Well, it’s nice to be back home, except for the fact that this grotesque presidential campaign is still going on. Donald Trump finds new ways every day to let the Democrats and the press distract the nation’s attention from the oozing, Lovecraftian horror that is Hillary Clinton; today, apparently, was no exception. How easily she would be beaten if Mr. Trump could just apply a little discipline to his pie-hole!

Ah, well. We may yet drive “Mrs. Clinton” (as she calls her current humanoid form) back to her lair in the Stygian darkness whence she sprang; November is still some way off, and a lot can happen between now and then.

Meanwhile, my man Buchanan’s been on a roll. Here he is, talking about isolationism.


  1. the one eyed man says

    Lighten up, Malcolm! It’s just an assassination joke!

    No wonder the plump Trump slumps as chumps dump Trump.

    Over just the past two weeks, we’ve seen him call for the incarceration of his political opponent, ask Russian cyber espionage to help his campaign, and suggest that “Second Amendment types” eliminate both his opponent and the judges she appoints – as well as a series of calumnies, gaffes, childish behaviors, displays of stunning ignorance, and flat-out lies – leaving the civilized world aghast at this tinpot dictator wannabe.

    At minimum, these are prima facie violations of the Logan Act, federal cyber crime laws, and the statute prohibiting violent threats against presidential candidates.

    Lock him up!

    Posted August 10, 2016 at 4:51 am | Permalink
  2. Whitewall says

    Lock them both up and let’s have a “do over”.Her for what she has done and him for what he might do?

    Posted August 10, 2016 at 8:03 am | Permalink
  3. Whitewall says

    Pat Buchanan once pointed out that the CFR types revered Woodrow Wilson above all others. “Make the world safe for democracy”. Even if it kills us I guess.

    Posted August 10, 2016 at 8:40 am | Permalink
  4. Malcolm says

    Yes, I realize how intensely frustrating it must be, Peter: here’s a person who time and and again reveals plain evidence of bad character and truly terrible judgment, whose overweening self-love trumps all normal considerations of morality and decency, who will say anything to anyone just to get ahead, who has risen to a position of power and great wealth only through family connections, who time and again commits obvious malfeasances, some of them clearly criminal, and yet skates away scot-free every time — and nevertheless, somehow millions of people want this awful person to be President!

    And then there’s that bigmouth Trump, who keeps making offensive jokes…

    Posted August 10, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink
  5. Hoberman says

    Kudos to DT for reminding us why the Second Amendment exists. It’s there to make sure we have a way, as a last resort, to resist tyranny.

    Posted August 10, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
  6. the one eyed man says

    Calling for the assassination of a future President, and the judges she appoints, is “an offensive joke”? Jokes have something called a “funny part.” Can you identify the funny part?

    Even Trump concedes it was no joke: his current excuse is that he was merely calling for “Second Amendment types” to vote for him (which is a really bad lie, even by Trump’s standards, as he explicitly referred to the period after Hillary is elected, not before).

    This comes shortly after Roger Stone predicted a “bloodbath” after he loses, and after Trump declared that the election is “rigged” (because, after all, the only fair outcome is when the candidate who is behind by double digits gets elected).

    Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated after right wing zealots called him a Nazi and a traitor. Dr George Tiller was assassinated after Bill O’Reilly repeatedly called him a baby-killer. Planned Parenthood workers were assassinated after a fraudster released a heavily doctored and deceptive video falsely claiming that they sold body parts for profit. America is awash with lunatics with guns, and suggesting “Second Amendment types” take up arms because their preferred candidate loses should be taken very, very seriously.

    I’m sorry, but calling for the assassination of one’s political opponent is certainly offensive, but it is no joke.

    Your complaints about Hillary Clinton – taken as articles of faith by those who have been marinating in right wing propaganda for the past 25 years, and dismissed by the 65 or 70 million people who will vote for her in November – have nothing to do with Trump’s embrace of treason, sedition, and violence.

    Have you noticed that the Trump apologists don’t even bother to try to defend him any more, and invariably resort to tu quoque deflection instead?

    Posted August 10, 2016 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
  7. Malcolm says

    Funny, I don’t recall your horror during the 2008 campaign, when your candidate said in May that she wouldn’t drop out to support Obama because hey, you know, Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated in June. (In other words, there’s always hope!)

    You can call it tu quoque, but there are a great many of us who look at Hillary Clinton and see a woman who simply must never, ever, be allowed to become President. It gets worse every day, too, as we learn more and more about the venality of the Clinton crime syndicate, and the extent to which its operation overlapped with that of the State Department to line the Clinton’s pockets and promote the interests of their friends and donors.

    I know, I know: that’s just right-wing propaganda! The Clintons are actually as pure as the driven snow.

    Well, no, Peter, they aren’t. They are as corrupt as any politicians have ever been. They are a walking, talking, lying, influence-peddling, rent-seeking, pandering, raping (and rape-enabling), and, I have very little doubt, murdering example of political rot, and of why the federal government should have nowhere near the power it has. And millions of us know it. So it’s much more than tu quoque: the real point is that it matters so much that these people be stopped that it almost doesn’t matter who is running against the Clinton machine, because pretty much anyone would be a better choice.

    But if you want to hear some positive things about Trump, I will be happy to oblige:

    1) He may not do, or be able to do, all the things he says about the many problems we have with immigration, but at least he understands the problem and is willing to articulate it. He understands that Western nations should have immigration laws that serve, first and foremost, the interests of their own citizens, and in particular he understands that mass Muslim immigration is a suicidal policy for Western civilization. Nor will he blithely ignore “sanctuary cities” — which are simply sanctuaries from the rule of law.

    All of that, alone, is enough to support him in this election — because if we don’t fix immigration, then nothing else matters.

    2) He understands also that it is not in our interests to blunder around the world trying, at ruinous expense, to export democracy to savages, that we can no longer afford to provide military security everywhere on Earth, and that it is profoundly foolish to risk war with other great powers by engaging in political and strategic belligerence on their doorsteps. I expect that Trump would have, in particular, a far more productive and cooperative relationship with Vladimir Putin than Hillary Clinton would; I think that at this point in history Russia and the U.S. should be, if anything, natural allies. Trump understands all of this.

    3) A vote for Trump is a great, big middle finger to a political establishment — Democrat and GOP alike — that has relentlessly betrayed and deceived and harmed the very segments of society they have claimed, for so long, to represent.

    4) Steve Sailer famously said “political correctness is a war on noticing.” Well, Donald Trump doesn’t give a rat’s ass about political correctness. He notices things that millions of Americans have been noticing too, and then — lo and behold! — he says them. Fantastic.

    5) As we’ve just seen (and as Hoberman pointed out above), he understands why we have the Second Amendment — that it’s the right that guarantees all of the others — and he aims to defend it.

    6) You get the feeling that the guy actually loves America — not America as it could be, after another century of Progressive reconstruction, and demographic replacement — but America as it is, and as it was, before we started “fundamentally transforming” it. How refreshing that would be in an American president, after eight years living under (and being lectured by) a man who clearly despises the traditional American nation, and instead of handing the White House to a pair of soulless grifters who love nothing at all, except power, and themselves.

    There’s more, too, but I don’t expect any of this to influence you in the least, of course, and obviously there are lots of reasons to have misgivings about Trump. But if you want to understand why an intelligent and patriotic American might in fact prefer Trump to the Clintons, I hope I’ve made it a bit clearer for you. (Not that I think for a minute that you actually do want to understand that, mind you, and of course I rather doubt that you could if you tried. But there it is.)

    But I’ve run on too long, I fear. Since you didn’t like Mr. Trump’s attempt at humor, let’s try again:

    “How many sanctimonious lefties does it take to screw in a light-bulb?”


