Republicans Reject PC Language and Monarchy

Melania Trump

Melania Trump

I have a few thoughts to share after South Carolina.

I have been trying to understand the Trump phenomenon since his ascent. Those who support him tell me two things: “He tells it like it is” and “He’s strong.”

When I probe further it becomes clear that people are responding to his blunt, unrehearsed language, statements that have not been focus-tested. In short, Trump’s language is anti-PC. He says things that are outrageous. But their very outrageousness places them outside of the accepted PC word usage.

People are sick and tired of the totalitarian manner in which the left controls culture through language. When “Reproductive Rights” replaces “abortion” society has turned Orwellian.

The Pope, I believe, actually boosted Trump’s candidacy over the weekend.

Vatican City is surrounded by walls, and this city is allowing exactly one Syrian family to settle within its protective walls this year. The Pope’s veiled attack on Trump was a political/religious broadside that did not play well to the American grain of independence and liberty. Trump achieved the unthinkable: He went head to head with the Pope—and came out on top. And that’s because the Pope was using the PC language of the left, and Republicans are sick of this self-righteous bullying.

Meanwhile, Trump’s vicious left wing attack on George Bush will, I believe, come back to haunt him. It’s a huge rhetorical misstep. And there was a wall of loud boos from the South Carolinian audience that suggests a deep fault-line in the Trump candidacy.

To be clear, Seraphic Secret supports Marco Rubio. Ted Cruz comes a close second. Either would be good for America, good for Israel, good for the world.

But we understand why Trump is surging.

Which brings me to —


Melania Trump is, um, gorgeous. I look at her and all seems right with the world.

Looking at Hillary and her grim-lipped worshippers clad in their prison style pant suits is torture. It’s like being trapped in one of those indie-prod Sundance films that feature angry men and women of indeterminate sex who are marinating in existential crisis.

I know, I know, this brands me as shallow. But hey, 30 years in Hollywood leaves a vivid impression.

End Interpolation

Jeb Bush spent 65 million dollars  attacking Marco Rubio. What did his donors get for their money? Two delegates. Jeb was actually a pretty good governor in Florida. But then he dropped out of sight for ten years, did absolutely nothing for the Conservative cause, and then reentered the political sphere with a sense of entitlement. He seemed to be saying: “Hey, folks, it’s my turn.”

It was all a bit too European for the Jacksonian streak in American politics.

In rejecting Jeb Bush, Republicans soundly rejected the idea of American monarchy. Jeb was honorable in withdrawing.

But the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton. She will crush that crazy old commie Sanders. And in nominating Hillary the Democrats not only go fully medieval monarchical, but they empower a leader who is crooked, corrupt, and a liar. The Democrats seem intent on legitimizing France’s Louis XIVs declaration: ‘L’etat c’est moi’. (‘I am the state’).

One more thought. Obama did not attend Justice Scalia’s funeral. There has been a great deal of criticism for his lack of class. But Obama is such a narcissistic vulgarian that his absence was actually a blessing. Have you forgotten how Obama made a mockery of Nelson Mandela’s funeral?

Antonin Scalia was a great man, a great American. Obama’s presence at his funeral would have sullied the solemnity of the occasion.

This entry was posted in America, Hillary Clinton, Obama Watch and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. kgbudge
    Posted February 24, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    I largely agree with you here, Robert, but this especially: I am glad Obama didn’t attend Scalia’s funeral. With Mr. Obama, it’s always about Mr. Obama, and that would not have been appropriate at a great man’s funeral.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. David Foster
    Posted February 23, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    CJR….”As an Evangelical Christian we are told to vote for President according to three principles…”

