One admirable characteristic of political moderates is how rarely they allow exigent circumstances to distract them from trivialities.
This fact has never been on such acute display as in the recent poll plunge experienced by Donald Trump in the wake of recent gaffes. First, it should be understood why men make a profession out of politics. That would be prestige, wealth, and women in exchange for absolutely no work or sacrifice whatsoever. Though secondarily it is because politics is not a field that long rewards amateurs. And politically Donald Trump is precisely that.
I don’t believe any living American has ever witnessed such an intense, unified onslaught against a candidate as we have seen against Trump. His every valid point is muted, his every flub magnified. His advocates find few platforms, while his detractors belabor their hysterics through uninterrupted media cycles.
How many names of parents killed by illegals, muslims, or BLM terrorists can a typical teevee sponge recite? Few I would wager. In contrast, the bug-faced Khizr Khan is probably now more recognizable than Elvis Presley.
As a result, a substantial amount of soft support has peeled away in recoil because of a muslim soldier who died 11 years before Trump ever announced his candidacy. In this sense, we are expected to concede that Khan’s dead son commits us to a mass muslim immigration policy in a way that thousands of other dead sons do not counter.
That’s typically how principle lives in politics: it doesn’t. In context of military fallen, you may be certain the left will never champion a dead-son democracy. From terror of its obvious demographic profile, if nothing else. No, this novel form of government introduced at the recent Democratic convention is entirely a muslim monarchy.
But of course there were other Trump stumbles than “what have you sacrificed?” This being a question I have never heard put to either Hillary Clinton (answer: her soul and heterosexuality) or to any of the victims of diversity, whose remains silently fertilize our cemeteries. Though what those Trump blunders were exactly I don’t recall any more than I do last year’s Atlanta Hawks win/loss record. Some things bear directly on the lives of my family and loved ones…while most things do not. It is in the expansive intellectual tundra of the latter that the media and NeverTrumpers do their sanctimonious work. To which the moderate mush is unfailingly responsive.
I imagine most voters are fairly inured to the most important election ever! rhetoric offered by devout partisans every four years. These elections being important primarily in determining who will occupy those plush sinecures responsible for implementing the globalist agenda. Perhaps it is merely my own confirmation bias, though I think this election is truly different in the disparity of its choices. Certainly the media, business class, academia, and Hungarian jewish billionaires perceive a difference.
That mutually understood difference is the political chasm between some conceivable roll-back of the program, and its utter victory. To most that’s a stark choice indeed; one worthy of the hyper defamation we are now witnessing.
I’ve been considering, with some melancholy, the likely results of a Clinton administration. To make an accurate evaluation one needs to consider how dramatically real power has shifted among the three branches of American government. The legislature having become largely ceremonial in regard to key national questions–and thus highly desired by charlatans who prefer an honest day’s sloth.
Effectively the judiciary now makes decisions of what is law, while the executive makes decisions of which of those he’ll enforce. Neither the public, nor its ostensible representation have much input into the matter. With one branch put harmlessly in a play pen, the executive and the court tacitly agree to each expand into open space rather than skirmish on their new borders. So the president decides (absent statutory authorization) to import refugees and dreamers, while the court decides states may not resist the influx. That’s government synergy. Maybe Anthony Kennedy will use that term in his next Alzheimers-fueled opinion.
I mention this justice advisedly, because it is from his well-insulated institution that the left always prefers to strike. With Scalia as dead as any other Clinton critic, a truly radical court is now tantalizingly within liberal reach. There are presently four votes amenable to finding whatever is necessary in the Constitution’s cryptic emanations (Kagan, Breyer, Wise Lat, and the Sewer Rat), two votes of cocktail party expediency (Roberts and Kennedy), and two residual conservatives (Alito and Thomas). It is no small irony that an elderly southern negro represents traditional America’s last cracking fingernails.
Now consider those fingernails are attached to a 68 year-old man, as well as the fact that Kennedy is 80. The expiration of either in combination with the filling of Scalia’s seat results in a bloc of six with both the ability and desire to wash away any remnants of Legacy America. And like a ventriloquist’s dummy, the Constitution will say absolutely anything they put into its mouth.
Most people mistakenly attribute our lack of dystopian Euro speech laws to protections provided by the First Amendment. In reality, those protections have been provided the only way protections ever are: by men of flesh and blood. The First Amendment has survived because the left hasn’t yet accumulated the votes to defenestrate it, not because the constitution itself wields clout.
Under Clinton that will likely change. Just as Kennedy discovered gay marriage in the text of 19th Century Amendments, so to will Soto uncover that True Free Speech is only possible in a climate free of hate. Thus the First Amendment will be used to justify prosecutions of speech the state finds unpalatable. The 2A is another likely target, as obviously the framers only meant it in context of a well-regulated militia. And aren’t those unprotected hate-groups anyway?
Yet the most potentially fertile penumbra is likely to be the one that finds a sacred human right to unfettered immigration. No human is illegal, and doesn’t that constitutional codicil written by Emma Lazarus state our founders’ plain intent? I mean when a jew inscribes poetry on a plaque beneath a statue, that’s state policy. And I expect it will be ratified by a Clinton court.
All of which represents a dire scenario for those of us who like our Bolsheviks in Russia. And it highlights the unpleasant choice many will prospectively face as an energetic court issues diktats unimpeded.
One of those choices was recently put on display in Catalonia. As you may know, a secessionist movement has been percolating there for some time. Though unfortunately for all, the Spanish Constitutional Court discovered that secession was unconstitutional and subsequently advised Catalan lawmakers with its regrets. What can ya do?
Well, what the boys in Barcelona did was to treat the court like a chia pet. That is to say they ignored it completely and proceeded to put their secession drive in motion regardless. Don’t they even care about the Constitution? Apparently they care about their children more. And as Paul Ryan would explain, that’s just not who we are.
But perhaps one day it will be precisely who we are. And a Hillary Clinton presidency will make the results of that rapidly approaching introspection determinative for generations to come.