As with every comic book character and every critical event in this strange and dynamic election cycle, last Monday's first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has polarized the nation. While in year's past Republicans and Democrats could find common ground in these debates and agree that Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" comment was a blunder or that Ronald Reagan saying "oh there you go again" may have won him the election; it seems that this year, politicization has even infected debate analysis.
Even more peculiar is that reaction to the candidates' debate performances was not split down party lines; but rather split down a much more jagged and asymmetrical divide between the elite Washington beltway bubble people and the American people, alongside a growing underground network of populist journalists. Insiders from both the left and the right, from Bill O"Reilly and Charles Krauthammer to Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, agreed that Clinton easily won because Trump was belligerent and defensive. As such, CNN, the vanguard of America's dutifully responsible fifth estate, released a shock poll which had Hillary winning the debate 72% to Trump's 27% (it is worth mentioning that this poll sampled 41% Democrats and 26% Republicans).
Meanwhile, down here in America, Trump won the debate handily with nearly every shock poll (Minus the Clinton News Network) declaring him the winner. He won polls conducted by Time Magazine, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Right Scoop, Slate, Politico, The Hill, CNBC, CBS Philadelphia, USA Today, Daily Wire, Fortune Magazine, CBS New York, the Atlanta Patch, Variety, Politopinion, Fox San Diego, Heavy Magazine, Truth Division, The Cape Cod Times, ABC News, Hollywood Gossip, the Roanoke Times, the Washington Times, and the San Diego Union Tribune. But why should mere fact bankrupt a good narrative?
The pundits and journalists left behind by both party establishments who still believe in their obligation as truth-seekers agree that although Hillary Clinton won in a technical sense, Trump clearly won with the only metric that counts: votes. The reason for this disagreement between lawyer-pundits and citizen-pundits is very simple. To the bubble people of the bipartisan political establishment, living in Manhattan and Los Angeles, Trump's messaging fell on def ears. To the millionaire Fox News punditry aristocracy, the deafening absence of orthodox Republican talking points drowned out an otherwise disciplined and focused performance by Trump.
While he certainly missed opportunities to attack Clinton on her email scandal and other things, the most important refrain which will echo in the minds of rural and blue collar voters right up until election day is that Hillary Clinton has been in government for 30 years and has nothing to show for it. Those middle class Americans in Ohio and Pennsylvania struggling in a broken economy, those average citizens alienated by a feckless, cosmopolitan commander in chief, they don't care that Trump has said mean things to Rosie O'Donnell. They don't care about real estate arbitrage from the 1970s or Donald Trump's tax returns. Those people see a phony bourgeois political hack who has lived on the taxpayer's dime for 30 years and done nothing but take orders from globalist interests in exchange for bigger and higher paying desks.
A great anxiety has set in between our two thriving liberal coasts, for those Americans who still have to wake up before dawn to feed their families. They're not anxious about "institutional racism" or "criminal justice reform," they're worried that they might get stabbed by an ISIS operative in a mall on the weekend; they're worried that their jobs will disappear overnight because the TPP allowed their employer to relocate to Malaysia. The economy has not grown by more than 2% since this president has taken office, and the slew of terror attacks last week in New Jersey, New York, and Minnesota has made it difficult for anyone to swallow Democrat rhetoric that the JV team in Iraq and Syria is somehow "on the run."
This country is not stupid. Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again," has become iconic because it resonates with a people who see their country slowly slipping down the drain in nearly every measure. At the RNC Trump got it right when he said "I am your voice!" People have been fed up for years with this ruling political class which has used and abused their country for 25 years; even Obama got elected under the retrospectively disingenuous appeal for "hope and change." Hillary Clinton giggling and laughing and playing populist in her $10,000 outfit sent a stronger message to the people than any of Trump's scandalous off the cuff remarks picked up by NBC.
The optics of this debate communicated to voters that Hillary Clinton is the status quo. Without saying a word and then by saying many words she tacitly signaled that a vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of that same dismissive arrogance and elitist contempt of our current administration. The pundit class calls it a lack of charisma, the people see that Hillary Clinton is a fraud. They see right through the New York Times hit pieces and Lester Holt's purchased gotcha questions and all the bread and circus which has done nothing but install Mitt Romney's and John McCain's to drown their constituents like the Titanic.
Hillary did look polished and she did check all the boxes for her talking points; but Trump hasn't turned this country upside down by compromising for the sake of conventionality. Each of his primary debate performances were universally panned by nearly every professional in news media and yet the Trump train only accelerated until he smashed through the entire Republican establishment in Cleveland and remade America's conservative party in his image. If CNN calls this one for Hillary Clinton and cites their crooked poll as evidence, we the American people accept.
As Alex Jones shouted, "we are breaking the conditioning!" CNN can take their polls and their opinions and they can put them on Hillary Clinton's website because we're not going to read them. We don't care what the globalist press has to say about the globalist administration anymore. The lawyers and pundits on TV who get paid to say words can run circles around us with their political science and law degrees about the rhetorical structure of Trump's argument; but the choice that faces America in November was made plain for all to see.