    Told by whom? My understanding of Protestantism generally, and the Evangelical variety in particular, is that there is no over-arching human authority, but that each individual is responsible for reading & understanding Scripture and drawing his or her own conclusions therefrom. Am I missing something?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • CJReott
      Posted February 23, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      I should have explained further. We are told by God to vote according to his word, the Bible, the Word of God. From my Pastor, Jack Hibbs, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, CA. “Let me first say that I am a monarchist – I believe in a ruling and reigning King and I am awaiting His return any day now. But until He comes, I am to pray and vote for righteousness. Thus, I will ask you, fellow Christians, to apply the following litmus test to the ( ) candidates in this election as I am. I like to call it the “Trinity of Truth” test:
      First, God says that He is the Creator and Inventor of natural marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, as a Christian, I must vote for the candidate that has a voting record that is the closest to the biblical worldview of defending traditional marriage if I am going to be in agreement with God.
      Second, God says that He is the Creator and Defender of life. He holds every one of us responsible for protecting defenseless pre-born children. Thus, as a Christian, I must vote for the candidate that has a voting record that is the closest to the biblical worldview of Pro-Life if I am going to be in agreement with God. Third, God says that He is the Creator and Sustainer of the Jews, Jerusalem and Israel’s right to their land. Thus, as a Christian, I must vote for the candidate that has a voting record that is the closest to the biblical worldview of supporting Israel if I am going to be in agreement with God”.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. pkoning
    Posted February 22, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    The thing about Trump is that he isn’t, in fact, telling it like it is. And he isn’t actually strong.
    The reality is that he makes inflammatory, dishonest, misleading statements that look flashy and get attention. He does that every day so he doesn’t have to pay for advertisements. As for being strong, not at all. He’s a bully, which is a weak person who preys on others.

    The scary thing is that, just like other evil people in history, he has found a gimmick that seems to work. He acts a lot like Peron, or Chavez, and some others I could name who were skilled demagogues with absolutely no regard for or interest in truth, honesty, or the rule of law. And he’s succeeding because the other candidates are unwilling or unable to point out that this is so. I can’t fathom why they don’t learn how to do this. It should be clear by now that this is their first priority, that if they can’t learn how to do it and do it right, nothing else will matter and Hillary will win by default. Marco will have to do some serious studying to get this right.

    By the way, what’s with the 48 star flag in that photo?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Barry
      Posted February 22, 2016 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

      Break it down. Evil people in history is inflammatory but tells nothing about Donald Trump, only that you seem to be working the room yourself.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • pkoning
        Posted February 23, 2016 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        By “break it down” I assume you mean “explain my statement”. Will do.
        He usually doesn’t give policy positions, only a stream of words that have zero semantic content. But on those few occasions he does, you can see that he has less respect for the Constitution than Obama does, which is rather a difficult feat to accomplish.
        For example: telling companies they are not allowed to run their business in the way they want, without any legal authority for the interference. Claiming he’ll impose all sorts of pain on China without legal authority. Claiming he’ll deport 11 million people without any sign that due process would be involved. And so on.
        A person who clearly and expressly states plans to stomp on the law and the Constitution is, in my book, “evil”.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Barry
          Posted February 23, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

          None of this can be called evil, and the eleven million do not get due process, or any more of it than they got when they ‘snuck’ in. But in the context of due process which will cost us all in cash and emotion.

          As for China, or any other adversarial nation, foreign policy is what the president does, and not necessarily benign.

          I think you just don’t like Trump and I don’t care for him much myself, but none of what you have written goes beyond judgment and assertion.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • pkoning
            Posted February 23, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

            Foreign policy is a popular excuse for power hungry presidents. But the Constitutional reality is that the Constitution says what the president’s powers are. For example, imposing tariffs is a Congressional power, not something the president can do at will.
            As I said, it’s hard to find any “there” in the muddle of word-spew that comes out of his mouth. So yes, I suppose you might claim all I have is judgment. Fine. My judgment is that the best possible conclusion permitted by my understanding of his verbiage is that he has no intention of obeying the Constitution, and instead intends to use execute power to do anything he feels like.
            If he doesn’t want to be judged that way, he should feel free to be clearer in what he says so people can come to a more positive conclusion. Until then, I stand with the S.C. pastor interviewed on TV a few days ago who said that he “would not vote for Trump for dog-catcher”.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Bill Brandt
    Posted February 22, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Robert I don’t know if you followed the brouhaha last year over the firing of Jeremy Clarkson of BBCs Top Gear, but one of the magazines – I think it was Forbes or the WSJ – had a inciteful reason for his huge popularity.

    He was totally “un PC”. Like Trump he “called them as he saw them”.

    I don’t think the BBC ever understood the reason for his phenomenal success.

    I was a huge Trump supporter some months ago. His language, totally unscripted and certainly not PC, he speaks to the frustrations and even anger of millions of Americans.

    He is getting a lot of the old Reagan Democrats – conservative blue collar workers.

    But for me the first fault line was his denigration of John McCain’s wartime service. I suspect there are many POWs who were guests of the Hanoi Hilton who died there. To survive in that environment for 7 years – and particularly when the North Vietnamese gave him an opportunity to leave because of his father – well, I wonder how many of us would survive 7 years of that.

    And Trump has no military service.

    Not that politically I am a John McCain fan – a lot of what he has done in the Senate has angered me.

    Trumps antics – publicly and personally criticizing his fellow candidates – reminds me of a Don Rickles Las Vegas Stage show.

    It is vulgar and unbefitting a Presidential candidate.

    We can thank Trump though for opening the floodgates towards more open speech.

    As for my favorite – most of politics is a compromise. I find issues with all of them but I guess I am wavering between Rubio and Cruz.

    I wanted Scott Walker.

    Where is he now? 😉

    As for Hillary, listening to her shriek reminded at least one fellow of his ex wife. Then there is the whole trustworthiness issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • pkoning
      Posted February 24, 2016 at 9:58 am | Permalink

      Re: Trump has no military service. If I understood correctly, that same is true for all the current candidates.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Barry
        Posted February 24, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

        The last president with military service was George H. W. Bush. When the current election cycle is completed, that will be a full twenty-five years back. I do not count W’s national Guard time or Bill Clinton’s parading around London holding up anti-American signs. What a jerk.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • pkoning
          Posted February 26, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

          I would argue that Guard time should be counted. You’re under orders just as the other military, and in particular you’re subject to being ordered into combat just like the others. To argue that the Guard is not “real military” is rather an insult to those who serve in the Guard.

          This quote I saw a few months ago captures the point rather well:

          “A veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including his life.'” – Author Unknown

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Bill Brandt
            Posted February 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

            Just ask those 10s of thousands of National Guard who were deployed to Afghanistan

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

            • Barry
              Posted February 26, 2016 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

              When they are deployed it certainly counts, but my comment was relative to W’s time in the Guard.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. David Foster
    Posted February 22, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    A lot of political behavior can be explained by the desire to have a leader who is “like me” in some ways. Many professors probably supported Obama in large part because of this, they imagined that had things turned out a little different, Obama would have been a professor just like them. (No way this would have happened, in the real world, but that isn’t the point.)

    I think a lot of Trump supporters are thinking, at some level, “hey, if I was a billionaire, I’d be just like that!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Posted February 22, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    I’m afraid I must disagree.
    I love eye candy as much as the next man, probably more than you Robert, not have been exposed to a plethora of such as you have for the last 30 years but…
    It actually creeps me out a bit that the thing that the Donald values above all else in a women is fantastic good looks.
    It is just one more reason I find him to be a bizarre and obviously shallow human being.
    Associate that with his affection or disdain for others – Putin for example.
    G-d knows what Trump would have said about Lincoln…
    Think about it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. serene
    Posted February 22, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Not shallow, actually an incisive correlation: Hillary and her pant suits, especially the red one, remind me of Chairman Mao. or one of the tanks in Tiananmen Square. You know she has no intention of losing this time. If she goes down she’s taking as many as she can along with her.
    Trump has a lot of supporters simply because you have to admire a man who can marry a woman who looks like Melania and seems happy to be with him. (Didn’t you point out that none of his exes bad mouth him?)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • CJReott
      Posted February 22, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      My husband and I were discussing just last night how much Trump had to pay Ivana and Marla to keep their mouths shut. There was some real nasty business.

      As an Evangelical Christian we are told to vote for President according to three principles:

      1. Marriage between a man and a woman.
      2. Protection of the unborn.
      3. Support of Israel.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Barry
        Posted February 22, 2016 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

        You don’t know that about Donald and his former wives. The comment may speak to people who trash politicians as ‘crooks’ whatever that may mean. As for the nasty business we may know about, that goes to the Clinton/Abedin axis. No Republicans and no other Democrats involved.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Posted February 22, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    Spot on, Robert.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting