Sure, Donald Trump may shiv us… but the country can’t survive Hillary Clinton’s thugs

By 38 Comments 1,837 views

Jonah Goldberg had a great piece over at National Review on Saturday. The title was: If Candidate Trump Can’t Be Managed, What Makes You Think President Trump Could Be? He makes a strong argument that a President Trump is going to be a disaster for the country, the Republican party, and particularly conservatives. He suggests that a President Trump will lie, obfuscate and essentially rule as the liberal Democrat he’s been his entire life. He makes a particularly strong argument that Trump will renege on his promise to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.

His critique of Trump should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton however, because it’s not. He dislikes Hillary Clinton seemingly almost as much as he despises Trump. Here however is the crux of the piece: “But here’s the thing: Conservatives know how to oppose Clinton, who will come into office the most damaged and unpopular president in American history, having fulfilled her mandate to not be Trump on Day One. But it’s already very clear they do not know how to oppose Trump.

Goldberg believes that America can survive another 4 years of fascist liberalism building on the last 8 from Barack Obama. This, largely because the GOP would fight her tooth and nail at virtually every point. He doesn’t believe however that conservatism can survive 4 years of President Trump because erstwhile conservatives will simply become lapdogs for a GOP president, even if he doesn’t govern like one.

I agree with almost every word of his piece, but I disagree with his conclusion. I agree that the GOP will more easily fight a Democrat president than they will a GOP president, but the fact of the matter is, that the reason we’re in this spot in the first place is because the GOP establishment did virtually nothing to stop Barack Obama from doing anything he wanted to. The GOP establishment has spent much of the last eight years rolling out the red carpet of acquiescence to Barack Obama simply out of fear that they would be called racists for doing so – or, in the case of immigration, because they agreed with him. What makes Goldberg think that they will be any less likely to push back on Hillary’s policies when Democrats start accusing them of being sexist in a country where 54% of voters are women?

Sure, she’s less popular than Obama is, but the GOP establishment is fundamentally made up of squishes who cry at the first boo. Imagine, they couldn’t even get up the courage to stop Obama from giving away control of the Internet, arguably the single most important economic, political and social tool developed in the last half century, to organizations run by tyrants and third world dictators, what makes Goldberg think they will fight Clinton on tax rates for “the rich” or regulations “insuring the uninsured”?

At the end of the day I have no illusions about Donald Trump being a good president. Goldberg’s right, he’s a liberal Democrat and will likely govern as such. But sadly, the choice we have isn’t between a liberal Democrat and a conservative. That ship sailed when the Democrats, the media and the GOP establishment pushed Ted Cruz over the side. No, we’ve got a choice between two liberal Democrats, albeit with one who is arguably slightly less liberal.

But here’s the thing… Goldberg says that the US can survive 4 more years of Barack Obama’s policies because the GOP will fight his heir. Neither the premise nor the conclusion of that statement are true. The GOP will not fight, and the country may not survive, at least not as a republic governed by the Constitution. Four more years of unfettered immigration and filling the courts with treacherous liberals will be enough to eviscerate any chance conservatives have to pull the country back from the abyss of progressive socialism and unfettered government intervention in every aspect of our lives. Adding millions of voters from Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Middle East and Africa will result in Democrats becoming the ruling party of record for literally generations. At a time when Republicans control record levels of government at the state level – in 23 states they control the governor’s office AND both houses of the legislature vs. 7 states for the Democrats – they have spent the last 8 years getting steamrolled by Democrats in Washington. Between the cancer of liberals on the courts and the extra constitutional operations of the Obama administration and the Washington bureaucracy, the chances of reining in Washington grows ever more remote.

Today, with possibly the most flawed candidate ever to run on a major party ticket, the Democrats are still poised to win the White house. Fast forward to 2020 after Hillary Clinton has expanded immigration from 3rd world banana republics from around the world and given millions of “new Americans” voting rights. Will there ever be another election as close as Bush Gore? No. Will the spineless GOP establishment ever have the stones to allow the nomination of an actual conservative? No. Will conservatism, limited government and individual freedom survive? No?

Goldberg suggests the country can survive another 4 years. He’s wrong. In four years the Democrats will have a virtual supermajority of takers and that spells the end of freedom and limited government as we know it. Trump may betray voters on every promise he’s ever made, including on the border and the courts… that would not surprise me. But on the other hand, he may not.

Yes, we know that Donald Trump may shiv us in the shower, but there’s a chance he won’t. With Hillary Clinton there is no such chance. Not will she shiv us, she’ll bring her gang of thugs with her to make sure that the job gets done and conservatism is left bleeding and dying on the floor, never again to see the light of day.

Goldberg is right, Trump would be a terrible, horrible, liberal president… but on the two most important issues of our time, the courts and immigration, there is a speck of hope that he will do the right thing. With Clinton there is none, and the country can’t survive to lose on them.

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.

