Back to Basics (Constitution) Or All is Lost!

Are We Headed Toward a Second Civil War?

11/18/2019 - Scott Morefield

Next to a nuclear strike, foreign invasion, or global pandemic, it’s hard to imagine something as bone-chillingly terrifying as a second hot Civil War. The first one was bad enough, what with the endless carnage and the deaths of over 620,000 soldiers in a time when the U.S. was sparsely populated and wartime technology was in its relative infancy, at least compared to today. Even if the military withheld its most destructive weapons, a modern hot civil war would be disastrous on a scale that’s barely imaginable.

It’s a prospect no sane person wants, even on the fringes of the right or the left. Yet, in today’s polarized age, most people now genuinely believe civil war to be a very real possibility. An October Georgetown Institute poll found that the average American believes we are “two-thirds of the way to the edge of a civil war,” while a solid majority believes that “political, racial, and class divisions are getting worse.”

From where I’m sitting, it sure seems that way, and it’s a topic that’s getting an increasing amount of coverage in the media from both conservative and liberal perspectives.

The Atlantic devoted its entire December issue to the topic of “How To Stop A Civil War.” Interestingly, it includes an article relating how marriage counseling techniques can help bring some sense of mutual understanding to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Because in truth, the kind of ‘contempt’ that research says ends marriages for good, the kind that left and right clearly have for each other these days, could very well end our nation.

In an article for The American Conservative titled, “Civil War Begins When The Constitutional Order Breaks Down,” Michael Vlahos writes of a “daily torrent of unfiltered evidence” that suggests that “our constitutional order is fissuring before our eyes.”

Leftist author Joseph Natoli, writing for CounterPunch about the “Looming Shadow of Civil War,” sardonically but accurately described how conservatives see the ideological opposition: “Liberals retain the old tax and spend/baby killing on demand profile, taking from working Americans and giving to lazy shirkers and on the way killing babies. The profile grows darker: gay marriage, gender choice, LGBTQ rights, amnesty to illegal aliens, open borders, confiscation of guns, cars, cattle, Jesus, Robert E. Lee and white privilege. The ‘extreme Left’ and Progressives have a thinner profile: Communists.”

The left, then, according to Natoli, sees Trump supporters as being motivated by “ignorance and stupidity at the top of the list, followed by racist, bigoted, misogynist and homophobic. In brief, if you voted for Trump, you were a troglodyte with a gun.”

Now, which of those characterizations appears more accurate and which are just a personal attack? Does the left not favor abortion, tax and spend, gun confiscation, and open borders? Don’t they, for example, incessantly yammer on about the ridiculous, nonexistent concept of “white privilege?" The only thing slightly offensive to some might be the “Communist” label, but many on the more extreme left likely only publicly eschew that label for fear of turning people off.

Trump supporters, of course, don’t cotton to the idea of being labeled as “racist, bigoted, misogynist and homophobic,” not to mention "ignorant" and "stupid," by condescending, virtue signaling leftists full of their own self-defined "morality." Yet, at least for now, we are all in the same boat, as HBO host Bill Maher pointed out in a somewhat-joking, mostly-serious “Real Time with Bill Maher” segment on Friday night. To Maher, the “single shining truth about democracy” is “sharing the country with assholes you can’t stand” in the same way families don’t typically choose their Thanksgiving dinner guests. (Sure, we all know who he’s talking about when it comes to “assholes,” but that doesn’t negate the overall point).

“You don’t get to choose the guests, because those freaks are your family,” Maher joked. “Think about that the next time you think you can own someone politically. Think about how you can see politics so differently from people who share your very blood.” The HBO host lamented the desire, on both sides, to “own” the opposition - a tactic that never actually changes minds - before grimly observing that, while a second civil war may sound “impossible,” it is actually “is not.” 

Then the comedian, like Natoli, juxtaposed how both sides see each other: “We all talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. And when both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war.”

“We are going to have to learn to live with each other or there will be blood,” Maher soberingly concluded. 

Is he right? It’s a bit lengthy, but I highly recommend read this article titled “How America Ends.” In it, Atlantic senior editor Yoni Appelbaum acknowledges both the demographic plight faced by the political majority in America – something “no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced” – along with the fact that democracy is imperiled when one or the other side feels hopeless at the prospects for future electoral victory. A 2020 Trump defeat, writes Appelbaum, would “only deepen the despair that fueled his rise, confirming his supporters’ fear that the demographic tide has turned against them.”

“When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost,” he continued. Appelbaum’s ‘solution,’ as it were, is for the rise of a center-right party that embraces immigrants and minorities in the same way the Democratic Party expanded its tent in the 30’s.

