Does anyone really think Donald Trump incited violence against Hillary Clinton?
Let's agree that he made an unfortunate, off the cuff comment.
He said that if a future President Hillary Clinton hypothetically stacked the U.S. Supreme to ensure the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was neutered in its protection of an individual's right to bear arms that there would be no going back — Americans would lose their fundamental freedoms.
That is indisputably true.
Unfortunately, he added: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
This comment was seized upon by the Clinton campaign and the Big Media (or is that a distinction without a difference?) to suggest backers of the Second Amendment might assassinate her.
I don't believe Trump was suggesting that. More likely he was tipping his hat to the still strong Second Amendment lobby. But it was a poorly constructed comment, nonetheless.
Look at the context: "Hillary wants to abolish - essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said. "But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."
There was no incitement.
It was an unclear statement.
He certainly wasn't suggesting that gun owners try to kill Hillary.
In fact, all the incitement in 2016 has been from the media and the Clinton campaign against Trump.
Let's look at some facts:
—Trump supporters have been physically attacked just for being Trump supporters in this campaign. No similar attacks on Hillary supporters have been reported. Trump supporters have been shot, threatened, assaulted and battered. There has not been a word of condemnation offered by the Democratic Party or Hillary or the Big Media.
—Trump has been labeled and smeared by Hillary, the Democrats and the Big Media as a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, an Islamophobe and a hater. Are there any harsher characterizations one can make about another in today's culture? is that not inviting some nut to take a potshot?
—One of the most prominent cartoonists in the world, Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, recently endorsed Clinton because he feared "for my personal safety" to do otherwise.
—Way back in 2008, when Hillary was running against Barack Obama, she made a much more overt allusion to assassination that seemed inappropriate. Explaining why she was staying in the Democratic primary race while trailing Barack Obama badly in May of that year, she explained, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." Whoa! What on earth was she suggesting? Which statement was more provocative and incendiary — Trump's or hers?
Now Hillary's campaign is playing the Lyndon Johnson political card of 1964 with an appeal to fear of what Trump might do if he gets his hands on the nuclear trigger. Back then, Bill Moyers helped the Johnson campaign make a commercial known as "Daisy," in which a little girl picks petals off a flower while a countdown to nuclear war takes place simultaneously.
All this raises two key questions:
Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton is more stable, more healthy, of more sound mind, or of better judgment than Donald Trump? With her non-existent track record of achievement, her bad temper, her brain concussion, her medical record, her behavior on the campaign, her seizures, her fundamental dishonesty, etc., etc., etc., how can anyone make that case?