Why am I concerned with the prospect of Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States? Let me begin to count the reasons.

For many years I have been a sworn police officer. Mrs. Clinton’s dislike of police has long been a matter of record. From her contempt for the Arkansas troopers on her bodyguard detail when her husband was governor of that state, to the disdain with which she treated Secret Service when she was in the White House, to her campaign’s recent announcement that it was not interested in an endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police, it is clear that Mrs. Clinton is no friend or supporter of law enforcement.

For many years I have been an expert witness in weapons and homicide cases, on both the criminal and civil justice sides of the house. Even-handed fairness is the very essence of justice. Go back to her earliest professional days, when her ethics were questioned during the Watergate matter. Go back to the case where her ethics came into question in her defense of a child molester.  As we look at the questionable contact more recently between her husband and the Attorney General immediately before the AG abjured from deciding on Mrs. Clinton’s prosecution in the email matter, we wonder about even-handed fairness by a potential President whose appointments to the US Supreme Court will determine the tenor of that body for the next generation or two.

For many years I have been a life member of the NRA, and a responsible gun owner and firearms instructor. When a candidate compares groups you belong to – and thus, by extension, you – to terrorists, you start getting nervous.

We live in a time when there is strong sentiment to put suspected real terrorists on lists such as the no-fly list and the no-gun list. A candidate conflating law-abiding Americans with terrorists is unacceptable. It is not surprising that some American gun owners watch the rise of Hillary Clinton and feel like German Jews witnessing the ascendance of Adolf Hitler. (And, before anyone invokes Godwin’s Law, I invoke Ayoob’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law: If you don’t want to be compared to Nazis, don’t act like one.)

Your thought and comments are welcome here.

64 COMMENTS

  1. Dennis,

    That article, where the hero almost gets shot at the mall, was excellent. Here’s a quote from it, “It’s funny how even heavily-armed people aren’t shot by police when they follow instructions from officers, isn’t it?” Priceless.

    The last two paragraphs contain the excellent advice to not interfere with police business except in very rare occasions. I know a man who came to the aid of a police officer who was being physically beaten by a man and a woman. No guns were involved, and there was a happy ending. Now, the police could have used some help from civilians in the famous “North Hollywood Shootout.” Like the writer said, those are very rare occasions.

  2. Curtis,

    Thanks for the article. War gaming sure is fun! Does the Left want us to take up arms so they can declare martial law? I believe some of them do think that would work out well for them. I do not. The Left is successful because they fight against very tolerant people, who live well, don’t care much about politics, and don’t want to hurt anyone. The Left is good at lying, and using human nature to lure us into following their ways. The Left can’t fight. They can’t fight with fists, knives or guns. They don’t know how, and they don’t have the stomach to see bloodshed.

    If there was an armed rebellion (I’d actually refer to it as a “restoration”, not a “rebellion”) in this country, here is what I think might happen. If the military remained loyal to the government, and the rebels tried to fight in a conventional manner, of course the military would win very quickly. The U.S. military is invincible when it comes to conventional fighting. If the rebellion was large, spread out, and the rebels were willing to do a lot of dying, but fought a guerrilla war, the U.S. military just might lose. I say this because look at the way our fights against North Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have turned out. We can’t seem to win a guerrilla war, even against people who live like the Flintstones. In order to win a guerrilla war, you must be brutal, and cut off supplies of food, ammunition and gasoline, and you can’t worry about non-combatant casualties. Just my two cents.

  5. Another election year. The price of gas is down some, as usual, favoring the incumbent party. Do I recall correctly that Billy Clinton once advocated gas at European prices, i.e., $7 per gallon? Does anyone doubt that Hillary will do her worst to outdo her husband? Get your powered bicycles now.

    The disaster that BHO predicted would be a Hillary presidency. I am stepping up the prepping in case Hillary steals enough votes to beat Trump. Hillary is witch-like enough to bring on another real civil war. She could kill a bunch of Christian patriots without half a qualm. Look at her record. We must guarantee secure voting and insist on exit polling.