The article truthfully lays out the landscape in a way that few liberal publications have acknowledged, but the ‘solution’ it offers is simply more of the same. Can America survive when its elites are, against the will of a majority of Americans, importing millions of immigrants from cultures that have little to nothing whatsoever in common with that of the current citizenry? To Maher’s analogy, we may not “choose” our family any more than we “choose” our country-mates, but imagine the tension at Thanksgiving if said “family” included different members every year brought in at random with absolutely nothing culturally in common with the original members. At what point does the concept of assimilation, something that predictably isn’t mentioned in the article but has always been the key to a stable country, become impossible? Still, just turn some into right-of-center conservatives, Appelbaum smugly advises, and all will be well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for recruiting minorities of any stripe into the conservative tent. Hispanics and African Americans who are courageous enough to outwardly support President Trump, despite the pushback they get from their own communities, have my unending respect and gratitude. However, when has ANY conservative leaning party been able to recruit even Hispanics, the group with which they have arguably forged the greatest inroads, at a level that could equal electoral victory in a Hispanic-dominated state? Even George W. Bush, for all his pandering, only managed to win 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Most political analysts concede that even Texas will go blue by 2024, if not sooner. What chance will Republicans have on a national scale then?

Thus, the apocalyptic concerns of Michael Anton mentioned in the Atlantic article, laid out in his seminal 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election,” are even more concerning now than ever. And contrary to Appelbaum’s contention, it is in fact Trump and his supporters who are trying to save America from collapse by curbing immigration to manageable levels. Because as daunting as the prospect of a civil war may be, many conservatives would choose that and all that goes with it – if some form of extreme federalism or non-violent secession doesn’t work – any day of the week over the even more disturbing prospect of being dominated by the political left for the foreseeable future.

Answer: Political, Ideological, Religious, Inequality Tribalism Caused by Multiculturalism and Diversity

What's Behind Our World on Fire?

11/19/2019 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

When the wildfires of California broke out across the Golden State, many were the causes given.

Negligence by campers. Falling power lines. Arson. A dried-out land. Climate change. Failure to manage forests, prune trees and clear debris, leaving fuel for blazes ignited. Abnormally high winds spreading the flames. Too many fires for first responders to handle.

So, too, there appears to be a multiplicity of causes igniting and fueling the protests and riots sweeping capital cities across our world.

The year-long yellow vest protests in Paris, set off by fuel price hikes that were swiftly rescinded, seemed to grind down this weekend to several thousand anarchic and violent die-hards.

The riots in Chile were started to oppose a small hike in train and subway fares in a country with the highest per capita income and least inequality in all of Latin America. Yet the protesters have succeeded in forcing the elected government to capitulate and write a new constitution.

Bolivia's uprising was over an election stolen by longtime president Evo Morales, who fled to Mexico to be welcomed by the foreign minister.

Among the issues dividing Bolivians are economic inequality and tribalism -- indigenous peoples living alongside a European-descended elite.

In Hong Kong, where protesters appear to be making a last stand in the city's universities, the cause that first united them was a proposal to allow the city's citizens to be extradited to China for trial.

While that proposal was withdrawn, the rioting has continued for half a year and now involves Molotov cocktails, slingshots, bows and arrows, and catapults to hurl bricks at police.

The latest demands include investigating and punishing police for excessive force, restoration of all liberties and freedoms Hong Kong enjoyed in the last years of British rule, and the right to elect their own leaders.

If Hong Kong can resist mighty China for half a year, imagine what Taiwan, with three times Hong Kong's population, significant military forces, and 100 miles of water between the island and mainland, could do to resist the rule of the Party of Xi Jinping.

In Baghdad, the protests went violent early, and hundreds are now dead.

A primary cause of the rioters' rage -- Iranian influence in Iraqi politics that arose among the Shiite majority after George W. Bush overthrew the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein.

The Iranian-backed Shiite militia who helped stop the Islamic State group's drive to Baghdad in the days of the caliphate are now less welcome. "Iranians, go home!" is a popular demand.

The recent violent protests inside Iran are rooted in both politics and economics. U.S. sanctions keep millions of barrels of Iran's oil off world markets every day, causing surging deficits, exacerbating the plunging value of Iran's currency and contributing to rising inflation.

The triggering event for the riots in Iran was a rise in the price of gas, which is still only a fraction of what Americans pay per gallon, but is deeply painful for working- and middle-class Iranians who are stretched to the limit.

The issues pulling continents, countries and capitals apart thus appear to be growing, enduring, and, indeed, perhaps insoluble.