Trump, the brash patriot, the voice of change and for the restoration of the American nation or Clinton, the globalist shill, a political and physical zombie ruled by nothing but lust for wealth and power; It doesn't take a fancy suit or ironic glasses to see that. While Trump admittedly was on the defensive and perhaps too easily goaded into wasteful detours, he presented to more than 80 million people a viable presidential candidate in the place of the mainstream media's straw man caricature of him.
Come Tuesday, Mike Pence will eloquently and factually disassemble the intellectual case for Hillary Clinton and Trump will surely refine and deliver a knock out blow for his second bout. With Hillary Clinton's health still deteriorating and America's national security more frequently compromised, time is on Trump's side. New polling in Colorado and Pennsylvania suggest that Trump's electoral performance may greatly exceed expectations. If he can consolidate his gains, carry the enthusiasm, and continue to act presidentially, we will see a Trump White House this winter.
The first 2016 presidential debate will take place tonight, Monday September 26th at 9:00 PM EST and will feature Republican nominee Donald Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton with Lester Holt moderating. This is anticipated to be among the most watched television programs possibly in American history and for good reason. As both Trump and Clinton have been on the campaign trail for well over a year, the final debate series between the storied arch rivals may be enough to swing the near 10% of undecided or third party voters which hangs in the balance. With formerly blue states such as Colorado and Maine now collapsing into all out political warfare, an undisputed triumph in a head to head match up could just swing the election and the fate of the United States of America with it. Having observed this process from its very beginning with Ted Cruz's announcement in April, 2015 I have laid out the factors which will be critical for each candidate tonight.
Strengths and Weaknesses: Hillary Clinton
It will not come as a surprise to those who followed the Democratic primary closely that Hillary Clinton has few strengths in any public forum in which she has to stand, answer questions, or do both simultaneously for longer than a half of an hour. This, however, may be her greatest strength. Given that her performance at the early primary debates with Bernie Sanders was lackluster and given her many recent health episodes, many Americans and the mainstream media are likely to have very low expectations for a Hillary win tonight.
If she can stand for 90 minutes straight taking tough questions from an aggressive moderator without shouting, moving her eyes in different directions, collapsing, having a seizure, or coughing, regardless of the content of the debate, CNN and NBC will declare her the victor. After all of the fanfare surrounding her recent collapse and recovery, sympathetic millennials and monied interests will portray this as the comeback story of the election, Hillary Clinton comes roaring back from pneumonia to fully participate in a contest on live television.
That said, should there be any health episode, the media will not be able to bury it. The Hillary collapses and coughs and seizures and bizarre body double/green screen scandals were easily left on the cutting room floor over the past several weeks by totalitarian new media cronies; but with millions watching the debate live, no media conglomerate on earth will be powerful enough to suppress such a stark vindication of Trump's strength and stamina narrative in real time. This factor alone will sink the Clinton campaign. Though there are very low expectations for Hillary, history shows that it will take nothing less than experimental European stimulants and Silicon Valley's most advanced robotics to keep that corpse standing and performing normal bodily functions for 90 minutes straight.
Assuming that Hillary Clinton is able to participate in the debate without, you know, betraying the obvious signs that she is dying (and that is a leap), there are many other factors which can hurt or help her performance. Perhaps her greatest advantage is her near 30 years in public life. Though in that time she didn't accomplish much except for singlehandedly giving away America's geostrategic position in the world, she did learn a thing or two about foreign and domestic affairs. Gary Johnson's recent Aleppo flub on Morning Joe and Ben Carson's entire bid for the Republican nomination demonstrate that a basic knowledge of the world cannot be taken for granted in this election; expertise matters. Give Clinton's experience stealing money behind so many desks, she has become an expert at the legislative process, world diplomacy, state government, and the presidency, this is not to be discounted.
Moreover, because Hillary Clinton has been lying and covering up lies for as long as her and her husband have held public office, she has developed a well crafted and digestible approach to skirting around the issues and dodging controversy. Though it isn't always pretty, and it wasn't pretty at the Commander in Chief Forum recently, it serves its function in keeping her base afloat while the media and her cronies do all the heavy lifting to make her palatable to the rest of the electorate.
This "advantage," if you could call it that, is also a double edged sword because obviously her experience dodging and skirting derives from nearly thirty years of scandal, cover ups, and political skeletons in her closet. Trump increased media scrutiny on the Clinton's tenfold, and Gennifer Flowers' attendance tonight will serve as an ominous foreshadowing of the reckoning which will come for the Clinton's and all of their misdeeds. Trump has their number and they know it, whether or not Trump drudges this up tonight or in another debate is a matter of strategy but the ball is in his court and this is incredibly dangerous for Hillary Clinton.
Additionally, beyond the political baggage of scandal, Clinton must also defend the baggage of her governance. Trump made the very difficult narrative leap from outsider to viable candidate for insider and as such enjoys the luxury of not having to defend the complicated record of an actor in federal government. Clinton on the other hand will have to own up to her failures as Secretary of State from the apparent "witch hunt" in Benghazi to her universally recognized blunders in Libya, Syria, and Iraq.
Overall, Hillary has her work cut out for her. She is not charismatic or charming like her husband, her boss Obama, or her opponent Donald Trump. She does not think well on her feet and she is easily frazzled. Her health is in jeopardy and she has been dependent on a media which has buried her record and her crimes for all of modern political history. None of this bodes well for a debating contest with the madman but Lord knows that the globalist media can always find a way to spin a defeat into a victory. The question is whether or not they will have anything to salvage by Tuesday morning.
