11 Days : Bully for Dilbert

The Bully Party

I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.

We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.

Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)

Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole.

Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?

Some Trump supporters online have suggested that people who intend to vote for Trump should wear their Trump hats on election day. That is a dangerous idea, and I strongly discourage it. There would be riots in the streets because we already know the bullies would attack. But on election day, inviting those attacks is an extra-dangerous idea. Violence is bad on any day, but on election day, Republicans are far more likely to unholster in an effort to protect their voting rights. Things will get wet fast.

Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.

I’ll say that again.

As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.


As I often say, I don’t know who has the best policies. I don’t know the best way to fight ISIS and I don’t know how to fix healthcare or trade deals. I don’t know which tax policies are best to lift the economy. I don’t know the best way to handle any of that stuff. (And neither do you.) But I do have a bad reaction to bullies. And I’ve reached my limit.

I hope you have too. Therefore…

I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms. 

I don’t defend Trump’s personal life. Neither Trump nor Clinton are role models for our children. Let’s call that a tie, at worst.

The bullies are welcome to drown in their own bile while those of us who want a better world do what we’ve been doing for hundreds of years: Work to make it better while others complain about how we’re doing it.

Today I put Trump’s odds of winning in a landslide back to 98%. Remember, I told you a few weeks ago that Trump couldn’t win unless “something changed.”

Something just changed.

You might like my book because Clinton’s bullies have been giving it one-star reviews on Amazon to punish me for blogging about Trump’s persuasion skills.


Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

A Dozen Days to Death Con 1

This week’s “Supergirl” was annoying. Mostly, because it was deliberately as Liberal polemic.

The President (played by Lynda Carter as a deliberate Hillary Clinton vibe- the Producers said so) comes to National City to announce her “Alien Amnesty” (space aliens in the show- illegal immigration in reality) and we gets lots of Liberal Talking Points about how nice and wonderful it all is to be accepted and included, yada yada…

Kara (Supergirl) is doing her first interview piece as a reporter. She interviews Lex Luthor’s sister who has taken over the company and plans on marketing an alien detector device (boo hiss!).

Kara rights an emotionally charged hit piece about the device. A “pro-alien” piece her boss calls rakes her over the coals for.

Now here’s where reality in the show breaks down.

Her boss gives a fiery speech about journalistic ethics and being unemotional. A very Just the facts approach. No bias.

This , of  course is how the Liberal Media thinks of itself as it writes overly emotional, bias-laden hit pieces about anything that isn’t on their Agenda.

This is the fantasy portion and it had me talking back to the screen about this not being reality.🙂

And then the fantasy continues because at the end one of the aliens for an “alien bar” is the one trying to kill the President and it seems just because she’s bad.

So not all Aliens are good. Some are Bad.

Since when have Liberal actually admitted some Illegal Aliens (or Muslim Refugees) are bad and actually meant it? They can’t even say “illegal Immigrant” to begin with.

They don’t. Not on the Agenda.

So the reality of what the Liberals and Writers believe conflicted with the Fantasy of what they wrote. The Fantasy was what THEY think, not what they are.

It was quite a jarring episode because it showed just how delusional Liberals can be, even about Fantasies of their own polemics.

It’s scary.

If even Fantasy is a lying polemic for The Agenda when have a bigger problem. Liberals can’t even do Fantasy without writing in their own fantasies about them being wrong. That is the fantasy.

So some aliens are bad, it the price you pay for accepting everyone as they are.

Who cares if you could actually do something about it.

Yow… Houston, we have a Problem….

See also: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/lindsay-kornick/2016/10/25/supergirl-promotes-alien-amnesty-slams-americas-xenophobic

Unlike last week’s episode, journalistic integrity is no longer a remarkable virtue to Kara, but a distraction that hides “objective” truths. I guess that’s the excuse other reporters would use to defend injecting their liberal bias into stories as well. Now, if only more editors would nip it in the bud like Snapper.

