Is Trump a “conservative”?

I don’t vote according to labels but there is no doubt that so far as modern political labels go, conservative is the closest it gets. This is from an article on Why I Support Donald Trump and Not Ted Cruz which begins by addressing what does it mean to be a “conservative”:

“Conservatism,” as [Russell] Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy, staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on “unenlightened” countries around the world. Conservatives should celebrate local traditions, customs, and the inherited legacies of other peoples, and not attempt to destroy them. America, Kirk insisted, was not founded on a democratic, hegemonic ideology, but as an expression and continuation of European traditions and strong localist, familial and religious belief. Indeed, Kirk authored a profound biography of Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Conservative,” who embodied those principles.

It’s a long article and well worth reading through. Here, however, is the core point on why Trump is preferred to Cruz:

What is needed in this nation now is dramatic, even radical change. What is needed is not someone who will simply raise Hell, but someone who will be more like a bull loosed in a terrified china shop. Half measures and regular politicians, “mainstream conservatives” like Ted Cruz, I don’t think can pull it off. Trump, I believe, just maybe can.

“Just maybe can” is a better probability statement than is attached to any other candidate at the present time. Interestingly, and by no means a coincidence since this is a central issue in this election, Byron York has asked Trump what makes him a conservative. Here is the Q and A:

Conservatives are very worried about you. They concede that you’ve brought attention to issues that are important to them, like immigration or radical Islamic terrorism. But they don’t believe you’re one of them. Are you a conservative?

I am, and I’ll tell you what will happen, I think, is they’ll maybe see it more and more as time goes by.

If you think about it, if you take a look at what I’ve done, I’ve brought millions and millions of people to the Republican Party, and to the conservative party, because, as an example, the debate had 24 million people. If I wasn’t in the debate, would it have had three, or four, or two, or what would it have been? And you look at the kind of numbers that they’re doing on television, where every one of the stations, the networks that are covering us, and honestly in particular covering me, because I do seem to get a lot more coverage than anybody else, but their ratings are through the roof. So that focus is a very important focus because other people are allowed to take advantage of all of the eyeballs that I’m bringing to the screen.

But what makes you a conservative? What does being a conservative mean to you?

Well, I think it’s just a conservative value. I’m very conservative fiscally. I mean, we owe $19 trillion, this is going to destroy our country, we’re going to be destroyed by what’s going on fiscally. And in terms of the economy, in terms of jobs, we’re losing our jobs to everybody. You take a look at the kind of numbers that we’re talking about with the closures and just pure and simple the number of jobs that have been lost, it’s incredible. To places like China, Vietnam is the new hot one, they’re taking our jobs. Mexico, always. They’re outsmarting us at every turn, and we don’t seem to be able to do it. I mean it’s an incredible thing.

I will say this. In terms of conservative, I’ve had tremendous polling numbers with conservatives, I think to a large extent because of the border. Nobody has that issue like I have it, whether it’s building the wall or closing the border and letting people in but they have to come in legally.

So why have you so many conservative leaders — the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review, lots of them don’t think you’re a conservative. They would look at what you just said about trade — they would say protectionism and tariffs, that’s not conservative.

No, no, not protectionism — fairness. China is making hundreds of billions of dollars a year with us. At some point, we have to say, look, you can’t do that. I mean we have rebuilt China virtually. Now, I am a free trader, 100 percent. But we can’t continue to lose tremendous amounts of money to these countries. We’re losing with virtually everybody, everybody that we do business with. The fact is, our leaders have been outsmarted at every step of the game. And we just can’t do that.

Much more again at the link. But if conservative means to preserve what is good while allowing positive change to occur, the Donald may well be the most conservative candidate in this election. It is also what I liked about Tony Abbott even though no two people may be as far apart personally from each other than he and Donald Trump.

The original meaning of “conservative”

It may also be the best. From an article on Why I Support Donald Trump and Not Ted Cruz:

“Conservatism,” as Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy, staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on “unenlightened” countries around the world. Conservatives should celebrate local traditions, customs, and the inherited legacies of other peoples, and not attempt to destroy them. America, Kirk insisted, was not founded on a democratic, hegemonic ideology, but as an expression and continuation of European traditions and strong localist, familial and religious belief. Indeed, Kirk authored a profound biography of Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Conservative,” who embodied those principles.