Strengths and Weaknesses: Donald Trump
When it comes to the debating process, Trump is a mixed bag. If you ask him or Drudge Report, he won every single Republican primary debate and the results of the primary votes arguably validated this. More nuanced and admittedly establishment voices saw a belligerent, sensationalist, bigot who easily lost the better part of the general election electorate by pandering to a relatively small base. That said, the Trump of the general election is a different animal, and this unpredictability factor plays into his hands. The Clinton camps says that they have been rigorously psychoanalyzing his performances in August and December and so forth, but for those that read this author and have paid close attention to Trump's rhetoric, we will not see the Donald Trump who bragged about his big penis tonight.
The Trump which has taken the lead in many polls and battleground states since mid-August is a much more palatable, centrist, and disciplined candidate while remaining charismatic, reminiscent of the great populists of the south in the early 20th century. This character is a formidable foe and was proved in the Commander in Chief Forum when the mainstream media blamed Trump's smashing victory on a moderator who allowed it. At this forum we saw a Trump who was congenial and friendly, yet strong and tastefully aggressive. When asked about illegals in the military Trump's response was sensible and agreeable. This is not the same madman who shushed Jeb Bush almost a year ago.
With all of this in mind, although the Trump of Conway, Ailes, and Bannon could annihilate Hillary Clinton in a vacuum, tonight's debate will represent the culmination of so much inflammatory and divisive rhetoric which he will have to answer for. If he can successfully pivot on serious questions of bigotry or temperament, he will redeem himself in the eyes of the people and really become a contender. An unscientific but telling measure is Youtube's reaction to his appearance on Jimmy Fallon. When this new, less abrasive Trump is put on a stage in front of a mainstream audience with a guy like Fallon, among the most common reactions in the comments section was "Hey maybe this Trump guy isn't so bad after all."
This debate is a remarkable opportunity for Trump to humanize himself to a large chunk of likely voters on the fence who have been told by their friends that he is nothing more than an orange Nazi with bad hair. The most vocal pundits in this election are the Social Justice Warriors on Twitter and the meme machines on 4chan, but the swing vote will be those confused low information voters in the middle who hate Hillary and watched Celebrity Apprentice but quietly tow the mainstream media line. This is Trump's opportunity to smash through the John Olivers' and the Stephen Colberts' and show the American people what President Trump might look like.
The opportunity to humanize also exposes an opportunity to delegitimize. Trump's camp should be taking notes on Johnson's flub and Trump's chronic lack of specificity because this is the point on which Hillary and Lester Holt will nail him to a cross. If either of them have been paying attention, and their hundreds of interns have, they know that Trump's one chink in his armor was specificity. Small penis? There's no problem there. Bush did 9/11? Bring em on. But when Rubio demanded specifics on healthcare, Trump faltered. When asked about TPP, Trump gaffed. These short and painful exchanges were permissible in a series of 11 two hour debates with ten people, but in a head to head bout, something like that would be a critical hit.
Trump has worked vigorously throughout the month of August to build up a carefully crafted and realistic vision of a Trump presidency. By visiting Mexico, by reaching out to the black community, by assisting the victims of the Louisiana floods, Trump ascended to a more serious and viable candidacy; but this can all come crumbling down with an Aleppo moment, this he cannot afford with a mere 50 days until the election.
If he can avoid a factual error or unacceptable lack of specificity, then Trump has every advantage going into this contest. Without the silliness and belligerence of his primary performances, Trump is stripped down to his pure essence: a 6'2" bull that Hillary is in no position to fight. Ted Cruz was in full health, was decades younger than Hillary Clinton, had no political baggage, was a world debate champion at Harvard and Princeton, argued before the Supreme Court nine times and he did not approach an advantage over Trump. This man combined with the top nine Republicans in the country did not approach an advantage over Trump.
The madman manhandled Senators, governors, a surgeon, a businesswoman, and a political dynasty greater than Hillary Clinton's, what the hell kind of chance does Hillary stand against that? She could barely hold her own against a panel of MSNBC moderators and a 70 year old socialist who refused to talk about her emails, she's ready to go head to head with a WWE Hall of Famer? Monica Langley said that last Sunday he stood at a podium for five hours straight taking questions from his advisors with just a five minute break inbetween for a half of a can of diet coke. I'm 18 and I don't have that kind of stamina, Hillary Clinton is 68 and dying. If Trump doesn't impale himself on his own sword, this debate is his to lose.
Of course there is no sure way to predict the outcome of tonight's debate. The above factors will be important but become more complicated given that the respective strategies of each camp have been calibrated to take these factors and their opponent's use of them into account. Hillary may try the rope-a-dope and let Trump box himself out to execute him in the next debate. Trump may wait for Hillary to play her hand so he can do the same. There is no telling what tactical mind games will be played out tonight but there will be a winner and this may be the beginning of the end of this long process which will come to define the character of this nation. I will be live tweeting on Twitter @NickJFuentes with my Make America Great Again hat on, proudly cheering for the surrogate of the American nation to bring about a final judgement day for Hillary Clinton. Until tomorrow, only time well tell.
Nationalism has become a dirty word in American politics. Since the end of World War II, excessive patriotic fervor has come to be perceived as anachronistic or symptomatic of the rise of a dangerous right wing fringe lurking in the shadows. In America and Western Europe in particular, nationalism has become a pejorative, a derogatory word thrown at flag waving conservatives by MSNBC types in the same breath as nonsensical social justice jargon like "jingoism" or "xenophobia." In the warped minds of our cosmopolitan elites and young people, Donald Trump is the culmination of the same phantom white nationalist agenda which killed Trayvon Martin, started the Iraq War to profit Dick Cheney, and caused the 2008 Recession.
But just why is it that nationalism is so incompatible with liberal progressivism? Why is it that a simple phrase like "Make America Great Again" inspires flag burning and rioting? What happened to the party of Jack Kennedy and Harry Truman? Trump is succeeding in large part because those old school Democrats brought up under patriotic presidents of both parties have been alienated by the liberation rhetoric of Obama's new left which sees America as unexceptional and immoral. The party of Franklin Roosevelt has more in common with the patriotism and populism of Donald Trump than the multiculturalism and historical revisionism of Hillary Clinton.
This is no coincidence. Trump's messaging is deliberately engineered to appeal to the American nation. While we have seen ourselves for years as a melting point, we take for granted that the core and foundation for such demographic dynamism has always been a stable, homogenous core nation. In essence, this majority descended from Europeans and brought up by generations of farmers and blue collar workers served as the pot for other cultures to melt into; but for the first time in American history, the contents of the pot are overflowing and overwhelming its container, compromising the necessary cultural infrastructure to house such diverse forces.
In the years leading up to 1965, immigrants came in waves, were limited by quotas, and for the most part came from the same civilization, our cultural sisters in Western and Northern Europe. This allowed for those immigrants from comparatively alien cultures like Asia and Latin America to assimilate and adopt the fundamental virtues of the American nation which surrounded them. This becomes especially important in the modern era when most Asians, Latinos, and Muslims are immigrating from cultures in which despotism, sexism, tribalism, racism, and clientelism prevail.
Contrary to the prejudices of most liberals, American nationalism must be championed in order to combat the very regressive conservatism which they deride. Advanced liberal democratic principles such as tolerance, pluralism, individual liberty, and the social contract are learned virtues, they are not innate. Multiculturalism dictated that the coordinated rape attacks by Muslim migrants carried out in Cologne on New Years Eve be blamed on the careless behavior of Western women, is that not "victim blaming?" In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting in which a radical Afghan Muslim killed 49 gays, the LGBTQ community was out in full force against Islamophobia, is that not "internalized homophobia?"
American nationalism has been portrayed by Hillary Clinton and Buzzfeed as racist, sexist, and xenophobic and yet multiculturalism has been the greatest force behind rape apologism in Europe, homophobia in Islam, and so many other primitive elements of alien cultures. Which is the real evil? In 1976 the Swedes officially adopted multiculturalism as the goal of their immigration policy and in the years since, Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe. Sweden now ranks number two in the world in rapes per capita, representing a near 1,500% increase in rape since the dawn of the multicultural Nordic utopia 40 years ago.
By definition, American nationalism is comprised of the most advanced and objectively progressive values of the American founding which both liberals and conservatives take for granted as foundational. Trump's call for a return to American nationalism should be nonpartisan. Who can't get on board with border security, a trade policy to benefit Americans, and a foreign policy that is both power and budget conscious? The only interests which seem to object are foreign and international actors who benefit from the suicidal multicultural policies of the bipartisan globalist elite. Both Democrats and Republicans have a common interest in ejecting the meddling MNC's and foreign governments which have driven a wedge between a once united people.
Near the beginning of his presidency Barack Obama defined down American exceptionalism as subjective, that he believes in American exceptionalism in the same way that Greeks believes in Greek exceptionalism. He has it wrong. America is exceptional, and we are entitled to put our interests first just as we have allowed Russia, China, Iran and so many other aggressive nationalist powers to do so at our expense for eight years. Trump's explicit declaration of an "America First" policy will expose our true friends and foes when we see our house divided into patriots fighting to ensure that our flag is still there and the globalists itching to raise the nationless banner of multiculturalism in its place. The second American revolution is upon us!
The United States of America, as conceived of by the Founding Fathers, does not exist any longer; but we already knew this. It is not a novel opinion that the America of today bears little if any resemblance to the indivisible American republic under God assembled in Philadelphia 240 years ago, although not in the ways we have been led to believe. Every four years since the end of the Cold War, we are told by the Republican nominee that we need more Constitution and guns while the Democratic nominee says we need more equality and general welfare. Yet for nearly 25 years, the principal hypothesis of the American experiment has been ignored; the Revolutionary War was not fought for the free market or for open borders.
