Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Tuesday, September 06, 2016

It's not just Hillary we fight

Flight 93 is the name of the fourth plane hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001. Hearing reports of hijacked planes crashing into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, passengers re-took Flight 93, which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, killing all.

Are Trump supporters the political equivalent of those passengers?

A writer using the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus -- appropriately -- at the Claremont Institute raised this question, noting "a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances."

In Washington, those who call themselves conservatives (including Fritz Mondale's speechwriter, Charles Krauthammer) believe that they can survive the Restoration of the House of Clinton. What would be so bad, they ask themselves.

Sure, Republicans will lose the Supreme Court majority for another generation, and true, this will delay the repeal of Obamacare for another four years, which likely puts repeal out of reach -- just as repeal of Medicaid and every other Great Society program is.

And sure, the EPA will now regulate rainwater, the IRS will go after, and the FBI will go after critics of her.

But the main thing is the conservatives get to keep control of the Republican Party, which will be reduced to its rightful place as the minority party.

So what if she's a crook and her running mate is her equal as a grifter accepting $160,000 in bribes -- legally -- while at the Statehouse in Virginia?

From Publius Decius Mus:
One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad.
On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege.
And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.
At this point, the piece blew me away.

How can you complain about the loss of virtue in America and allow this woman who does only evil deeds to live in any federal building that is not a women's prison?

Those who claim the high moral ground in this contest, who claim principle, who claim honor, are in fact disgraceful.

They oppose Trump because they know that just as Hercules diverted the Alpheus and Peneus rivers to clean the Augean stables of hundreds of years of filth, so a President Trump will divert the Anacostia and Potomac rivers to clean out Washington.

Trump's message -- What the hell do you have to lose? -- hit home for old Publius Decius Mus, who asked:
How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

He also mocked the old conservative urban policy:
It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this.
Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting.
But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?
Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat.
The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor.
It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”?
Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.” For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests.
Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their “natural conservatism” at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will.
But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!
This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.
I have a feeling Publius Decius Mus lives in Washington and knows these "house-broken conservatives," but for professional reasons, he must mask his identity. I hope he writes more.

By the way, one of the things I touch on in my book is the conservative think tanks who burn money and yet somehow manage to accomplish nothing. They are so bad, they could be running the War on Drugs.

He ended the piece.
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.
Please read.

It is not just Hillary Clinton we fight. It is the whole crew of her enablers as well.


"Trump the Press: Don Surber's take on how the pundits blew the 2016 Republican race" is available as a paperback. Please order here.

The Kindle version is available here.

Autographed copies are available for $20 (includes shipping). Email me at


  1. "Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege."

    I disagree with one word; it is not an inability to win, but a refusal to win wars. The Dems are absolutely against US winning wars. It's an example of "Go BIG, or go home." The only BIG they do, is spending. And taxing, and borrowing.

    Referring to the title of this post, see this: The NYT has printed a good story here.

    1. His "Davoisie" term was outstanding!

    2. I believe every major war won by the U.S. against a foreign adversary is when a Dem was president.

    3. I would have said unwillingness, but it's the same thing.

  2. Wow. "Are Trump supporters the political equivalent of those [Flight 93] passengers?" What an incredibly insulting statement to all those killed or lost loved ones in the 9-11 tragedy. I think you need another vacation. Your posts are drifting more and more to the deep end.

    1. He's "Fight Now, All In, or line up for your fetters" time.

    2. How is Trump all in? Just yesterday in Ohio - Trump changed his tune (again) on immigration, contradicting what he said in Phoenix. Trump showing more and more that he is a waffler just like the seasoned career politicians who have preceded him.

    3. Go vote for the lesbian, Nonnyass.

    4. Substituting one name for another isn't thinking. And it seems to be the only thing you are capable of.

  3. The answer to the question is, "Yes".

  4. The Flight 93 analogy is perfect.

    The hijackers are the Ruling Class, the Bush-Clinton Uniparty, who are trying to destroy the country, contrary to the will of the passengers, real Americans who support Trump.

    Let's hope that Trump and his party can overcome the Ruling Class and keep the country healthy and strong.

    But it is a life or death struggle, comparable to Flight 93.

    Steve in Greensboro

    1. You sir, need help.

    2. In what way does this gentleman need help? Does he go trolling around on other blogs where the other readers obviously despise him and keep going back, not because he can convince anyone of anything, but just be an idiotic annoyance? Does he frolic in unbounded joy at what he perceives the failures of others to be? Is his only happiness found in nitpicking other people while not offering any alternatives? I see none of this. I think he's perfectly well balanced. It's the one with no introspection who needs to worry.

    3. Hi Quack. Sorry to once again hurt your very sensitive feelings. I'll try to be more nice. In the meantime, I'll let the memory of my good friend who died at the Twin Towers on 9-11 as part of an emergency response team be my reminder that he and no others are worthy of comparison, especially such a pithy one as Trump supporters. Ditto if anyone makes the same comparison of Hillary voters. BTW, Surber's head would pop if anyone repeated his statement but substituted "Clinton" for "Trump."
      Finally Quack, I have offered alternatives plenty of times. If you choose to ignore them or disagree with them, that's your problem, not mine.

    4. I have never seen you offer anything resembling thought on this site. Substituting one name for another isn't thinking. And it seems to be the only thing you are capable of.

  5. Losing with honor. McRINO Mittens Romneycare. Cuckservatives.

  6. I lost a real personal hero on 9/11, some one who saved lives with her pistol by shooting out lobby windows to allow escape for those crowding in from above. Soon after, when she went back to look for stragglers, the tower crashed upon her. At work,She had entrusted her life to me at one time and we all loved her. Trump supporters are not per se as brave as she nor are they like the heroes on 93 who were unarmed but fought in close quarters with suicidal savages whom they knew would kill them any way. They are just citizens who do not want to be slaves to an unworthy, corrupt and pitiless woman and her greedy eunch slaves. I don't see that as noble so much as normal.
    The comments by "Mus" are good and I hope we hear more from him. In a democracy the masses are often corrupt and wrong in their thinking but it seems to be a price necessary for general freedom, more for less.
    The intellectual conservatives Mus (the word means mouse or rat in Latin but can also mean an ermine)describes are like the politically impotent Greek philosophers of the 4th century BC wasting their days nitpicking over Moral Worth under the plane trees of Athens. The Stoics thought Virtue, or courage, was all that was necessary for happiness, even if one was being crucified or burned alive one would be happy if he possessed it, but it in turn was only the province of the Wise Man, ie a philosopher like them. The never T men are like these men, but not me. I'll take my chances with someone of an imperfect nature, not a philosopher for sure, but who also doesn't care if I am a philosopher in order for him to be fair to me.

  7. The Weekly Standard, RedState, and National Review all have responses to "The Flight 93 Election" and each one ignores the entire argument, instead merely noting the Flight 93 metaphor and arguing against it.