Trump as One-Term President Would Be DC’s Nightmare

Even as the president’s legal team continues to dispute election results in battleground states with large numbers of questionable mail-in ballots and election anomalies, Establishment Washington is pushing Donald Trump out the door. What it failed to accomplish through four years of Deep State sabotage and bipartisan efforts at thwarting the MAGA agenda, the D.C. Club may have finally succeeded through good old-fashioned vote fraud. The District of Corruption is salivating over the possibility of freeing itself from a foe who has singlehandedly damaged the Swamp forever.

No victory could be more pyrrhic.

Forcing Donald Trump from the presidency while half of all likely voters believe the election was stolen from him (including a stunning one-third of Democrats) would backfire on Washington spectacularly. Trump is too ferocious a competitor and too powerful a cultural force to ever disappear into a retirement not of his choosing. At least 75 million Americans voted for the president because, among other reasons, he is seen as an “outsider.” Now Washington insists on making him a martyr, as well.

What will happen if President Trump leaves office in January? He will instantly become the most consequential and powerful ex-president Americans have seen. Making Donald Trump a one-term president will become Establishment Washington’s biggest nightmare.

(1) Biden’s Number One Critic

There’s no way that Donald Trump follows in the footsteps of George Washington by quietly retreating from public life and leaving his successor to lead unscrutinized. Obama has been the most vocal ex-president to date, both questioning Donald Trump’s judgment as president, as well as fanning the flames of the debunked Russia hoax. An ex-president Trump will make Obama look like a piker by comparison. 

Biden’s commitment to re-enter the Paris Agreement and backtrack from America’s hydrocarbon energy independence achieved under President Trump has the potential to take an American economy struggling to recover from a year of pandemic lockdowns and kill it overnight. Donald Trump will loudly blame his successor.

Biden has signaled his intent to breathe life into Obama’s Iran Deal after the Trump administration has spent four years weakening Iran’s influence in the Middle East. After helping to foster peace in the region by securing historic trade deals between Israel and many of her longtime adversaries, President Trump has a vested interest in making sure his efforts are not undone. Should Biden lift up a vulnerable Iran and harm Israel in the process, Donald Trump will loudly blame his successor.

President Trump has made cutting illegal immigration into the United States a priority. He’s made renegotiating trade deals that have benefitted communist China at the expense of American workers a priority. He’s made bringing troops home by ending “endless wars” a priority. He’s made protecting Americans’ First and Second Amendment rights important priorities.

Biden has promised to expand immigration and refugee resettlement, to end trade confrontations with China, and to leave foreign policy to the “experts.” And in direct conflict with any oath of office, Biden has promised to confiscate Americans’ guns while supporting the same Big Tech companies that have undertaken campaigns of outright censorship against conservatives’ speech.

Donald Trump will loudly blame his successor for the resulting harm — in all its forms — to Americans. He and his supporters will amplify every misstep made by Joe Biden. “Monday morning quarterbacking” will become a seven-day priority for the former president.

(2) King of a Media Empire

Should Twitter and Facebook decide to censor citizen Trump, he might just build his own media empire and create the largest megaphone for his opinions in the country. Businessman Trump has always enjoyed building things from the ground up. Now that Fox News has chosen to chase conservatives away, a market demand for Trump’s politics is waiting to be filled. Newsmax and One America News Network are expanding their audience shares, but a Trump News Network would dominate future conservative television. Social media and corporate news are now actively censoring conservative voices, and conservative voters would flock to whatever platforms Donald Trump constructs. It’s only a matter of time before the president seizes upon those opportunities. 

If Establishment Washington believes “Trumpism” will soon recede once its eponymous leader heads south to Florida, the Swamp is sorely mistaken. After leaving office, Donald Trump’s voice is only going to get bigger. Much, much bigger.

(3) De Facto Head of the Republican Party

If Establishment Republicans believe they can reclaim their party once President Trump leaves office, they are naive. Donald Trump just won more votes than any sitting president in history, shattering what Bush, McCain, and Romney were able to garner at the polls. Even before the 2020 election’s outcome has been decisively concluded, recent polling shows that 54% of Republican voters are ready to back President Trump in 2024. Even more striking is this: nearly 70% of Republicans view the president as standing up for their beliefs, as opposed to only 20% who see congressional Republicans as doing the same. If Donald Trump decides he’s running again in 2024, it will be his nomination to lose. If Trump family members or Trump administration veterans decide to run for office on their own, they will become instant frontrunners.