The single and fundamental reason for why the American people took up arms in 1776 was to form a government of, by, and for the people. Put within the broad context of American history, the greatest betrayal to the spirit of the founding has not been gun control or Citizens United but the gradual cession of individual and national sovereignty to an increasingly despotic class of politically connected power brokers in Washington DC. The Declaration of Independence was intended to assert the sovereignty of God over man, of man over law, and of law over government. Hillary Clinton and the experience of the past 25 years have demonstrated that in fact government is the supreme sovereign of law, man, and God. The Clinton's, the Bush family, and Barack Obama are not like us. They can take off their neckties and roll up their sleeves and shake hands with a homely Iowan every other November; but we know it's a performance. Every President since Bill Clinton, every sitting member of the Supreme Court, and 24% of US Senators attended an ivy league school. Did you attend an ivy league school? Every President since Bill Clinton, 8 out 0f 9 Supreme Court Justices, and 50.8% of Congressmen are millionaires. Are you a millionaire? There are well over 300 million people in this country and yet every President since 1984 has attended either Harvard or Yale. The average income in the US is roughly $50,000, why is it that the members of a legislative body established to represent the people average a net worth twenty times that?
This is not to say that education and money alone separate We the People from our bureaucratic masters, these are merely symptoms of the requisite privilege of the ruling elite. They are different than us. These animals are more equal than us. The problem is that they hate us. To the current leader of the free world, the masses of electorally unneeded Republican farmers from Idaho to Louisiana are bitter, clinging to their guns and their quaint religion. Those hillbillies who populate flyover country are mean. To the former Secretary of State, those honest, hardworking blue collar workers crushed by illegal immigration and environmentalism are a basket of irredeemable, deplorable, knuckle dragging bigots.
Although they explicitly insult only Republicans, we know that this ruling class hates liberals too because they lie to everyone indiscriminately. For years, parties on both sides of the aisle (particularly Democrats) lied using very subtle and technical untruths. Famous examples include climate change, democratic socialism, and moderate Islam. This year Democratic insiders got cocky and through sheer hubris deluded themselves into believing that CNN could propagandize a dying criminal into the White House. Tragically, this final, grand deception has been unraveling since its inception eight long years ago.
Earlier this week, on the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11, the official position of the Clinton campaign was that Hillary Clinton was fine and totally not dying. Later that day, Hillary attended a memorial ceremony at Ground Zero but due to New York City's notoriously hot fall season, she had to leave early due to heat exhaustion, which became so overwhelming that she collapsed upon her exit. Shortly afterward, the Clinton camp issued a statement saying that they had been lying the whole weekend, Hillary was not fine and she didn't collapse due to heat exhaustion, actually she had pneumonia since Friday and was dehydrated.
The initial position that Hillary Clinton's health was okay prior to Monday was obviously proven false and then retracted. The excuse that she had to be evacuated from the ceremony due to heat exhaustion is negated by the simple fact that it just wasn't very hot that day. The pneumonia cover up seems plausible, yet unless her pneumonia is viral and thus a possible symptom of Parkinson's disease, then she hugged a small child for a photo op while highly contagious with a deadly lung disease.
Perhaps the most disturbing twist in this web of lies is that when Hillary Clinton emerged from her daughter's apartment hours after collapsing to prove to the press that she can stand up, that wasn't Hillary Clinton. This is not confirmed, and most are hesitant to put a such an outlandish theory in print because it's insane but "#HillarysBodyDouble" was trending on Twitter for nearly a full day and for good reason. Upon close examination, photos of Hillary Clinton before and after her collapse expose disturbing irregularities. After blacking out from pneumonia, or dehydration, or heat exhaustion, or whatever afflicts the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton looks as though she has lost a considerable amount of weight, looks noticeably younger, her hair is a different color and texture, her cheek bones have a different contour, her nose is a different shape, and oh yeah, her hands are a different shape.
It is irrelevant whether or not this particular conspiracy theory proves true. That we are uncertain whether or not the Democratic presidential candidate used a body double to hide her deteriorating health is frightening. Beyond this, there seems to be a pattern consistent in the frequent deflections by globalist institutions like the media and the Clinton camp. Benghazi, the email scandal, the alt-right, Donald Trump, distrust in the media, and just about every other populist sentiment brought to the forefront by the madman in this election have been branded elements of a "vast right wing conspiracy." Is it not troubling that the ruling party has unsuccessfully yet persistently countered every legitimate accusation of collusion, cover ups, and fraud this year by ostracizing them as fringe and the stuff of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists?
The government and the media have been exposed as working together throughout the entire election to first rig the Democratic primary against Bernie Sanders and then to assist Hillary in the general. We know this because of some brave soul with the moral decency to leak damning emails between members of the DNC, and only because of the guerilla nature of Trump and his media campaign was this mainstreamed and accepted. This demonstrates the willingness and ability of Democratic elites to execute a conspiracy and cover up of unprecedented magnitude. Moreover, just as is the knee jerk reaction to 9/11 truthers and doomsday preppers living in RV's, Clinton and the NYT desperately attempted to brand the factual accusations of their conspiracy as conspiracy theory lunacy. For how long has this deception gone on?
The party of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney and John McCain was content to define down conservatism to lowering the top marginal tax rate and antagonizing Russia; as such a timeline without Trump would have the nation overthrown and replace by a one party state lorded over by the bipartisan globalist elite. The perpetuation of the status quo would further the sacrifice of law and order, culture and tradition, religion and family, all at the altar of free trade. Only through the belligerently corrupt effort of our shadow government to install, quite literally, a rag doll puppet in the White House and only through the uniquely American bombastic courage of our people's champion has the true nature of our present situation been laid bare.
2016 would have shaped up to be a rehash of 2008 or 2012, another contest between Democrats who use the CIA and drones to bomb Arabs and Republicans anxious to use boots and tanks to disarm Persians. Another debate about tax rates for millionaires, another debate about trivial gun regulations, another round of red team/blue team propaganda so mind numbing that the scourge of corruption, larceny, and betrayal from the highest perches of power flies under the radar again. The success of Trump's campaign stemmed from the feeling that there was a great, powerful man living at the top of an ivory tower in the empire city who talked like us and felt like us and could win back our country for us.
Trump, maybe unconsciously, drove a wedge between the pearl clutching, Harvard educated, liberal ruling elite and the rough and tumble, tell-it-like-it-is majority of Americans. More than any other cultural icon, Trump made it plain through example just how far apart the government has drifted from its people, how far the nation has drifted from our Founders' vision of government of, by, and for the people. When he was asked about his controversial tweets at the first debate, a crime we are all guilty of, he replied with a funny joke about Rosie O'Donnell. The elites gasped, the people laughed. When Trump proposed a wall to stop illegal immigrants from pouring across our "swiss cheese" borders, the problem that dare not utter its name lest it rouse the ire of the political correctness gestapo, the elites said Trump's finished, the people said Trump's right!
This election is not about love vs hate, Republican vs Democrat, conservative vs liberal, or any other false dichotomy that the globalist controlled media invents to distract from the true nature of the contest, which has not been explicitly articulated. This election is the final stand of the American people against tyranny, a contest between We the American People of the Revolution and the same cancer of tyranny which we exercised some 240 years ago. Republicans and Democrats are correct in saying that Donald Trump is not Reagan. He is not Abraham Lincoln or Andrew Jackson either. Donald Trump is the George Washington of this century, a war-time president who we entrust with our lives and the lives of our families to lead this people once again to that shining city on a hill, to wage a guerilla campaign, with only God on our side, to defeat the forces of tyranny which have infected our republic.
For years the Alex Jones' of the world were called madmen. Those conspiracy theorists who saw the contempt in the eyes of smiling faces on CSPAN and CNN were ostracized as lunatics, tin foil hat neckbeards in trailers. All it took was some agency, the same skepticism and common sense in a red tie, a blue suit, and that trademark lion's mane of outrageous blonde hair to give credence to the suspicions which lurked in the minds of all Americans. The truth, when stated so directly, frankly, and colloquially by a man with nothing to lose, proved to be contagious. Hillary Clinton and her globalist sponsors snicker at the deplorable hordes of alt-right psychopaths rejecting the great globalist lies erected over the past 25 years. The ascendancy of the madman heralds the end of the old regime, and they know it.
This year's presidential election, perhaps more than any in American history, has been colored as an ideological struggle not between competing governing philosophies as in years past but between such elemental forces as love and hate. In an era in which the nation's political dialogue has been dominated by millennials and young people most adept at the latest mediums of self expression, we have allowed emotionally immature grown-up children at college to dictate the frame of this conversation. Rather than taking each position based on the content and merits of their arguments, stupid people with small brains in sociology departments across the country have evaded ever having to consider the uncomfortable reality of this nation's steady decline by instead fixating on "language" and rhetorical delivery.
Tune into MSNBC and you will notice that the discussions of each sycophantic panel of bitter intellectuals and race hustlers are focused not on content, but rhetoric. Fox News may be a shouting match between loud, dusty, badly dressed old men and Roger Ailes' hand selected catalogue of buxom blonde babes; but as ugly as it gets, there are differing opinions and passions because these are real Americans making important arguments about the direction of their nation. There are no dust ups on Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews because a quaint discussion on rhetorical style cannot rouse conviction; because it doesn't matter.
This is how conservatism has evolved in public perception, into a fanatically religious hate group that is out to get minorities and poor people; and this is how a flawed man with a big heart has become the left's caricature of conservative hate in this presidential election. It is common for low information independents, moderates, and liberals to complain about "gridlock" and "polarization." This is owed to a culture insistent on the absurd assumption that liberalism is the only moral ideology and that any disagreements necessarily derive from ignorant, primitive hate.
Examples of this abound. When Donald Trump proposed his now infamous border wall in August of last year, this very simple and benign proposal was not given a fair hearing in the press. There was no discussion about the costs and benefits associated with our present de facto policy of open borders with Mexico and all of Central America. Outside of Breitbart and Ann Coulter's righteous crusade, there was no talk of the national security risk, the downward pressure on wages, or the cultural implications which result from an open border policy. Instead we were attacked with sophomoric platitudes about building bridges and not walls, about how we are a nation of immigrants, and about how somehow ethnic diversity makes us stronger in some intangible, spiritual way.
Predictably, this trend has continued until the present day. The proposed ban on Muslim immigration in the wake of one of the worst terror attacks in the history of Europe was condemned, DOA, as islamophobic, and somehow reminiscent of Hitler. Because Trump is a man, because he yells, and because he calls his opponents what they are, all of these unrelated connotations sum to the physical embodiment of conservative rage. In truth, there is a great deal of conservative rage, but it does not come from a place of hate.
