At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Not long ago, a conversation transpired on a nationally syndicated radio program between the host and a writer for The New York Post.  Both are supporters of Donald J. Trump. Referring to the relentlessness and intensity of the opposition to the President on the part of the left, the host asked his guest whether the latter believed that the madness will soon have to come to a head. The Post writer replied that, in time, when the country improves materially, Trump will get the credit that he deserves and calm will set in over the land.

I wish that I could believe that this is so.

Even if they are certain that he is entitled to it, leftist will never give the President his due. And for as long as Trump is in office, and probably even long afterwards, leftists will spare no occasion to manipulate other Americans into seeing things their way.

From Democrats in Washington D.C. to those of their ideological ilk in the media, academia, Hollywood, and the streets, the left has been traumatized by Trump’s upset victory.  For that matter, it isn’t just the American left that remains shocked to its core, but leftists around the world.  It is telling that in spite of Trump’s massive rallies and the personal connection that he established with his supporters, leftists apparently could not so much as conceive of the possibility that Hillary Clinton could lose to the Republican nominee.

Although fake news outlets and their phony polls consistently showed Trump losing in a landslide to Clinton, the President won 2623 American counties compared to Clinton’s 489. If we subtract that bluest of blue states, California, Trump would have won the popular vote by over a million votes (and this is assuming, counterfactually, that there was no voter fraud).  If you subtract New York also, he would’ve won by 3 million votes over 48 states.

Trump swept most of the country, making it painfully obvious to Democrats that their party is now largely a coastal party.  As far as the Electoral College goes—and this, let us not forget, is how presidential elections are supposed to be decided in the United States—Trump crushed his opponent with 306 votes to Clinton’s 232.

The left’s collective head exploded.  After a month or so of waxing outrage over Trump’s refusal to say in advance of the election whether he would automatically accept the outcome if Clinton won, leftists still refuse to accept the outcome after Trump actually won.  First they demanded phony recounts.  Then they tried to coerce the electors of the Electoral College to deny Trump the votes that he earned.  When this dirty tactic failed, leftists contrived a conspiracy theory of epic proportions: Trump, they tried to convince the country, had won in an immense landslide because Vladimir Putin wanted for him to win.

Now, as leftist millionaires and billionaires (like the evil George Soros) finance massive anti-Trump protests and violent left-wing, neo-communist and anti-American terrorists wreak havoc in the name of “demonstrating” against Trump and “fascists,” Democrats in Congress are on a quest to create any opportunity that they can to impeach the President and bring about his downfall.

Trump and his army of some 63 million or so “Deplorables,” against overwhelming odds, defeated the elitists of both parties and the Regime that they constitute along with the media, academia, and Hollywood.  Hard leftist and alt-leftist (neoconservative) Regimists threw every weapon in their arsenal against the Donald—all to no avail.

The Regime didn’t just go down to defeat.  It suffered a humiliating defeat.

Democrats have lost over 1200 seats at the national and state levels since Obama has been elected (yes, he’s not only been terrible for the country, he’s been terrible for his party).  Republicans control the legislatures in some 32 states and the governorships in about two-thirds of the states.

And then along came Trump.

Leftists’ whole world is crashing in around them.  They will never accept their losses—even if that means dispatching thugs to terrorize innocents, destroy property, attack police, set fires, issue calls for “punching” their opponents “in the face,” organize demonstrations, and lie through their teeth to delegitimize and/or impeach President Trump.

But here’s the question that, to my knowledge, no prominent Trump-supporter in national media has yet to ask:

What are the rest of us going to do about all of this?

It’s true that in writing, talking, and, thus, exposing the hysteria, deception, and violence, commentators go some distance toward combatting leftist rage. Yet given the fever-pitch of the times, this has begun to feel inadequate. More needs to be done.

First, conservatives and others who are appalled by the hostility of the left should organize boycotts of every commodity produced by those who regard them as, well, deplorable. The left doesn’t hesitate to engage in boycotts. Neither should we. Those who repudiate our values must be made to pay a steep price for their actions.

Second, while “conservative” talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and some others deserve credit for affecting what changes in the media landscape that they undoubtedly achieved over the decades, they especially could do more than they currently are doing.  These top-tier hosts have abundant resources at their disposal. It’s hard to imagine that it would cost them very much at all to organize some pro-American, anti-left demonstrations.

They could help bus in hundreds of thousands (and maybe more) exacerbated, yet proud, Second Amendment-availing patriots to Washington D.C.  Perhaps Bikers for Trump and Truckers for Trump could join them, bringing the city to a standstill.  Uniformly dressed in, say, red—the color for courage—or maybe dark blue—the color for justice—the sea of pro-American demonstrators, hoisting their American flag poles high, could put the leftist thugs, terrorists, and bullies on notice that a new day has indeed dawned and they are no longer going to tolerate being pushed around

Shows of force are necessary.