Consider. The economic issues propelling workers into the streets to protest inequalities of wealth and income are occurring at a time when our world has never been more prosperous.

The ethnic and racial clashes within and between nations seem increasingly beyond the capacity of democratic regimes to resolve peacefully.

As for matters of fundamental belief -- political, ideological, religious -- the divides here, too, seem to be deepening and widening.

India's Hindu majority of 1 billion seeks suppression of its Muslim minority. Secular Chinese put Muslim Uighurs and Kazakhs in concentration camps by the thousands to root out their birth loyalties and convert them into Marxist nationalists. Han Chinese are moved into Tibet and Xinjiang to swamp indigenous populations.

In Hong Kong, the struggle is ideological and political, between believers in democracy and advocates of authoritarianism.

President Trump's America wants to secure the Southern border against an ongoing invasion of Latin American and Third World people, who could soon create here a new majority that votes reliably Democratic.

Europe resists with growing alarm a decades-long invasion of the Old Continent by desperate people fleeing the failed states of Africa and the Mideast.

In Spain, a nationalist party, Vox, vaults to third place to resist a leftist regime in Madrid that is seen as too accommodating to Catalan secessionists and refugees from across the Mediterranean.

Americans are not at actual war with one another, but our divisions are as wide and deep as they have been since the 1960s, if not since the Civil War.

We have Republicans standing united against the impeachment and removal of a president they overwhelmingly elected -- by a united Democratic Party dominated by implacable ideological adversaries.

Neither authoritarians nor the world's democracies seem to have found a cure for the maladies that afflict our world's unhappy citizens.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

We Must Oppose Ideological Change

Are Conservative Immigration Restrictionists Racist?

11/13/2019 - Ben Shapiro Townhall.com

This week, The Atlantic released its newest issue, provocatively titled "How to Stop a Civil War." 

Leading its collection of essays is a fascinating piece by Yoni Applebaum. In it, Applebaum posits that at the crux of America's vitriolic politics lies demographic change: "The United States is undergoing a transition perhaps no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced: Its historically dominant group is on its way to becoming a political minority -- and its minority groups are asserting their co-equal rights and interests." This, he suggests, has led to an impasse for the center-right, which refuses to adapt to changing demographics, instead doubling down on President Donald Trump's white, working-class base. Applebaum explains, "When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has -- whatever the cost."

But Applebaum's thesis doesn't explain why, in his view, conservatives have abandoned the attempt to persuade new populations. Applebaum himself acknowledges that a "conservatism defined by ideas can hold its own against progressivism, winning converts to its principles and evolving with each generation." Why, then, have conservatives supposedly given up?

The answer lies in a simple truth: Conservatives haven't despaired of winning over new converts. While a slight majority of Republicans believe that immigration should be reduced, pluralities or majorities of Republicans in the majority of polls believe that immigration is good for the country; a heavy majority of Republicans favor a "merit-based" immigration approach.

Conservative opposition to increased immigration isn't driven by fears of demographic change. It's driven by fear of ideological change. And that fear of ideological change is actually driven by Democrats' radicalism -- and their overt suggestion that demographic change will provide the fodder for that radicalism. Applebaum rightly states, "The United States possesses a strong radical tradition, but its most successful social movements have generally adopted the language of conservatism, framing their calls for change as an expression of America's founding ideals rather than as a rejection of them." 

But today's successful social movements -- the movements of the Democratic left -- no longer bother with such niceties. Instead, they declare that America was, has been and always will be a racist place,d riven by hierarchies of power, a corrupt structure to be overturned by that emerging demographic majority. These movements overtly call for curbing essential American freedoms -- freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion -- in order to overthrow the corrupt power structure. The Democratic left then insists that immigration levels be increased both legally and illegally and suggests that its opponents are driven by unbridled racism.

In essence, the Democrats have decided that rather than expanding the application of American principles to new groups, they prefer to fundamentally change the definition of American principles and utilize immigration policy to facilitate that change. No wonder conservatives have responded by calling for immigration restrictions.

Conservatism must indeed root out and destroy any elements of race-driven policy from its midst. 

Conservatism speaks every language and can reside in any human heart. If the left wishes to avoid a civil war, it can start by doing the same: refraining from the argument that demographic change innately signals rewriting the definition of Americanism, and arguing in favor of that revision.

Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller "The Right Side Of History." He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

Democrats 'Wrap-up Smear' -- Republicans 'Whimper'

Dear GOP In Congress: Put Up or Shut Up

 11/12/2019 - Sheriff David Clarke, Ret. Townhall.com

No more mister nice guy, no more patty cake, no more milk and cookies.

