Trudeau makes Islamophobia worse

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Jan 2018

RE: PM pledges to fight Islamophobia

Of all his self-abasing acts of apology, one of the worst has to be his pledge, yesterday, to end Islamophobia in Canada.  To begin with, Mr. Trudeau needs to read his father’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects “freedom of thought.”

If a Canadian has an irrational fear of Islam, it is his constitutional right to have it, and it is constitutionally problematic for Trudeau fils to use the power of government to oblige a change in a person’s beliefs.

Islamophobia would not exist in Canada but for choices in immigration policy starting in the 1980s.  That was when Canada began to admit Muslim men and their multiple wives into Canada, turning a blind eye to the practice of polygamy.  It got worse after 9/11, when the political class of the entire western world responded to the radical Islamic terrorist outrages in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania by increasing immigration from the Muslim world.  Mr. Trudeau himself ordered the taking in of 25,000 Syrians, practically none of whom were Christian.

We can be certain than none of these refugees and immigrants live in Mr. Trudeau’s neighborhood, either the one in Ottawa or Montreal.  He did, however, enjoy the hospitality of The Aga Khan.

The forced and unnecessary change to Canadian demographics quite unsurprisingly caused alarm among some of those who follow world events.  Their concern was met with accusations of racism and Islamophobia by the likes of Mr. Trudeau.  They were told that they had to adapt, while the immigrants were put under no obligation to assimilate themselves to Canadian culture.  "Diversity is a strength," they were told, quite irrationally.

You have to wonder whose country this is: the people who built it into the desirable place it became, or the immigrants who come to enjoy Canada and want it to accept Sharia supremacism?

If Mr. Trudeau wants to end Islamophobia in Canada, he can begin by not making the problem worse himself.  Stop immigration from the Muslim world, and put pressure on the Muslim immigrants here to assimilate into Canadian culture.  And he should stop antagonizing people with accusations of “Islamophobia.”

-30-

By any Stretch of Logic

Vincent J. Curtis

5 Jan 2018

The Hamilton Spectator is practically CNN-like in its hatred of Donald Trump.  They will publish anything, including Democratic Party talking points memos.  The author of the piece referenced is a dual national who lives in the Hamilton area.  Obviously, he is Democrat in sympathies.  But what is notable is how deeply prolonged belief in the Democratic party corrodes the thought processes.

The piece referenced was published after the book "Fire and Fury" came out, but before Trump held a televised conference with Congressional leaders that demonstrated his command of the issues and his command of the room.

See below.

RE: Trump fits the bill of American oligarch

In the course of regurgitating the most extreme of Democratic Party talking points, John Kneeland writes “Donald Trump should not by any stretch of logic be in the White House.  How about by the logic of the American constitution?

By the logic of the U.S. constitution, with its method of indirect election, Donald Trump won the election of 2016 by a vote of 304 – 231 in the Electoral College.  The contention that he “hugely lost the popular vote” to Hillary is quite irrelevant.  Hillary’s small margin occurred because of her outsized total in California, and under the American Federal system one state does not a victory make.

Besides making libelous and utterly unsubstantiated allegations of money laundering and dependence upon Russian money, Kneeland alleges that Trump is an “oligarch” on the grounds that “he behaves like one.”  His examples of oligarchic behavior have nothing to do with the concept, or with the behavior of Russian oligarchs after whom Kneeland seeks to smear Trump.

Look, Hillary lost.  She would have been a corrupt disaster to the American body politic had she won, speaking of fitness for office.  Democrats like Kneeland have to get over it.

As for himself, Kneeland could get a job as a speechwriter for any of the most extreme Democrats in the party’s leadership – if the DNC weren’t bankrupted by the poaching and contempt it received from its previous hero, Barack Hussein Obama.

-30-

Try to prove God doesn't exist.

Vincent J. Curtis

27 Dec 2017

The Hamilton Spectator is having fun with its readers by publishing letters concerning the proof of God's existence, and the relation between religion and science.  None of the published letters indicated any familiarity at all with the various proofs of God's existence, and the exercise was one of an amusing game of the blind misleading the blind.

Aristotle, Plotinus, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Gottfried Leibniz all offered sophisticated metaphysical proofs of God's existence, and these were recently summarized in an excellent book by the philosophy professor Edward Feser.  Below is a highly abbreviated summary, in critical form. 