    Posted August 10, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
  8. Malcolm,

    My guess is two — a male and a female. But they would have to be very small people (which shouldn’t be a problem for sanctimonious lefties).

    Posted August 10, 2016 at 6:15 pm | Permalink
  9. Whitewall says

    A pretty good article…

    Posted August 11, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink
  10. JK says

    OE says: “Calling for the assassination of a future President, and the judges she appoints, is “an offensive joke”?

    Lets go to the transcript folks!

    (And what a surprise, Jake Tapper seems as confused as to ‘what Trump said’ as [anybody]

    JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All over Washington, people are asking, did Donald Trump just say what it sounds like he said?

    TRUMP: By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks, although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know.


    Now I dunno fellow commentors but I count two ifs one maybe and one, I don’t know.

    It’d probably help if somebody diagrammed those two sentences. Volunteers?

    How about you One Eye?

    (No. No need to hunt for any “funny part” One Eye. I think we all see individually, the funny part.)

    Posted August 11, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink
  11. Essential Eugenia says

    Oh my, JK, you big flirt, you.

    The Ladies and I do so desire to accept the challenge. Oh goodness, how our hearts do flutter and our cheeks blush rose at the very thought of a good sentence diagramming.

    My goodness, let us collect ourselves. This is just all so overwhelming.

    Posted August 11, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink
  12. JK says

    Yeah I kinda figured EE. Having two Ms a’laying side-by-side and diagrammed like all get out does even get JK to flutterin’.

    But just think what its likely to do to Jake Tapper. And One Eye.

    Posted August 11, 2016 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
  13. the one eyed man says

    Malcolm: I’m sorry, but I can’t have a discussion with you if you post drivel about the Clintons being rapists, murderers, and a “crime syndicate.” (In America, we have something called “due process,” where criminality is determined by a grand jury, a petit jury, and a judge, and not by Internet posters. After 25 years of well-funded and well-organized demonization, led by – among others – Richard Scaife, Kenneth Starr, James Comey, nine Congressional investigations, Judicial Watch, and an army of oppo researchers, the reason they “skate away scot-free every time” is that – wait for it – they have not broken any laws.) I can only deal with facts, not crackpot conspiracy theories.

    JK: Trying to diagram Trump’s verbal logorrhea is an exercise in futility. Yesterday we learned that President Obama founded ISIS, even though they were in existence years before he became President. So all I can offer you is tomorrow’s howler – you heard it here first! – and you can do a DIY diagram.

    “Many smart people are saying that Hillary Clinton was right next to Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. I’m not saying she was the third gunman – maybe she was, maybe she wasn’t – but the crooked media refuse to look into it. I’ve never met more dishonest people in my life. Someone asked me about it the other day, and I told him: I don’t know if Hillary pulled the trigger, just like I don’t know if she was the one who killed Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. You tell me.”

    Posted August 11, 2016 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
  14. Malcolm says

    Ha! You remind me of Bruce Cutler. But you’re right: if you seriously can’t look at the totality of the Clintons’ long history of lies and deceit and influence-peddling and corruption — and, yes, I’ll say it again, rape, and rape-enabling — and arrive at the sensible conclusion that they are grifters and criminals who, due to their power and influence, have got away with things they should rightly be in prison for, then we quite obviously can’t have a productive discussion about them.

    But we knew that already, didn’t we?

    On a related note, I hope O.J.’s search for the real killer is going well.

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 12:01 am | Permalink
  15. Is anyone else here struck by the irony of the word “logorrhea” as it is first used in this thread?

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 1:14 am | Permalink
  16. Whitewall says

    Meh, it really seems Trump has no desire to win. I saw a Twitter photo earlier of an old man wearing denim overalls with a caption: “men in denim built this country. Men in suits have destroyed it”. Close enough. If Trump even survives until Nov, I will cast my vote for the “middle finger”.

    A “republic”, if we can keep it.

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 9:52 am | Permalink
  17. Robert,

    It’s still a free country and you are still free to vote however you see fit. But we haven’t lost the republic yet, and IMHO we should still hold to American tradition — Americans are not quitters.

    My advice, for what it’s worth (perhaps no more than the proverbial 2 cents): stop immersing yourself in the day-to-day muck of the campaign; go fishing; read a good book; take your wife out to dinner. In November, if the execrable HRC is still on the ballot, vote against her.

    Best, Henry

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
  18. Whitewall says

    Hey Henry, the fishing part sounds good. Come Monday if the weather holds, my two brothers and I are planning to assault the NC Outer Banks for a few days of fishing, drinking-modestly-and lying-profusely- about it all. I do need a break. I can’t even write something ‘civil’ over there.

    If Trump isn’t going to bother trying, why should I bother following? You can count on my vote against the harridan in November. If she wins, her lackeys can spend every day defending her.

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
  19. the one eyed man says

    The accusation of rape was made by Juanita Broaddrick, who also testified in a deposition that the sex was consensual and there were no “unwelcome sexual advances.” (Let’s ignore the possibilities that she, like Paula Jones, was paid lots of money to slime Bill Clinton; that it was an ambiguous situation which was not rape; or that she consented and then changed her story about what actually happened.) Your suggestion is that someone who said under oath that there was no rape is dispositive evidence that she was raped?

    * * * * *

    A grand jury found probable cause to indict O. J. Simpson, and his case was brought to court. Due to a miscarriage of justice, he was acquitted. It was neither the first nor the last time that a jury reached a mistaken verdict.

    Not only did no grand jury find probable cause in anything the Clintons have done, but no prosecutor would even bring a case which meets the low bar of probable cause, lest he be laughed out of court.

    Can you tell the difference?

    I could just as easily assert that George Bush is guilty of war crimes and Dick Cheney is guilty of subornation of perjury in the Scooter Libby case. That doesn’t make them criminals, nor does it make their administration a crime syndicate.

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
  20. Ah, Robert, I was hoping you would reply, because I have a bit more to say on the subject.

    First, I did not advise you to follow Trump! My advice is to vote against HRC (and implicitly) no matter who her opponent is (even the proverbial yellow dog).

    Second, it is the obligation of a good citizen (which I am confident you are), of this (once) great nation, to vote no matter how difficult the choice may be. As a last resort, vote against the choice you know to be evil. I am confident that you can figure that out in this election.

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
  21. JK says

    “The accusation of rape was made by Juanita Broaddrick, who also testified in a deposition that the sex was consensual …”

    Here’s a link from back in January before, in my estimation, Sidney Blumenthal had really been fixed in the public psyche. IRS audits maybe but, not Sidney.

    Posted August 12, 2016 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
  22. Malcolm says

    JK, you beat me to it.

    “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported…”

    Riiight, Hillary. Like this little girl?

    And yes, it becomes clearer with every news cycle that the Clinton “Foundation” is indeed a criminal syndicate — a great big money-laundering operation for enriching the Clintons in exchange for influence and access at the highest levels of government.

    And let’s not forget Bill Clinton looking us straight in the eye — the President of the United States of America, wagging his finger at us and saying to us “I want you to listen to me” — and flat-out lying to us about not having sex with Monica Lewinsky.

    “…um, here’s physical proof that you did!”

    “Oh well, what’s the big deal here, anyway? Jeez, you right-wingers…”

    If any of this were just an isolated incident or two, a reasonable person might be willing to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt. But it isn’t. The pattern, which has been in plain view for decades now, is simply overwhelming: he is obviously a serial sexual predator, she a co-dependent enabler, and both of them are scheming, manipulative liars and grifters, as corrupt as any politician has ever been. The sheer mass of it all should put this beyond all doubt.

    Posted August 13, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
  23. JK says

    And The Federalist is no friend of Trump’s candidacy:

    Posted August 13, 2016 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
  24. JK says

    Posted August 16, 2016 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *