No matter whom the Dems pick, President Trump is the only unity candidate running in 2020

Democrats are in clear disarray.  With the proud commies competing against the not very closeted commies posing as “moderates” for the 2020 Democrat nomination, Democrat pundits and leadership, including most recently Nancy Pelosi, are calling for a “unity” candidate.

What they mean, of course, is uniting Democrats on their pro-abortion, pro-open borders, anti-First and Second Amendment, pro-criminal, anti-police, Green New Deal, Medicare for All commie lunacy.  Democrats are themselves telling pro-life Democrats to get lost, that they are not welcome in a party that is adamantly pro-abortion up to and even after birth.

And naturally, the idea of uniting with anyone who doesn’t buy into and march to the beat of their anti-American drum is complete anathema to them.  Live in flyover country? Voted for Trump?  Care about God, family, and country over the latest hundreds of gender pronouns or whatever “woke” madness they’ve dreamed up this week?  No unity for you.  Support free markets and free people?  Well, you are the worst kind of deplorable and cannot be in the “unity” club.  “Wrong” gender, race, religion, political bent?  No soup unity for you!

They have plans for everyone, including you, though.  You get to pay for their crazy, impossible commie pipe dreams . . . all the while being called a racist and whateverphobe by the “unity” crew who is intent on bleeding you and your family dry. Because [insert whatever] justice.

You know who doesn’t talk about Americans as separate but un/equal voting blocs?  Who doesn’t pander to the basest emotions like greed, envy, and victimhood?  Who doesn’t look out at America and think about which “basket” human beings should be shoved into?  Who doesn’t denigrate, blame, demonize, and eviscerate normal Americans?

Yep, President Trump.  For all the crazy accusations of racism that have been hurled at him, Trump simply isn’t racist.  He never said white supremacists were just like everyone else or whatever that crazy lie is the left loves to tell.  He never said that all illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists, though he did acknowledge the proven fact that some are.  He never worked to depress black or Latino employment (as every Democrat in any position of power has done since, and including, Johnson).

In fact, his track record, i.e. actual accomplishments for all races in America speaks to his insistence that all Americans be treated equally, all Americans achieve full employment, higher wages, and better opportunities.

This idea of equality, though, has been so bastardized by the commie left that they actually think that being equal is a sign of white supremacy and racism.  They demand inequality in everything.  Anyone deemed a victim is to be afforded more and better everything, free passes in the judicial system, hand-outs and “protections” that are not afforded others because they are the wrong race, gender, religion, etc.

But it’s all a trap. The idea is to further infantalize these Democrat voting groups, to make them more dependent than ever on a government run by Democrats.  It’s a cynical, evil scheme rooted not in “unity” or compassion or justice (at least as normal people think of it) but in ensnaring, even enslaving, entire generations of minority groups for political gain, for political power.

America, they say, is racist, unjust, unfair, xenophobic, and etc.  America, to them, is a stinking pit of inequity and hate. America is a stain on the map of the world, the least worthwhile country on the planet.  America, they think, should cease to exist as America.

They want, quite literally, to abolish America by getting rid of our borders, “revising” our Constitution, and “remaking” our economic, social, cultural, and political systems.  Their unity candidate is intended to bring all of the left together under this umbrella of loathing, contempt, and destruction.

Those of us who do not want that are expendable, and we know this because they tell us so.  We’re “bitter clingers,” “deplorables,” “rubes,” “racists,” “white supremacists,” “Nazis” . . . ultimately, the goal of all this is for us to become subhuman, little more than animals.

You know who doesn’t attack normal Americans?  Trump.  He might attack “Pocahantus” or “Mini Mike,” but he doesn’t diminish in any way their voters.  He doesn’t attack the people of America because he doesn’t loathe any of us.

Honestly, I think that if the Democrats were to wise up and kick their evil schemes to the curb and decide to suddenly start working for ALL Americans, Trump would welcome that without scorn or a victory dance, and he would work with them on his agenda items they can agree on.

He genuinely wants to do what is right for this country and for all of her people.  To my mind, that makes him the only real unity candidate running in 2020 . . . no matter what commie loser the Democrats pit against him.

