bubble that burst around 2007-2008. And his reluctance to take out Osama Bin Laden when he could along with the ‘Peace Dividend’ and drawdown of our military set the stage for 9/11 and a LOT of subsequent horror.

        Obamacare – well, THAT didn’t work quite as expected, did it? Tens of millions undergoing higher premiums, copays and nearly catastrophic deductibles to make essentially no change in the amount of uninsured people? (2-4%, maybe as much at 5%.) And how much got spent on the web site alone? (Stats from https://wallethub.com/edu/rates-of-uninsured-by-state-before-after-obamacare/4800/)

        As you say, add in the Supreme Court, and you’ll end up with decades worth of… change. Which can be good, or bad depending on your political affiliation and how insulated you are from the effects of what you think you want others to have.

        Of course, it helps like anything to have 20-20 hindsight, to be able to trace how X begat Y and affected A through K. Operating in real time, all any President can do is what they think best to solve the situation, and hopefully not create any problems down the road.

        But it sure seems to me like some Presidents got far too enamored of their ‘good ideas’ to think about the long term consequences of them – or the ‘unintended side-effects’. Because there’s always going to be those – the wise Presidents try to minimise them, while the others just don’t care.

  • Paul Hooson

    As bizarre as his views are, Trump was surprisingly a Democrat until only more recent times. In fact, his daughter did not change her Democratic Party registration in time to even vote for her dad, despite appearing onstage in campaign appearance after campaign appearance. His conduct in his campaign speeches reminds me more of a SNL character comic parody of a Republican running for president than not.

    Another bizarre thing is how so many Trump supporters admire that he has no experience. Never a state legislator, a governor, congressman, senator or even a school board member. That makes a lot of sense. Run for the highest office in the land with zero experience. I have a history of heart problems myself. I don’t want a doctor, I want a shoe shine boy to treat me. He has no experience…

    • Brucehenry

      That’s a good one. I don’t even like Douthat but that’s a good article.

  • mikegiles

    The fact that so many Trump supporters, simply cannot understand that there are people whose principles, won’t allow them to bend down to the “Orange God”, I find more than a little frightening. As does their inability to understand that the President is not a dictator.

  • Yea… Donald Trump is no threat, not compared to Hillary… none at all…


    • jim_m

      And how is this different from the Dem view that deficit spending is OK because they can always print more money? Just a couple of years ago the dems were advocating to monetize the debt. That is the same thing.

      Both are extremely wrong headed and ignorant.

      • And yet apparently to you, Trump’s wrong headedness and ignorance should be overlooked…

        Does not compute pal.