Donald Trump has shined a bright light on Establishment Washington’s failures to secure America’s borders and to protect America’s blue-collar manufacturing workforce. That bright light is not going to fade, and any Republican who thinks the party can return to propping up free trade’s twin mantras of endless immigration and overseas slave labor by proxy is denying reality. If “globalism” wasn’t a dirty word before, President Trump has made it one now. And for the foreseeable future, any Republican seeking higher office will have to respect the new party Donald Trump has created or suffer the consequences at the polls. Certain NeverTrump Republicans may hate him, but they’ll not survive without him.

(4) Potential Destroyer of Both Parties

For the first time since Lincoln’s Republican Party supplanted the Whigs in political power, Donald Trump has built a strong enough coalition of voters cutting across traditional party lines that he could choose to take his voters and erect a new party from the ground up. No Republican has done better with minority voters in the last sixty years than Donald Trump, and no Republican since Reagan has succeeded so strongly with blue-collar workers. If the president decides to “walk away,” he will take tens of millions of American voters disillusioned with both parties, too.

Traditional Democrats who resent their party’s embrace of socialism and working class Republicans who resent their party’s priority of Wall Street over Main Street would make natural allies in a new party. Kanye WestIce Cube, and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson have all made it clear that they are not happy with the Democratic Party’s direction, and Donald Trump is in a position to create a political home for those looking for something new. A new party that places a priority on protecting legal immigrants and American workers over foreign labor forces and that treats engagements in new wars as choices of last resort will attract a strong cross-section of American voters. As a master of branding, Donald Trump could choose to diminish permanently the parties as they now exist and build something else entirely from scratch.

Whatever else happens between now and January 20, Donald Trump is not going away. Washington insiders may finally succeed in removing him from office, but they will make him a formidable and powerful ex-president in the process. They may well regret what they’ve accomplished. It’s certain that they have no idea what they’ve created.

J.B. Shurk, American Thinker

Americans Must Know that Democrats Support the Riots

often see conservative commentators, both on TV and on social media, asking for Democrats to condemn the rioters or to at least state why they will not do that. While I am sure that those commentators are well-intentioned, they are obviously missing the point. Democrats have not condemned the riots and will not do so because, unlike conservatives and the independents that value the rule of law and private property, they do not cherish or even respect Western norms. In fact, they hate Western civilization. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that Democrats support the riots that are burning down America’s greatest cities.

Well, perhaps “greatest cities” is a bit too far. Chicago is full of corruption and crime, New York has been controlled by leftists for decades now, and the cities on the West Coast that have seen such high levels of Antifa violence are, well, cities on the West Coast. But, other than that, I think that everything I just said is absolutely true; Democrats support the riots and, as a result, will not condemn them.

Are you part of the ReTrumplican party rather than the Republican Party? Then this is for you! Order one of these to show your support for President Trump! Buy one here:

Examples of Ways That Democrats Support Anarchism and Rioters

We can see that Democrat support for anarchism and riots in many aspects of life.

Example 1: Their Messaging and Refusing to Condemn Anarchy and Violence

The first, and most obvious one, is their refusal to condemn the violence of the Antifa thugs and BLM Marxists. Whereas Republicans and Independents have stood against a complete breakdown of law and order, Democrats seem to have stood in support of that breakdown and have even egged it on.

Whenever and wherever there is a shooting of a black person, whether that person happens to be armed or not, Democrats step in to spread the seeds of chaos and attack the foundations of law and order, which is tantamount to attacking civil society. They use lies, deceit, and highly emotional speeches to urge people to commit acts of violence.

In any case, whatever tactics they use to start riots, it is obvious that Democrats support the riots because their support for the rioters is as vociferous and ubiquitous as it is uninformed and reality-defyingly stupid.

They step in to defend the people burning down Targets and other stores and describe them as “peaceful protesters.” When the media has a chance, it and its allies on the left fan the flames of Antifa’s riots. And every single time they have an opportunity to mourn the death of a career criminal, they do so. At no point while doing those things do Democrats ever condemn the riots or even express sympathy for the business-owners whose lives have been ruined by these vast orgies of destruction.

