TRUMP'S COMMENTS ON ROB REINER'S DEATH

The fallout over President Trump’s comments on the death of Rob Reiner can be compared to one of those atomic bomb mushroom clouds in Japanese Sci-Fi movies. The legacy media, never the president’s friend no matter the issue, quoted a number of conservatives disgusted by Trump’s “crude” comments on the killing of the Brentwood, California native.

You had Republican Kentucky representative Thomas Massie, who has clashed with Trump since the president returned to the White House in January, writing on X: “Regardless of how you felt about Rob Reiner, this is inappropriate and disrespectful discourse about a man who was just brutally murdered.” The Trump-hating BBC doubled down with reports on Republicans critical of the president’s comments on Reiner. What I found odd about the BBC reportage was its “constructive criticism” approach to the issue, as if it were merely calling for a president it hated immensely to be compassionate despite its editorial record of wanting only one thing: Trump’s demise. The BBC seemed to be saying, “If only you had more empathy, Mr. President, we might be persuaded to love you a little bit!” CNN had fun calling Trump’s comments that Reiner was “very bad for our country” and that his death could be “linked to Trump derangement syndrome,” as “Indefensible,” despite the fact that Trump began his comments on Reiner by stating that the killing was “very sad.” “Very sad,” in Trumpian terms, contains a world of feeling. Trump is not one to wax ad infinitum on sentimental feelings. A bull in a china shop has a hard time understanding nuance. Some have even described his reaction and comments after the death of Charlie Kirk as being strangely abrupt and a little cold.

Yet that simple, “very sad,” was much more than the armies of crazed leftists ever said about the murder of Charlie Kirk. The word “sad” was not even in the leftist vocabulary after Kirk was shot. Some lefty talking heads in the media were careful to preface critical remarks about Kirk with generic statements about the importance of free speech and how violence should never be used to eliminate unpopular views. For the most part this was just protective ‘career-speak,’ because once they were finished talking about free speech, they laid into Kirk’s views with a sledge hammer. I don’t think any of these media lefties ever used the word “sad” when describing Kirk’s murder. Their stock responses to the murder reminded me of the mechanics of diagramming complex sentences in grammar school: the first clause is highlighted while the second clause is arranged under the first in a platform-like design. But it’s always the second clause in these diagrammed sentences that usually deliver the “punch” or the real meaning of the sentence. How easy it is to sit in judgment of a president who has been reviled in every way imaginable by hatred so severe it led to two assassination attempts, one in which he skirted death by a hair, but even here there were lefties who said the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania was an orchestrated campaign ploy designed to arouse sympathy and boost Trump’s chances to win the 2024 election. “It was a staged event so the world could see Orange Man raise his fist defiantly against the haters who wanted him dead,” they said. “How could anyone get up like that after being shot and raise his fist?” Donald Trump could, and he did just that. Every single one of the critics who condemned Trump for his lack of empathy and compassion regarding Reiner’s death never survived an assassination attempt. Consider Ann Coulter, her long blond hair framing a face that could double as an icon in the Museum of Modern Art. Coulter may have had to hire security when she was booed off a number of college campuses, but as far as I know she’s never had her ear grazed by a bullet from someone suffering from Coulter Derangement Syndrome. In fact, when Coulter was challenged by those who pointed out that Reiner had criticized commentator Rush Limbaugh after his death – it should be noted that one day after Limbaugh died, Reiner attacked the late conservative radio host as a purveyor of disinformation – she responded that, “Rush died peacefully of natural causes. He wasn’t stabbed to death.” She then added that the reaction from some conservatives was “indistinguishable from liberals justifying the hate after Charlie Kirk was murdered.” Call this give-and-take a karmic balance, something that easily and sadly happens in a war. Make no mistake: Violent political discord and uncontrolled TDS is a national shredding tantamount to a civil war. You have only to look at the debasement and condemnation of Donald Trump from every corner of the legacy and entertainment news media – from Chuck Schumer to the bowels of late-night Jimmy Kimmel TV – to know that a house divided is a house at war. And war is always ugly. It’s also true that civil wars breed a certain degree of insensitivity when the “other side” loses warriors or heroes. How bad do you think New York Yankee families in 1861 felt about the war deaths of Confederate distant relatives in Virginia or North Carolina? They may have felt a vague generic sadness for a few days but that feeling was no doubt rationalized away as “unfortunate but understandable” considering the deceased had the misguided views and was on the “wrong side.”

Even that scion of mega-mouth adolescent immaturity, Nick Fuentes, claimed to have been shocked by Trump’s “insensitive” comments on Rob Reiner. Fuentes, a guy on record as calling Hitler “cool,” suddenly became a major virtue signaler, the male version of Emily Post clutching her pearls. When was Nick Fuentes ever sensitive? Fuentes’s’ comments on Trump and Reiner did it for me: this conservative Bolshevik really wants Republicans to lose the White House in 2028. Fuentes and cohort pundits like Candace Owens want to fracture the conservative movement, making it malleable for a Democrat takeover. Author Rod Dreher recently commented on Fuentes on his blog when he wrote that Fuentes is every much a punk as was Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols. Referring to the infamous Piers Morgan interview, Dreher writes: “I’m telling you, watch a few minutes of the exchange, and you’ll see why. Fuentes is abhorrent – and doesn’t care that you abhor him. He makes fun of British intellectual Daniel Finkelstein’s stories about family members being slaughtered in the Holocaust, and persecuted by Stalin, that other Fuentes hero.” Fuentes is a heterodox divider who doesn’t care if the movement fractures in time for the 2026 mid-terms so the Democrats can sweep in, impeach Trump, put a hold on ICE deportations, end the war on DEI, and continue the “transification” of the United States. With Fuentes brandishing his own version of TDS – he outrageously claims that the Trump administration has not delivered on any of its 2024 election promises – he is setting a path for a Newsom victory in 2028, which will, of course, end and dismantle everything Trump has put into place. That day will be a sad reckoning. America was almost great again but the Democrats were allowed to come back and restart the woke revolution. This surely will be Jimmy Kimmel’s last laugh. It will also be a time for Kamala Harris to dance, as Tim Walz looks straight into the lineup of CNN and ABC cameras and boasts: “Who’s the retard now?”