It’s a long article and well worth reading through. Here, however, is the core point on why Trump is preferred to Cruz:

What is needed in this nation now is dramatic, even radical change. What is needed is not someone who will simply raise Hell, but someone who will be more like a bull loosed in a terrified china shop. Half measures and regular politicians, “mainstream conservatives” like Ted Cruz, I don’t think can pull it off. Trump, I believe, just maybe can.

It’s only “just maybe”, but that is all we have.

Hillary – the worst imaginable successor to Obama

That there has been more controversy around Donald Trump than around Hillary Clinton is further evidence, if more were needed, of the deeply corrupt nature of the media, and the American media in particular. Hillary should go to jail. She illegally used a personal server for her correspondence as Secretary of State because in this way nothing she wrote could be subpoenaed by the American Congress. Instead, every email she sent could be read by governments around the world. Just think of this:

The ex-CIA official said there is “zero ambiguity — none” about the impropriety of SAP-level intelligence being housed on an unsecure private email server. Faddis added that the very existence of that information on her server means that highly classified information must have been moved off of a “completely separate channel” under a process that is “specifically forbidden.” If you had done this while working at the CIA, Hemmer asked, what would’ve happened to you? Faddis’ response: “My career’s over, I lose my clearance, I lose my job, and then I go to prison, probably for a very long time.” Faddis explained that the “consequences are enormous” when information at this level of secrecy is made vulnerable to foreign penetration. “The reason this stuff is in this channel is because it’s going to do incredible damage to US national security if it gets out in the open. That’s why we protect it this way.” When Hemmer inquired whether Hillary’s conduct could have cost lives, Faddis didn’t hesitate. “Absolutely. Without question,” he asserted.

That she protected her husband from harassment charges and highly plausible accusations of rape in order to protect Bill’s presidency and her own political prospects is known to everyone without it becoming the impediment to ought to be. But to go even beyond the personal disgust everyone ought to have in seeing her in public, here is a story from The Oz yesterday reprinted from The Times that ought to disqualify her if we have even an ounce of self-preservation left in our collective veins: Sex scandal dogs Hillary’s ‘surrogate daughter’ Huma Abedin. A big Hillary problem, it seems, in the movie that is being released on Huma’s marriage to former Congressman, Anthony Weiner, who became notorious for exposing himself on the internet. Weiner is a Jew, so the following ought to be more than of passing interest, which comes as a throw-away in paragraph 22:

Abedin’s mother is Pakistani; her late father was Indian. She was born in Michigan but when Abedin was two her family moved to Saudi Arabia, where her father establish­ed a think tank, the Instit­ute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Some alleged the family had connections to figures inside­ the Muslim Brotherhood, which has fuelled conspiracy theor­ies.

They certainly have “alleged” these connections and with good reason. Here’s just one example: Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties which are a good deal more significant, you would think, than her marriage ties. It is the absence of controversy about her background that needs to be accounted for. From the story, which appeared in National Review:

Huma Abedin’s mother, Saleha, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s female division (the “Muslim Sisterhood”), is a major figure in not one but two Union for Good components. The first is the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR). It is banned in Israel for supporting Hamas under the auspices of the Union for Good. Then there’s the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC) — an organization that Dr. Saleha Abedin has long headed. Dr. Abedin’s IICWC describes itself as part of the IICDR. And wouldn’t you know it, the IICWC charter was written by none other than . . . Sheikh Qaradawi [“the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist”], in conjunction with several self-proclaimed members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It’s not that Abedin is a close friend and confidant, but that she is Hillary’s closest political advisor that should make you think about what is going on in the US. Possibly the most interesting thing about the times in which we live is that everything is known but nothing seems to matter. The media is the fourth estate, more powerful than whatever might be classified as numbers two and three. What makes Donald Trump so important is that he is able to say things the media would murder anyone else for saying and remain viable. Anyone who thinks of Hillary as anything other than near enough the worst imaginable successor to Obama really has nothing to add to a conversation about the politics of the United States.

AND IN NEWS JUST TO HAND: Former House Oversight chairman: ‘FBI director would like to indict Clinton and Abedin’.

California Congressman Darrell Issa, who previously led an investigation into Benghazi as former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, says the FBI “would like to indict both Huma [Abedin] and Hillary Clinton” for conducting sensitive government business on an unsecure, private email server.

“I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak,” the Republican heavyweight told the Washington Examiner Thursday, during a debate watch-party at Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s New Hampshire campaign headquarters.

“I think he’s in a position where he’s being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk,” Issa said, referring to FBI Director James Comey, who previously told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would conduct a “competent,” “honest” and “independent” probe into Clinton’s handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state.

Why isn’t this the Huma Abedin scandal?

Here is the story in The Oz reprinted from The Times: Sex scandal dogs Hillary’s ‘surrogate daughter’ Huma Abedin. A big Hillary problem, it seems, in the movie that is being released on Huma’s marriage to former Congressman, Anthony Weiner, who became notorious for exposing himself on the internet. Weiner is a Jew, so the following ought to be more than of passing interest, which comes as a throw-away in paragraph 22:

Abedin’s mother is Pakistani; her late father was Indian. She was born in Michigan but when Abedin was two her family moved to Saudi Arabia, where her father establish­ed a think tank, the Instit­ute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Some alleged the family had connections to figures inside­ the Muslim Brotherhood, which has fuelled conspiracy theor­ies.

They certainly have “alleged” these connections. Here’s just one example: Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties which are a good deal more significant, you would think, than her marriage ties. It is the absence of controversy about her background that needs to be accounted for. From the story, which appeared in National Review:

Huma Abedin’s mother, Saleha, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s female division (the “Muslim Sisterhood”), is a major figure in not one but two Union for Good components. The first is the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR). It is banned in Israel for supporting Hamas under the auspices of the Union for Good. Then there’s the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC) — an organization that Dr. Saleha Abedin has long headed. Dr. Abedin’s IICWC describes itself as part of the IICDR. And wouldn’t you know it, the IICWC charter was written by none other than . . . Sheikh Qaradawi [“the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist”], in conjunction with several self-proclaimed members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What may be the most interesting thing about the times in which we live is that everything is known but nothing seems to matter.

He was, after all, Reverend Martin Luther King

From a great post by Steve Hayward at Powerline that focuses on the views of Martin Luther King. There we find this quote from King:

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

“Eternal law.” “Natural law.” Supplemented in the comments by this.

From Rabbi Mordechai Finley on origins of moral law:

“The being that created the universe had the power to bring into being a universe – the one we know of – with the energy and mass of 140 billion galaxies. This being created the laws of the universe that scientists and mathematicians have discovered. I am committed to believing that the God who created the laws of light, energy and matter also created a moral law, that reveals itself to those who study it, just as scientists have discovered the laws of nature. I am a moral realist – there really are better and worse answers to moral problems.”

There is right and wrong. Our duty is to discover the moral law and act accordingly.

For something to be hotter something else must be colder

From Ace of Spades, Are the Global Warmistas Simply Juicing Up the Latest Years’ Temperatures With “Adjustments” While Reducing the Temperatures of Previous Years, To Always Make the Current Year “The Hottest”?

Sure seems that way — and people have noticed this tendency in their ever-changing adjustments to the temperature record.

But now they may have gone too far — in order to declare 2015 the “hottest on record,” they apparently had to revise and “adjust” the previously declared all-time “hottest on record,” 1997.

Because 1997 was more than three and half degrees warmer than 2015 — going by NOAA’s published data.

If they’ve now adjusted 1997’s temperature down by three and a half degrees or more — thus making the former All Time Hottest Year On Record not particularly hot — this should be the lead, no?

And this would then reveal a lot of about their practices, where the “adjustments” made to the numbers change so much depending on current political messaging needs, and where all the warming comes from the “adjustments,” and not the actual temperature records themselves.

Gone too far? Not a chance. Them’s that want to believe are grateful for one more lie to keep them from facing their non-preferred reality.