The wall, the ban on Muslim immigration, the war on terror, and all the rest are the necessary evils of an honest people in a dangerous world. It would be wonderful to live in a world where all cultures were equally civilized and reverent for liberal democratic principles. It would be wonderful to live in a world where that culture which has promoted the most vile acts of violence and brutality against innocent civilians since the seventh century could be loved into the twenty first century. But we conservatives know that this is simply not the reality. There is no joy in foreclosing on the warm, romantic idealism of blissful ignorance and youth; but we recognize that it is a necessary and courageous axiom from which to govern in order to preserve the country, its values, and its people which we love.
Therefore the rage of the right is the passion of the loving guardian of company and country. In turn, the masked rage of the left is a reactionary personal vendetta against reality; against the illuminating truth which casts away the shadows of their Utopian vision. The embodiment of this counter crusade is Hillary Clinton, a woman who has risen to prominence alongside fellow Democrat crooks and swindlers merely by telling these aggrieved idealists the words they want to hear. They want to be told that "it's time for a woman to be President." Why? They don't know, but wouldn't that be so progressive?
This week, at long last, Hillary Clinton took off her mask and exposed for the whole world to see that her and her ideology are the true party of hate. Her scandalous labeling of the millions of Trump supporters as a "basket of undesirables," of "xenophobes, racists, homophobes, islamophobes," is the most explicit and mainstream articulation to date of the left's hatred for the right. Many have tellingly compared this to Mitt Romney's "47%" scandal in 2012 in which he, in a similar setting, told donors that the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes could not be won over by a fiscal conservative.
Notice the difference: The two are compared as equal in rhetoric but are strikingly different in their content, tone, and intent. Mitt Romney was talking about the best way to utilize limited time and resources in order to win the election. More likely than not, the 47% of people who don't pay taxes would be highly unlikely to vote for a man who has promised to make them pay taxes; therefore he ought to spend time and money winning over those in the middle and on the left who are not dependent on the dole which he may compromise. Hillary Clinton's statement is to generalize a faction of millions of diverse Americans as morally repulsive people. While Mitt Romney made no judgement on those 47%, Hillary Clinton thought it was perfectly appropriate to draft in her speech that people who vote for Trump are bad and stupid and undesirable.
But has this not been the narrative of the left for eight years? That the Republican friends and family of Democrats are bitter, clinging to their guns and their Bibles. That Americans are mean and racist. That people who like Donald Trump are stupid and racist. What comparable rhetoric has come from the Trump camp? Of course he said that illegal immigration has brought drugs, crime, and rape; but this cannot reasonably be interpreted as a clear indictment of the entire lot, merely an assessment of the consequences sown by open borders. Moreover, his call to ban Muslims was not an indictment of all Muslims but an acknowledgement that the vast majority of terror attacks are executed under the banner of Muhammad.
Neither of these are indicative of a hateful man. Trump has spoken about his love for country since he came on the scene in the late 70s. He talks of the workers and taxi drivers, he has respect and admiration for women and for the hard work of every race of people. In his rallies and at his speeches Trump frequently closes by shouting "Thank you!" or "I love you!" Nearly his entire campaign is funded by small contributions, evidently, I am not the only sucker who has faith that Trump genuinely loves his country and its people.
Can a single person even conceive of Hillary Clinton telling her audiences of 100 people "I love you?" Does anyone for one second believe that she isn't full of contempt for the radio hosts she snaps at, the Secret Service members she assaults, or the campaign staffers whom she has made cry? The majority of Americans do not find her honest or trustworthy, and apparently her forty some percent of supporters have not made the connection that deceit is the fruit of disrespect and contempt. So many liberals are blind to this reality; because they have been indoctrinated into the progressive consensus that without accepting the anti-intellectual and factually wrong tenets of multiculturalism, an individual can never be equal with those hive minded liberal who embrace the one true vision of the anointed.
The Bible says of men that you will know them by their fruits. Barack Obama has wrought more division, more animosity, and more hatred than any President since possibly Lyndon Johnson (coincidentally another progressive Democrat). After nearly thirty years in "service" of the public, Hillary Clinton has no major legislation to show for it. Her legacy includes a sleazy, disgusting, sex scandal, a deadly state of anarchy in Libya, the death of four Americans in Benghazi, the compromise of US national security, and the most corrupt State Department in US history. Which is America's party of hate?
"President Donald Trump." Who would have thought just one year ago that these words would be uttered in the news without sarcasm or irony? Certainly even five months ago, with primary politics and no indicators of Trump's viability in a general election contest, this concept seemed novel at best and ludicrous for most. In many ways, the thought of Trump in the White House was far fetched. A crass schoolyard bully with no filter and no precedent in American history, few if any could imagine such a wild card delivering a State of the Union Address. There was certainly merit to the near universal reluctance to throw in our lot with such an unpredictable character.
This is not to say that Trump's strategy and image were not extremely effective, I have written extensively about the political genius and tactical calculation which paved an impossible path to the Republican nomination. The name calling, the sensationalism, and the opulence of 2015 to pre RNC Trump were fun and necessary to capture the imagination of a party weary from civil war; but this behavior had a time and a place.
In reading The Art of the Deal, one quickly realizes that Trump's mastery of business in general and real estate in particular is founded upon an uncanny talent to harness the power of timing. In the late 70s, New York City was in free fall. Rampant crime, government incompetence, and a failing economy under President Carter had investors and residents fleeing the city in droves. Captured by the passions of the present crisis, many had lost faith and given up hope in their beloved empire city, looking towards Japan and other places for the future. Most businessmen believe in nothing but the bottom line, and as an eighteen year old college student with no assets and an impending avalanche of debt, I am in no place to question this mindset; but a young, pragmatic idealist believed in something greater. Trump's faith in America's city was not shaken in her darkest hour, perhaps it grew stronger.
In the lowest valley of the worst economy since World War II, Donald Trump turned away from his father's enormously successful real estate business of building low income brick housing in the outer boroughs and instead set out to build skyscrapers of glass and gold in downtown Manhattan. At just 33 years old, he began construction on Trump Tower, a modern day Versailles built in his name on Fifth Avenue, among the most valuable land in the world. This faith in his city, his country, and his own talents is what enabled him to understand the present and the future with such clarity as though looking down at it from his penthouse apartment.
These talents were put to work in his aggressive conquest of the Republican Party. His faith in America dictated his message and his faith in his talents allowed him to shirk 240 years of conventional political wisdom to dismantle the largest and most competitive primary field in the history of the party. Though his means were less than presidential, they achieved the desired outcome with undisputed success.
Then, without warning, sometime in early August, Trump's immunity from the mainstream media and political correctness ended before even he realized it. A week's worth of gaffes which would have made good press coverage in March or February sent his campaign in a tail spin from which it is still recovering in mainstream analysis. While lazy herd-minded journalists are content to project an imprecise and insulting narrative of Trump as a mentally unstable or bumbling, simple minded bigot, this week has empirically disproved any theory of his success as accidental. The versatility and adaptability which Trump has demonstrated in such a short time in the current news cycle has annihilated the common refrain from nervous beltway pundits that somehow a crazy billionaire from TV land stumbled into a 50% chance at becoming the President of the United States.
Trump's latest evolution is his final form: President Trump. We are all familiar with candidate Trump, the man of the wall, the uninspired bad hair memes, the Rosie O'Donnell joke, and countless other memories; we were inspired by nominee Trump who said "I am your voice," whose RNC provided a global stage for the divine message of an unapologetic return to American Exceptionalism; and this week we were introduced to President Trump, the next leader of the United States and the American people.
This incarnation was responsible for the first response to the devastating floods in Louisiana, the inclusive, focused new message of the campaign, the mission to Mexico, and last night's Commander in Chief Forum. In the span of just one week, Trump has risen to the occasion and become worthy of wielding the power held by the highest office in the land. In Louisiana we saw Trump the leader, in Mexico we saw Trump the statesman, in Detroit we saw Trump the uniter, and in Washington DC last night, Trump the Commander in Chief made his primetime debut.
Hillary Clinton, amid numerous and weekly, disturbing controversies, looked haggardly and fatigued. Though the official program was called a forum, the first half hour seemed more like an interrogation with a defensive and frustrated Hillary Clinton nervously swatting away the first hard questions of her campaign with her notoriously swollen fingers. Aside from her appearance, Clinton's answers were rambling and unorganized with little coherence or consistency. Awkwardly standing up and sitting down to pivot between ignoring Matt Lauer and lying to veterans, the entire affair was uncomfortable to watch and difficult to listen to. You would think that with hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate money and the best campaign advisers that money can buy, George Soros could train a dying dog better tricks.
If Clinton's performance could not have been any worse, there are few conceivable ways that Trump's could have been any better. After Hillary's corporate handlers and paramedics carried her off the stage, it seemed as though a golden aura of optimism and power enveloped the studio as Donald Trump strode in, healthy and confident, ready for battle. With Matt Lauer he was not contentious, and with the vets he was respectful and amicable. Trump's answers were engaging, consistent, and to the disdain of NBC and the New York Times, actually quite sensible. On a possibly planted question about illegal immigrants in the military, rather than an expected "gotcha" moment, Trump reversed it with ease into an answer which exuded reverence for the military and sensibility on immigration.
Trump appeared cool, calm, and competent in an almost 180 degree turn around from the angry bombast of the primary debate series. With one hour left to go as of writing, a Twitter poll by NBC News has Trump outperforming Clinton 63% to 37%. Completely overcoming the liberal bias of NBC's producers and its viewers as well as a large favorability deficit, Trump is reasonably in a position to win the general election if this triumph is repeated in the coming debates. Hillary Clinton was rattled by Matt Lauer and several common sense questions about her email scandal, while Trump was able to confidently tell America he had a big penis without missing a beat just months ago. He cannot lose.
The Real Clear Politics polling average puts Clinton just under 3 points ahead of Trump. In 20 days Trump has climbed nearly 6 points with 60 days to go, and as last night's forum illustrated, the Clinton camp sits helpless and vulnerable on the tracks as the Trump Train barrels ahead. This time last year, the naysayers on the Clinton News Network and NBC laughed and pontificated about narratives and notions, impressing themselves with their articulate take on another election. Little did they know that in just one year's time they would come to call that reality TV clown whom they jeered and snickered at, President Donald J Trump.