RE: Science Misunderstood.

What a hash has been made of the discussion of the proofs of the existence of God!

It is not that everything, including the universe, requires a cause - so what caused God?  It is that no potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it, (i.e. the principle of causality).  So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things. This proof of the existence of God was first offered in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and Aristotle declined to say that the universe had a beginning.

There must be at least one necessary being to explain why any contingent thing exists at all, and why any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment.  In principle, there can only be one necessary being.  And for there to be such a thing is for God to exist.

A thing that is composed of parts requires a concurrent cause keeping those parts together.  So, there must exist a simple or non-composite cause that is the uncaused cause of everything other than itself.

The existence of abstract universals, that exist in human-mind-external reality, the existence of propositions that are capable of existence outside of any human mind, the existence of numbers – other objects of thought, exist in a realm distinct from both the material world and from the human mind.  A realistic view of the world would hold that some propositions would be true whether or not the material world even exists – such as propositions of logic and mathematics that are true of necessity.  For these abstract objects to exist, they cannot depend upon the existence of a human intellect.  The necessity that there must be an infinite, divine intellect presents itself.

The essence of a thing is really distinct from the existence of that thing.  Nothing can be the cause of existence of itself, and the existence of that thing must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from itself, and at every moment that it does exist.  Unless the essence of the thing is identical with its existence – something that just is subsistent existence itself.  And subsistent existence itself exists in a necessary way and is uncaused.  Subsistent existence itself has no potential for existence requiring actualization, but exists in a purely actual way.  Subsistence existence when more fully explored is found to have other attributes which are what it is for God to exist.

These arguments, when fully fleshed out, have withstood the objections of the greatest minds set against them.

The argument is not whether or not God exists – for that has been established in Natural Theology; the argument is which of the revealed religions is the true one.

-30-

Wynne unpopular because electorate is misogynist?

Vincent J. Curtis

12 Jan 2018

RE:  Is misogyny at play with Wynne’s popularity?

Pathetic.  That’s the best way to describe Torstar columnist Bob Hepburns’s effort to insinuate that evil in the electorate is the reason for Kathleen Wynne’s low popularity.  She’s so progressive, what else could be the reason, he argues.

When Wynne’s popularity falls below twenty percent, that means that more than half of all woman don’t like her, and, on Hepburn’s view, that means that most women are misogynist.

After admitting a long list of reasons to dislike Wynne’s performance as premier, he concludes that her treatment is sexist.  Funny; I would have thought just the opposite: that  Wynne is being treated just like any other pol.  Spend too long in public office doing a bad job and people tire of your failing efforts and want change.  And they aren’t shy about expressing their displeasure.

Hepburn would have us believe that after her election in 2014 being seen as a major breakthrough for women, and gay women to boot, the electorate, after having lots of reasons to be unhappy with Wynne’s performance, has had a sudden discovery of – misogyny.

Such is the reasoning by which the semi-official organ of the Liberal Party will urge Wynne’s re-election: to vote against her means you’re a disrespectful sexist homophobe.

Further on, Hepburn falsely claims that Hillary Clinton was disrespected on the basis of her sex, and that during Donald Trump rallies the audience would chant, “Hang the Bitch.”  Actually, the chant was, “Lock her up!” and she was despised for her corruption, not her sex.

If you want to compare levels of respect, compare the way the saintly Barack Obama was treated against the way Donald Trump is treated in the press.  On Hepburn’s analysis the difference is due to anti-white racism, and hatred for alpha-cis-maleness.

-30-

Trudeau cuts funding for global warming research

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Jan 2018

RE: Scientific facts for Trudeau

Justin Trudeau is often incoherent in his thinking, but in this case he is acting sensibly upon what he knows, and what the Spectator also holds to be true.  Global warming is happening!  It is a proven scientific fact that it is!  And 97 percent of scientists agree!  Anyone who disagrees, isn’t just a fool, but evil!

Since climate change is settled science, why should taxpayers keep paying for research to prove, once again, that two plus two equals four?

Let other countries spend money on the obvious.  Time to move on to something else.  If something comes up, then funding can be reconsidered.

But for now, why spend more money on something that has already been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of doubt?  Or is Global Warming only true if you are paying scientists to say so?

-30-

Poking the Camel's Nose into the Tent

Vincent J. Curtis

26 Jan 2018

RE; Islamophobia is alive and well (Hamilton Spectator, Jan 26, 2018)

For someone raised and educated in Canada, Dr. Raza Khan seems strangely unaware of certain facts of recent Canadian history.  In particular, the threats to national unity since the FLQ crisis of 1970 and the admission that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada come to mind.  What Khan wants English Canada to do is intervene on behalf of Muslims in Quebec on a cultural matter, the central point of Quebec’s distinctness.

Khan seems to care more about Muslims in Quebec than he does about the unity of Canada.

Khan seems also quite unaware of other facts.  For example, the murderer of those fourteen women at the Ecole Polytechnique was originally named Gamil Gharbi and was the son of an Algerian Muslim who so abused his wife that she left him and renamed their son.  At the time, we did not associate the misogyny inherent to Islamic culture with these murders, but now we can see that dots connect.  Khan doesn’t realize that we now know of the misogyny and anti-Semitism inherent in Sharia law, the core tenets of Islamic society.

It is wrong indeed that six men were killed while worshiping in a mosque in Quebec, but similar outrages on a larger scale occur monthly in the Middle East, to say nothing of the outrages perpetrated against Coptic Christians in Egypt by Muslims.  Okay, Canada is not the sh*thole that these other countries are, but what accounts for the difference?  The dominant culture.

Khan seems to think that Sharia supremacism can be insinuated into Canadian and Quebec culture, and thrusting outrage and perpetual offendedness are his means of getting the camel’s nose into the tent, so to speak.

Khan and his friends need to take a number and wait in line.  And there are plenty of other grievance-mongers ahead of him in that line, starting with the aboriginals.  If Khan really wants domestic peace in Canada, he could start by blending in, and stop thrusting Islamic differences, self-pity, and claims to special privilege in the faces of those of the dominant culture.

-30-

Trudeau's Incoherence and the story of raisin pudding

 Vincent J. Curtis

22 Jan 2018

The requirement of mandatory attestation on applications by groups for summer job funding is yet another example of the protection that Justin Trudeau himself, and the Liberal party, have afforded the abortion industry in Canada.  While some hide behind the claim of female health or reproductive “rights”, abortion is also a medical business that enjoys special funding status within Canada’s Medicare system.

Abortion was legalized in Canada when Justin’s father, Pierre Trudeau, was Prime Minister.  Between 1974 and 2015, there were 3,684,000 abortions in Canada, according to Statistics Canada, and the current rate since 2007 has been about 100,000 per year.

Ahmed D. Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship has called for an increase in the number of immigrants to Canada in order to meet the demands of the Canadian labor market and to help sustain our social programs such as the Canada Pension Plan.

Between the crying need for more people and the tender protection of the abortion business lies an incoherence in Trudeau’s thinking.

It is worse than incoherent, it is vicious.  We are instructed that every other culture in the world is as good as the Canadian culture, and yet the Trudeau policies operate to suppress Canadian native born in favor of adults born abroad who were not raised in Canadian culture.  Why should that be?  It seems to say that Canadian culture is worse than any of the others, even in Canada.

The Liberal idea that Canadian culture is diverse and inclusive is incoherent.  To observe that there are raisins in the pudding, one must hold that raisins and pudding are not the same thing.

Sooner or later, this incoherence catches up.  Look what happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Yugoslavia.  Both were founded upon the principles of diversity and inclusiveness - the allegedly key elements of Canadian culture- as held by the Liberal party and Canadian progressives.  Both states collapsed when there were too much raisin for the pudding to hold together.

Progressives are all incoherent in their reasoning.

-30-

MEDIA TUT-TUTING BRITISH FIRMNESS

This is an oldie but a goodie from way back in 2006.  It was published in the Buffalo News on Feb 16, 2006 under the headline: "British Troops handled rioting Iraqi youths just right."   As the story indicates, the media were during everything they could discredit the war in Iraq, and they presented a privately made video without context as indicative of western brutality in Iraq.  The purpose of this story was to put in the context and debunk the theory of cruelty by westerners in Iraq.  Nowadays we have ISIS to compare this to.

I don't think I've posted it before, so here it is. 

Vincent J. Curtis                                                                       13 February 2006

            A new video making the television news programs appears to show British troops in Basra savagely beating on poor, innocent Iraqi youths.  With lips curled in contempt and wearing concerned looks on their faces, media talking heads worry about the effect the images they show will have on international perceptions of the Iraq war.  To the informed observer, however, the spectacle the media present shows what little understanding the writers, editors, and presenters have of the war.

            The video, apparently taken early in 2004 – two years ago, opens with a brief scene of Iraqi youths stoning British troops.  It then shows British troops dispersing the crowd and beating and kicking a few people they managed to catch.  The video is accompanied by the commentary of a British soldier describing the scene like a soccer game.

            The key element is that the British troops were confronted with a crowd that stoned them.  The British army has had lengthy experience in Northern Ireland in dealing with riots and with crowds that attack and provoke British troops.  What the British troops did in the video is exactly what they are trained to do, and have done already in Iraq.  (In his book, Rules of Engagement: A Life in Conflict British Colonel Tim Collins describes such an event.  None of the media tut-tutters seem to know about it.)

            When confronted with a crowd that tries to stone British troops, there are four kinds of responses.  The first is to withdraw; the second, remain in place a take the beating; the third, to disperse the crowd and teach a lesson to the rioters; and fourthly, to shoot into the crowd.

            If the British troops withdrew while being stoned by Iraqi youths, the British army would lose all the respect upon which law and order depends in that part of the country.  No one in Iraq will respect a police or military force that runs away and grants a victory to rioters, or simply allows itself to be stoned with impunity.

            By dispersing the crowd and beating up a few that they can catch, the British troops demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for misbehavior and for trifling with the British army.  An applicable saying is: ‘Don’t Mess with Texas.’

             The fourth option, shooting into the crowd, would amount to an excessive use of force if the rioters were unarmed, as they apparently were.  If some rioters were armed and posed a lethal threat the troops, then the troops would be entirely justified to fire into the crowd.  The British troops correctly measured the threat and dealt with it appropriately, as they had been trained to do.

            The voice-over commentary is what offends the media talking heads the most as they watch the video in the comfort and safety of their air-conditioned studios.  Such, however, is the levity of soldiers who risk their well-being far away from home for the Queen’s guinea.

The video was made about two years ago, and the people of Basra, who were directly affected, have had more than enough time to learn of the event and absorb its lessons.  We didn’t hear of the beatings from them.  The hand wringing that is going on in the media now, long after the event transpired, is nothing but a display of moralistic narcissism.

Yes, war is ugly, brutal, and violent.  But it is precisely because war is that way that it can render a final decision.  We have not heard about Iraqi youths rioting in a long time.

British soldiers are tough, professional, and well trained.  We should be thankful they are on our side.

                                                                        -XXX-

Vincent J. Curtis is a free lance writer who was imbedded with the British Forces in Iraq last year.

On Trump's lack of Decorum

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Jan 2018

I didn't write the piece below, but it makes powerful arguments that deserve widespread circulation:

Trump's lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship:

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #Never Trumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as Ronald Reagan?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the 60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – 'till today. The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.” ... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.

It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.  So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years. So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!  He fights for me!

-30-

Ten Ways to tell you're going to a S***hole.

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Jan 2018.

I didn't write this, but what is below deserves distribution:

You might be deploying to a “Shit Hole”:

1. If your boss tells you to update your Gamma Globulin, Yellow Fever, Malaria, Dysentery, Tetanus and other fun immunizations- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
2. If the Mobilization NCO tells you not to waste your time bringing a radio, or any other electronics, as there is no electricity and there are no signals- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
3. If the Travel Pay folks give you a travel advance and the Per Diem rate is only $8.00/day, for everything- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
4. If the “Area Cultural” briefing is only 30 minutes long, but the briefing on communicable diseases is 3 hours long- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
5. If the “Area Cultural” briefing includes facts that some leaders in the host country keep young boys as sexual slaves- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
6. If the “Area Cultural” briefing includes facts that male members of that society have multiple wives, but also engage in sexual activity with barnyard animals- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
7. If the “Medical Briefing” includes recommendations not to walk barefoot, drink the local water, or eat ANY food on the local economy- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
8. If the “Medical Briefing” includes information that the roadside ditches not only serve as flood control, but also as a common latrine- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.
9. If the Daily Report for your new assignment includes an area for “Number of Personnel Med-Evaced” from theater for unknown diseases- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.

10. If the monetary exchange rate is greater than 50 to 1 for local currency to US Dollars- You might be deploying to a Shit Hole.

-30-

Ttrump's alleged unfitness for office

Vincent J. Curtis

8 Jan 2018

RE: Joe Scarborough calls for Trump’s removal

"Joe Scarborough writes: "I asked Trump a blunt question: Can you read?"

The article by Joe Scarborough appears to be another in a series of journalistic efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.  Perhaps Hillary won’t be put into the Oval Office, but at least the detested Donald Trump won’t be in it laughing at this critics, seems to be the motivation.

Articles in the series, written both from the left and the right, all list a set of criteria by which it is concluded that “Trump is unfit for office.”  In Scarborough’s case, he lists willful ignorance, intellectual incoherence, not capable of fulfilling his duties as commander-in-chief, treasonous off-spring, tempermentally unfit, that he is “an idiot surrounded by clowns,” that Trump is effectively illiterate, that he is bored easily, that he is referred to as an idiot, dumb, a dope, and a moron by close aides (presumably those “clowns” referred to previously); and unstable.  And all of this is written at the end of 2017.

After victories at Fort Donaldson and Shilo, the superiors of General U.S. Grant wanted him sacked, and told President Lincoln that Grant should be on the grounds that “he drank.”  “Find out what the man drinks, and send a case of it to all my other generals.” Lincoln replied.  “The man fights.”

We are supposed to take these criticisms of Trump against the evidence of our lying eyes.  Somehow, an illiterate moron accumulated a multi-billion dollar fortune in the New York City real estate market.  He made himself bullet-proof famous by his TV reality show “The Apprentice,” which a lot of serious people watched to gain business insight.  With nothing but his own money, he defeated sixteen other very serious, professional, and experienced politicians to gain the Republican nomination – and after Iowa the contest wasn’t even close.  Then he took on the Clinton machine that had the full support of the media and the illicit support (as we are now finding out) of the Obama Administration, two billion dollars in donations, and the best political consultancy money can buy – and beat them all with just his platform, his plane, and his personality.

Since Trump was elected, the stock market has gained over 30 percent in value; many of the business-killing excesses of the Obama Administration have been removed; Trump is returning the judiciary to textualist constitutionalism, and his promised tax reform, tax cutting, and repeal of the Obamacare mandate came at the end of the year.  On the foreign policy front, Trump has gone from one win to another – in marked contrast to the disastrous Obama Administration, for whom Benghazi, Russian reset, ISIS, and Iran nuclear deal need all be said.

What depresses Trump’s critics the most is that he is also constantly fighting the culture war – and winning.  Progressivism is going down in flames despite rear-guard actions by Antifa, BLM, and the MSM.  The #metoo movement would never have come about and all we’ve discovered about Harvey Weinstein and many others would never have come to light had Hillary and Bill Clinton been in the White House.  We would not be having this economic boom if Hillary’s planned barrage of new regulations had been on the agenda destroying the animal spirits.  The court system of the United States would ruin the Republic had Hillary’s choices of politically active progressives been put on the bench.  She who presided over Benghazi would never have declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel.  We would never have discovered the conspiracy of the leadership of the FBI to protect Hillary and to destroy candidate Trump.  Hillary would be scott-free of the email mess she created, one that undermines the rule of law.

Donald Trump is not without his flaws.  However, this push in the media from both the left and the right to have Trump deemed unfit for office at the beginning of 2018 has to make you wonder at the grip on reality that these commentators themselves have.  Aristotle said that ‘science both measures reality and is measured by it.’  The conclusion that Trump is unfit to be commander-in-chief after his successes in business, his political and legislative wins, his success in foreign affairs, and most importantly his success in reviving the economy has to make you doubt the validity of the standards of measurement since they reach conclusions so contrary to the actual results.

If Trump’s opponents fail to get over his win in 2016, their nostalgia for a Hillary presidency is going to leave them even more diminished after the elections of 2018.

-30-