Friends, President Trump's attendance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner tonight was unexpectedly abbreviated, as a gunman tried to storm the event. Luckily, the Secret Service made quick work of the madman, and all the dignitaries, including the President, are safe. No doubt the mainstream media will ask pointedly, "Why does Donald Trump keep throwing himself in the path of all these unassuming and blameless bullets? What is WRONG with this man???" The better question, I'd say, is what's wrong with his would-be assassins, by which I mean all the nutjobs who want to kill him, which is a bigger subset of the population than you might think...
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c1je28p42ret
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump
In other news, don't kid yourself: DEI isn't "history". Far from it. The spirit of DEI lives on, and in blue states it hasn't even changed its name. Higher ed, and indeed any and all institutions infected with leftists, will never give up their anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, and anti-Western ideologies, as well as their reverse racism -- not unless every such institution was purged of their baleful presence, that is. Don't hold your breath!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: How dare you blame the perpetrator rather than the object (s)of the criminal 's freely chosen action?! How insolently unfashionable. And given the continuing vitality of the" new wisdom" (eg. 2+2 = 5)which you acknowledge in your comments above , the counterintuitive nature of your contradiction . Well, what of it then? (NOT!)
ReplyDeleteWe have enjoyed an interval of most encouraging discreditation of the "American" far left since the 2024 election but the America haters have exercised a strength and determination we cannot have wisely dismissed. No, our second Civil War persists. But we can take encouragement from historical examples like the 1864 Confederate assault on Washington, the failed Nazi Battle of the Bulge offensive and the Japanese Kamikaze onslaught ,of forces which could never be dissuaded, only thoroughly defeated.
And America faces as always that existential opponent we have engaged since the mid '60s. We have made much progress far beyond our initial disillusionment in realizing that there were fanatically devoted Americans dedicated to "fundamentally transforming" America into a historically condemned Marxist hell hole .
We are experiencing a powerful resurgence of far leftist resolve which should but remind of this ( in agreement with what you opined above): these people must be pounded into the political sewer from which they emerged to cynically enlist so many of the credulous baby boomers . Their idols and exemplars are the worst of the Marxist monsters who ravaged millions in the 20th century. They would reprise these abominations in our very country, Marxism's unrelenting foe until its infection grievously poisoned our country.
We have made a good start at righting this wrong, led by this formidable President. Its still going to take alot of persistence ; to relent is to lose everything we cherish. Accomplishment of their tragically wrong headed "revolution" has taken on a much more menacing cast in the unapologetic advent of frank devotees of the declared Marxist
"Democratic" Socialists of America in powerful government positions.We have made astonishing advances but we have not yet rid America of this curse. We must keep on keeping on.
Dr. Wadduy from Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: False start above; "fat fingers syndrome". Anyway , I believe you when you suggest the would be assassins are a sizeable subset of Americans .I would include in this group those who encourage it.
ReplyDeleteThe far left has usurped the term "hate" to ascribe it to anyone who disagrees with them. I was once accused of it for publicly criticizing the policies of our former Congressman even though I directed no aspersions to him.
I think the term hate is appropriately used only as a superlative describing the most intense of antipathies. By that definition the "American" far left very much deserves to have it attributed to them, comprehensively so. Eg. their relentless personal onslaught on Donald Trump manifests hate, no less.
Takes hate to want to kill someone and our radicals are devoted to exemplifying , motivating and directing it to our President. At the very least they recklessly drum it; but many, many of them actually intend it to foment violence in many forms. For obvious reasons they don't say as much publicly.
The present bitter division and disorder in America is the direct product of our far left's now 60 year campaign to "fundamentally transform" America by any means necessary to a by their definition just and "equitable" Marxist dictatorship. They are convinced that their fanatically sought end is irrefutably correct and that it justifies any means.
Naturally such a view, reinforced by its hate imbued devotees having achieved control of or significant influence in vital institutions like the MSM , entertainment, education, sports, our legality, big business, government , race and sex relations and even our military and law enforcement , convinces some of unstable mind to resort to desperate extremes. They seek to achieve personal satisfaction in working their "laudable righteousness".
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I guess I shouldn't say the radicals refrain from publicly urging extreme violence.I'm learning some of them are doing just that.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Trivia: I noticed that the KIng did not return the salute rendered him by our honor guard after he exited the plane . I wonder if it is traditional in English ceremony for the Monarch not to return a salute ; perhaps because of his uniquely superior status as the country's very sovereign(?).
ReplyDeleteSome commentary today suggested that though the British Monarch is held bereft of "political power" that this visit might nonetheless result in substance.Reaffirming the "special relationship " may well be a subject cordially discussed between these two Heads of State. Also speculated upon on air was the possibility that PM Starmer's tenure in office may well be close to a summary end. Our President's anger at Britain's refusal to allow our forces fighting Iran the use of British bases would , I think , almost certainly be discussed between these two apparently"hail fellows well met". Could it be that the King would say that it was contrary to his wishes but that he could not justify violating the restraints placed on the British Monarch? Perhaps it would be unwise of him to declare his disagreement with his PM but he might hint at it (?). Perhaps he could do so in the form of mentioning that duty might soon move him to invest a new PM. ?
I think its fascinating to consider whether the British monarch, whose present powers are the product of an exemplary, painfully democratic, extended historical evolution, really is unable, in extremis , to exercise any but ceremonial sway.
I wonder: should the the British Monarch choose to exercise, surely under extraordinary circumstances , consequential executive power, what might be the reaction of the defacto executive - the P.M. - and of Parliament? The 17th century was a long time ago. Maybe the most recent test of this came in 1940, in Britain's most terrible peril. George VI is often described as having initially thought Churchill a disastrous prospect for PM , especially in a time fraught already with truly HARROWING threat. Apparently though, he did not consider violating that precedentally fundamental injunction against his rejecting the majority party's designee for his PM. What if he had insisted on Halifax ? Labor might well have been incensed , maybe unto civil resistance and Halifax's probable submission to the Nazis would have had indescribably terrible consequences for the world. So faithfulness to British tradition worked to the salvation of Britain in that instance. Its hard to imagine a similarly critical situation arising now.
But: under the future William V? I have a gut feeling that he may be an actively iconoclastic Monarch.
Jack, that there are MILLIONS of Americans frothing with rage at DJT and everyone who supports him is undeniable. That many of them openly fantasize about killing him, or us, is equally clear. Assessing the overall mood of "the Left" is more complicated, however. On one hand, their anger may be diminished somewhat by their smug assurance that they are winning and, after all, Trump will soon be in jail or dead (of violent or natural causes). Then again, some have gotten worn down by the drumbeat of outrages that their newsfeeds contain and seem resigned to their miserable fates, or maybe desirous of pleasing distractions. It's hard to generalize. But all it takes is a handful of extremists willing to use force to change the game, as it were. If they were vaguely competent at it, we could lose our Fearless Leader, or else the attackers might succeed in setting off, as you put it, Civil War II (in earnest).
ReplyDeleteI would be VERY VERY surprised if King Charles took the initiative to defrock Sir Keir. That would be most unwelcome in many quarters of British politics, and after all Labour has a big majority in Parliament, so who but a Labourite could govern? Maybe the King could do something to accelerate the timetable for the next election, but why would he? I rather doubt that he looks forward to a P.M. Farage any more than Labour does...
Dr. Waddy from Jack: By referring to the KIng's duty I meant his Constitutional duty to formally endorse a succeeding PM after the incumbent's resignation or his party's loss of majority or its "no confidence" with him. I completely agree on the extreme unlikelihood of any British actually deposing any PM .
ReplyDelete". . . British KIng. . . ." Jack
ReplyDeleteSure, but given Labour's huge majority, the only way we're getting a non-Labour P.M. is via an election.
ReplyDelete