38 Responses to “Sure, Donald Trump may shiv us… but the country can’t survive Hillary Clinton’s thugs”

  1. 27

    July 4th American

    @Greg: #13

    MORE Clinton Foundation Corruption EXPOSED

    Three months after leaving the White House in 2001, former President Bill Clinton arrived in India to cheering throngs to help those who had just lost a million homes in the aftermath of a massive earthquake that killed 20,000 and injured 166,000.

    In classic Clinton style, he solemnly promised that his new nonprofit — called the American India Foundation (AIF) — would rebuild 100 villages. Rajat Gupta, his millionaire co-chairman, pledged $1 billion for the victims.

    It never happened. Years later, AIF’s annual reports were reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation and show only seven villages were partially rebuilt by Clinton’s group, and a mere $2.7 million of $53 million raised over a decade went to the earthquake victims.

    The rest went for completely unrelated projects, including “accelerating social change,” fighting AIDS, “sustainable development,” and working for “digital equalizers.”

    Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst and an outspoken critic of the Clinton Foundation, claims AIF stands out for its high number of felons in leadership positions and for the eventual financial enrichment of the Clintons.

    “When you look at who were the principal contributors and trustees, there is a surprising number of convicted felons who are accused of illegal activity on a massive scale. It’s amazing,” Ortel told TheDCNF. “This is another example of a purported charity being used, in my view, to enrich the principals associated with it.”

    AIF’s small aid for victims recalls the controversy that engulfed the American Red Cross when the relief organization disclosed that only $154 million of $594 million raised for a 9/11 fund was used as promised for victims of the terrorist attacks.

    Philanthrop expert Leslie Lenkowsky told TheDCNF that the Red Cross scandal “created a furor. It resulted in the resignation of the president of the American Red Cross and to a change of policy so when they raise money for a particular disaster, they now have to ask donors if they can use the money for other disasters.”

    Apprised of Clinton’s actions with AIF, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican who is vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — which also investigated the Red Cross scandal — told TheDCNF, “From what we know, it appears they have used natural disasters and human suffering to personally enrich themselves, while doing very little to help victims.”

    The Clinton’s “appetite for self-serving philanthropy and false altruism appears to know no bounds,” Blackburn said. She added that AIF’s actions should be referred to the Federal Trade Commission because “we must be consistent in how we deal with sham charities.”

    The AIF stated to the IRS when it sought tax exempt status that it was a genuine disaster relief organization: “The American India Foundation was formed to render financial and managerial assistance to the disaster relief and rehabilitation effort in India following the Gujarat earthquake.”

    Lenkowsky said, “If this organization raised money for earthquake victims in the villages, but used the money on other purposes that was unrelated to those victims, it’s not a good practice.”

    But it appears AIF followed the Clinton Foundation script in which Middle East oil sheiks, tycoons, and billionaire business magnates gave money to that foundation with the hope of gaining access and perhaps favors from the former president, his wife and their political allies.

    The sheer number of AIF executives who ran afoul of the law is dramatic. Clinton’s handpicked AIF co-chairmen — Rajat Gupta, then head of McKinsey & Company and Victor Menezes, then Citibank chairman — were both convicted of insider trading. Gupta served 19 months in federal prison and Menezes was fined $2.7 million.

    Gupta was close to the Clintons. He hired Chelsea Clinton right out of college for a six-figure salary to work at McKinsey and he donated between $10,000 to $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation

    Raj Rajaratnam was perhaps the most notorious AIF trustee. He was convicted of 14 counts of security fraud in one of the largest and most spectacular Wall Street prosecutions in decades. He is currently serving serving a sentence of 11 years in prison. Gupta passed on insider tips to Rajaratnam.

    Then there’s Vinod Gupta, an AIF director who the Securities and Exchange Commission helped remove as CEO of InfoUSA because he used company funds to support a lavish lifestyle. He was forced to resign and pay $9 million in restitution.

    Vinod also bestowed large financial rewards to Clinton. He paid Bill $3.3 million and gave him 100,000 stock shares of his company without prior approval from the board of directors. Vinod allowed the Clinton family to use the company’s jet, also without board approval. The Clintons got $900,000 worth of air travel. And Vinod gave between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    Vinod had spent a night in the White House Lincoln bedroom when the Clintons opened it up to donors.

    Sant Singh Chatwal, another AIF trustee, pleaded guilty in 2014 to funneling more than $180,000 in illegal contributions to candidates for federal office, including Hillary. The Times of India reported the close relationship Chatwal had with the Clintons.

    “Chatwal and his wife Daman were regular visitors to the White House during the Clinton presidency. A fortnight after the Clintons left for their new home in Chappaqua, New York, Sant Singh Chatwal and his elder son, Vikram, dropped in to meet them,” the newspaper wrote.

    Naveen Jain, an AIF trustee, was accused of buying and selling stocks with insider knowledge as CEO of InfoSpace. He eventually paid $107 million in a civil suit over insider trading.

    Ajay Shah, another trustee was forced to pay $14.8 million for contributing to the collapse of the Trust Bank of Kenya. He fled the country to avoid the Kenya High Court decree.

    Sudesh K. Arora, president of Natel, entered the criminal plea for a major Department of Defense fraud investigation. He settled and his company paid a $1 million fine.

    “It comes as no surprise that the Clintons and Clinton Foundation are once again doing business with convicted felons and con men,” said Blackburn.

    A spokesman for the AIF did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

    The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

  2. 29

    Matt Maschinot

    If Trump loses, the only people who will get the blame, are the NeverTrump element of the GOP. At that moment, the GOP is DEAD. It will have been killed not by Trump, but but NeverTrump.

    Look at the people at the Trump rallys, and you will see something – HOPE. When that goes away, it’s going to be replaced with ANGER. And that anger will be directed at the GOP!

    If Trump loses, those who support him (myself included), will see it as a sign that the 2 party system is irreparably broken. They will leave the GOP, and not look back.

  3. 30

    another vet

    First of all, the only disaster awaiting the country is a third Obama term via Hillary. WIth that being said, the overwhelming majority of American people believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. That indicates a change election which favors the opposition party’s candidate (Trump). There is also a strong anti-establishment/outsider mood in the country which favors an anti-establishment/outsider (Trump). Add to that, the party in power is running a corrupt, lying, criminal, ultimate insider/establishment candidate which further favors an outsider (Trump). Given the current polls, which are more important now than before Labor Day, something is wrong with this picture. He had all the momentum on his side before the debate but has lost it to her. He could have easily put her away in the debate but failed because he was woefully unprepared. There are three strategies he can use to turn this around:

    1. Get his act together and come prepared for the next two debates and clobber her and then stay on message after that.

    2. Hope something devastating comes out of the Wikileaks.

    3. Hope that the polls are missing a huge number of voters that plan on turning out to vote for him on election day.

    A strategy based on Wikileaks and the polls being grossly off isn’t much of a strategy. He best get his act together real soon assuming he really wants to win.

  4. 32


    @July 4th American, #27:

    You should really give credit for that post to Richard Pollack, the muck-raking right-wing hack who actually wrote it.

    Meanwhile, Trump is losing ground in the polls again. There’s still some hope the country won’t be turned over to a fast-talking pitchman whose primary talents are self agrandizement, lying as effortlessly as he breathes, losing other people’s money, and dodging taxes for decades to hang on to his own.

    This guy is everything that’s wrong with the system, but half the country thinks he’s their personal political savior. They know he can work miracles because he’s told them he can. Just don’t ask to see the evidence.

  5. 34

    July 4th American

    Guccifer 2.0: Hack of the Clinton Foundation

    Many of you have been waiting for this, some even asked me to do it.

    So, this is the moment. I hacked the Clinton Foundation server and downloaded hundreds of thousands of docs and donors’ databases.

    Hillary Clinton and her staff don’t even bother about the information security. It was just a matter of time to gain access to the Clinton Foundation server.

    Here’s the contents of one of the folders that I got from there

    (Excerpt) Read more at ..

  6. 35


    Guccifer 2.0 dumps a bunch of Clinton Foundation donor data (updated)

    “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”

    Update 5:21p ET: The Clinton Foundation has denied the validity of Guccifer 2.0’s claims. Speaking to Politico, a foundation representative said, “Once again, we still have no evidence Clinton Foundation systems were breached and have not been notified by law enforcement of an issue. None of these folders or files shown are from the Clinton Foundation.” And, as Buzzfeed Senior Technology Reporter, Joe Bernstein, points out, it’s highly unlikely that the foundation would name its own folder “Pay to Play.”

    …because they’re not a pack of complete idiots—unlike whoever thought a “Pay to Play” folder would seem convincing.

  7. 37


    @Deserttrek, #36:

    Goldberg and the anti Trumpers are full of BULLSH*T

    Trump is full of b.s. The claim that he can’t release his tax returns because they’re under audit? It’s an outright lie.

    His tax attorneys inadvertently confirmed this back in March, when they released a letter obtained from the IRS intended to verify Trump’s statement that he’s under continuous audit. Refer to the 3rd and final paragraph. Reviews of Trump’s tax’s for 2002 through 2008 have been administratively closed. They’re done with them, and will not be reopening any issues pertaining to those years.

    Additionally, 2009 forward are already under audit. There’s no reason why they can’t also be released, since the biggest concern about releasing tax returns is the possibility that doing so might trigger an audit. If you’re already being audited, that concern is no longer relevant.

    This is a simple case of someone having things to hide from the voters. You can guess what that might be for yourself. My guesses have narrowed down to the possibility that he has paid no federal taxes for years—which his son flatly denied tonight—or that he has so many financial ties with the Russians that anyone would be an idiot not to view them as an unacceptable conflict of interest. Maybe they should have insisted instead on an answer regarding Russian financial ties, since this is the son who previously stated in 2008:

    “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

    That 2008 tax return might show just how much “a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets” actually is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *