The Hit Squad

 

Do not make yourself a target for the Clintons.  This has been a rule for as long as we’ve known them.  If you get in their sights, bad things happen to you.  The latest case in point is Scott Adams, writer of the Dilbert comic strip who has turned his thoughts to blogging about the Trump phenomenon.  According to Adams, because he has been writing things favorable to Trump (something he would likely contest as he would claim that he was merely describing what he was seeing based on his own experience and training) he has seen his usual schedule of speaking engagements dropped.  This is rather similar to the usual practice of late for universities to disinvite conservative speakers.  Blogging on the election the way he has, has cost him financially.

As something of a semi-serious running joke, months ago Adams had endorsed Hillary for president for (as he put it) “my own personal safety” – this on the grounds that Hillary and the Democrats were painting Trump as a fascist while stirring race hatred, which all meant that if Trump did win there would be unprecedented post election violence.  Endorsing Hillary would therefore both deflect some attacks now, and would hopefully shield him if she lost.  Last week he changed his endorsement to Trump, in no small part for financial reasons:

The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.

Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.

You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)

Things have changed for Adams since then.  One of Adams’s consistent observations has been that while Clinton has portrayed Trump as a fascist and his supporters as violent racists, especially as there has been a notable trend of violence at the fringes of Trump rallies, the real violence has nearly always been perpetrated by Clinton supporters.  Last week Adams asked his Twitter followers to send him examples of such violence, and that was when things escalated against Adams (emphasis mine):

This weekend I got “shadowbanned” on Twitter. It lasted until my followers noticed and protested. Shadowbanning prevents my followers from seeing my tweets and replies, but in a way that is not obvious until you do some digging.

Why did I get shadowbanned?

Beats me.

But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.

Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed. There was an obvious similarity to them, meaning it was organized.

At around the same time, a bottom-feeder at Slate wrote a hit piece on me that had nothing to do with anything. Except obviously it was politically motivated. It was so lame that I retweeted it myself. The timing of the hit piece might be a coincidence, but I stopped believing in coincidences this year.

I get that Never Trump members here are unpersuaded by arguments against Hillary on things like the Supreme Court.  What I do not understand, though, is why they are unpersuaded by the simple observation that the Clintons (and the Democrats) actually do target their critics and work to destroy their careers and their lives.

I see many arguments of one sort or another that argue that Trump must lose now so that Conservatism (a term at this point of which I am increasingly leery) can spend the next 4 years rebuilding, and that Hillary must be so obviously terrible a president that we should be guaranteed a win in 2020.  Yet this fact remains – people who cross the Clintons often find their lives made suddenly very difficult.  Why is there such confidence that we would be allowed to even make the case against her?  Must we have an additional 4 years of an executive inflicting the IRS on political opponents?  Must we have an additional 4 years of the administration orchestrating with political activists to smear writers?  Why the confidence that in the next 4 years the Republicans will be allowed to rebuild without intimidation?

Finally I often see the Never Trump members here use some variant on the argument “if Trump is the solution, then the Republic is already beyond repair.”  It should be realized that in many respects our Republic is indeed damaged beyond repair.  A party that organizes national smear campaigns to discredit, humiliate, and ruin the careers of private citizens who dare criticize their operations, that is aided and abetted by tech companies like Twitter, is a party that has already decided the Republic and its governmental limitations do not apply to themselves.  Hillary’s embarrassing incompetence on national and international issues is bad enough (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were also terrible), but the willingness to destroy the lives of critics and attempt to silence enemies should terrify us all.  Hillary has attempted to brand Trump as a fascist, but it is Hillary and the Democrats who are organizing armies to smash windows, burn cities, and riot.  It is they who are running the hit squads.  It is they who are the fascists.

[Editors’ Note: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Interested in becoming part of the best conservative community on the web, and post your ideas where they might get Instalanched? Ricochet is just $5/month and the first one is on us. As our Founders say, join the conversation.]

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 162 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Addiction Is A Choice Member
    Addiction Is A Choice
    @AddictionIsAChoice

    Who reads Ricochet? This post is linked at Instapundit

    instapundit ricochet 2

    • #151
  2. 10 cents Member
    10 cents
    @

    Addiction Is A Choice:Who reads Ricochet? This post is linked at Instapundit

    instapundit ricochet 2

    Ed Driscoll is a Member. (Hi, Ed!!!)  He commented on a post I put up one time. It was a hard hitting piece on ASCII art.

    • #152
  3. 10 cents Member
    10 cents
    @

    Kate Braestrup: I’m with Majestyk: I read the essay Skipsul linked to, and thought Scott Adams sounds self-important.

    I think it is his humor more than that he feels “self-important”. It is also a coping method. My opinion is that he has accomplished a lot in his life. He is not only a humorist but has some important ideas. anonymous has recommended me to read some of his more serious works.

    Scott Adams has to produce creative things ALL the time. Having things like this happen really helps that process. I think Scott Adams is just amazed at how successful he has been.  @rightangles

    • #153
  4. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Kate Braestrup:

    Majestyk: So, anybody who runs against them needs to be pure as the wind driven snow and smart enough to figure out how to deflect the sleaze the Clintons and their cronies dream up. Obama smashed them at this game. Why doesn’t anybody else?

    Agree. Why do we act as if no one has ever defeated a Clinton?

    Trump is not losing because the Clintons are omnipotent, capable of (ooh!) having their opponents shadow-whatsis’d on Twitter. (Indeed, the fact that Trump is doing as well as he is shows clearly that they aren’t.) Trump is losing because he is the sort of person who thinks it’s a good idea to send out tweets about a fat Miss Universe in the middle of the night.

    I’m with Majestyk: I read the essay Skipsul linked to, and thought Scott Adams sounds self-important.

    He is indeed, but still worth reading (at least for me).  You ought to read his Valentine’s essay on marriage, amusing and clever but, well…

    • #154
  5. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Addiction Is A Choice:Who reads Ricochet? This post is linked at Instapundit

    instapundit ricochet 2

    Whoa!  I think that’s the second time I’ve been crosslinked to another site!

    • #155
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Chuck Enfield: We’ve been complaining about it for 20 years. It’s safe to assume that’s not gonna work.

    Coca Cola has been advertised for over 20 years.  What’s the use?

    • #156
  7. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    skipsul: Finally I often see the Never Trump members here use some variant on the argument “if Trump is the solution, then the Republic is already beyond repair.” It should be realized that in many respects our Republic is indeed damaged beyond repair.

    This one’s for all the marbles, folks. Under Hillary it’s game over in so many ways. Guaranteed.

    Trump… maybe there’s a prayer. Maybe.

    Karl Denninger:

    … the government intentionally destroyed almost 8% of your paycheck and your savings last year, running a $1.423 trillion dollar budget deficit, which is roughly equal to the worst of the “great recession” when tax revenues went through the floor….

    Let me be clear: On the arithmetic if we do not stop this now within the next 4-5 years — that is, within the next Presidential term — our government will collapse, our economy will collapse, our health care system will collapse and both the stock and housing markets will collapse.  This is not politics, it’s arithmetic.  And the worst part of it is that I am utterly certain that the “references” count, along with the “views” count on this article will both be a fraction of the politically-oriented articles I’ve recently posted.  That the real end of our way of life in America, a threat that is obvious, mathematically certain, not very far in the future and yet avoidable if we act now fails to garner any sort of serious attention is the real outrage folks.

    • #157
  8. Patrickb63 Coolidge
    Patrickb63
    @Patrickb63

    Majestyk:

    Carol:I don’t know very much about Scott Adams. But Clinton does have hit squads to target her political adversaries. Her familiar David Brock lives to enact revenge on any who cross the Clintons- this has been written about frequently. And he has big money backers. Are you saying that it is ok for her to try to destroy anyone who opposes her?

    I’m saying that people who have been paying attention for any amount of time know how the Clintons work.

    I’m not saying that these surrogates doing the Clintons’ dirty work for them is “OK” I’m saying it’s a reality. Why do you think these people fight so hard and play so dirty? It’s the oldest story in the book: Jobs are on the line. So, anybody who runs against them needs to be pure as the wind driven snow and smart enough to figure out how to deflect the sleaze the Clintons and their cronies dream up. Obama smashed them at this game. Why doesn’t anybody else?

    Obama had race working for him.  The Clintons wouldn’t dare have damaged him too much for fear of setting off a firestorm among the Democrat’s base.

    • #158
  9. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    The Reticulator:

    Chuck Enfield: We’ve been complaining about it for 20 years. It’s safe to assume that’s not gonna work.

    Coca Cola has been advertised for over 20 years. What’s the use?

    I’m pretty sure Coke thinks their ads are working.  You?

    • #159
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Chuck Enfield:

    The Reticulator:

    Chuck Enfield: We’ve been complaining about it for 20 years. It’s safe to assume that’s not gonna work.

    Coca Cola has been advertised for over 20 years. What’s the use?

    I’m pretty sure Coke thinks their ads are working. You?

    They haven’t eliminated their competitors yet.

    The point is that we shouldn’t quit complaining just because the bad behavior continues.  We should certainly look for ways to be more effective, but that’s no reason to stop the complaining.

    • #160
  11. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    The Reticulator:

    Chuck Enfield:

    The Reticulator:

    Chuck Enfield: We’ve been complaining about it for 20 years. It’s safe to assume that’s not gonna work.

    Coca Cola has been advertised for over 20 years. What’s the use?

    I’m pretty sure Coke thinks their ads are working. You?

    They haven’t eliminated their competitors yet.

    It’s unlikely that’s even a goal for them, and it shouldn’t be for us either.  Goals need to be attainable, and that’s not. Both Coke and Conservatives should focus on market share.  Trying to achieve monopoly status is a fool’s errand.

    The point is that we shouldn’t quit complaining just because the bad behavior continues. We should certainly look for ways to be more effective, but that’s no reason to stop the complaining.

    I didn’t say stop complaining anywhere.  I merely pointed out that it’s not getting the job done.

    • #161
  12. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    I believe the country is beyond repair.  The best strategy is to elect the person least likely to come for your gun or audit your taxes.

    • #162
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.