  6. @TN_MAN:

    bear in mind that you are relying on wiki, which is a known left-wing enterprise. They constantly rewrite listings to inject their own spin.

    Calling the NAZI’s right-wing was done by the Progressives after the Germans lost the war. They didn’t want to tarnish the Socialist brand by having it associated with the bad PR that was Hitler’s debacle. This has been done with the assistance of the media, and has been so widespread ever since the war, that nearly everyone by now has bought into the idea. Mussolini’s Italy was the Fascist government, but part of the PR was to equate them to be the same.

  7. @ Long Island Mike and Will:

    Sorry to disappoint you guys but Wikipedia has it correct on this occasion in spite of being a “biased left-wing ideological rag” as you guys have tried to paint them. I guess even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while. 🙂

    As for the articles to which Mike linked, they are both wrong.

    The Thomas Sowell article seems to use the following reasoning:

    Classic left-wing totalitarians are of the communist/socialist type.
    Obama is a totalitarian who is clearly left-wing but is not communist/socialist.
    Therefore, by process of elimination, he is a left-wing fascist since fascism is the only remaining totalitarian category in which to place him.

    However, he is really reaching in his logical conclusion. (Fallacy of the False Alternative.)

    The National Review argument acknowledges that fascism is to the Right of communism but tries to make the case that it is still Left of center and, thus, deserves to be considered Left-Wing overall. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

    What these articles actually demonstrate is the MAJOR problem that we have in that there are no rigorous definitions of what it means to be Left-Wing or Right-Wing. Therefore, in the absence of any definition, people feel free to use all kinds of logic to justify their personal political views.

    I am no different. I have thought over this issue for a long time and, in the absence of rigorous definitions, I have developed my own which are:

    Left-wing Individual: Any human being who has assumed (consciously or sub-consciously) that the human race, as a whole, is inherently good (defined as tending toward moral behavior) and who bases their entire world-view and, especially, their political views upon this axiom.

    Right-wing Individual: Any human being who has assumed (consciously or sub-consciously) that the human race, as a whole, is inherently evil (defined as tending away from moral behavior) and who bases their entire world-view and, especially, their political views upon this axiom.

    I went into a lot of detail regarding the left-wing/right-wing worldviews in “The Mad Dance in the Blood” blog (about a month ago). I suggest you guys go back to that blog and read my comments. I posted several of them.

    If you do read them, you will see that I believe that either the Left-Wing or the Right-Wing ideology will trend toward totalitarianism if taken to the extreme limits. It is nowhere near as simple as “Right-Wing is Good, Left-Wing is Bad” as you guys seem to believe. Both are “VERY BAD” if taken to their extreme limits.

    Fascism represents one form of a Right-Wing ideology that has been pushed to extreme limits until it becomes a totalitarian ideology. In a similar way, Communism is a form of Left-Wing ideology that has been pushed to extreme limits until it also becomes totalitarian. They are the opposite ends of the political scale but the scale bends back upon itself so as to form a circle that goes into totalitarian territory. Both these ideologies are contrary to the concept of democracy.

    Note that this discussion is not just historical. There is a radical Right-Wing ideology loose in the world today. It is the radical Islamic ideology of groups like ISIS. Don’t be fooled because it seems to be based more upon religion rather than nationalism. It shares a lot of similarities with Nazism. It is a form of religious fascism. The “Thousand Year Reich” is replaced with “The New Caliphate”. The concept of the inferior “Jews” is replaced with the inferior “infidels”. The “Master Race” is replaced with the “True Believer”. The “Fuhrer” is replaced by the “Imam”. The parallels are clear.

    So, don’t try to sell me on the concept that fascism must be Left-Wing because only Left-Wing ideologies are bad. I don’t believe that for a Nano-second. I am a political moderate who believes in democracy. I also believe that the further one deviates to either the Right or the Left, the further one departs from democracy and journeys toward totalitarianism.

  8. TN_MAN

    I have appreciated your input on “left vs. right” very much but I am wondering why you described yourself as someone believing in “democracy”. My own understanding of this word relates very much to “mob rule” or as someone said, “Democracy is two wolves a sheep voting on what is for dinner.”

    My study of history leads me to believe that we are “supposed” to be a “representative republic” or a “constitutional republic”.

    I would appreciate your comment on this. Thank you!

  9. @ Tahn:

    I was using the term in its broad and general form as you would find it in a dictionary as follows:

    de·moc·ra·cy

    (dĭ-mŏk′rə-sē)

    n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

    1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
    2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
    3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
    4. Majority rule.
    5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

    In the broad sense, I was using it to mean a multiparty government of the people as opposed to a single party totalitarian state such as might be found under fascism or communism. It was not my intention to delve into the finer differences between a representative republic and other democratic forms.

    The subject under discussion was whether fascist ideologies were left-wing or right-wing. I can understand why many on the Right do not want to lay claim to ideologies such as Nazism just like, I am sure, those on the Left would not care to claim the ideology of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge group. Since there is no widely accepted definition of Left-Wing versus Right-Wing, it is natural for people to try to disclaim the more unsavory manifestation of their ideological bent.

    This is why I developed my own definitions. The ones that I listed, in my previous post, greatly aid in accurately classifying any movement correctly in much the same way that a Doctor can classify a disease as being of either bacterial or viral in origin. Let me illustrate how this works:

    All ideological movements, irrespective of Left or Right orientation, gain power by recruiting followers. Therefore, all such movements follow the same “three-step” dance:

    1) The movement identifies something as a problem (Problem Statement).
    2) The movement then proposes a Plan of Action (POA) to remediate the problem.
    3) Finally, the movement promises a utopian result from following the POA.
    With these three steps, the basic outline of the ideology is developed. The movement then tries to “Sell” the ideology to as many people as possible so as to assemble more and more political power. In the end, it is all about power and ego.

    Leftist believe that all humans are innately good (see my definition above). They believe that humans cannot be innately evil. Therefore, all the world’s evils must come from environment sources EXTERNAL to mankind. This is the identifier, the “Fingerprint”, of a left-wing movement.

    Right-Wingers believe the opposite. They believe that all humans are innately evil. They reject external sources of evil in favor of placing the blame DIRECTLY upon specific segments of the human population. It is an INTERNAL focus rather than an external one. This is the mark of a Right-Wing ideology. Let me illustrate this with a quick analysis of various well-known movements.

    Example #1 – Communism
    Problem Statement: The capitalist economic system concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. The workers who produce the goods suffer from poverty and class oppression.
    POA: Replace capitalist economic systems with communist ones. If the capitalists resist, then use force to make the change (i.e. a revolutionary ideology).
    Utopian Promise: The creation of a “Worker’s Paradise” where those who contribute the labor are rewarded fairly for their efforts.
    Analysis: This ideology has an EXTERNAL focus. It sees things external to mankind (capitalism, poverty, class differences) as causing the problem.
    Classification: Left-Wing Ideology

    Example #2 – U.S. Movement for the Prohibition of Alcohol
    Problem Statement: The easy availability of alcohol causes many social problems including public drunkenness, crime, domestic violence, accidents, health problems and loss of productivity.
    POA: Heavily restrict access to alcohol. Ideally, one should ban the manufacture and consumption of alcohol altogether.
    Utopian Promise: Elimination of the “Demon Run” will magically reduce or eliminate all of the problems listed above. This will result in a stronger and more moral American society.
    Analysis: This ideology has an EXTERNAL focus. It sees things external to mankind (alcohol and its easy availability) as causing the problem.
    Classification: Left-Wing Ideology

    Example #3 – Nazism
    Problem Statement: Genetically inferior races of humans (Jews, ethic poles, gypsies etc.) are standing in the way of the superior Aryan “Master Race”. They are seriously hindering the expansion and growth of the Aryan race in Germany and other countries.
    POA: Forbid intermarriage between Aryan and inferior races so as to avoid genetic pollution. Suppress the interference of these inferior races with German expansion. Sterilize the inferior races. The “Final Solution” is to eliminate the inferior races altogether.
    Utopian Promise: The creation of a “Thousand Year Reich” where the Aryan Master Race will lead Germany and the World into a bright and glorious future.
    Analysis: This ideology has an INTERNAL focus. It sees specific segments of the human population as causing the problem rather than exterior factors.
    Classification: Right-Wing Ideology

    Example #4 – U.S. Gun Control Movement
    Problem Statement: The easy availability of Firearms causes many social problems including increased suicides, crime, violence, and accidents.
    POA: Heavily restrict access to firearms. Ideally, one should ban the manufacture and ownership of firearms altogether.
    Utopian Promise: Elimination of the “Demon Gun” will magically reduce or eliminate all of the problems listed above. This will result in a stronger and more peaceful American society.
    Analysis: This ideology has an EXTERNAL focus. It sees things external to mankind (firearms and their easy availability) as causing the problem. This ideology is almost identical to the previous Prohibition of Alcohol movement except the “Demon Run” is replaced with the “Demon Gun”.
    Classification: Left-Wing Ideology

    Example #5 – Radical Islam
    Problem Statement: Unbelieving infidels are standing in the way of the True Believers who follow the Word of Allah. They are seriously hindering the expansion and growth of Islam in the Middle East and other countries. Their sin is an offense to Allah.
    POA: Launch the Holy War (The Jihad). Use whatever means are necessary (including violence and terrorism) to expand Islam and establish Sharia Law among men and nations. The infidels must convert or die! Allahu Akbar!
    Utopian Promise: The creation of a “A new Caliphate” where Allah will lead the True Believers into a bright and glorious future.
    Analysis: This ideology has an INTERNAL focus. It sees specific segments of the human population (non-Muslim infidels) as causing the problem rather than exterior factors.
    Classification: Right-Wing Ideology

    Example #6 – Black Lives Matter (BLM)
    Problem Statement: Racism is rampant among Law enforcement agencies and in the criminal justice system. This racism causes African-Americans to be continually harassed, without cause, and sometimes leads to their murder under the color of authority.
    POA: Launch protests every time an African-American is shot by the police irrespective of whether the shooting was justified or not. Use these protests to grab media attention and to put pressure on police agencies to reform and eliminate any trace of racism in their ranks.
    Utopian Promise: Improved relationships between African-Americans and the police. Much fairly treatment of African-Americans by the police and by the criminal justice system.
    Analysis: This ideology has an EXTERNAL focus. It sees things external to mankind (racism) as causing the problem. This ideology ignores the opportunity to focus internally on the African-American community. It totally ignores the serous role that African-American males play in violence, crime and gang activity in order to keep the focus on the more comfortable external issue of racism.
    Classification: Left-Wing Ideology

    As illustrated above, using my definitions it is easy to identify whether any movement is Left-Wing or Right-Wing in nature. There is no need to go into a confusing “historical” analysis or stretch logic as was done in the National Review article to which Long Island Mike provided a link.

    Simply look at the ideology itself. It will tell you. A Left-Wing ideology will ALWAYS focus on some external issue (poverty, ignorance, racism, firearms, drugs, alcohol, etc.) as the source of the problem. A Right-Wing ideology will ALWAYS identify specific groups of people as the problem. These traits flow directly from the underlying assumptions of “All humans are innately good (Left-Wing)” or “All humans are innately evil (Right-Wing)”.

    So, as I noted in my post above, Wikipedia has it correct this time. Fascist ideologies, like Nazism, are extreme forms of Right-Wing ideologies. Far Right and Far Left forms of ideologies go straight to various flavors of totalitarianism. Democracy (or a representative republic, if you prefer) occupies the space in the middle of the political scale. The far Right and far Left ends of the scale are the totalitarian areas.

  10. Very interesting TN_MAN,

    Thanks. This makes it even more important to me to show how BOTH left and right ideologies are using police to enforce their agendas, regardless of what they are. Regardless of which laws they attempt to enforce (no guns, no drugs etc.), police are caught in the middle in a no-win situation. Police officers, in my opinion, must realize this and refuse to enforce either side of these mala prohibita rules (victimless crimes).

    They could do this through personal refusal (upholding their oath), through their unions (striking) or through enacted legislation, abrogating all unconstitutional “laws” and returning LEO’s to Peace Officers, regaining the respect of all. I believe this one action (non enforcement of victimless crimes) would do more to restore freedom to our country and remove police from the line of fire, that any other single action I can conceive.

    The thin blue line is caught in the middle of two surging and ruthless ideologies, both of which are collecting profits off the backs and bodies of officers and incarcerating people, our own citizens, for “crimes” where no person or property is harmed or abridged. Even worse they are creating a great divide between classes, between races and between citizens and police.

    This must end and will, one way or another. I would prefer for police to be the hero’s, restore the constitution and bring peace to our land. “Blue Lives, Time To Decide”. You are desperately needed and the hour is late.

  11. TN_MAN,

    Your latest post was excellent, well thought out, and clear. You communicate well. One itsy, bitsy, teeny, weeny correction; in Examples #2 and #4, you refer to “Demon Run.” I think you mean, “Demon Rum.”

    You say Left Wing ideology taken to an extreme goes totalitarian, and Right Wing ideologies do the same. You say democracies, (or Democratic Republics) are balanced in the middle. That makes a lot of sense, because Republics want balance, they want just the right amount of government, not too much nor too little. The Founders genius was in creating a system of checks and balances, keeping power separated between the three branches of government; Judicial, Executive and Legislative. A Parisian once told me America has the perfect system, because it is self-balancing. If things go too far to the Left, the citizens can counter that. If things go too far to the Right, they can achieve balance again, theoretically.

    I think our system of government is the oldest in constant use in the world. It is certainly one of the oldest systems, and it is the best form of government in the world. Seems like half of all great inventions were invented here, and millions of immigrants want to get here, and very few citizens want to leave, even after their ancestors had 230 years of slavery and 100 years of second-class citizenship under Jim Crow laws. People vote with their feet.

  12. I hate this election because I’ve lost friends over it. People immediately assume that if you oppose one on the candidates that you are supporting the other.

    HRC is unacceptable. To steal Buckley quote about Gore Vidal, whoever lies about Hillary does her a favor. Unfortunately that same quote applies to Trump. He has shown next to no commitment to the Second Amendment, and the aftermath of the Orlando massacre demonstrated he’ll abandon us if he thinks it makes him look good.

    No matter who I vote for, third party candidates included, I’m going to feel ashamed of that vote. As far as the presidential election is concerned, I will heed the words of PJ O’Rourke: Don’t vote, it only encourages the bastards. It’s path with the least shame in it.

  13. How I learnt to stop worrying about politics, elections and collectivism in general and love the fact that at my age, I’ll be dead and gone before the worst sh*t lands. You find that tiny sliver of happiness and exist in it for as long as you can, otherwise you spend your days angst ridden trying to oppose the unstoppable march of collectivism. No one wants to talk about individual rights because it portends individual thought and action. Independence on the level of one man. The government of any party doesn’t want that. The houses of any religion don’t want it. And most of y’all also don’t want it. You just want your particular brand of collectivism to win out, and have dominion over the others. Good luck with that.

  14. @ Roger Willco:

    You are correct, I meant to use the term “Demon Rum”. I made a typo in Example #2 and then copied and pasted it into Example #4 so that it appeared twice.

    Also, the utopia promise line is awkward in Example #6. It would better read as:

    “Better (more fair and just) treatment of African-Americans by the police and by the criminal justice system.”

    It is hard (for me anyway) to write a long post without slipping one or two typo’s into it. 🙂

« Older Comments

Comments are closed.