Any violent-prone, “antifa” terrorists would enter these zones at their own peril.

Since the left will never stop fighting, the right must start fighting with the same tenacity.


While violence has always had a home on the political left, and while the left in America has been engaging in violence from at least the time of the late 1960’s, forces on the thuggish left became emboldened during Obama’s tenure in the White House. Within the last year or so, they have become especially brash and merciless toward Trump supporters.

This came to a head at Berkeley a few nights ago when “protesters” prevented provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos from delivering a planned speech. Mobs of anti-Milo and anti-Trump demonstrators were on the scene.  No small number were self-described “anti-fascists” (or “antifa”) clad in black with masks concealing their faces.  Things turned feral as fires were lit, Molotov cocktails were thrown, property was destroyed, officers were assaulted, and innocents were tear-gassed and beaten up with various weapons.

And the police arrested…no one.

While it’s true that most of those on the left do not physically engage in violence, for two reasons this is neither here nor there.

First, it only took 19 terrorists on September 11, 2001 to murder nearly 3,000 innocent Americans while causing pain and suffering to many more. Within an hour or so, fewer than two dozen immigrants brought the country to a standstill and irrevocably altered its history.  A minority of rotten apples, however small it may be, can ruin the bunch.

Second, those leftist Democrats in political office, the media, academia, and Hollywood, those who aren’t literally initiating violence against innocents, are hardly off the hook. The rabble in the streets functions as their strong-arm wing, the Democrats’ foot soldiers. Those Democrats who object to this characterization of their relationship to the thugs, who explicitly disavow violence while qualifying their denunciations with the very same anti-Trump vitriol that gave rise to the violence, want to have it both ways.

The Democratic left’s demonization of President Trump and his supporters—after all, it was the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who described “half” of those backing Trump (over 30 million Americans) as “deplorable”—created the climate of hatred, irrationality, and thuggery that is now consuming cities and college campuses around the country.

(Can there really be any doubt about this?  When four black Chicagoans videoed themselves pummeling, torturing, and taunting their white cognitively challenged victim while shouting “F**k Donald Trump!”, a leftist colleague of mine was quick to remark that it is highly unlikely that the guilty parties were really upset by Trump’s election.  I suspect that he was probably correct.  Yet as I was equally quick to respond, if our suspicions were correct, this would show only just how powerful the Democrats’ anti-Trump rhetoric has been, for even those, like the scum in Chicago, who aren’t politically engaged can’t avoid being influenced by it.)

The Democrats who control the Government-Academic-Hollywood-Media Complex are like the proverbial person who runs into a crowded theater and screams “Fire!”  In demonizing the President and his tens of millions of supporters as “racist,” “sexist,” “Islamophobic,” “homophobic,”  “xenophobic” and the like, the non-violent Democratic left aid and abet their more overtly thuggish counterparts on the streets.

It’s one thing for them to disagree with President Trump. It’s another thing entirely for them to, in effect, incite mobs to hurt innocents.  It’s also inexcusable for them to do anything other than unequivocally, routinely, condemn this mob action.

This, they have not done. When Democrats renounce the violence of street punks while either refusing to acknowledge the role that their language played in enflaming it or rationalizing, if not overtly justifying, it by blaming the victim, they convict themselves.

To be clear, the Democratic Party and its apologists aren’t really that bothered by the fact that riots are being executed—as long as they are done for the sake of “protesting” Trump and it is those to their right that are being harmed.  This is the message that anyone who is listening must receive. 

So, perhaps I’m overreacting, but it seems to me that this is not politics as usual. The current situation feels more like a civil war that is beginning to heat up than anything else. The only problem is that while the Deplorables—those who are not attacking innocents, police, private property—just won a major victory in defying, well, everyone and electing Donald Trump, it is their side only that is all too often getting  physically hurt.

In a future essay, I will propose ways for law-abiding patriotic Americans to deal with those who would harm them.  For now, however, we’d be well served to call to mind Confucius, whose doctrine of “the Rectification of Names” underscores the importance of calling things for what they are.

“Protesters” or “demonstrators” do not act violently.  Those who act violently for any reason other than self-defense are thugs, criminals, felons.  Those who act violently in mob are rioters.

And those who act violently toward innocents for the sake of altering the direction of government or government policy are terrorists. 

To reiterate, those leftists who have been wreaking havoc, those who the left media call “protesters” and who the right continually characterizes as “snowflakes” and “crybabies” are indeed domestic terrorists.

Were those who besieged the American embassy in Benghazi in 2012, murdering four Americans—were they “protesters” or “snowflakes?”  So far, anti-Trump terrorists haven’t murdered anyone. This, however, doesn’t mean that their actions couldn’t have easily resulted in the deaths of innocents. Nor does it make their actions any less terroristic.

Second, the terrorists are not “anti-fascist.”  They are anti-American neo-communists, or neo-coms, militant leftists who want nothing less than the fundamental transformation of the United States from what it has always been into something more on the order of the utopian totalitarian order of their fevered imaginings.

Importantly, these anti-American neo-com terrorists are also Democrats, if not formally or officially, then in spirit, for their ideas are essentially one and the same as those that have been greasing the wheels of Democrat politics for decades.




On Inauguration Day, January 20, a mob of howling leftists arrived at the campus of the University of Washington to prevent Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos from delivering a scheduled speech.

Milo is a foreigner, a particularly flamboyant homosexual Jew who is a provocateur par excellence.  The consummate troll, Milo delights in shattering such Politically Correct icons as feminism, Black Lives Matter, Islam, gay activism, and the like while gabbing about his black boyfriends.

He is also an unabashed Trump supporter who affectionately refers to the President as “Daddy.”

In other words, despite his membership in more than one of the left’s protected classes, Milo’s political background has made him an object of the left’s hatred.

When four or five anti-Milo (and anti-Trump) thugs and self-styled “protesters” began aggressively pushing and shoving an attendee at the Milo event, the threatened peace-maker pulled out a gun and pulled the trigger.

One of the aggressors was shot.

No charges were filed against the shooter.

Interestingly, this episode received remarkably little coverage—even though it was captured on video.  I suspect that there are at least two reasons to account for this.

First, the video clearly reveals the thuggish conduct of the anti-Milo forces.  Most of those in the so-called “mainstream” media are, after all, of the same ideological mindset as the latter.  Thus, media apologists have an interest invested in concealing from the public leftist activists’ not infrequent bursts of unprovoked violence.

The second reason, however, that may explain the lack of coverage of this shooting is more interesting: It reveals to the world an all-too rare instance of a Trump supporter fighting back against leftist agitators that clearly meant to do him bodily harm.  Moreover, it shows this would-be victim defend himself by way of a legal firearm.

I submit that while journalists and commentators, the overwhelming majority of whom are left-leaning Democrats, would have happily supplied ample coverage of a case of Trump-supporting belligerents and, say, their minority victims—hell, so badly did they want to cover such cases that they produced no small measure of fake news involving hoaxes—they do not want to depict the leftist “demonstrator” as the proverbial bully who got what he had coming to him.

They do not want for those millions of Americans who reject the radical left-wing politics of the rioters—let’s call them “the Deplorables”—to defend themselves, to meet the violence of the left with the same.

A friend of mine, a man of the left, has on more than one occasion felt the need to underscore to me that not all leftists condone violence.  Of course, I reply, this is true.  Yet equally true is that all of the politically-oriented violence presently on display in our country is emanating exclusively from the left.  Nor is this a new phenomenon.

That individual leftists eschew violence is a good thing, to be sure, but that their ideology has historically been accompanied by aggression and bloodshed is a brute fact that demands an explanation.  At the very least, decent or otherwise non-violent leftists have an obligation to refrain from fueling the flames of bigotry by promoting hysteria and lies about their opponents.  Preferably, they should loudly, resoundingly reject the violence whenever and wherever it occurs.

“Snowflakes” is the current term of choice that many have given to those who refuse to accept Trump’s election. Some of the latter lend themselves to this kind of ridicule. However, the danger with applying “snowflake,” “cry baby,” and the like to all who have taken to the streets is that it threatens to render innocuous a not insignificant number of this group that in reality pose a grave danger to society.

Those who bombard police and civilians, men, women, and children, young and old, with obscenities, bricks, bottles, and any number of other weapons should not be mocked. They should, they must, be dealt with accordingly. Those right-leaning commentators who continue to treat the phenomenon of leftist violence against innocents as if it was a laughing matter are guilty of acting as irresponsibly, as recklessly, toward the members of their audiences as they would be guilty of doing the same if they encouraged their children to laugh at the bullies who routinely assaulted and terrorized them for their lunch money.

I am not encouraging violence. But I am encouraging self-protection and self-defense.

Self-protection consists in avoiding those circumstances—like mobs of angry, screeching, irrational people—that increase one’s odds of being in a physical altercation.  It consists in a heightened awareness of one’s surroundings. Self-protection, the avoidance of trouble, should always be the chief objective.

If, though, due to no fault of one’s own, one finds oneself without any option but to fight in self-defense, or perhaps in the defense of others, then one must do what must be done in order to get oneself and/or others to safety.  This may very call on one to get downright nasty.

It may call on one to become…feral.

It’s a tragic commentary on the times that a survival guide for otherwise peaceful Americans is now necessary to deal with violent thugs suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But this is no laughing matter and the thugs promise to only become more emboldened is they are sure that those on whom they set their sights will be easy marks.

The fuse to the powder keg has been lit.




What’s come to be called “Calexit,” the movement among some Californians to secede from the United States, is gaining momentum.

Let’s hope that it is ultimately successful.

First of all, despite the postbellum, i.e. Lincolnian, conventional wisdom that states are not morally and legally entitled to secede from the Union, the historical truth is that secession is as American as the proverbial apple pie.  These United States were founded in secession. Had the original 13 colonies not seceded from the Motherland of England, there would have been no independent country that we now recognize as America.

Californians have a right to secede.

Second, if, as they purport, those Californians who seek a divorce from the Union regard President Donald Trump as something on the order of a 2017 reincarnation of Hitler, then they ought to secede.  It is as immoral for them to subject themselves and their children to the rule of Hitler as it is immoral for a battered wife and mother to subject herself and her child to the abuse of a tyrannical spouse.

Third, of course, Trump is not Hitler.

Those of us who Californian Trump-haters view as “Deplorables” should do whatever is necessary to help them realize their dream of an independent California.  There can be no rational dialogue, and possibly not even any peaceful co-existence, between those Americans who voted for Donald J. Trump and those who view them as nothing more or less than a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth fascists or Nazis.  Neither the aspiring secessionists nor the Hitlerians that they despise should want to have anything at all to do with the other, and each would be immensely better off if they went their separate ways.

My suspicion is that, regrettably, California will not secede. Hopefully, though, its efforts will get Americans to revisit secession, for as recent events have definitively established, the topic couldn’t be timelier.

For decades, there has been much talk of the “cultural wars.”  This now sounds as mild as it is antiquated.  If ever Americans of all backgrounds, and conservative-leaning Americans especially, needed proof that the cultural wars have given way to a rapidly warming civil war, events surrounding the candidacy and election of Trump have supplied it in spades.

From the time that it started to become increasingly clear that Trump was going to be the GOP’s presidential nominee to the present, leftist thugs—virtually all of whom were incited by an anti-Trump media and many of whom were subsidized by the villainous George Soros and those connected with the Democratic National Party—have been waging a kind of warfare against, not just Trump, but his supporters.

Hordes of leftist agitators have spared no occasion to don signs, masks, and an assortment of weapons before crashing Trump’s rallies.  No attendee would be exempt from verbal and physical abuse.  Men, women, and children, the old and the young alike, were routinely the targets of obscenity-laced tirades and assaults.  Sometimes these assaults involved weapons. Police, whose precious resources the “protesters” commandeered, also sustained injuries.

After Trump was elected, the size and hostility of the street mobs expanded.  Property has been destroyed and more innocents have been harmed under the pretext of “protesting” Trump.

These organized, paid orgies of psychological warfare, property damage, and overt violence are not going to stop anytime soon. Those who participate in them render civil discourse and any social harmony impossible. This being the case, it would seem that there are four and only four possible ways forward.

The first is for the majority of the country that is not on the left to surrender totally to leftist rule. Conservatives and others should no longer even vote and resign themselves and their children to living in a socialist-communist kind of order in which white, heterosexual, Christian men are continually made to relinquish and repent of their “privilege.”

The second is an all-out, white-hot civil war.  I would like to think that I speak for an ever-growing number of Americans, men in particular, who are becoming increasingly enraged upon seeing and hearing of innocent people getting beaten up and harassed simply because they support, or they are suspected of supporting, President Trump. I would like to think that the number of otherwise peace-loving Americans (like myself) whose patience with the violence is about to expire is growing with every new outrage committed by leftists against the innocent.

The third is secession.  The latter is a peaceful way for Americans with conflicting moralities to avert war by going their separate ways.  This could involve something as radical as the essential dissolution of the United States of America.  But at least it would avoid bloodshed.

The fourth and final possible outcome of current circumstances is a restoration of the Constitutional Republic that the Framers intended.  This would require us to abandon the imperial presidency and return all but the small handful of responsibilities that the Constitution assigns to the federal government to the states.  By slaying the Leviathan created by Democratic and Republican politicians alike and refashioning our government so that it is in accord with the Constitution, the citizens of the states would be able to enjoy a freedom the likes of which they haven’t experienced in a very long time.

The first option, I have to think, is not one that many who oppose the left will find appealing. And, interestingly, though the last option is theoretically the easiest—we already have the blueprint—it is the least likely that will be pursued.  The left has been fighting long and hard against the vision of “limited government” embodied in that artifact, the Constitution, produced by so many dead, white men.

Unfortunately, then, this leaves civil war or secession.  If the left continues with its havoc and violence, our range of options will narrow down to these two.

God help us.