Kara supports amnesty because she is an alien refugee herself. Forget the fact that Alex remarks that she can count the number of good aliens they know on one hand “with two fingers to spare.” Forget that Supergirl fought off every single one of those endless bad aliens herself. And forget the fact that Kara also shows bias against an emerging Daxamite named Mon-El just because of the planet he came from. This is all about making history, and history doesn’t know common sense, apparently.

Some aliens are bad, but being “xenophobic” and wary of their intentions is worse in this universe. 

So Put on a happy face. It’s History in the Making.

Vote for History. Vote for Queen Hillary The First. The First Women President. Everything else doesn’t matter.


The 13th Day

Disliking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is no reason not to vote for her, according to Oprah Winfrey.

“There really is no choice, people,” she said during an interview that will air next Thursday on T.D. Jakes.

“I hear this all the time — you get in conversations and there’s not a person in this room who hasn’t been in the same conversation — where people say, ‘I just don’t know if I like her,’” she said.


For example, writing in the New York Times, David Brooks sought to explain why, after millions of dollars spent to make Clinton popular, she still isn’t.

“Clinton gives off an exclusively professional vibe: industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful. It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role,” he wrote.

tea pot1

“This formal, career-oriented persona puts her in direct contrast with the mores of the social media age, which is intimate, personalist, revealing, trusting and vulnerable,” Brooks added. “It puts her in conflict with most people’s lived experience. Most Americans feel more vivid and alive outside the work experience than within. So of course to many she seems Machiavellian, crafty, power-oriented, untrustworthy.”

She’s a sociopathic, power-hungry, nutjob…

“There’s something about her manner, persona, voice, smirk that just grates on a lot of people.

She’s a power hungry liar who will do or say anything to get elected.

People don’t like to be talked down to, and she has a terrible habit of talking down to people, with that smirk,” commented author and historian Craig Shirley.

But Winfrey said the question is not Clinton’s personality, but her policies.

“She’s not coming over to your house!” said Winfrey.

She just wants into your wallet and your life as her eternal servant.

“You don’t have to like her. Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote,” she said.

Vote against her.🙂

“Do you like democracy, or do you want a demagogue?” she said, attacking Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Then vote FOR Trump. She’s the Demagogue.

Winfrey insisted her relative silence throughout the campaign is not due to a lack of support for Clinton.

She is a mindless Liberal after all.

“The reason why I haven’t been vocal, other than saying I’m with her is because I didn’t know what to say that could actually pierce through all the noise, and the chaos, and the disgusting vitriol that’s going on, and actually be heard,” she said. (WJ)

How about: 🙂


14 Days to Live

My last birthday in a free country. Next year I will be a Senior Citizen in a Declining Banana Republic run by the Tyrant Queen Hillary.

And most of the country will be happy.

I will just be sad.

And the Thought Police will knocking on my un-person door about being a White Cisgender Male evil incarnate.

Happy Birthday to me.

Thomas Sowell:

Some of us this election year don’t even want to say the words “Clinton” or “Trump” — and with good reason. However, there is one word that we should keep in mind: “Turnout.”


If we sit home in disgust on election day, we forfeit the right — and the duty — to elect a Congress that can keep either of these dangerous people from doing permanent damage to this country and to the future of this generation — and generations yet unborn.


Control of Congress has probably never mattered more than in this election, simply because of two out-of-control people, one of whom is going to become President of the United States.

We need a Congress that can block dangerous legislative proposals coming from the White House, and block dangerous nominees to the federal courts, including especially the Supreme Court.

Something we havenot had. Just having “opposing” parties doesn’t work anymore. The Corruption and the Elitism runs far too deep for that.

But neither can we hand Queen Hillary a Democrat Congress of any kind.

It’s more complicated/

More than that, we need a Congress that can remove a dangerous President who ignores the law and commits impeachable offenses.

Unlike 201-2016 which refused to do their duties.

