Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Beck, Levin to all the Hannitys: The onus is not on us, 'It's on Trump!'

We've seen so many twist themselves up into pretzels defending their guy no matter what, even with his latest immigration rub, even with her already failed presidency despite a win or a loss. Yet, it is the win or loss in the eyes of party loyalty that seems to be the singular, sole concern of these contortionists. What of conservative, constitutional, founding Principle? 'What about it?' appears to be the standard response.

And this tattered election cycle with the lackluster choices made has not only cost us principle, reason, and likely the best opportunity to date to right so many wrongs, but as many have become all too familiar with by now, it's cost friendships.

One of those has become particularly public and volatile over the past 24 hours, thanks to the Fair-and-Balance'd antagonist. But rather than launch a tirade like a certain someone, I'd rather share the patient and rational responses of the gentlemen in which this ire has been projected towards.

Here's what Beck had to say this morning...
Mediaite: During his angry rant against #NeverTrump-ers yesterday, Sean Hannity called out Glenn Beck by name for waging a “holy war” by, well, standing on principle. He said that if people like Beck stubbornly refuse to get behind Trump and Hillary Clinton wins, they will be responsible for everything she does in office.

Beck resisted the urge to jab Hannity (his co-hosts weren’t as kind), and he instead implored his audience not to be too harsh on Hannity for his disagreement.

What Beck did argue is that it’s not on him or any #NeverTrump-er if Trump loses, it’s on Trump.



“If we couldn’t get the nominee to be Ted Cruz,” Beck said, “we certainly aren’t powerful enough to stop Donald Trump.”

He did make it abundantly clear that by nominating Trump in the first place, “we stopped listening to reason” and prioritized winning over principles.

Beck’s position seems in line with Mark Levin‘s from last night, though Levin’s critique of Trump boosters did not mention Hannity by name.
...segueing to the prior evening's response from Levin...
Mediaite: Conservative radio host Mark Levin believes that Donald Trump is the one screwing things up for himself, so it’s amusing for his backers in the media to blame #NeverTrump Republicans for his current predicament.

Levin has said in the past he is #NeverTrump, and he said today he would reveal his voting plans soon enough.

But he has a problem with people who “go on and on behind the microphone and cherry-pick polls,” especially the ones blaming Trump’s woes on the Republicans opposed to him:
“‘If only the #NeverTrumpers, if only Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol and Glenn Beck and this one and that one, if only they’d get behind Trump, then we’d be winning! Then we’d win big time! Oh yes!’ No we wouldn’t. As popular as many of those men and women are, they’re not going to sway anybody one way or another. This is a presidential election. People make up their own minds.”
Levin even said, “We nominated the wrong person.”



Now, left unsaid in Levin’s commentary was any particular conservative with a microphone who might have gone after Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck specifically and blamed them for Trump’s woes. A conservative with a microphone who has jumped through hoops to claim Trump is winning.

Does such a conservative with a microphone exist?
It took a while for these three men to come together for the cause of conservatism, and now in such a short timespan, it's only taken a guy like Trump to divide that unity. So perhaps the final question should be, why has this man affected friendships in this manner? Much like his nomination, this entire pseudo-Republican circus seems to be more about a perceived (yet delusional) win for party's sake alone, devoid of principles reclaimed and revitalized.

Related links: LEVIN to Trump-Surrogates: You can’t blame Kristol, Goldberg or Glenn Beck for Trump loss!
Glenn Beck and anti-Trump conservatives respond to Hannity saying he'd blame them for a Clinton victory
Glenn Beck Responds To Sean Hannity’s Anti-#NeverTrump Rant In Perfect Fashion
Why Is Sean Hannity Mad at Glenn?

Friday, August 26, 2016

Glubb's 'Fate of Empires' points to a not-so vague premonition for our own nation

Every now and then you run across something so astonishing that you just have to share. This is one of those moments. Here's an AMAZING 24-page research essay that's an extremely briefer comparison to Gibbon's multi-volume Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, yet much more expansive in world historical terms, and should certainly serve as a warning shot over the bow (or perhaps I should say stern) of our own ship's misguidance...

by Sir John Glubb
1976
JourneyOfTheMind: The Fate of Empires is a brief essay laying out the life cycle of an empire. An empire is defined as a super power of their time. He brings examples ranging from Persia, Ancient China, to the Ottoman Empire. In fact, all of his evidence is from eras other than our own era, which makes sense when writing something like this. This read is a basic read, and should be taught to everyone.

The average lifespan of an empire is 250 years. The life cycle of an empire is broken down into six ages. They are:
  1. The Age of Pioneers
  2. The Age of Conquest
  3. The Age of Commerce
  4. The Age of Affluence
  5. The Age of Intellectualism
  6. The Age of Decadence

YouTuber The Immortal presented a great review of the paper back in February of this year:
A review of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires: Search For Survival. A historical examination of the lifespan of nation states and the markers of growth and decline.


Glenn Beck also had a stimulating discussion on Glubb's paper during Thursday's program @ 1:01:00 (among other interesting topics before & after):
This is a guy who's written a lot of really fascinating stuff on history, and what he decided to do was look at all of the empires that have risen and fallen and then look at the cycle of each empire to see if there's anything you can learn. So he went Persia, ancient China, the Ottoman Empire, he went the Roman Empire, Greece, everything. And he looked at all of them and said, 'Ok, so what do they have in common?' The one thing they all have in common, they lasted anywhere from 200 to 250 years. All of them collapsed within 50 years of each other. ... You look at this, and what he found is that there is ten generations that live in every empire. And you can cut these generations and the span of an empire up into six different categories... Now tell me that this doesn't fit us...
Now, as to avoid misleading, this isn't an observation on completely ceasing to exist. Yes, several of these falls do result in utter collapse and erasure. More interestingly though, in several cases, Greece, Spain, Russia, England, even Italy (Rome), remnant, centralized civilizations persist, but are forever fundamentally transformed in not only their sphere of influence and innovation or vast scope of exuberance and reach, but also in their inherent culture and their people. Arguably, many still struggle to maintain a national identity with newer cycles of Glubb's stages continuing to roll over them. Perhaps it is the fundamental transformation that gives pause to the most immediate consideration in correlation to our own nation's future. And like Rome and others, it's not just about the powers that be, but the people within that give way to internal demise and external strife...
JotM: The age of decadence is the decay of the empire. It is characterized by defensive minded militaries, decaying morals, loss of religion, frivolous consumption of food, entertainment, sex, and the complete focus of individual interests. When things tend to get rough, it would be thought that the people would work together to fix the problems, but instead there are schisms in the society that make the resolution of dire problems impossible. With everyone thinking about themselves, they lack the self-sacrifice and courage needed to defend themselves from collapse internally or from the next age of pioneers.

It is pretty obvious that The United States, the world’s super power, is in the last and final stage, the age of decadence. When just looking at our practices, it becomes clear that our morals have completely collapsed... When debating politics, people constantly look at how their interests are affected rather than taking into account the needs of other people. Sex is the main theme or method of selling products or services... We consume frivolously on drugs, food (obesity), sex, and entertainment. We worship celebrities rather than a God or religion. This all points to a society that is on a verge of collapse.

Monday, August 22, 2016

'A mistake of historic proportions' means more all-around loss for Americans

And not even the Lewandowski-Manafort-Bannon roulette table of a campaign can outshine the catastrophe of the candidate himself. If terms can be broadened, though, Jason Taylor manages to do so...

Once each four years we in these United States choose a president and our vote symbolizes all that is fair, decent and right about freedom and respect. The democratic way is admired around the world and we are suppose to hold our heads high and let the others looking in see us, enjoy our process and learn from our country’s long established order. This election fails to impress the world, and it’s embarrassing us as a nation. We are better than lies, bigotry, racism, sexism and the insane waste of intellect to churn more useless commentary on wrongs that are wrong.

