Dirty Donald and Sunshine Conservatives

trump dirty“These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer blogger and the sunshine conservative will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

This has been a fearfully clarifying US election. There are people who declare themselves on the right side of politics, who are in truth sham defenders of freedom and our way of life, and who will be forever shunned by those of us who stood for saving the American Republic and the Western world at this moment of great peril.

The American election will determine the fate of the West. An America with open borders, unprepared, unwilling and unable to defend our freedoms from predators of every kind, from Islamic terrorists, from economic vandals, from those who masquerade their profound ignorance as concern for the environment — it is from these we must defend ourselves against or our way of life will be lost. The American Republic as it has been since 1776 will disappear. We will live to see our own fall of Rome.

Sunshine conservatives: those who pretend to represent freedom, individual rights and personal responsibility, but who refuse to stand with the only person who could make a difference. They are people whom history will recognise as the enemies of freedom, who refused to stand for the right when the moment arrived. It is Trump alone, the most improbable candidate in American political history, who provides even this sliver of hope. He is elected or Hillary is elected. There is no other possible outcome.

The mounting hostility among those supposedly on his own side is a disgrace. The array of enemies who have been uncovered from within what is nominally his own side of politics has demonstrated, better than anything else might have, that the Republican Party as it has become is a rotting curse on everything it is supposed to represent.

Those who stand with Hillary in this dark hour will have revealed they cannot be trusted and their counsel is without value. They are enemies of freedom. If you support Hillary Clinton in this election, nothing you write and say will from this time forward be worth the slightest attention. Your judgements will have been revealed as eternally worthless.

So, You Thought He Was a Choir Boy?

Donald Trump has not yet lost this election. If anything, this latest attempt to distract voters from the genuine issues which confront us may finally have focused the election on what actually matters. No one defends Trump’s words, or his attitude to women, least of all Donald Trump. This was his own assessment.

Let’s be honest, we’re living in the real world. This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today.

We are losing our jobs, we are less safe than we were eight years ago and Washington is totally broken. Hillary Clinton and her kind have run our country into the ground. I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days.

The American election is not about who has lived the most blameless life. It is about who can best protect our collective interests. Trump has been from the very beginning the only person running in this election who has understood the nature of the times in which we live and the actions that must be taken. You are either a sunshine conservative, or are instead prepared to fight this to the very end which means supporting Donald Trump for president.

32 thoughts on “Dirty Donald and Sunshine Conservatives

  • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

    Excellent piece Steve. It says sparely and precisely what needs to be said.

  • pgang says:

    I was shocked to read The Australian’s headlines this morning which were rejoicing over Trump now being out of the race for the election over some stupid blokey comments from the past. Such unbridled establishment-driven wishful thinking and partisanship is sickening to behold from the media. I stopped taking The Australian seriously a while ago, but now it has sunk to new depths.

    Is the newspaper really living in such a la-la land or do they believe they have some sort of mission to turn Australians off Trump, and that this will somehow magically help to get Clinton elected? Trump could soon be the president, and he probably will be. I would have thought some sort of genuine reflection would have been in order from our media.

    I also agree that anybody who sides with Clinton now is on the wrong side of history.

    • Jody says:

      Completely out of touch comments.

      • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

        Jody, we are well aware of your vehement aversion to Trump. There certainly are a host of objectionable aspects to his personality, his mannerism, but none of that has any bearing on his suitability to be president of the USA. We can’t possibly know how beneficial such presidency might be. On the other hand, we do know that Clinton would most certainly continue, and likely complete, the destruction of the nation began by Obama and with it, of western civilisation.

      • pgang says:

        Uh-huh. Your usual erudite commentary.

        Actually I’m quite in touch as I’ve been following the US election closely since the beginning of the primaries.

    • nfw says:

      Absolutely. Spot on. I wonder why they left out the bit about Trump being a registered Democrat at the time, ie prone to luvvie leftie “progressive” statements, almost the same type we see from our own leftie luvvie feminazis. At least Mr Trump’s comments didn’t include rape or exposing one’s penis to females and demanding sex then those facts being covered up by his wife because he did not have sexual relations with that woman. They certainly didn’t kill any foreign service staff (one an ambassador) and then lied to the relatives about the cause. And they most certainly don’t seem have been wiped off any servers kept in bathrooms along with classified material affecting the security of the USA. What did Mr Rudd call his Chinese friends?

    • ianl says:

      > ” … stopped taking The Australian seriously a while ago, but now it has sunk to new depths”

      Been sinking for well over 12 months now. It’s slowly being turned downmarket and PC. I think the slow rate is due to a combination of staff management and an assumption that its’ core audience will not notice. Well, does The Aus matter any more ? Nope …

      I have no real view on the Hillary/Donald handwringer (at least, other people seem to be wringing their hands in existential anguish). Whoever wins, the EPA, the Pentagon bureaucracy, academe, the cherry-picked judiciary, CNN etc, MSM cynicism will all still be there, implacable, immoveable. Filling the vacant Supreme Court position will be a drawn-out, vaccilatory affair with no decisive conclusion.

    • Warty says:

      There are some particularly good political writers in The Australian: Jennifer Oriel’s Monday columns are excellent, and Janet Albrechtsen’s articles are very good too. So of the others are infuriating, I agree.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      Newsllimited’s rally behind the Clintons just makes the case that Australia is truly a backwater pond of supplicants still wanting the USA to carry their can of wishy-washy socialism.

  • mvgalak@bigpond.com says:

    In Britain’s darkest hour, her people chose an alcoholic and an incorrigible cigar smoker, politically incorrect misogynist , suffering from the frequent bouts of depression, who often was rude, crude and offensive to a friend and a foe alike, to lead them into the battle with Hitler’s Germany. It was extraordinary time, which required an extraordinary man. His personal foibles were immaterial and irrelevant to the job at hand. Nobody cared what his private thoughts are about women, booze, cigars or any other issues, offending the sensibilities of morally pure. The only issue , relevant to his job of resisting the tyranny was – can he do it? Yes, I am talking about Sir Winston, G-d bless his memory.
    I do happen to believe that the same criteria should be applied to the present presidential candidates. Who can successfully resist the tyranny? Who can successfully defend the Western civilisation? Who can successfully safeguard our common freedom? These are the only criteria , which should be applied when voting in the USA election. The rest is irrelevant and an unwelcome, if malicious, distraction.Will the welfare recipients be able to disregard their dependence on the Government handouts? Will the progressistas be able to make themselves see the bigger picture rather then indulge their overinflated egos in the righteous indignation ? Who knows,but, most likely, it will not happen.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Trump will win. Simply the US doesn’t want or can afford more of Obama and the democrats.

    Donald’s greatest genius and asset was linking Hillary to Obama.

    ‘We can’t afford 4 more years of that.’

    Hillary is distancing herself as much as she can from Obama. She is failing. The msm never talk about Hillary and Obama. Trump does and the voters are listening.

    Everything else is a distraction.

    Now here is something you won’t hear in the msm. The Mexican government want and support Donald’s wall.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Having watched the second debate one can only agree with Sean Hannity and his panel including Nigel Farage on Fox TV that Donald Trump won the debate masterfully. Republicans must unite and support him because there is no other way to avoid a US slide into irrelevancy.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Then again, before joining Farage and Co in the Trump cheer squad, a read of Paul Berman’s assessment of Trump might be in order:
    “Vast, vast are these developments—the crumbling of the traditional Republican Party, the rise perhaps of a dreadful populism, the potential for enormous shifts of opinion and affiliation to the Democratic Party.”


    • Warty says:

      I read the article you posted, Ian, unfortunately it is an establishment viewpoint. It is the sort of opinion that a Greg Sheridan of The Australian might support, but somewhat irks most The Australian readers. These are the people whom ianl would say have been ignored. You surely didn’t think the Berman article would persuade anyone here, did you?

      • ian.macdougall says:

        “You surely didn’t think the Berman article would persuade anyone here, did you?”
        But one can live in hope.

      • Jody says:

        Greg Sheridan is excellent; he’s one of the very few in the mainstream media who has a stone-cold sober and authoritative view of the USA. His comments are usually educated and thoughtful. Then there’s Tom Switzer from the US Studies Centre at Sydney University.

        • sharpeanthony@hotmail.com says:

          Normally excellent, but he has taken too many paul kelly pills lately. Both have proved absolutely worthless on trump,and being blinded by their personal revulsion of trumps style. But both journalists envisage themselves of champions of rational,disinterested observers, and of style over substance. Who is feeding this fire of style over substance that they complain dominates our contemporary culture, so evidenced in this election?

      • ianl says:

        > “These are the people whom ianl would say have been ignored”

        And deliberately ignored …

        Of equal significance are the Aus editorials – smarmy, self-serving millenial rubbish. Circular reasoning is inserted in them constantly (unwittingly, I suspect); empirical evidence is disregarded and disrespected. The characteristic I find most amusing is the constant use of variations on “Govt must do such and such, or the banks must change blah blah”. It is absolutely guaranteed that whatever the editorial thumps on about MUST happen, the exact opposite will occur. This reminds me irresistibly of the Gulargambone Weekly in the leadup to WW1. This august publication had lambasted the German Kaiser on a weekly basis over many months, with the temperature of fulminations inexorably rising (reminds me of our MacDougall here), culminating in the shrieking headline: “As we have often warned the Kaiser …”

    • pgang says:

      Ian I find the term populism somewhat offensive because it implies that democracy is wrong. Populist policies are exactly what democracy is – the popular will of the people, and whether those policies be right or wrong or morally reprehensible is not for an elitist group to judge, as we are seeing in the MSM in regard to Trump supporters (‘the deplorables’).

      • Warty says:

        I couldn’t agree more, pgang. The irony is that so many of us who respond to articles in Quadrant, and The Australian, for that matter, happen to be part of an elite too, and though bombarded by the same PC ideology we are aware it is a load of crock and choose to do something about reversing the trend. The ‘deplorables’, so often patronised in the MSM, know the difference between a ‘hot and steamy’ and the daily reality they are increasingly becoming aware of. They know that their suburbs have changed beyond recognition, without their mandate. They know that Malcolm’s (and Tony Abbot’s) appeasement of an aggressive minority group lacks their support. They are confused by the different accounts as to whether or not there is such a thing as global warming, but strongly feel they’re being sold a pup.
        The populists are simply tired of being told what to think, being told to vote as they’re told, and want an alternative to the two-three party sham. No, populism is simply showing the elites that there is perhaps some life left in the carcass called democracy.

      • Lawrie Ayres says:

        You beat me to it. Populism as practiced by Shorten for example is listening to the loudest voices hence his adoption of SSM and Climate Change. Where he and some in the conservative side go wrong is by assuming those who squark the loudest are reflecting the view of the majority. The majority as I observe them are usually quiet and deliver their verdict every election. Unfortunately they are never heeded until it is too late. Pauline listens to the majority and reflects their views and I think in the next election she will gain even more seats. Trump listens to those without a voice in the MSM and will surprise many on November 8 provided the ignored get out and vote. Just like Brexit.

  • en passant says:

    “The Republican Party as it has become is a rotting curse on everything it is supposed to represent.” Did you mean Liberal Party of Australia?
    One blogger commented that Trump was once a Democrat (and implied that demonstrated a hidden flaw that invalidated his candidacy. Well, I was a member of the Liberal Party for 31-years, but I have learned that I remain true while they have become a rotting curse on everything they are supposed to represent. Does that now despised membership invalidate any future political views I express?

    • ian.macdougall says:

      en passant (or whatever your real name is): It was Paul Berman, not me, who said in the article I linked to ““The Republican Party as it has become is a rotting curse on everything it is supposed to represent.” THEN YOU ASKED ME “Did you mean Liberal Party of Australia?”
      But I congratulate you for sticking to your original principles while the ‘despised membership’ of your former party have reneged.
      “Does that now despised membership invalidate any future political views I express?”

    • Jody says:

      No, but it certainly prevents you from running for leader of the Labor Party.

      • ian.macdougall says:

        My hopes and plans dashed yet again!

      • Warty says:

        Even that is questionable, Jody. Your Malcolm Wormpill is recorded as having attempted to seek preselection to the Labor party. In joining the ‘broad church’ that is said to be the Liberal Party, you’d have to be said that he is an ideological twin to, say, an Anthony Albanese. I look forward to a conservative party (perhaps Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives) that is not in fact a ‘broad church’. I’m done with divisiveness.

  • Dallas Beaufort says:

    Follow the money. Once the Democrats have spent every last cent of their $Billion election funds on media placements the tide will change to business in Trump’s consolidation of better wages & jobs for America.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Trump if you ask me is a total political con man: a modern Elmer Gantry. Clinton leads in percentage terms at the moment 45-37.
    What is most amazing is that ‘conservatives’ are so ready to buy Trump’s brand of snake oil, and to be totally set up as suckers in the process. It brings to mind that maxim of the immortal sage WC Fields: “Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

Leave a Reply