All of that is evidence that the Democrats support the riots and cases of domestic terrorism that are raging around America right now. They stand on the side of criminals, not the side of law-abiding Americans. Their messaging shows that.

Example 2 of How Democrats Support the Riots: Democrats Support Defunding the Police

The next example of why it is so obvious that Democrats support the riots is that they support defunding the police and leaving our communities at the mercy of rabid rioters that seek to do nothing more than to loot and destroy.

If anyone in the Democratic Party wanted to stop the riots, or at least slow them, they would be calling for increases in spending on the police right now. Like Republicans, they would want to defend the police and send them the necessary equipment to keep rioters in check.

However, Democrats support the riots so that is not what they want nor is it what they call for. Instead, Democrats support defunding the police. They want to turn Michigan into Somalia. Portland into the Wild West. New York into post-invasion Baghdad, the utter hell of which is well-documented in The Great War for Civilization. Those places were or are anarchic because there is no effective police force to defend the natural rights of citizens. If Democrats get their way and defund the police, America’s cities will resemble them.

So, that’s another great reason of why I know that Democrats support the riots. If they wanted to stop those horrific actions and prevent rioting, they would defend the police. But they are not. Instead, they are trying to remove the thin blue line between law-abiding Americans and the criminal elements of society.

Example 3: Democrats Want to Attack and Redistribute Private Property

Like other good socialists, Democrats hate the idea of private property. That is why they support unconstitutional wealth taxes. It is why they want to increase the regulatory state and make it harder for you to start a business and earn money. Their hatred of private property is what drives their agenda.

(Un)coincidentally, it also is what drives the BLM and Antifa rioters, almost all of whom are communists. They hate the idea that people who work hard and follow the simple path to success in America could possibly earn more than they do. So, to “correct” that “injustice” they burn down small businesses, loot luxury goods, and steal from and attack law-abiding citizens.

How does that show that Democrats support the riots? Because they have openly defended those actions! The always incompetent and idiotic AOC, for example, recently described BLM looters that were stealing plasma screen TVs as people simply taking “bread to feed their starving children.” Yes, she really said that. As usual, she was wrong. They were not taking bread. They were stealing goods.

And what if they were stealing bread? Would that be permissible? Is need the only payment necessary? No, of course not! In America, we value private property. As Ayn Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, there is no justification for taking private property simply because you “need” it. Civil society is dependent on respecting private property and the government punishing those that do not. Hence why governments that are just have always defended the property of their citizens.

But Democrats support the riots, not justice. Hence why they are attacking private property and encouraging the looters to engage in theft.


In my mind, there is no possible justification for rioting. Peacefully protesting is one thing, although even that is something I disagree with if it means that commerce is in any way restricted. But rioting and looting is evil. It is, in effect, placing your wants at the pinnacle of human existence and denying your fellow citizens their rights in the process.

So, Americans need to see that Democrats support the riots and are doing everything in their power to spark more riots and advance their ideology of anarchism. We need to understand that they are not just an opposition party with slightly different beliefs about what America should be like. In reality, they are a party of looters that wants to rob Peter to pay Paul. Professional looters in D.C. and amateur looters on the streets of every major city.

By: Gen Z Conservative

It’s time for the ‘Deplorables’ to become the Unconquerables

Democrats won the election, but they don’t seem very happy about it. And with reason: The election failed in its main purpose, which was to shut down the Deplorables.

The Deplorables, in Hillary Clinton’s infamous term, are working- and middle-class people who haven’t bought into the progressive agenda. They’re people who don’t see the rise of the tech oligarchy as a plus, who don’t think “woke” politics make sense, who have jobs that produce tangible outputs. They’re nearly half the country.

This election was supposed to demoralize them, crushing President Trump and his supporters in a double-digit landslide that would give the Democrats solid control of the White House and Congress — and, with a little judicious court-packing, of the judicial branch, too. The Deplorables would be made to realize that they aren’t in charge, that if they want to ride, they’ll have to (in Barack Obama’s famous words) ride in the back.

Only it didn’t work out that way. The big congressional victories turned into lost House seats for the Democrats. And the presidential election was hardly a crushing victory. For an election to really take, the losers have to admit that they’ve been beaten. And to admit that they’ve been beaten, they have to think they actually lost fair and square. Not many Trump supporters think that.

Leaving aside charges of voter fraud and vote-rigging, there is the undisputable fact that Big Media and Big Tech put not just a thumb, but both hands, on the scales to influence the result.

As much as possible, the media ignored the Hunter Biden scandal and Joe Biden’s role in it, first reported in this paper. When blue-check reporters did pay attention, they claimed, falsely and without evidence, that the reports were “Russian disinformation.”

Big Tech shut down the accounts of people who shared the story, and Twitter even blocked sharing the link via direct messages.

The machinations worked, but at a high price: According to a McLaughlin poll, enough Joe Biden voters say they would have changed their votes had they known of the Hunter Biden scandal that they would have produced solid Trump win. The impression of tech-media-corporate underhandedness will long endure.

So the Deplorables are still around, and they’re still angry. And as long as they’re still around, and still angry, the Democrats can’t actually get what they want.

Trump was elected, remember, because in 2016 the elites had ­already lost their mojo. In the mid-20th century, elites brought us antibiotics, jet planes and trips to the moon. In more recent years, they’ve brought us failed wars, a failed health-care reform with a lousy nonfunctioning Web site and economic policies that benefited the rich at the expense of the middle and working classes.

Getting rid of Trump won’t get rid of that problem, and, in fact, will only make it worse. His army will still be out there — motivated.

Mikhail Kutuzov, the Russian general who administered a crushing defeat to Napoleon, did so by realizing that as long as he kept his army intact, he didn’t have to win flashy victories. And he eventually ground Napoleon’s forces down to a nub. Likewise, so long as the ­Deplorables don’t give up in their opposition, they can’t really be ­defeated. By staying motivated, the Deplorables can become the Unconquerables.

Oh, the Democrats will use every vote-harvesting and media-censoring trick they can manage in ­response. But when half the population views a government as illegitimate and, in a fundamental sense, hostile, there’s a limit to how far the left can get.

Ironically, the one thing that might send the Unconquerables back to their daily routines is the one thing the Democrats won’t be able to manage: showing understanding, concern and respect to working-class America. Too many of today’s Democrats have anchored their self-esteem in feeling superior to other Americans — and to loudly and contemptuously proclaiming that superiority — for a conciliatory policy to work.

­Indeed, I expect them to expand their efforts to mock and deplore those on the other side. In doing so, of course, they’ll just help keep the opposition together and focused.

It’s not smart, but it’s almost certainly what the Dems will do. And that will keep the army together for 2022 and 2024.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.

The New Oligarchs Will Not Tolerate Secession

The article, “The Separation: A Proposal for a Renewed America,” was apparently written under the pseudonym “Rebecca,” which the author indicates was taken from a series of letters written by Abraham Lincoln using the same pseudonym.

The author surely knows that Lincoln was challenged to a duel by James Shields, the sitting senator from Illinois, as a result of the “Rebecca letters.” Lincoln accepted the challenge—he chose broadswords as the weapons, and actually took instructions from a military officer in preparation. Shields was an experienced Army man in his own right, considered an expert with the broadsword. But Lincoln designed the proposed combat arena in such a way as to give his size and considerable reach an advantage over the shorter Shields.

Though the matter was amicably settled before the duel could be fought, I invite all readers—including the second “Rebecca”—to ponder Lincoln’s ingenious and highly amusing design. It provokes reflection on the comedy and tragedy of politics.

Dueling was against the law in Illinois, so the plan was to stage the event in Missouri where it was permitted. Planning or conspiring for a duel either by principals or seconds was also illegal, and Lincoln surely broke the law in doing do. Had plans for the duel been carried out, Lincoln’s political career might have ended in 1842.

In any case, Lincoln did not write all of the “Rebecca” letters: some (and the most scandalous) were written by Mary Todd, his fiancée and future wife. Surely “Rebecca” was an odd choice on the part of our pseudonymous author: it wasn’t Lincoln’s finest moment and he never again resorted to the use of a pseudonym. He had learned his lesson!