We are the greatest country on earth. Our lifestyle and comforts are second to none and yet we complain, blame and chatter like children on a playground discussing what’s fair about the game. To be the president of this great country, one must have great intent to lead with thought and ideas that can be discussed, modified and followed. The world watches as we embarrass ourselves.
The Presidential campaign, bizarre as its been for over a year now, is reaching a dangerous point never seen before. There is really nothing left to say about Trump that hasn’t been said except perhaps that, no, people do not change, and expecting this man to stay on point or to use a teleprompter to deliver his lines, will alter our perception of him, is nonsense. How the flawed GOP leadership can feign hope while they await a turn-around by Trump, is laughable and offers a rather dimwitted deprecation of their own self-esteem. ...

The whole Trump Circus has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the dignity and importance of our revered democratic process of electing the leader of our country. Pick up any paper, or turn on any “news” media, and you have Donald in your face. Nothing seems to be out of bounds, and I strongly suspect that he is enjoying his stint on the “Road to the White House” reality TV show with its daily script adjustments…UnReal. He has had to spend little on his ride to international fame and infamy as our profit/ratings-driven media have given him his tent. Perhaps he will not “win” the presidency, but he certainly has won his notoriety upon which I am sure he will build another “billion dollar” empire. We reacted negatively to Hillary Clinton fees for speeches to Wall Street. I wonder how we will perceive in retrospect the capitalization of Donald’s bid for the highest office in our nation.
Finally, I turn to Erickson for some perspective on...

Republicans are heading to November’s White House loss for one overarching reason. They decided to do nothing controversial, to play it safe, and to make sure, above all else, that they were not disliked. The result is a party that was perceived by many of its early tea party supporters as cowardly, unwilling to hold Barack Obama accountable, and too beholden to special interests instead of willing to keep promises. The Mitch McConnell “play it safe and don’t rock the boat” approach has thrown the GOP into the rapids and is about to cause the party boat to capsize. ...

In 2014, despite all the hysteria that Ted Cruz was going to make the GOP disliked, the GOP won again. In fact, in the Age of Obama the GOP has won and kept on winning virtually everything other than the White House. But still the GOP doesn’t want to be disliked. Still the GOP refuses to stand up to Barack Obama.

Eventually, the base of the party got frustrated. That frustrated base was joined by a group of political outsiders not really affiliated with either party who finally had enough of both parties. They all felt desperate and betrayed. The felt like their very culture and way of life was under assault by a Washington elite who did not care about them, could not relate to them, and decided they were all hateful bigots who couldn’t write checks anyway. Desperate times call for desperate measures. So they turned to Donald Trump to burn down Washington. The Republican voters who sided with Trump early, when asked why they liked Trump, knew very little about him, but they said, “He fights!” That became the joke. Trump is a Clinton donor, pro-abortion New Yorker who bragged about his affairs, but “he fights!”

Trump isn’t interested in being liked or loved. He’s interested in fighting and being blunt. At least that is how voters perceive him. It is worth noting too that for a time the very establishment Trump’s voters want burned to the ground rallied to Trump. Behind the scenes, D.C. lobbyists, Senate Republicans, and Republican outside groups heaped praise on Trump as a way to stick it to Ted Cruz. They wanted Trump over Cruz. When it became Cruz vs. Trump, they demanded Cruz kiss McConnell’s ring if they were going to act. He refused so they decided they could accept Trump. They decided they could work with Trump, but could not and would never work with Cruz. Now they attack Cruz for failing to endorse the man they all privately hope loses to Hillary. And privately they worry that Trump, who they now realize they cannot control and who will never pivot, is going to cost them the power they’ve tried to horde by doing nothing and standing still.

That makes this coming loss so ironic. The GOP is going to lose with Trump because its leaders were too scared to stand for anything and refused to stand with the only candidate who, in the end, had a shot at stopping Trump. By standing for nothing, they got stood up by their voters and stomped into the dust by Trump. The only question that remains is this: after the loss, will the GOP learn the right lessons?

I suspect not. The party leaders and their editorial mouthpieces still cannot even acknowledge that there is both an elite and an establishment within the party. The talking heads of Fox who are long tied to guys like McConnell and the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal who openly disdain heartland voters both deny there is an establishment.

... They will again rally to the brilliant strategery of Mitch McConnell that got them in this mess in the first place. They will ignore that Republicans have a lower opinion of congress right now than Democrats and that congress’s popularity has gone up because it is not in Washington right now.

Until they figure it out, the desire to be liked will trump (pun intended) the desire to hold the President accountable through any and all means necessary. And that will just perpetuate the helplessness of a lot of people with real needs and fears who want a political party to stop wanting to be liked and start leading. Perpetuating that, in turn, leads even further down the rabbit hole of anger in the voting population.

When a voting base thinks they are on the brink of disaster, in large part because of the rhetoric of elected Republican leaders, a play it safe strategy is just asking to be curb stomped.
Not to detract from Obama's lawlessness and hypocrisy, but the Democratic-leaning media seems to be paying as much attention to those as Republicans are to the above points. Unfortunate, because it means more all-around loss for Americans.

Related links: Can’t Teach An Old Dog New Tricks.
Third Trump Foreign Policy Advisor Discredited
Obama Vacations on Martha’s Vineyard While Louisiana Drowns
Watch: Obama Can’t Say If The $400 Million We Sent To Iran Will Be Used For Terrorism

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

McMullin's awesome 'Letter to America' is another example of what might have been...

On second thought, I will mention that long shot, even if it is too late, to at least share Evan McMullin's pretty awesome "Letter to America(along with some good ol' Leon Wolf commentary):
RedState: I don't really know if this campaign is going to get off the ground or what will become of it, but independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin's "Letter to America" is pretty awesome. Here's a sample:
Like millions of Americans, I had hoped this year would bring us better nominees who, despite party differences, could offer compelling visions of a better future. Instead, we have been left with two candidates who are fundamentally unfit for the profound responsibilities they seek.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician who has recklessly handled classified information in an attempt to avoid accountability and put American lives at risk including those of my former colleagues. She fails the basic tests of judgment and ethics any candidate for President must meet. Moreover, she only offers stale economic ideas like the same old top-down government control that has brought us eight years of historically low growth.

Donald Trump appeals to the worst fears of Americans at a time when we need unity, not division. Republicans are deeply divided by a man who is perilously close to gaining the most powerful position in the world, and many rightly see him as a real threat to our Republic. Given his obvious personal instability, putting him in command of our military and nuclear arsenal would be deeply irresponsible. His infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to American values. We cannot and must not elect him.
Read, as they say, the whole thing. McMullin sounds like the kind of guy I could easily vote for; the problem is that he has already missed the ballot deadline in roughly half the states and unless he busts his butt, he's going to miss another 10 before the week is over. Timing is everything, and the timing of this is really just too late to make any sort of national impact on the race.

Another example of what might have been.
...if the electorate had chosen wisely.

Related links: Evan McMullin to Run as a Third Party Candidate
Anti-Trump Republican Launching Independent Presidential Bid

Trump is conservatism's Dunkirk

"Absolutely 100% correct." ~ GB
I suppose we could further discuss the news of an indie run that came yesterday; but honestly, I think Steve Berman concisely captured the skepticism of most: Best wishes, but it's just too late. For now, instead of delving into another long shot, I'd like to share something a bit more retrospective regarding the situation we're in.

From the untouchable intellectual conservatism of Ben Shapiro comes a sober assessment of what Trump means for the conservative movement, not just now, but for generations...brilliantly accomplishes through a more accurate, substantive, historical analogy than simply tossing around the names Stalin or Hitler...
DailyWire: Trump fans have spent the last few months assuring conservatives that even if they don’t like Trump, they must vote for him: after all, they say, the West even sided with Stalin to stop Hitler. Why then can’t conservatives consolidate around Trump to stop Hillary?

This historic analogy doesn’t work. It doesn’t work not only because Hillary isn’t Hitler. It doesn’t work because the Allies didn’t make Stalin president and grant him leadership of the West. They formed a temporary alliance, which ended the moment that Hitler had been defeated. Donald Trump will not become the object of some sort of Republican Cold War after becoming president.

There’s another historic analogy that may work better: Dunkirk. (For the historically ignorant who want to wait until the new Christopher Nolan film comes out to find out what happened at Dunkirk, here’s your spoiler alert.) After the Nazis ran roughshod through France, pushing the British Army all the way back to the English Channel, the British had two choices: they could fight to the last man and be annihilated, or they could evacuate across the Channel back to Britain. The British mobilized, down to the smallest fisherman, to smuggle the soldiers back across to Britain, preserving the Army.

But didn’t they understand the cost of leaving France to the Nazis? Didn’t they have an obligation to fight to the last man?

Of course not. They had an obligation to preserve the British military - the only actual hope of winning the greater war. Churchill spoke in the House of Commons, where he called “what has happened in France and Belgium…a colossal military disaster.” He then added:
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…
In the end, the British Army’s flight from France preserved Britain itself, and perhaps the entirety of Europe.

That’s the choice Republicans face now: annihilation or strategic withdrawal.

Of course a Hillary presidency will be an utter disaster. Like the loss of France, it will be an unprecedented defeat that will cost us dearly. But at least we will live to fight another day. If we chose this moment for our last stand, we will truly lose the greater war.

That’s for two reasons.

First, there is no victory for conservatives here. Trump is not going to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices outside of a pipe dream; he’s not going to govern in a small government fashion; he’s not going to restore constitutional boundaries to government itself. Trump is a typical union Democrat, and he will govern that way.

The danger to conservatives is that their movement is fully coopted by a man who already insists that his allies eagerly lie for him and cover up his myriad sins, lest he unleash hell upon them publicly. And that will have an impact for years to come.

If you believe that conservatism is the only philosophy that can save the country, the army must be preserved, not perverted or marginalized. Right now, polls show that young Americans prefer not only Hillary, but Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to Trump, who earns approximately 9 percent of those under age 30. He’s running at 1 percent among black voters. His numbers are negligible among Latino voters. He’s not even running on par with Mitt Romney among white voters. Not even close. If conservatives convert to Trumpism, they lose a generation of voters. Better to disassociate and live to fight another day, conservatism still intact.

Second, Trump is not going to win. That’s not because of disaffected conservatives. That’s because he’s a joke of candidate. Right now, he’s down more than seven percent in the latest RealClearPolitics poll average. He’s losing in Georgia. He’s running even in Arizona. He’s putting South Carolina and Utah in play. If polls hold even close to where they are now (a big if, but a plausible one), he’s not just going to lose, he’ll be destroyed on a historic level. And Republicans in the Senate – people like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin -- will pay the price for having to answer questions about him day after day. So will Republicans in the House. All to defend a guy who has no loyalty to conservative principles or legislators, and who says he doesn’t care if the Republicans lose the Senate.

And even if Hillary does somehow snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and Trump somehow becomes president, many of his own policies – to the extent he has articulated any – are themselves far to the left of any modern Republican president.

In other words, the battle is already lost.

This is Dunkirk.

Save your army.

You’ll need it later.

Or you could simply look at how bad Hillary will be and decide that it’s worthwhile to burn all your ammo and destroy your men on the cannon shells of the enemy, all the while bragging that you're doing the right thing because hey, somebody has to stop the bad guys right now. That, after, all, would be the dedicated play, wouldn’t it?

Friday, August 5, 2016

Stuck riding this bomb to detonation...

“Something better change, or this could be a landslide victory for the detestable leftist, the unindicted fraudster and felon, Hillary Clinton!” ~ Mark Levin, 8/4/16
Boy, oh boy. Missed opportunity might soon be a moot point.

We've heard about the polls throughout the week. They're abysmal, considering the competition. But this is what happens when you nominate a contemptible candidate loathed more than the lyin' crook on the other side. Not to mention the messaging differences between either convention. And speaking of, notice what's happened to Trump's supposed convention bump? Now ya see me, now ya don't...


We've also heard about the whispers of senior GOP officials exploring options if Trump, gulp, drops out!
ABCNews: Republican officials are exploring how to handle a scenario that would be unthinkable in a normal election year: What would happen if the party's presidential nominee dropped out?

ABC News has learned that senior party officials are so frustrated — and confused — by Donald Trump's erratic behavior that they are exploring how to replace him on the ballot if he drops out.
This is not about 'I told you so,' this is the cold hard truth of the matter. And where the stats might not reach those still on the train...well, they're unreachable. But allow me to just segue to Steve Berman's compilation of what many Republicans are now telling Trump, albeit way too late: "Get Out!"
TheResurgent: Donald Trump is about to get his “Rocky IV” moment. Either he is going to train in the Siberian snow while an 80’s music montage plays and return in glory to defeat Hillary Clinton (“He’s not human, like a piece of iron!”) or he’s going to implode.

Most Republican insiders are betting on implode. The POLITICO Caucus, “a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states” has a message for Trump: Get Out.

A stunning 70 percent would like to see Trump quit the race. No candidate in history (of either party) has ever been this unpopular among their own. It’s literally unprecedented, like everything about Trump’s cult.
“I’d rather take our chances with nearly anyone else than continue with this certain loser who will likely cost the Senate and much more,” said a New Hampshire Republican — who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously.
And:
“The effect Trump is having on down-ballot races has the potential to be devastating in November,” added a Florida Republican. “His negative image among Hispanics, women and independents is something that could be devastating to Republicans. Trump’s divisive rhetoric to the Hispanic community at large has the potential to be devastating for years to come.”
Most of the survey respondents don’t think Trump will go. Leon Wolf summed it up nicely.
But come, I will level with you: Donald Trump is not going anywhere until November. End of story. He’s not going to quit, and none of you are going to force him out of the race. The idea that Trump can be talked out of three more months of his face constantly being on television for any reason at all is absolute wishcasting. The idea that any mechanism exists at this point for removing him from the ballot in favor of some other candidate is just not factual.
Trump thinks he will roar back for the win. Though anything is possible, depending on unicorns, rainbows, ISIS attacks, race wars, mass shootings, Russian hackers, or general chaos to win is at best delusional.

At worst, it’s the mark of a man who will crush American democracy with an iron gauntlet; who despises our laws, despises our allies, despises everything but the blood and soil he proclaims to love. If there’s a way for Trump to exit with his ego intact, now would be the time for that fake health issue (hey, bone spurs, right?) to pop up.

But I’m afraid we’re stuck riding this bomb to detonation.
Yes, I added that last link. Wished this candidacy was anywhere near as epic as that cinematic shot. Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the results of the party's future might be that much more literal than figurative.

Related links: When Does a ‘Smart Businessman’ Like Donald Trump Consider Brand Damage?
Hey GOP, I think it’s time to start PANICKING!!
It's not like Ted Cruz didn't try to warn you, Republicans
Trump Supporters Are Being Lied To

Monday, August 1, 2016

Observing the new Republican political correctness

Andy Woods elaborates on the Crucifixion of Ted Cruz by the union of the RNC, Trump campaign and Establishment acolytes that has already been discussed here across several posts. But it is the second half of his discussion -- the New Republican Political Correctness -- that I'd like to turn attentions toward...
What would most likely get me the most accolades from my conservative friends is to write a blog piece criticizing this week’s Democratic National Convention. After all, we are routinely told by pseudo-conservatives that we all need to rally behind the Republican Nominee, unify the party, and defeat Hillary Clinton in November. She is the personification of all evil, as the new Dinesh D’Souza movie Hillary’s America appropriately and accurately argues. However, the Democrats and their predictably outrageous behavior this week is not the real story here. The Democrats kicked conservatism (and authentic Christianity for that matter) out of their party a long time ago. Criticizing the Democratic Party is too easy of a target. Finding a conservative Democrat today, such as the late Robert Casey or Zel Miller, is like trying to find an animal on the endangered species list. However, the real story here, for anybody who actually desires to see the evidence, is how the Republican Party, at least at the national level, is now also going very clearly in the direction of the Democratic Party in terms of purging and ostracizing conservatism from its ranks. ...

Ted Cruz is but a mere vessel for the ideas of limited government espoused by America’s founders. On today’s political scene, he is one of the few in public service who actually believes in these principles. In so doing, he represents those of us who also embrace these principles. Thus, any attack on Cruz for his beliefs represents an attack on the rest of us who also embrace these same ideals and principles. In other words, how the Republican Party treated Ted Cruz last week represents the actual revulsion, hostility, and disdain that the Republican Party establishment has towards true grass roots conservatives within its own base and ranks. Part of the agenda is to trample Cruz so vehemently that he and his limited government agenda will not be a threat to the party establishment in 2020. Welcome to the new Republican Party. Like what the Democratic Party accomplished long ago, the Republican Party is now in the process of purging all vestiges of true conservatism from its very own ranks. With one party already gone, the other is now in the very same process of closing itself off to any conservative influence. The bottom line: true conservatives will soon have no place to call home. This is what the Trump takeover of the Republican Party really represents.

What I have said thus far is not even the worst part about it. The worse part about all of this is the new political correctness that some “conservatives” are now imposing upon their own members. Rather than calling a spade a spade and exposing this hostile takeover for what it is, many within the conservative movement that once stood on principle are busy bullying and silencing anyone who dares to say that the king is naked. Because the goal of defeating Hillary Clinton in November has become the central rallying cry, anyone who points out the self-evident deficiencies of Trump and the current trajectory of the Republican Party is deemed as deliberately weakening the Republican Party and consequently being pro-Hillary. “You don’t want to elect Hillary do you?” has become the common response. In other words, “shut up, move along, and fall into line.” If you do not, Hillary Clinton will become the next President of the United States. For example, here is what one of my Face Book “friends” posted on my page after I posted something recently critical of Trump: “Feed and tend sheep and lambs. Jeremiah 22:10. God executed His purposes so stop whining…” I could furnish numerous other similar examples of such “conservative” self-policing.

Such self-censorship is tragic since it involves an abandonment of the very principles conservatives say that they stand for. In other words, conservative and Christian principles matter so long as you do not apply them to our own nominee. There are innumerable people I know that have spent the bulk of their lives and ministries articulating valid principles, only to demonize others who apply these very same principles to Trump and the new Republican Party. The conservative movement has certainly now reached a new and epic low as it finds itself turning upon and devouring its very own. We often legitimately decry political correctness in academia and politics. Sadly a new form of political correctness has entered the ranks of the conservative movement. That new political correctness entails the overt and subtle pressure to never criticize Trump and his party.

The way out of our immoral ditch is not to have two Democratic parties. Since the majority of those registered are already Democrats, if the public perceives the same message coming from both parties, they will just vote for the party that they are already affiliated with, and the Democratic Party will continue to win big time. The Republicans win and win in a huge way when they are able to articulate clear differences between the two parties. The conservative message still sells as evidenced by the sweeping Republican victories at the Presidential or Congressional level in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2004, 2010, and 2014. Let’s not go the way of the Whigs. Let’s resist the current self-censorship and instead continue to point out the wrong headed direction of the current Republican Party establishment. Hopefully, this process will return the Republican Party to its foundation and also its winning ways. If it does, then the future looks bright. If it does not, we should get used to the encroaching socialism and cultural Marxism that we see all around us because that will be our future.
God knows we don't need two Democratic Parties! But this certainly seems as if that's precisely what's occurring. It's my personal feeling that the Republican Party has already chosen the path of the Whigs. The threshold has been crossed. The party bosses continue to vehemently reject conservatism, including the current nominee. I think instead of embracing this 'new' Republican political correctness, we should not only continue pointing it out at every turn, but genuine conservatives need to take action NOW and turn towards a New Conservative-Republican Party. Will it win the election at this point. No. But I'm also convinced that the Republican Party has thoroughly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. So, at this late date, conservatives have got to start thinking long term. We must start anew to get there...and that need not wait on any election. #PrincipleMattersFirst

Related links: CBS Poll: Trump’s Alienation Of Conservatives Is The Reason He’s Behind
BREAKING: Second National Poll Confirms Huge Post-Convention Bounce For Hillary
Trump’s Strategy For The General Election: Begin Making Excuses Now For Why He Will Lose
While Polls Show Clinton In The Lead, Trump Would Rather Go After Ted Cruz