In this file:
· The wealthy Republicans who want to oust Trump in November's election
Jimmy Tosh, who runs a multi-million dollar hog and grain farm in Tennessee, is a lifelong Republican. He is pro-gun, supports lower taxes and agrees with most of Republican President Donald Trump’s agenda. He is also spending his money to help defeat Trump in November’s election...
· Grabbing Our Guns
... What is happening in St. Louis should awaken us to the fact that those fears are well founded...
· Why This Revolution Isn't Like the '60s
... the war no longer pits radicals against conservatives, but often socialists and anarchists against both liberals and conservatives...
The wealthy Republicans who want to oust Trump in November's election
Tim Reid, Reuters
Jul 24, 2020
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jimmy Tosh, who runs a multi-million dollar hog and grain farm in Tennessee, is a lifelong Republican. He is pro-gun, supports lower taxes and agrees with most of Republican President Donald Trump’s agenda.
He is also spending his money to help defeat Trump in November’s election.
“I agree with 80% of the things he does; I just cannot stand a liar,” Tosh, 70, said of Trump.
Tosh is one of a growing number of wealthy conservative Americans who say Trump is a threat to democracy and the long-term health of the Republican Party. They are actively supporting his Democratic opponent in the Nov. 3 vote, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Several billionaire and millionaire donors to The Lincoln Project, the most prominent of Republican-backed groups opposing Trump’s re-election, told Reuters that elected Republicans should also be punished for enabling him. Some even support the ouster of vulnerable Republican senators to hand control of the chamber to Democrats.
Their money has fueled an unprecedented campaign from members of a sitting president’s own party to oust him from office. This is a sign that Trump has alienated some Republicans, most recently with his response to the coronavirus pandemic and nationwide protests over police brutality against Black Americans.
The ultimate impact of these actions remains to be seen in a country so deeply polarized. The “Never Trump” Republicans failed to stop his ascent in 2016 and became marginal figures as Trump came to dominate the party during his presidency. But this year could be different, some strategists from both parties said.
“The distinction in 2020 that we didn’t see in 2016 is the amount of money backing their efforts and their size,” said Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist and a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
“The number of people willing to go public about Trump and put serious money behind beating him — I don’t think we’ve seen an effort on this scale.”
Besides The Lincoln Project, several Republican-backed groups have been formed in recent months to support Biden including 43 Alumni for Biden, a super PAC involving hundreds of officials who served in Republican President George W. Bush’s administration, and a coalition of former Republican national security officials.
Others are skeptical, noting that Trump is vastly outraising and outspending the Never Trump groups and still enjoys nearly 90% support among Republicans. In June alone, Trump’s campaign raised $55.2 million, compared to the $20 million that The Lincoln Project has raised since its formation in December.
Yet in a close election, even peeling away a sliver of wavering Republicans and some independents could make a difference, analysts said.
Tosh, who has given $11,000 to The Lincoln Project after seeing one of their ads attacking Trump, said he might give to other Republican-led groups too.
“I made the decision I will not support a Republican candidate in an election until Trump is gone,” he said...
‘REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED’ ...
Grabbing Our Guns
They’re coming for our guns (really)
By Cal Thomas, Opinion, Tribune Content Agency
July 21, 2020
For years conservative groups and especially the National Rifle Association have been warning that the government would find a way to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans. Many dismissed what they regarded as a scare tactic designed to raise money.
What is happening in St. Louis should awaken us to the fact that those fears are well founded.
The top prosecutor in St. Louis has charged a married couple with “felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.”
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who the media identify as being “white,” are in their 60s. Both are personal injury attorneys. Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner says their actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise “peaceful protest” last month.
Doesn’t Gardner have it backwards?
The gun owners, who say protesters had trespassed on their property, claim they were protecting their home from what could have turned into a violent mob as they no doubt had seen happen on TV in other cities. A case could be made that their display of weapons prevented violence, which is one of the purposes of the Second Amendment. Having a gun for personal protection can be a deterrent without it ever being fired. The McCloskeys did not fire their guns, but only waved them at the protesters while yelling at them.
The McCloskeys have some powerful defenders, including President Trump and Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, who has said he will pardon the couple if they are convicted. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is another supporter. Hawley has asked Attorney General William Barr to begin an investigation to determine whether the McCloskey’s civil rights have been violated.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt is also on the side of the McCloskeys. Schmitt has filed a brief with the court that says in part, “The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our Constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine.” The Castle law was passed in 2017 and provides for “stand your ground” protection for citizens who feel threatened by others.
Police seized Mark McCloskey’s semi-automatic weapon and Patricia McCloskey later voluntarily surrendered her pistol.
This case is not only important on its own but demonstrates what could happen if Joe Biden wins the presidency. In March, while the COVID-19 virus was beginning to overtake us, Biden said this about Beto O’Rourke after O’Rourke dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Biden: “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on you. I’m counting on you.” He then added, “We need you badly, the state needs you, the country needs you. You’re the best.”
Last year while still a candidate, O’Rourke said during a debate carried by ABC News: “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.” And after that, what? Having established a precedent that the government has a right to confiscate a weapon owned by a law-abiding citizen, what other guns would O’Rourke (and Biden) come for and on what grounds? What would stop them if more liberal judges are named to the courts and they ignore or re-interpret the Second Amendment?
Do any of the shooters in our major cities pay attention to anti-gun laws, or laws against murder? By definition they are lawbreakers and no one has been able to tell me how passing more laws will suddenly turn them into law-abiders.
By brandishing their weapons, the McCloskeys possibly deterred the marchers outside their home from engaging in actions far worse than their alleged trespassing. If they are convicted, they should be immediately pardoned by the governor. This should be a lesson learned about one of the many dangers of a Joe Biden presidency.
(c) 2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Why This Revolution Isn't Like the '60s
By Victor Davis Hanson, Opinion, RealClearPolitics
Jul 23, 2020
Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution
In the 1960s and early '70s, the U.S. was convulsed by massive protests calling for radical changes in the country's attitudes on race, class, gender and sexual orientation. The Vietnam War and widespread college deferments were likely the fuel that ignited prior peaceful civil disobedience.
Sometimes the demonstrations became violent, as with the Watts riots of 1965 and the protests at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Terrorists from the Weathermen (later called the Weather Underground) bombed dozens of government buildings.
The '60s revolution introduced to the country everything from hippies, communes, free love, mass tattooing, commonplace profanity, rampant drug use, rock music and high divorce rates to the war on poverty, massive government growth, feminism, affirmative action and race/gender/ethnic college curricula.
The enemies of the '60s counterculture were the "establishment" -- politicians, corporations, the military and the "square" generation" in general. Leftists targeted their parents, who had grown up in the Great Depression. That generation had won World War II and returned to create a booming postwar economy. After growing up with economic and military hardship, they sought a return to comfortable conformity in the 1950s.
A half-century after the earlier revolution, today's cultural revolution is vastly different -- and far more dangerous.
Government and debt have grown. Social activism is already institutionalized in hundreds of newer federal programs. The "Great Society" inaugurated a multitrillion-dollar investment in the welfare state. Divorce rates soared. The nuclear family waned. Immigration, both legal and illegal, skyrocketed.
Thus, America is far less resilient, and a far more divided, indebted and vulnerable target than it was in 1965.
Today, radicals are not protesting against 1950s conservatism but rather against the radicals of the 1960s, who as old liberals now hold power. Now, many of the current enforcers -- blue-state governors, mayors and police chiefs -- are from the left. Unlike Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley in the '60s, today's progressive civic leaders often sympathize with the protesters.
The '60s protests were for racial assimilation and integration to reify Martin Luther King Jr.'s agenda of making race incidental, not essential, to the American mindset. Not so with today's cultural revolution. It seeks to ensure that racial difference is the foundation of American life, dividing the country between supposed non-white victims and purported white victimizers, past and present.
In the '60s, radicals rebelled against their teachers and professors, who were often highly competent and the products of fact-based and inductive education. Not so in 2020. Today's radicals were taught not by traditionalists but by less-educated older radicals.
Another chief difference is debt. Most public education in the 1960s was bare-bones and relatively inexpensive. Because there were no plush dorms, latte bars, rock-climbing walls, diversity coordinators and provosts of inclusion, college tuition in real dollars was far cheaper.
The result was that 1960s student radicals graduated without much debt and for all their hipness could enter a booming economy with marketable skills. Today's angry graduates owe a collective $1.6 trillion in student loan debt -- much of it borrowed for mediocre, therapeutic and politicized training that does not impress employers.
College debt impedes maturity, marriage, child-raising, home ownership and the saving of money. In other words, today's radical is far more desperate and angry that his college gambit never paid off.
Today's divide is also geographical in the fashion of 1861, not just generational as in the 1960s. The two blue coasts seem to despise the vast red interior, and vice versa.
Yet the scariest trait of the current revolution is that many of its sympathizers haven't changed much since the 1960s. They may be rich, powerful, influential and older, but they are just as reckless and see the current chaos as the final victory in their own long march from the '60s.
Corporations are no longer seen as evil, but as woke contributors to the revolution. The military is no longer smeared as warmongering, but praised as a government employment service where race, class and gender agendas can be green-lighted without messy legislative debate. Unlike the 1960s, there are essentially no conservatives in Hollywood, on campuses or in government bureaucracies.
So the war no longer pits radicals against conservatives, but often socialists and anarchists against both liberals and conservatives.
In the '60s, a huge "silent majority" finally had enough, elected Richard Nixon and slowed down the revolution by jailing its criminals, absorbing and moderating it. Today, if there is a silent mass of traditionalists and conservatives, they remain in hiding.
If they stay quiet in their veritable mental monasteries and deplore the violence in silence, the revolution will steamroll on. But as in the past, if they finally snap, decide enough is enough and reclaim their country, then even this cultural revolution will sputter out, too.
(C) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.