A Sparring Match

I will not challenge our author to a duel, but I will challenge this holder of “multiple Ivy League degrees” on his understanding of the American regime. Our author rightly notes the deep division that has arisen in the nation between the Red States and the Blue States. He or she proposes, not a divorce, but a trial separation that may eventually lead to a reconciliation of differences.

Throughout the essay, the author makes a mistake that Lincoln never made: Lincoln never forgot that politics is the architectonic art. We have often heard from conservatives that “politics is downstream from culture” and the way to reform political life is first to reform culture. Lincoln never made this foolish error, nor do the progressive ideologues who drive the politics of the Red States. These leftist radicals are deadly serious; politics is their avocation. For them culture, while an important part of political calculus, is eventually determined or shaped by politics because politics is always a contest for rule.

Conservative Republicans who believe that the battle for culture takes precedence over politics will always lose because they don’t know where to drawn the main battle line: they prefer to fight skirmishes. Progressives count on the apolitical character of conservatism, its preference for private life over the political. This is why the leftist radicals saw Trump as such a threat: he was a political man and understood the supremacy of politics.

Lincoln in the 1850s

Our author rightly notes, as many commentators have, that our current situation resembles that of the 1850s and the election of 2020 appears eerily similar to the election of 1860. Lincoln’s great speeches of the 1850s all sought to reconcile the nation by restoring the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the authoritative source of the Constitution’s authority. He tirelessly reiterated that the Constitution, understood in the light of the principles of the Declaration, had put slavery on the “course of ultimate extinction.”

These speeches—the Peoria Speech in 1854, the Dred Scott Speech in 1857, House Divided (1858), Cooper Union (1860), and the First Inaugural (1861)—were all masterworks of reasoned logic and persuasion. But they were political failures! Why? Simply because the slaveholding states were consumed by their passions and so unable to listen to reason. The First Inaugural, for example, appealed to their self-interest: there would be no interference with slavery in the states where it already existed, Lincoln averred, because there was no constitutional power to do so. If the South left the Union it would lose its representatives and Senators and would therefore be unable to protect its interests in the government.

Secession was folly. It occurred only because the South had refused to listen to reason—reason, in other words, no longer informed public discourse. Today, too, reason has been driven from the public sphere. The era of the sound-byte and media manipulation has replaced reasoned discourse. The election of 2020 has sunk to the lowest level of public discourse in modern times and perhaps in history.

The real reason that no compromise with slavery was possible was that any compromise would have been a rejection of the first principles of the nation announced in the Declaration. Slavery was incompatible with the central principle that “all men are created equal.” Slavery could not be abolished all at once at the founding because compromises were necessary to secure the support of the slaveholding states: if they had formed their own nation, the prospects of ever ending slavery were remote. But as Lincoln noted, those compromises were not the principles of the Constitution: they were the exceptions.

When read in the light of the principles of the Declaration, it was clear that the protections for slavery in the Constitution were merely compromises with those principles, temporary expedients to be observed until political conditions (and public opinion) would accept the abolition of slavery. Read in that manner—in the manner the Founders intended—the Constitution had doomed slavery to eventual extinction.

The public mind had rested with that assurance until the passage of the Missouri Compromise in 1854, which allowed local majorities in the territories to determine whether to have slavery or not. Stephen Douglas, the architect of the measure and Lincoln’s main political rival, maintained that it was not a matter of principle but simply of whose interest was served. If a majority of the people found it in their interest to “vote slavery up,” then they should do so. If not, they should vote it down. Lincoln, with his inimitable ability to convey complex matters simply, said it was like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch—by majority vote!

Lincoln’s response to Douglas revealed the essence of republican government: if natural rights are only a matter of whose interests are served, then no one’s rights are secure. It will always be in someone’s interest to disenfranchise the rights of others—whether it be the interest of a majority, an oligarchy or a tyrant. Douglas’s claim that interest is the only basis for rights put everyone’s rights in danger. If rights are not grounded in “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” then it simply becomes a matter of whose interest is being served. The Missouri Compromise, in Lincoln’s true estimation, repealed the principles of the Declaration.

In the House Divided Speech, Lincoln made it clear that no further compromise on the issue of slavery was possible—or desirable. What would it profit to lose the soul of the nation—its animating principles? The body might live on, but without a soul it would be a nation indifferent to justice, that sine qua non without which no constitutional regime or the rule of law can exist. And in the Cooper Union Speech Lincoln revealed that the South did not want mere tolerance for its “peculiar institution”; it wanted the North to stop condemning the immorality of slavery and even demanded its recognition as a moral good, something that could not happen without repealing the Declaration.

Conflating the Timeless with the Timely

Our author recognizes that “[o]ur times are Lincoln’s.” But Lincoln’s times “attempted to accommodate the ‘peculiar institution’ with individual liberty.” This was an attempt “to reconcile irreconcilable ends…that could not be resolved within the system.” Indeed these were incompatible ends, but the “system” had “resolved” them, by putting slavery on the “course of ultimate extinction.” Read the Constitution in light of the principles of the Declaration and enforce the Constitution: that was the “system” as Lincoln understood it. The slaveholding states no longer wanted the resolution prescribed by “the system”; as Lincoln said over and over again, there was nothing inadequate, as our author seems to think, with “the system” itself.

The author admits that our current problems, however serious and dangerous they are, do not compare to slavery—although, I might add, some kind of tyranny (which amounts to enslavement of the people) might be in prospect. The author is correct that the people are currently deeply divided—“we are two people.” But here is the surprising observation: “The current political system cannot bridge the divide between the two Americas.” “The Constitution is not broken,” we are assured, “rather “the People for whom it was created are broken.” In order to address this problem our author suggests a “separation” that will allow Red and Blue America a “political living space.” This will allow the “people to relax the political bands connecting them.”

We are told that this strategy surely will be productive since “both sides still claim fealty to the Constitution.” This outrageous claim will be examined in short order. If suffices to ask now: Which constitution is our author referring to?

Our author assures us that the founders would not frown upon this innovation, since change was “not an affront” to them: “it was their expectation.” It is true, as our author suggests, that the Constitution was grounded on “timeless principles” which had to “adapt [to] the times.” But our author has done something incredible by changing a “timeless principle.”

We presume that the “timeless principles” to which our author has referred are contained in the Declaration of Independence and its invocation of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” We remember that the Declaration appeals to those same laws when it says it has become necessary for “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.” Our author treats these “timeless principles” as flexible and adaptable, i.e., as if they were not sacred “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” but merely matters of convention which can be modified at will. Thus they can be reinterpreted to “relax the political bands” of the “one people” instead of becoming a foundation for the principles of a new separate and equal nation dedicated to the “safety and happiness of the people.”

Something is wrong here! The timeless and the timely have been confounded and the Constitution is now bereft of permanent principles. But is this the price that must be paid so the two separate people, Red and Blue, have their “space?” It might be separate, but it certainly will not be equal.

Understanding Regime Politics

Our author, I believe, shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the American regime, beginning with the assertion that the Constitution was “itself a course correction from the Articles of Confederation.” It was indeed a “course correction,” but somewhat more than that: Madison regarded the Constitution as an act of revolution because it not only rested on wholly different principles than the Articles but was ratified by the supreme authority of the people, not the states.

In Federalist #39, Madison wrote that the Constitution must be republican because that was the only form of government consistent with the principles of the Revolution, by which he meant the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Our author says that today our “current system” is inadequate to bridge the divide that separates the people.

Presumably our author believes that the “current system” or some reasonable facsimile is the regime of the founding that both sides of the political divide, Red and Blue, still adhere to. But what evidence does the author have that the Blue States still adhere to the same constitution that the Red States appeal to? The most advanced elements of the Blue states— the ruling elites, composed of the most progressive law professors, academics, the minions of the deep state, media, corporate elites, the tech oligarchy—don’t adhere to the Constitution of the founding; rather, they routinely refer to a post-constitutionalism in which the Constitution of the Founding will be rendered superfluous, having been replaced by the administrative state and bureaucratic rule.

What Would BLM Say?

Our author even seems to agree that the two Americas are operating according to different basic principles: Rebecca calls for a revitalization of the 9th and 10th amendments that might inspire some kind of decentralized federalism to encourage social experimentation in our separation. This can only mean that Red and Blue would be invited to govern themselves in quite different ways.

The 9th amendment’s provision for “unenumerated rights” might help soften the abortion debate that motivates much of our division. It might perhaps provide some new rights to be free from pollution and climate degradation, since climate change seems to be another source of unbridgeable division. Separations can be fruitful times for reimagining all manner of things that could lead to reconciliation. It might prove beneficial in reconciling Black Lives Matter and blue lives matter, for example, although it is difficult to see how any amount of relaxed reimagining might meet the non-negotiable demand of BLM and left-wing progressives—backed by Blue State Democrats—to defund the police.

Blue lives matter seems to be equally resolute and, not surprisingly, to have strong support among non-oligarchic, urban lower-class blacks and Latinos as well as whites and other ethnics. Mirabile dictu! BLM seems to be a part of the ruling oligarchy! A truly helpful reimagining might suggest a defunding the military wing of BLM, but this kind of creative reimagining would undoubtedly be stigmatized as “racist,” for which even the most active imagination seemingly has no defense—even among the “woke” ruling elites who tremble before the slightest charge of racism, real or imagined, conscious or unconscious.

Our author seems to be perplexed that the statement that “all lives matter” has been deemed “racist” by BLM. Doesn’t BLM realize that as a matter of logic “all lives” includes “Black lives?” But here is the rub. Logic and reason are a Western imposition on the world, invented by white supremacists and white imperialists. To say that black lives are included in all lives is demeaning—it pushes black lives into an invisible background. Logic is not life.

The assertion “Black lives matter” is a statement of racial superiority. It cannot be judged by “racist logic.” “All lives matter” is therefore racist—no logic necessary, only reimagination. BLM has considerable responsibility for driving reason out of the public sphere with its claims that Western logic is racist and imperialist. If you think BLM doesn’t have that much influence on elite opinion, I invite you to think again. Mull that one over in your separation and “relax.” Get back to me when you figure out a reconciliation. Do your best: our marriage may depend on it!

Is America Still a Republic?

The fundamental error in our author’s analysis, however, is still more glaring: America has not been a constitutional republic based on the consent of the governed for many years. It has, in fact, been a thinly disguised oligarchy, dominated by ruling class elites in the media, in academia, both political parties in government (where politicians freely make promises to voters but find it easy to evade and ignore), the bureaucracy, the deep state (including the intelligence agencies), corporations, Silicon Valley, and other centers of influence.

Aristotle in the Politics noted the tendency of democracies and republics to become oligarchies. On occasion, he noted, one of the oligarchs appealed to the support of the people to overturn the oligarchic class and return to the old regime. Is this how we are to understand Donald Trump’s rise and fall? He said during his primary campaign that he was a wealthy insider and he saw what was happening to the people, especially how the oligarchy was profiting from China at the expense of the middle and working class. He believed that the people were being defrauded to enrich the wealthy and that this was simply unjust. He wanted to act on behalf of the people to restore the constitutional republic in which they, not the oligarchy, held sovereign power.

Trump didn’t know about Aristotle, or Aristotle’s dictum that it is justice above all which preserves regimes. But he did understand that it takes an insider to understand oligarchy.

Why would Trump betray his own class—the oligarchy? Self-interest is not always the dominant motivating force in some men—sometimes an instinct for justice prevails, or sometimes a reputation for justice might be a primary self-interest. But it took an oligarch—an insider and a traitor to his class. In turn, his class reacted to his effrontery with deadly purpose. How dare he take the side of the people! How dare he invoke justice!

The Oligarchy’s Grand Strategy

The elites, in an out of government, mobilized against Trump with resources that he could not match. The so-called Masters of the Universe dogged him unmercifully, censoring him at crucial moments that had a significant, if not decisive, impact on the election.

Pollsters did not use the wrong methodology in conducting polls; almost certainly they misreported results on purpose to suppress turnout. The media was uniformly against him, suppressing news—which the FBI said was credible but not worth investigating—about Hunter Biden’s corrupt dealings, trading on his father’s connections with Russia, China, and Ukraine. The role of the Dominion Voting system, an easily manipulated system that can change results in real time without a trace, may be revealed in the future. But it is clear that the election was in fact stolen from Trump by the oligarchy he dared oppose. The likelihood that there will ever be another free election in America is remote.

Perhaps most important was the Wuhan virus, which provided an unexpected weapon for the oligarchy not only to consolidate their power but to terrorize the public into accepting oppressive government regulations that will probably extend into the indefinite future. Some of the regulations have been exercises in raw power, having little or no rational basis and little effect on curbing the pandemic.

Most telling, however, is the fact that the pandemic has resulted in the greatest transfer of wealth in history from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy and corporate classes. Whether the pandemic was an accident or not, the massive transfer of wealth was intentional. The reaction to the pandemic was the beginning of the end of President Trump’s attempt to survive the all-out assault mounted against him by combined forces of oligarchy. Without the pandemic, Trump, in all probability, would have won reelection, and would have been better positioned to deal directly with the minions of the deep state, the Masters of the Universe, and those who supported them.

Oligarchy and Regime Change

Oligarchy is not a permanent; it too is subject to regime change. It can become a democracy, or it can become a tyranny if one or a small segment of the oligarchs becomes predominant in wealth and power. In the near future, the latter prospect is most likely. What is clear however is that no “trial separation” will alleviate our situation, even when our highly educated commentator learns to recognize the politics of regime change.

Politics is a contest for rule—the people or the oligarchy in our current situation. It is not helpful to think of the relationship of the Red and Blue State as a marriage that needs a “trial separation.” Even if a separation was secured, I can assure you that the Blue State oligarchs—and for that matter the many Red State oligarchs and politicians who are content to return to status quo ante Trump—would not use it to work on the marriage. And they certainly won’t tolerate a divorce. Like all domineering partners who abuse their consorts, they want to rule.

Edward J. Erler is Professor of Political Science emeritus at CSU San Bernardino. Previously a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Hillsdale College, he is a senior fellow of The Claremont Institute and a member of the Board of Directors. His new book, The United States in Crisis can be purchased here.


Just a brief cruise through the conservative Blogisphere will reveal a hardening resistance forming to the violence being done to our Constitution by Marxist scum and the willingness of weak-kneed GOP leadership to accept the stealing of our election without a fight. Soon we who believe in freedom will not have that luxury.

I think most of us are again looking for a leader that shares our values and will lead us in this fight. Beyond doubt, President or not, Donald Trump is that person. If we had the time our movement would simply absorb the establishment Republican Party. 25% describes what’s left of the old Republican Party base; RINOS, Never Trumpers, and all. We are the remaining 75%. The Real Trumpers who also voted GOP down-ballot. This has been coming for a long time. Unfortunately we have run out of time.

Evan though we love Donald Trump and will continue to do so, it was a set of constitutionally based conservative principles that gave birth to a movement starting with the Tea Party which progressed over time into the Trump Presidency. It was this movement that found Trump, not the other way around.

It is because the President shares these values with us that well over 75 million of us RE-ELECTED him and will look to him for leadership even if he is no longer President. If the Marxist pig take-over is completed and/or the electoral system has been corrupted beyond repair we will look to him to lead us in Resistance.

Let us hope the GOP will come to its senses and realize what has happened to it before its too late to strike down the criminal electoral abomination that would crown a pawn of the Red scum, including the Communist Party of China, to be our President.

If they do not fight; no election can be trusted and we will soon be under the heel of a suppressive Marxist state. We have come to this place not because President Trump, he simply pulled the curtain away from the Swamp, the Deep State, the conspiracy of silence, and exposed its demonic face. We are here from generations of looking the other way and appeasing our mortal domestic enemies of the Constitution.

“The Donald” has taught us through his example how to fight. May he lead us in the Resistance that means the survival of our nation. No more nice guy. When they come against our Country they come against our families and from now on they must find that a very unpleasant experience.



I just spoke to a biochemist who’s a friend of mine. She’s strongly urging everyone NOT to get the COVID vaccine. It is extremely dangerous, especially in terms of long-term consequences.

Don’t believe a word the government says. Everything the government has has been stolen, and everything the government says is a lie.

The Artful Dilettante

It’ll Take More Than Words

Conservative pundits and bloggers are fond of asking themselves in times of crisis or despondency, “What would Ronald Reagan do?” I’m afraid I have bad news for you.  We are well past the point of “What would Ronald Reagan do?” We have reached the point of “What would Samuel Adams do?” Continue reading