Any Congress theoretically can do so, since the House of Representatives has the power to impeach and the Senate then votes on whether to remove the President from office.

But they have to have the Will to do so. And I’m sure if Trump wins and the Democrats control Congress they will be on a hair trigger just waiting for any lame excuse , real or imaginary, to impeach everyone in sight.

Not so Sure the RINOs and The Elite Republicans are that committed. But Hillary would have the Government, Education and The Courts. Nearly unstoppable.

However, as we have seen over the past seven years, that theoretical power means nothing, if neither House of Congress has the incentives and the guts to use the power they have.


Barack Obama has repeatedly exceeded the powers of his office, disregarding laws passed by Congress, and making in effect a unilateral treaty with Iran, exempting it from American sanctions for building nuclear bombs.

Just by not calling it a treaty, Obama has ignored the Constitution’s requirement that all treaties be made only with Senate approval. Yet there has never been a treaty with more far-reaching — and potentially fatal — consequences than this unilateral presidential agreement with a foreign country.

And He doesn’t care. Like Hillary, The Agenda is The Agenda. Period. The End.

Yet who was going to impeach “the first black President,” with the media ready to go ballistic if they tried?

The Wolves of Media St were ready to maul any who tried. But if Trump wins they’ll be salivating about the kill within minutes.

With no credible threat of impeachment, neither of this year’s candidates for President will have any deterrent to indulging their already demonstrated headstrong disregard of anything other than their own interests and their own egos.

Not only does this mean that we have a duty to vote for Congress, even if we don’t have the stomach to vote for either presidential candidate, it also means that we need to decide what kind of Congress we want, in light of the high stakes.

We need to ask which of our local candidates for the House of Representatives, and which of our statewide candidates for the Senate, is someone with the character and the guts to remove a President from office.

As much as a I hate McCain, Kirkpatrick is FAR Worse. And that goes for all the Democrats.

Don’t try to hide behind the lame excuse that “They’re all the same.”

They are not.

Let’s not forget that President Richard Nixon resigned for a reason. That reason was that Senator Barry Goldwater led a delegation of Republican Senators to the White House to inform Republican President Nixon that they would not support him in the Senate if the House of Representatives impeached him.

We know it can be done, because it already has been done.

And it’s what fuels the Democrats to this day.

The real question now is: What kind of voters are we? Those who ask “What can I do, I am only one little person?” are just copping out.

“We the People” are not only the first three words of the Constitution, it is where the Constitution put the ultimate power to make or break any politician. What can you do? Everything.

But I have lost faith in the ignorant, unwashed, media-manipulated “safe space” masses, myself. Maybe they will prove me wrong.

If you can’t be bothered, then be honest enough to say, “I can’t be bothered.” But don’t cop out with a lame excuse. Too many other people’s fate depends on whether you do your duty.

Painful as it may be to realize that we are reduced to considering the impeachability of a presidential candidate, that is a reality that will not go away, just because we don’t like it.


How impeachable is Hillary Clinton? Since she would be “the first woman President,” any criticism of her, much less any impeachment, would bring loud howls from the media across the country that ugly sexist bias was behind any opposition to anything she did — no matter how awful. Hillary in the White House would have a blank check, and she would not hesitate to use it.

Donald Trump has no such exemption. Neither the media nor Congressional Republicans would automatically spring to his defense if he overstepped the line. His impeachability may be his most important asset in a year of painful choices.

But it has to be made. And, we all have to live with the consequences.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is http://www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.


15 Days: Make Believe is Bad For You

The PC Police Outlaw Make-Believe

In our surreal age of identity politics, pretending is politically incorrect.

Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner pose at the Marc Jacobs Spring 2017 fashion show in New York, Sept. 15.
Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner pose at the Marc Jacobs Spring 2017 fashion show in New York, Sept. 15. Photo: Getty Images for Marc Jacobs

Last month the novelist Lionel Shriver delivered the ultimate macroaggression at a writers conference in Brisbane, Australia: She spoke the truth. And it triggered a leftwing meltdown.

What did she say that caused the festival organizers to disavow her talk? She made the argument that fiction writers should be permitted to write fiction. Her speech—and events that have followed—shows how the secular religion of identity politics is threatening imagination itself.

“Taken to their logical conclusion,” Ms. Shriver said in her address, “ideologies recently come into vogue challenge our right to write fiction at all. Meanwhile, the kind of fiction we are ‘allowed’ to write is in danger of becoming so hedged, so circumscribed, so tippy-toe, that we’d indeed be better off not writing the anodyne drivel to begin with.”


To write in the voice, say, of a black woman if you are a white male writer, is rapidly becoming taboo—a form of cultural appropriation, to use the proper jargon. But such theft is the job of fiction writers. The novelist, as Ms. Shriver put it, is “the premier pickpocket of the arts.”

I was told this on Facebook just this week, actually.

“If Dalton Trumbo had been scared off of describing being trapped in a body with no arms, legs, or face because he was not personally disabled—because he had not been through a World War I maiming himself and therefore had no right to ‘appropriate’ the isolation of a paraplegic—we wouldn’t have the haunting 1938 classic, ‘Johnny Got His Gun,’ ” she said.

Ms. Shriver delivered her speech while wearing a sombrero—a literal representation of her deeper point, which is that the job of fiction writers is to embody characters unlike themselves. If identity politics reaches its absurd conclusion, Ms. Shriver said, “all I could write about would be smart-alecky 59-year-old 5-foot-2-inch white women from North Carolina.”

If that seems like an exaggeration, consider the past few weeks in the life of Kendall Jenner, the supermodel scion of Kris and Caitlyn Jenner, who has come under fire for the sin of playing dress-up.

Ms. Jenner’s first transgression took place at New York Fashion Week in September, where, in Marc Jacobs’s show, she walked the runway wearing purple peep-toe platforms and a pile of woolen “dreadlocks” in various shades of pink, lavender and turquoise.

It wasn’t the babydoll dress that made the digital dictators lose their minds, but the dreadlocks—an apparently egregious act of cultural appropriation. Never mind that some of the models doing the appropriating were black. Or that the locks in question were completely fantastical, like an anime cartoon come to life. Or that the inspiration for the look was the signature hairstyle of the transgender filmmaker Lana Wachowski, one of the minds behind “The Matrix.”

Days later, Ms. Jenner had the gall to pose in pointe shoes for a Vogue España photoshoot. As one Twitter twit summed up the outrage: “The shoot was wrongfully appropriated. Dancers like Misty Copeland or Maddie Ziegler could have been way more powerful and graceful.”

In our surreal age, pretending is now politically incorrect. What’s the over-under on when Brad Pitt will only be permitted to play a celebrity going through a humiliating divorce? Give it a year.

  • “If you can imagine it, you can achieve it. If you can dream it, you can become it.” William Arthur Ward
Orwell created a form of English, post-ideological and pared down so much that it discouraged or outright abolished freedom of thought, creativity, and imagination. The author called it “Newspeak.” Importantly, this carries profound significance in at least two ways. First, the term itself means a language well beyond—or below—modern English, which has evolved almost without any direction or command over centuries and centuries. Perhaps more than any other institution, language has evolved naturally and without a command structure. It has grown spontaneously as the profound political philosopher, Friedrich August von Hayek observed, discovered rather than made. With Newspeak, however, the language evolution ends, and its devolution, limited by the seemingly endless bitterness of the tyrannical society, begins. Its devolutionary trajectory, importantly, will be even sharper than its evolutionary ascension.
1984: ‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well— better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning; or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words— in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?
Second, though, Newspeak serves the function of propaganda.