I give credit where credit is due. I don’t admire much about the Democrat Party but I do admire their ability to fight. They never quit—they never stop advancing, and even when they are on defense like they were for two years after the 2016 election with no power in Washington D.C., they kept the pressure on the GOP. 

Only because of President Trump did the GOP get a few things done like tax cuts and the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but that is because Harry Reid went nuclear on judicial nominations against the wishes of Mitch McConnell. Reid’s decision to wield power there turned out to help the GOP later on. McConnell still refuses to get rid of the Senate filibuster rule. 

Take the following to the bank, folks. When the Democrats win back the Senate, they will get rid of the filibuster rule and run roughshod over Republicans. When Democrats wield power, it’s not halfheartedly or with shame. When you have control, you have to use it. It doesn’t last forever. The Democrats did that with Obamacare. They shoved it down the throats of the GOP and the American people and at a political cost. We’re still trying to get out from underneath it thanks to the late John McCain.

In politics, the name of the game is to win. There are no style points. Losing sucks. Democrats do not care how it looks when they win or lose. Take Stacey Abrams for example. She still refuses to concede the Georgia Governor’s race despite losing by 30,000 votes in November 2018.

In politics, once you win, you have to follow it up by winning at legislation and winning political arguments in the court of public opinion. You must always be advancing. There is no holding on as was the plan of the Republican National Committee in the 2018 midterms. They hunkered down and hoped the slaughter would be minimal. It was worse than that. It was an old-fashioned butt whooping. They went from being on offense to now having to play defense in the House of Representatives. 

California nearly wiped out the GOP, winning congressional seats long held by Republicans. The Democrats know how to play defense. The GOP does not. On defense, they still try to get along with the left. For so-called intelligent people, they haven’t figured out that there is no getting along with the left. They left wants to kill us, figuratively and literally. Ask Steve Scalise and anybody violently attacked by the goons from Antifa.

Here is how the GOP played on offense when they controlled the House and Senate. Speaker Ryan failed to call the USMCA for approval. Trump signed it on Nov. 30, 2018, with more than enough time to get it done before Nancy Pelosi took the gavel from the GOP. Many on the Republican side forget that. They did not make the tax cuts permanent; they failed to deal with immigration or pass national concealed carry reciprocity. They fought Trump’s attempts at border wall funding, and failed to get an infrastructure bill to the President’s desk. Now they want to blame Pelosi for not bringing these crucial pieces of legislation for a vote? Please.

The GOP now is currently playing defense by asking the Democrats to play fair on impeachment. What? When have Democrats ever played fair? Since the beginning, this whole impeachment process has been nothing more than a hyper-partisan invented scam. I am glad that Trump refused to have his office honor Adam Schiff subpoenas. I am a rule of law guy, but if the Democrats are not going to honor the rule of law, why should we, why should Trump? I refuse to let someone tie one of my arms behind my back before going into a fight. 

Newt Gingrich said in an interview that he didn’t think Trump needed to call this impeachment fiasco a “lynching.” Why not? It is an attempt to topple the Trump Administration without cause. Another establishment GOPer Charles Kolb who was a deputy assistant to President George Herbert Walker Bush, said that Trump was sabotaging his re-election chances because of his crude language and erratic behavior. This is re-election advice coming from a one-term Presidential staffer. Kolb said that President Reagan won by being positive. Trump started positive. All he said was, Make America Great Again and America First. Sounds positive to me. However, all hell broke loose on the left and they have been trying to kill him ever since. George H. W. Bush was a nice guy. Where did that get him with Democrats? They called him a wimp and dispatched him after one term. Washington Post supposed neocon writer Jennifer Rubin recently said that because of Trump enablers the Republican Party should be set on fire and burned down with no survivors. Oh how nice.

Trump realizes that the wolf in the form of Democrats is at the door—in fact, the wolf is chewing through the door. Trump's choices are to kill the wolf or be eaten alive. We need to hear less from guys like the GOP weasels. Trump doesn’t need advice from them. He should keep hitting harder and hitting first.

If any GOPer wants to help Trump, leave the white gloves at home. This is not a white linen tablecloth affair. This fight is going to be messy. Democrats made politics a blood sport. Come with bare knuckles, hell bring brass knuckles if you want. If you insist on boxing gloves, put a horseshoe inside. Whatever you do, keep punching like President Trump is. If you go down, it’s better to go down swinging by sending a clear message to Democrats: Welcome to hell. You asked for it, and we will oblige.

It’s time the GOP in Congress either puts up or shuts up.