Of course it’s about politics, but…

As this faux-impeachment business plods on, the Townhall blog has a piece which, among other things, compares two female politicians, the leftist Rashida Tlaib and former South Carolina governor Nimrata Randhawa ‘Nikki’ Haley.

Tlaib, shortly after being sworn into office, promised that she and the other Democrat congressmen/persons were going to try to remove President Trump from office. On what grounds? After all, there have to be appropriate reasons. Under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the House alone has the power to impeach, and Article 3 specifies that the Senate is the body which has the power to try an impeached President — impeachment means only that formal charges have been brought by the House. Article 3 states, as to the legal grounds on which a President may be impeached, besides treason and bribery, ”…or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is carried over from English law, and I think there is a lot of obfuscation among American politicians about the actual meaning of those terms in the present context. I won’t attempt to go into that; I’m neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar. I do remember that there was considerable quarreling between Democrats and Republicans over the meaning of the terms back when Clinton was impeached in the late 1990s. Recently I read an article where the argument was made that Clinton was only accused of ‘sexual’ misbehavior,and the Democrats insisted that his offenses (if any) weren’t impeachable. But no mention was made of ‘Chinagate’ — how many living American have ever heard of that term? The left did a very effective job of keeping the American public in the dark about the transactions between BJC and China, involving illegal fundraising and also certain improvements in Chinese military capabilities.

But then as the complicit media, acting in concert as usual with the left, managed to keep the majority of the American public ignorant of these things. The L.A. Times here told the public that Chinagate was ‘A Figment of Imaginations’.

And what about the figments of the left’s wild imaginations, the supposed ‘collusion’ with Russia and now with Ukraine? The media’s ”news” is almost 100 percent ‘figments of imaginations’. Or do the controlled media even imagine these things they report or allege? I don’t think it’s imagination as much as knowingly false allegations and accusations — utterly cynical and calculating, meant only to stifle anything that doesn’t support the left’s dogmas and falsehoods.

The article from Townhall, in its quote from Rashida Tlaib’s promise to impeach the President, deletes one of the words used by Tlaib. She is quoted as saying “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive).” What did she say? If it was bad enough to be deleted in this age of ‘anything goes’, in this age of brazen profanity, it must have been pretty offensive.

This, as much as anything else, is what I find so appalling about the degradation of our public sphere, the lack of standards, the lack of civility, the plain old lack of ”class” in 21st century life. The ostensible right used to be ‘classier’, more gentlemanly (and ladylike: remember Phyllis Schlafly?) Maybe this too is a product of the changing generations, the changing of the guard.

The younger generations deplore the weakness of the GOP establishment, the fake ‘conservatives’, who never conserve anything, as people say, but the latest initiatives of the politically correct/globalist left. Carleton Putnam, who was an early foe of what we now call political correctness or Cultural Marxism, used the phrase ‘castrated conservatives’ to describe the spineless ‘right’. So today’s young critics are right to deplore and despise the fake right, but the old right has made these same criticisms for a long time.

The old Paleocons were very critical of mainstream ‘conservatism’ and the GOP. There is a way to be tough, uncompromising (and uncompromised) without being effete and spineless and craven, which is what today’s mainstream ”right” is. Or maybe they are so far gone that they don’t even realize that they are liberals in all but name — with their crawling political correctness and their embracing of every misguided or malevolent initiative by the left.

But foul language, and embracing the gutter culture of the times is not necessary in order to be strong or tough. Being profane and crude, and adopting the retrograde cultural norms of the left is not a necessary part of being tough or strong.

I think culture is far more important than many people realize. Politics as such is not the be-all and end-all. What good is it if we win political battles but we still have to live in a gutter society? Will anyone ever have the nerve and the will to try to reverse all the cultural changes for the worse that have come mostly from ‘pop culture’, even more than by political action?

One further observation about the article from Townhall: the article contrasts Nikki Haley (she who oversaw the removal of the CSA flag from the state offices in South Carolina) with Rashida Tlaib. Haley, according to the Townhall article, is a ‘Woman of Color.’ But look at her official picture online. She looks European, though she was born in India. It’s a stretch to call her a person ‘of color’ but then she chooses that identity, and in fact she plays the ‘race card’. She says that her immigrant family felt the ”pain” of being treated as being different. Well, that’s as may be, but it appears that they — and she — choose to identify as ”Other” and to play the race card, implying mistreatment by Whites. It’s the same with the overwhelming majority of Republicans ”of color” — they have their little stories of being treated badly, and in that way enforce the official narrative of White Guilt. As such they are apparently in the Republican Party to remind ”conservatives” that we do in fact have sins for which we have to atone, and then obedient ‘conservatives’ vote for them, reinforcing the guilt narrative. We should vote on merit only and keep in mind that ‘Others’ will likely never see the world as we do, and that voting to assuage any guilt we may feel is always a bad idea.

And, in an impeachment vote, would Nikki Haley vote with the other ‘POCs’ in Congress or can she really identify with the rest of us?

I am not a big fan of President Trump but this spurious impeachment business is just wrong, and in general everything the not-so-honorable opposition is doing is unlawful, unethical, unholy, and just plain malicious.

On Trump as economic nationalist

“They’ve been brainwashed into thinking it was simply an endless dark carnival of lynch mobs and gator-baiting.”

That’s a great bit of prose there. The above quote is Jim Goad, describing the ‘deluded young commies’ reaction to Trump’s harking back to an earlier America, as he promises to ‘make America great again.’

It does seem as if many of those who don’t remember any America other than this hideous changeling America we see now think that the America of their parents’ or grandparents’ day was an evil, sinister place,  with racists lurking around every corner, not to mention ‘sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and xenophobes.’ And whatever other ‘-phobes’ one can dream up to fill the role as bogeymen for the credulous young.

Readers, you’ve seen that I’ve made some small case against Rafael Cruz on the basis of his dubious allegiances and especially his lack of Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency.  But you will note I haven’t written a pro-Trump piece, stating my reasons for supporting Trump. The fact is I haven’t said I am supporting him, though some may infer it. The fact is, I don’t how I will vote or if, but I certainly admire how Trump has taken the fight to them — meaning all those who are now controlling the debate and the system as it exists. The fact is, I have never heard one of Trump’s speeches all the way through. I don’t know that much about him as far as his political views — except that he opposes ‘free’ trade and the loss of American jobs. I know that his candidacy is a big thumb in the eye to the Establishment and especially to the odious ‘Respectable’ right, Conservative, Inc., the Cuckservatives, call them what you will.

But Jim Goad describes Trump’s ‘economic nationalism’ and yes, I like that about him.

Somebody should be taking the side of Americans, especially those who have been economically displaced.

As a long-time enemy of that evil system called ‘political correctness’ I have to admire that he is truly ”speaking truth to power”, the real power of our day being Cultural Marxism, political correctness, the suppression of honesty and truth. He is currently the only national figure doing this urgent but thankless job.

Rafael Cruz plainly isn’t doing that, nor are any of the others. Trump is one of a kind. If we reject him because he doesn’t fit our ideological paradigm — well, we shouldn’t be slaves to ideology and ”isms” in any case, and we just can’t afford to turn him down.

To use a ‘sexist’ analogy, if we reject him, we may be left old maids, waiting for the perfect (literal) Mr. Right.

“Trump speaks to a maligned, mistreated, and disregarded demographic that the elites of both parties view not as a constituency but as an obstacle. But even though this constituency is majority-white, Trump is never the one who points this out—only his enemies do.

The Trumpsters who have been awakened by The Trumpening have been systematically beaten down and silenced into a sort of learned helplessness. And then comes Trump speaking directly to them—but far more to their economic anxieties than to their ethnic ones.

Sure, they love Trump because he represents a huge wet sloppy unapologetic fart in the face of all the Cultural Revolution-style witch-hunting madness of the Obama years. But I think they love him even more because he’s the first presidential candidate in memory to speak directly to their completely legitimate economic anxieties.”