Fuzzy Shorts: Trump, 2020 Dem Primary, Impeachment, and More

I haven’t posted here in forever and am not really planning on restarting this blog, but you know when you have all this stuff to say and want to just let it roll?  That’s me. Today.

So here we go:

Trump 2020

Despite my early and very strong aversion to and reservations about President Trump, he’s turned out to be a damned good president.  Sure, he’s not the most polished guy around, but I have come to distrust the polished McSmarmy types more than ever before.

I’ll be voting for him again in November, and this time, it will be enthusiastic and FOR him rather than against Hillary (as my 2016 vote more assuredly was).

Bernie and his Commie Revolution

Bernie’s crazed revolutionaries terrify the crap out of me.  These are people who literally want to execute their enemies, by guillotine. For history’s sake.  They are deranged and evil to their core, and they really think that killing “the rich” and “landlords” and Republicans is noble.  This is more twisted and unhinged than a lot of people seem to grasp.  We aren’t talking about another century, another country, another world; this is 21st America, and there are people who want us all dead: literally dragged from our homes-publicly executed dead . . . or in literal gulags.

Happily for us, however, this is the 21st century, and it is America, and it is this world . . . where we are not only not oppressed, beaten-down, impoverished peasants, starving half to death, and desperate for any salvation, but we are also endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, like the right to keep and bear arms and to protect ourselves from lunatic revolutionaries who might roll into our towns.

Mainstream Media

I am still completely gob-smacked by the bubble-dwelling leftstream media.  Despite all evidence that they are mistrusted and reviled by the general public, despite all evidence that their relentless attacks not just on President Trump but on his supporters is alienating their ever-dwindling audience, they just keep on lying, dissembling, hiding the truth, and pretending they still matter.

It’s actually quite amusing at this point.  They just spew their bile into the world and hope that someone, somewhere hears it and cares.  Sadly, no one does hear it because we long ago–way before Trump–tuned out,and if it somehow slips into our view, we simply don’t care what they have to say.  They can survive our anger and outrage, but not our utter indifference.

Nancy Pelosi

Impeachment has really been a boon for Trump. It was a stupid move by Pelosi, and the weakness she demonstrated in bending to the will of the radical commie left in her caucus will result in her losing her speakership or, if Dems lose the House in November, her leadership position. She caved, and that weakness will be used by her enemies in her own caucus to unseat her.  As it should.

2020 Democrats

What a ridiculous assortment of socialists/commies and abject losers. Who knows what the hell Democrats are thinking with this motley crew of anti-American freaks and weirdos.

Gropey Joe lost his marbles many moons ago, and people politely pretended not to notice. But he’s running for president, so it can’t be ignored any longer.  Someone who cares about him needs to get him off the campaign trail asap.

Sanders is an off-putting, overly-sensitive commie nutbag. He loves dictators and commies, and he thinks breadlines are awesome.  He yells constantly, and he’s just a curmudgeonly hot mess of flying hair wisps and unkempt slovenliness whose time was up 40 years ago with the collapse of communism, and he was so busy living in his head that he didn’t even notice.

Former small city mayor Pete Buttigieg is a novelty candidate whose novelty will wear off soon.  No way does he win the nomination, and no way would he win the presidency if he did.  He’s a ridiculous parody of a politician who tries to be all things to all people and ends up being nothing to everyone.

Amy Klobuchar is “surging” and gaining “momentum.” Yawn.  She’s going nowhere.

Elizabeth Warren is done, so there’s not much point in even noting her long long list of faults.

Nanny Mini-Mike Bloomberg won’t cut it, either, against Trump.  He’s a gun-grabbing, Big Gulp-banning totalitarian freak with a Napoleon complex over his not even that short stature.  Anyone that sensitive to criticism is going to wilt in the face of a Trump general election campaign, and there is plenty for normal Americans, including Trump-skeptics and Indies, to find reprehensible about him.

So what happens next?

Predictions are dangerous, of course, but as of now, I think that the Democrats are heading to a brokered convention where they will be forced to pick commie Bernie, will settle for Nanny Bloomberg, or will let someone “new” swoop in and grab the prize.

The latter option seems the most risky for Democrats because anointing Hillary or Michelle Obama (the most likely ones to swoop in and feed on the carcasses of their fellow Democrats) will just alienate the Bernie Bros and Faucahauntus sisters and the . . . well, whatever the supporters of small town Pete are.