In the late 1930s, the American public intellectual Walter Lippman feared that nearly all of the western world had politicized and had taken language and art into the sewers of power and power alone. The Anglo-Welsh man of letters, Christopher Dawson, worried in 1946 that politics had subsumed all under its devouring maw. In his deeply moving short story, Leaf by Niggle, Tolkien beautifully juxtaposed the nature of art and the subhuman nature of propaganda. While art leavens the dignity of the human person, propaganda, by appealing to the lowest aspects of the human person, seeks conformity and domination.

Choice of vocabulary, Syme correctly realizes in 1984, leads one to independent thought. “In your heart,” he tells Orwell over some stale bread, “you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words.”

Narrow the vocabulary and you, by necessity, narrow thought. Further, by introducing conflicting ideas such as “crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink,” a persons becomes “unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.” (Imaginative Conservative and Orwell, 1984, 52-53 & Orwell, 1984, 217.)

Like “Cultural Appropriation”.


Image result for orwell imagination quotes

16 Days- UN Lords a Leapin’

On the heels of being in a Comic bookn store yesterday to find that Wolverine is now a woman, because obvious, a short mean white guy is a bad thing…

The journalists at CBS This Morning on Friday promoted a petition by “concerned” United Nations staffers against the honoring of Wonder Woman, a “large-breasted, white woman” who wears an “American flag motif.” The fictional DC comics character is being hailed as an “Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls.” 

Talking to Lynda Carter, the ‘70s era Wonder Woman, guest co-host Margaret Brennan insisted the character was “drawing some scrutiny because of the way you’re dressed.” Gayle King catalogued the list of complaints from outraged, dissident UN staffers: “Listen on to what they are saying though, Lynda. ‘A large breasted, white woman of impossible proportioned, scantily clad in a shimmery, thigh-baring body suit with an American flag motif and knee-high boots is not an appropriate spokeswoman for the gender equality at the United Nations.’” 

King demanded, “And you say what?” 

Carter shot back: “It has nothing to do with anything…. Wonder Woman is an idea. This is not the American flag. This is not —  it’s about fighting for freedom.” 

She continued, “Give me a break! I think they are just being silly…. Get over yourself already!” 

A partial transcript of the October 21 segment, which aired at 8:32AM ET, follows: 



MARGARET BRENNAN: Carter leaped, lassoed and saved lives as the all-American hero heroine. That came decades after Wonder Woman’s first comic book cover in 1941. 

GAYLE KING: This year, the super hero turns 75! She earns one more distinction. Wonder Woman has been named a United Nations honorary ambassador for the empowerment of women and girls. Lynda Carter is here, hours before the official ceremony at the UN headquarters. 


BRENNAN: The UN didn’t pick a female Secretary General. 


BRENNAN: There’s a petition because you’re getting this recognition and drawing some scrutiny because of the way you’re dressed. 

[Lynda Carter rolls her eyes.] 

KING: No, but listen on to what they are saying though, Lynda. A large breasted white woman of impossible proportioned, scantily clad in a shimmery, thigh-baring body suit with an American flag motif and knee-high boots is not an appropriate spokeswoman for the gender equality at the United Nations. And to that, you say what? 

LYNDA CARTER: Can I say it? Probably not. I think it’s ridiculous. 

KING: You can say that. 

CARTER: I can say it’s bull. 

KING: Why? Why? Why do you feel that way? 

CARTER: Because they are nit-picking on something that has nothing to do with anything. It is a super hero, number one! And that gender, it has nothing to do with anything. They want to pick on, you know — Wonder Woman is an idea. This is not the American flag. This is not —  it’s about fighting for freedom, and the fact that she happens to wear —  it’s not scantily clad, big breasted white woman. 

KING: And she wears clothes. She also wears clothes. 

CARTER: Yeah. 

KING: Clark Kent had on a suit. 

CARTER: Well, yeah. Plus he had a sock in his suit! 

KING: Okay. 

BRENNAN: It’s okay to look female, Lynda Carter. 