Ultimately, things look great for Trump right now.  Barring any significant changes between now and November, he’s going to win reelection . . . unless Bernie is nominated and people mistakenly believe Trump has it in the bag against such a complete loon.

Trump supporter over-confidence could be his undoing (as was Hillary voter over-confidence in 2016 when a lot of Hillary supporters thought her landslide victory was practically pre-ordained and written in the stars and sat home basking in their choice rather than heading to the polls to actually vote), but I don’t think there’s much risk of that.

Trump supporters are fuming over the attempted coup that started the minute he was sworn in and continues to this day.  We want to vote to reaffirm our support for him and our utter, crushing disdain for Democrats and for the deep staters who sought to overturn the 2016 election.

Why White Women Like Me Voted for Trump

Over at some blog, a clearly indignant leftist puppet has penned an open letter to her “white friends” in which she proceeds to get everything wrong as she attempts to shame and attack white women who voted for Trump.

As you know, Trump was not my first choice . . . he wasn’t my any choice.  I didn’t want him at all, but as election day neared, I knew that I had no choice but to vote for Trump.  I live in Florida, and Trump needed to win our state, and the polls looked gloomy for him here.  There was no way in hell I was going to have any tiny bit of Hillary being elected president.  She is a horrible human being from her inner soullessness on out.

So I voted for Trump, and since then, I’ve done nothing but feel more confident about his presidency.  He’s making good picks for most cabinet positions (I’m not thrilled with his Secretary of State pick, but he can be gone in a flash if he doesn’t work out).

So, I read that open letter to white women who voted for Trump. As I am one, and I want to respond.

Shabazz writes:

So, you voted for Trump. You don’t have to admit it, I know you did. Granted, I think the fact that some of you won’t admit it is telling. Some of you have said that you have stayed silent because you didn’t want to get dragged for voting for him. If you’re standing by your choice, why won’t you defend it? And to those of you who have been open with your admiration…what exactly do you admire about him?

The choice here, of course, is false.  First, who on earth is not admitting it (except maybe people in ultra-blue areas who understand that the “tolerance” of their leftist lunatic neighbors might land them in the morgue)?  And second, why do I have to defend my vote to anyone?  Anyone. At. All.. Anywhere.

She then blathers through a few old standards before landing on her real point: anyone who voted for Trump is, in her eyes, a fascist, racist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, blah blah blah.

“But I’m not…” You’re not what? Racist? Misogynistic? Anti-semitic? Homophobic? Ableist? Well, you may not think so but you supported someone who has used language suggesting that he is all of the above. And by supporting him, you’ve said that it is okay to be all of the above. The president-elect has elevated hate into a prominent position in the current American landscape. So, you may not feel that way because you know or love someone who falls into one of those categories, but what you’re indirectly saying is that you don’t really care about them.

This sort of thinking is exactly what created the conditions for Trump to win . . . and to win educated white female voters like myself.  We’re the ones who see our and our families’ jobs shipped overseas, we’re the ones whom Obama’s policies trampled and ignored, we’re the ones Hillary Clinton promised to bankrupt and leave jobless in her America-wrecking wake.

Standing up for our own culture, our own country, our own principles and values does not make us any “ist” or “phobe.”  It makes us smart, savvy, independent thinkers who can see what is happening around us and how our country is being decimated while progressives obsess about gender pronouns and letting men in girls’ showers.  That they feel they have the luxury to focus on such things is emblematic of their complete lack of connection to real Americans.  Jobs, family, church, community, America . . . these things take a back seat to social, environmental, and cultural “justice.”

They leave more than half of America behind, and they hope to get away with it by hammering us as bigots and rubes and xenophobes who hate progress.  It’s insulting, it’s wrong, and we’ve had enough.

I’m not privileged because I’m white, and I’m not a racist because I’m white.  I’m not your whipping boy, your scapegoat, your excuse for horrific policy and mind-boggling intolerance and hate.  I’m not your robot with a vagina who will walk in lockstep with your crazy ideas or with your candidate who also happened to have a vagina.  Having a vagina is not an accomplishment.  Being black, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, transgender, or whatever other sacred cow you worship is not an accomplishment.  I reject your worldview resoundingly and completely, and that is why I voted for Trump.

Shabazz  concludes her open letter with:

So, you still voted for Trump. Don’t come trying to get me to see your side of this or convince me to play nice and accept what you had a hand in doing. This isn’t something that I can forgive and forget.

I may still be your friend, but our relationship will never be the same.

I won’t waste my time trying to make you see my side, Shabazz.  You are an intolerant, close-minded leftist parody of a useful idiot and are incapable of understanding anything, including your own worldview, which you vomit out as if you knew what the words meant.

If the election were held today, I would be ten times more confident in my vote for Trump than I was on election day.  And frankly, I don’t care if you forgive, forget, or never want to be my friend.  You mean nothing to me.  What does matter to me is God, America and my family (okay, maybe not in that order).  Trump was absolutely the better choice for this country on November 8th,and he is even more so today.

How Breitbart News Began the Mainstreaming of the Alt-right

With Trump placing Breitbart News chair, Steve Bannon, in charge of his campaign and with the resignation of Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign is signalling an embrace of the alt-right base. This is an unprecedented move by a Republican presidential candidate and is itself tied to Breitbart News‘ shift from conservative Andrew Breitbart’s vision for his conservative media empire to Bannon’s recently evolved alt-right vision.  The story of Breitbart News‘ evolution from Tea Party conservative powerhouse under the direction of the late Andrew Breitbart to the home of the alt-right is reflected in The Hill‘s recent article entitled “How Breitbart turned on Ted Cruz.”

While Bannon began as a supporter of Ted Cruz, he reportedly became enraged with Cruz and began to shift his support toward Trump, while trying to “destroy” Cruz along the way.

The Hill reports:

In late January, Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon was tipped off about a story that he hoped would damage Ted Cruz.

Bannon, who this week became CEO of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, was told that a radio advertisement would be landing in Iowa aimed at hurting Cruz with evangelical voters — the very constituency the senator was depending on to win the state’s caucuses on Feb. 1.

The line of attack, which was being pushed by Cruz’s presidential rival Mike Huckabee, was that Cruz had donated only a small fraction of his income to his church, not enough to fulfill his tithing duties of 10 percent.

Bannon was excited by the story, stating that it could spell the end of Cruz’s candidacy. He told his reporters to chase the story hard, though their efforts turned up nothing new.

Bannon didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment from The Hill, but a spokeswoman for the conservative news sight downplayed any work Breitbart’s reporters did on the tithing story.

“With regards to your question on Ted Cruz: Breitbart did virtually zero reporting on this,” Breitbart spokeswoman Alexandra Preate said.

Preate would not comment further, however, and did not deny that Bannon was pushing reporters to pursue the storyline.

In the early stretch of the presidential campaign, Breitbart was seen as a staunch supporter of Cruz, with Bannon leading the charge. Coverage of the Texas senator was favorable, with Breitbart at one point getting an exclusive look at Cruz getting his children ready for bed.

But Breitbart’s allegiances shifted as Trump’s campaign caught fire.

The Hill notes that “the story of how that happened, which has never before been told in such detail, provides a vivid illustration of how Trump’s rise has changed the balance of power in the conservative media, and by extension, the entire Republican Party.”  And it does so, additionally, because it helps illuminate the power shift we’ve seen from limited government Tea Party conservatives to the nihilistic, “burn it all down,” racist and anti-Semitic alt-right.

As Bannon himself moved more towards Trump, his directives to subordinates indicated that Breitbart News would follow suit.  While this caused a lot of Andrew Breitbart’s original team to leave the site, the new focus on Trump—and on relentlessly attacking Ted Cruz, as Trump’s most formidable challenger—transformed the former conservative powerhouse site into what has been disparagingly called “Trumpbart” or “Trump Pravda.”

The move was not instantaneous.  Initially bristling at a couple of Cruz’s moves, Bannon began to seethe with resentment and anger towards the senator from Texas.

The Hill continues:

The first strike against Cruz came in July 2014, when Cruz joined Bannon’s sworn enemy, the conservative radio host Glenn Beck, on a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border. Cruz’s staff described the trip as a “humanitarian” mission to help a church provide supplies to needy families.

Bannon thought the trip painted Cruz as soft on illegal immigration, and Breitbart ran a story titled, “Ted Cruz Joins Glenn Beck for ‘Soccer Balls and Teddy Bears’ Event.”

“Steve was still ranting about that trip six months later,” said a source who worked with Bannon at the time.

Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier declined to comment for this story.

The second strike against Cruz came in April 2015, when the senator signaled his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the fast-track legislation needed to push it through Congress.

Making matters worse, Cruz promoted his support for fast-track authority in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

Bannon made clear to Breitbart staffers that he wanted to destroy Ryan’s political career and what he called his “globalist” agenda. Shortly after Ryan became Speaker last October, Bannon began instructing reporters to look for ways to take him down. That effort culminated earlier this month in an unsuccessful bid to unseat Ryan in his Wisconsin primary, with the challenger heavily promoted in Breitbart coverage.

Cruz ultimately walked back his support for trade promotion authority, voting against fast-track legislation and explaining his decision in an exclusive for Breitbart News. But that conciliatory gesture wasn’t enough to win back Bannon, or at least not enough to overcome his growing affection for Trump.

“Steve has always been basically an anti-trade guy,” said a second source who worked closely with Bannon at the time. “That’s one of the fissures with the Trump and Cruz support.

As this unfolded, Breitbart News began running with the invented “issue” of Cruz’s status as a natural-born citizen.  Although Trump himself had stated earlier that he didn’t think there was an issue, that’s exactly the rabbit hole Trump’s band of merry conspiracy theorists went down to the raucous cheers of the formerly-fringe alt-right who had been nursing conspiracy theories and wild-eyed ideas about Obama’s eligibility for the better part of a decade.

This is an alt-right meme Trump very famously tried to parlay into a viable presidential campaign in 2011.  To quote Amanda Carpenter, Trump in 2011 was “an Alt-Right internet troll who appeared in human form on cable TV.”  And he was quickly dispatched.  Trump didn’t have a venue in 2011 for his alt-right ass hattery.

By 2016, however, there were a handful of conservative outlets willing to listen to the alt-right message . . . and to get on board with it.  Among them, Bannon’s Breitbart News.  Dragged out of the dark corners of the internet usually reserved for Alex Jones and his anti-Semitic, white nationalist, tin-foil hat-wearing ilk, the alt-right subculture suddenly had an accepted “right stream” media outlet.  Even the alt-right knew that only their fellow fringe true believers listened to Alex Jones or spewed their venomous bile on obscure internet discussion boards, but the entire conservative movement read Breitbart News.  In Bannon’s Breitbart News, they had a legitimate voice, and in Trump, they had a candidate they could get behind.

Again from the Hill:

In January, When Trump began raising questions about Cruz’s Canadian birthplace and his eligibility to be president, Breitbart jumped on the storyline.

Bannon ultimately scored a concession out of the Cruz camp. When the Cruz campaign decided to release the birth certificate of the senator’s mother, it did so by giving it exclusively to Breitbart.

. . . .  The same source defending Bannon pointed out that Breitbart never supported the “birther” movement questioning President Obama’s birthplace. The source defended the coverage of Cruz’s citizenship and said that the Breitbart chairman simply wanted Cruz to explain the issue to voters.

Bannon’s antipathy for Cruz was apparently fueled by Cruz’s counter attacks against Trump.

Bannon’s underlings felt that he’d hitched his wagon to Trump by the time of the first Fox News debate in August — the one where Trump had a famous confrontation with co-moderator Megyn Kelly.

And by January 2016, when Cruz stopped praising Trump and started attacking him as a liberal, Bannon became increasingly enraged and instructed his reporters to hammer Cruz.

Throughout this period, Breitbart staff made no secrets of their close ties to the Trump campaign.

Bannon kept colleagues abreast of his near constant contact with Trump and Corey Lewandowski, who was then Trump’s campaign manager.

This is not a case of as goes Breitbart News, so goes the conservative movement because the alt-right is proudly and avowedly not conservative.  This is, to use former Breitbart News editor-at-large Ben Shapiro’s words, a “take over of the GOP” that was enabled, in part, by Breitbart News and Trump’s own existing, if shifting, alt-right positions on a handful of issues dear to the alt-right movement.

Shapiro pinpoints a day when Breitbart News‘ seismic shift to and embrace of the alt-right became crystal clear.  He writes:

But it wasn’t until March 29 that Breitbart’s full embrace of the alt-right became clear. That’s the day the site featured Yiannopoulos’s lengthy piece glorifying the alt-right. Yiannopoulos had already given interviews in which he stated that “Jews run the banks” and “Jews run the media,” dismissing anti-Semitic memes as merely “mischievous, dissident, trolly.” He wrote, along with co-author Allum Bokhari, this insane sentence: “There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence.”

. . . . If Republicans aren’t careful, [Bannon]’ll inflict similar damage on their party now that he’s the top man running their standard-bearer’s campaign. If they don’t know it yet, the alt-right surely does. As one of its own, Richard Spencer, explained: “Breitbart has elective affinities with the alt-right, and the alt-right has clearly influenced Breitbart. In this way, Breitbart has acted as a ‘gateway’ to alt-right ideas and writers.” There’s now a path for this same kind of thinking to infiltrate the GOP.

This “gateway” to alt-right ideas is a gateway to everything that conservatives stand against.  The alt-right, like any segment of a political party or movement isn’t monolithic, but there are some key elements beyond rampant anti-Semiticism and white nationalist isolationism that compose the majority of the alt-right’s ideology and agenda.  For example, they almost unanimously sneer at conservatives for being “principled,” for supporting legal immigration, for focusing on the Constitution (a document they see as a barrier to their own white nationalist-isolationist agenda), and for working to change the GOP from within rather than “blowing it up.”

Warning that one of the primary goals of the alt-right is to crush conservatism, Shapiro writes:

Constitutional conservatives can’t stand the alt-right. Conservatives — real conservatives — believe that only a philosophy of limited government, God-given rights and personal responsibility can save the country. And that creed is not bound to race or ethnicity. Broad swaths of the alt-right, by contrast, believe in a creed-free, race-based nationalism, insisting, among other things, that birth on American soil confers superiority. The alt-right sees limited-government constitutionalism as passé; it holds that only nationalist populism on the basis of shared tribal identity can save the country. It’s a movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism.

Bannon, ensconced apparently in alt-right ideology, has an agenda that he thinks Trump has missed.

Ken Stern, writing for Vanity Fair, explains:

On the surface, Bannon at least has the benefit of being politically sympathetic with Trump; Breitbart, under his leadership, after all, has become “Trump Pravda,” as one former staffer described it to me. But when I talked with Bannon, he expressed a wariness about the political genuineness of the Trump campaign persona. Trump is a “blunt instrument for us,” he told me earlier this summer. “I don’t know whether he really gets it or not.”  It is likely that Bannon’s political calculus here, if not Trump’s, will be less about winning an election that seems a bit out of hand and more about cementing an American nationalist movement.

The Hill concludes by noting that Bannon has not given up on Cruz and his “future” (presumably in the new alt-right nationalist party—with or without Trump) and that he hopes Cruz “will come around.”

My guess is that Cruz will most certainly not come around to the Bannon-Trump alt-right worldview . . . even as we see many former Tea Party members and conservatives tentatively embrace the rising alt-right.

Trump “Dances a Little Sidestep” On the Second Amendment

One issue that poses a problem for Donald Trump is his changing, and often contradictory, stances on the Second Amendment.

You may remember him coming out in support of Obama following the Sandy Hook shooting.

In case you’ve forgotten, Obama’s remarks included the following:

It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.

This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

So far, so good(ish), and next comes the setup:

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.

And then the hammer, a velvet one in this speech, but the meaning was clear to all who heard it:

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

And in the coming weeks, he did just that . . . tossed aside the velvet hammer and went for the anvil: Obama pushed for gun control measures, none of which would have stopped Sandy Hook (or the San Bernardino or Orlando terrorist attacks).

We know very well where Obama stands on gun grabbing and the Second Amendment; however, it’s not as clear where Trump stands. On the one hand, he thinks that certain gun bans should be in place to prevent (somehow?!) terrorists from obtaining and using guns, and on the other hand, he states that had the victims in the Orlando venue been armed, they could have protected themselves.  He has walked that back now.  In a tweet.

ABC News reports:

Donald Trump has warmed to potentially changing gun laws to ensure that no one with even “an inclination toward terrorism” can legally purchase guns, while reiterating that the Orlando nightclub massacre might not have ended so tragically had clubgoers been armed.

“If in that club, you had some people, not a lot of people … but if you had somebody with a gun strapped on to their hip, somebody with a gun strapped on to their ankle and you had bullets going in the opposite direction, right at this animal who did this, you would have had a very, very different result,” Trump, who has called himself the protector of the Second Amendment, said Saturday at the Arizona State Fairgrounds.

Apparently, Trump’s view of gun control would include anyone on the terror watch list; a list that includes such infamous would be terrorists as Fox News contributors and little children.

ABC News continues:

Trump has warmed to some measures of gun control, telling ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jon Karl that he would be open to restricting individuals on a terror watch list from buying guns, a stance that puts him in direct opposition from many in his party and the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in May.

“We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns,” Trump told Karl in an interview to air Sunday on “This Week.”

If Obama said this, we’d—quite rightly—be outraged. Setting aside clear conflict with the Second Amendment . . . an “inclination toward terrorism”? What is that and how is it measured? And by whom? And on what authority is our Constitutional right to bear arms revoked because of some perceived “inclination”?

Given what we know about the government’s ideas of what a terrorist is (someone who supports the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution, and / or is pro-life or is a veteran of our armed forces, as but a few examples), this seems like a horrible idea. Even assuming that a President Trump would change all of this, do we really want to deprive American citizens of their Second Amendment rights based on a secretive list that is compiled somewhat randomly and with broad scope to ensure there’s no suggestion of discrimination?

And when did the government start knowing what people’s inclinations are? How would a President or his/her administration monitor every person’s “inclinations” and determine that they cannot own a gun based on those “inclinations”?

How does Trump reconcile the rights of the people and weigh in the Second Amendment against his belief that it is best to deprive citizens of their right to bear arms because they have the wrong “inclination” or appear on one of many government lists?

As one might expect from someone with Trump’s limited critical thinking skills:  It’s just easier to deprive anyone of their Second Amendment right to bear arms if, you know, they are on a list: “Asked by Karl if his position is that those on the no-fly or terror watch list should not be able to purchase a gun, Trump responded, ‘I’d like to see that, and I’d like to say it. And it’s simpler. It’s just simpler’.”

This is the same logic Trump applied to “closing the internet” before decrying as “foolish people” everyone who responded with “oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.”  Those pesky Constitutional Amendments throw a wrench into his childish worldview quite often.

It’s so much simpler to just deny gun ownership rights to a bunch of people who are tossed on a no-fly list for no apparent reason (including people like Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes).

I say “no apparent reason,” but there are several ways one might be added to the no-fly list: one might be a terrorist or have terrorist ties, one might have traveled to a flagged country or region, one might have a name similar to that of a known terrorist, one might be added because someone somewhere made a “clerical error,” one might have no connection to terrorism but simply have outstanding warrants, one might have tweeted “controversial” statements on Twitter, and etc.

In other words, the no-fly list has morphed into a political tool much like an “enemies list” and into a law enforcement tool that far exceeds its original intent.

Preventing people who appear on these lists from buying guns may be “simpler,” but it is also problematic. Such slippery slopes that are enthusiastically traversed by the well-intentioned and the ill-intentioned alike require some forethought and consideration. The current government lists (no-fly, terrorist, selectee, someone insulted Obama or doesn’t like his policies) are arbitrary and random, with “clerical errors” abounding and common sense tossed to the winds. People are not notified when placed on such lists and may have no idea they are on one until they try to fly . . . or purchase a firearm.

Yet in practically the same breath that Trump calls for a “simple” blanket ban on anyone who turns up, often through no fault of their own and always with no due process and little recourse, on a no-fly or terrorist watch list, he also insists that an armed public is a sure means of thwarting or minimizing terrorist (or in the case of Sandy Hook, mentally-unstable) carnage.

Trying to make sense of Trump’s seemingly contradictory statements about our Second Amendment rights, I couldn’t help but think of the following hilarious bit from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas:

Trump’s both for gun control and against it. You know, if some data entry clerk gets a name wrong or something, you simply forfeit your Second Amendment rights; it’s the price you pay for safety: your Second Amendment rights are subsumed by the Greater Good and in the name of National Security.