CARTER: It’s okay to look female. You know, give me a break! I think they are just being silly. 

KING: Nit-picking, you’re thinking. 

CARTER: Nit-picky and get over yourself already! 

KING: Thank you, Lynda Carter.

What’s even more ironic is that Lynda Carter is playing a Female President on SuperGirl for the express purpose of being a Hillary Stand-in…


17 Threat to Liberty

The Wall Street Journal editorial board tore into Hillary Clinton’s debate performance regarding the Supreme Court, saying that she represents a view that threatens American liberty, while giving Republican nominee, Donald Trump, props for having the superior grasp of our constitution.

For starters, The Journal ripped into Clinton’s notion that the Supreme Court should represent us, especially in its composition. That’s wrong. That’s what the legislative branch is for. Second, they aptly noted how Clinton supports abortion on demand and without exception, which is an extreme position. Support for third-trimester (aka late-term abortion) abortions is incredibly low—and there already is an exception for the life of the mother in the 2007 Gonzalez v. Carhart decision, which upheld the federal ban on partial birth abortion. On guns, Clinton pretty much said that she would appoint judges who would overturn the landmark Heller decision, but not before giving us all a chuckle by saying she supports the Second Amendment. In all, Clinton’s Supreme Court would be everything we on the Right have feared, a hard left, activist court that will seek to undermine individual rights to gun ownership and create a more solid legal basis for killing babies right up until birth. That’s one, hot American mess:

“The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”

The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support “reasonable regulation.” She said she criticized Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely “to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

Toddlers had nothing to do with it.


If Mrs. Clinton supports such gun restrictions, then she thinks an individual’s right to bear arms is meaningless. If the Justices she appoints agree with her, then they can gradually turn Heller into a shell of a right, restriction by restriction, even without overturning the precedent.

Then there’s the First Amendment, which Mrs. Clinton wants to rewrite by appointing Justices she said would “stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”

Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that found that unions and corporations can spend money on political speech—in that specific case for a movie that was critical of Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat seems to take the different view that while atomized individuals might have the right to criticize politicians, heaven forbid if they want to band together to do it as a political interest group.

As for “dark” money, she certainly knows that territory. Does money get any darker than undisclosed Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business magnates tied to uranium concessions in Kazakhstan?

It’s no surprise that this is Clinton’s vision of America, especially on gun rights. She’s said publicly that she wants to look into Australian-style gun control, which includes gun bans and confiscation. Democrats and the anti-gun Left try to blind the public with the notion that they are for common sense gun control proposals, all of which are already established law. For abortion, it’s also no surprise that this party wants is adopting the abortion on demand position. After years of trying to convince the public that killing babies is totally okay—the Left has utterly failed. So, in a temper tantrum, they back this position, while saying that all opposition is due to the sexist, misogynistic system of patriarchy. Oh, and because the GOP hates women, or something. Are they aware that almost 30 percent of its members describe themselves as pro-life and are gun owners? For those people, the GOP is always open.

Trump isn’t the perfect candidate. In fact, like Clinton, he’s incredibly flawed and unpopular, but he won the primary, he’s the Republican nominee, and he’s not Hillary Clinton. If anything, the latter part should be enough to convince the Never Trump wing of standing idly by and allowing Clinton to easily take the White House. I’m sure many of you know that I’m not a Trump fan, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that he’s better than Clinton and a Trump White House working with a Republican Congress is better that Clinton’s anti-gun, pro-abortion progressive cesspool that she wants to force all of us to take a dip in. Yes, I will call out Trump for when he goes off the hinges or says something stupid, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to back away and vote for Clinton or stay on the sidelines and abstain. You can vote for someone, while finding their brand of politics and personality to be incredibly unappealing. That point is magnified when the opposing candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you don’t want a Supreme Court that undercuts the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and promotes a legal framework for abortion on demand, the choice for president is explicitly clear.

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen