In her WND article today, Laura Hollis correctly identifies the disposition characteristic of many of the registered Republicans who are supporting Donald Trump in spite of his easily proven record of hostility to most of the conservative positions the GOP is supposed to represent. (He has also benefitted, in South Carolina, for example, from a crossover vote that consists of people who actually prefer his record of active involvement in the degradation of the nation’s moral character (e.g., the porno-palace in Atlantic City), and support for socialist schemes for national health care such as those in Great Britain and Canada. Of course, for such people the yearning for a bully who showers them with goodies is characteristic of their taste for socialism.)
The emergence of this yearning for a bully was recognized by our nation’s Founders as the last stage in the transition to tyranny in all the failed ancient and modern “democracies” that preceded the establishment of America’s Constitution. As they devised the Constitution they worked to included several features intended to forestall this yearning, fatal to liberty including
- Federalism, balancing powers delegated to the U.S. Government against reserved powers of the State governments, respectively, and the people;
- the division of the powers of the U.S. government into the separate branches, equal in respect of their exclusive initiative in the use of the power the Constitution vested in them; and
- a due dependence, at every level of government, on the good will and character of the people, implemented by periodic elections to determine the composition of legislative bodies through which the representatives of the people may identify and remove from power any individuals, including the President and Vice-President of the United States, found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, meaning especially abuses of their governmental supremacy that contravene its terms as set forth in the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof.
Because the national GOP has been firmly controlled by quislings inclined to collaborate with the anti-Constitutional agenda of the elitist faction, none of these features has been in play for more than two decades- i.e., since the end of Reagan’s tenure in the White House. The most critical factor in the collapse of these features has been the GOP’s de facto surrender on issues that affect the character and good will of the American people. This surrender of character, and the standard of God-endowed right required to maintain it, is aimed at extinguishing the people’s capacity and will for self-government.
With Reagan’s victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980 the GOP became the focal point for the political activity of people with a serious commitment to preserving the nation’s characteristic respect for God endowed right. Many of them are self-professed followers of Jesus Christ. But since the GOP came under the control of the Bush-Romney wing of the elitist faction, this serious commitment has been under sly and continuous assault.
When Jimmy Carter appealed to this core group in 1976, his slogan was “Why not the best?”, suggesting a choice of goods made in light of a clear standard of what is best. By contrast, for the past several election cycles on the GOP side, under the hegemony of the Bush-Romney-Boehner-McConnell quislings, the predominant mantra has been “No choice but evil”, which is what settling for the “lesser of evils” logically implies. As people like James Dobson (in respect of John McCain) and Jerry Falwell, Jr. (in respect of Donald Trump) give in to this argument, they open the valve through which the serious commitment to conserve the nation’s characteristic respect for God’s standard of right is sapped away.
Now several generations of voters have cast their first vote in the context of that mantra. As the poet wrote “Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill.” So it has been with the moral commitment of the Christian voters. Under the influence of the “lesser evil” standard they have turned entirely away from God’s standard of right. The search for a “bully of our own” explicitly accepts the paradigm of evil vs. evil, our devil vs. their devil, so that, as Trump has said of his own approach to good or bad action, God isn’t brought into in that picture.
When Laura Hollister says that the American Republic was set up to avoid the tyranny of the majority, she errs. It was set up to establish a balance that avoided tyranny altogether, by subjecting both the many and the few to God’s standard of right, and the constraints it imposes on the just uses of power, no matter what mere mortals are wielding it. Moreover, it strains rationality to conclude that, just because Trump has adopted a rhetorical pose pleasing to the many, he has given up his lifelong career of advancing the power, wealth and dictatorship of the elitist few.
Trump’s politically expedient stance exactly corresponds to Hamilton’s description (toward the end of Federalist #1) of “those men who have overturned the liberties of republics”. He observes that of such men “the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” As I say in my article today, Trump’s real persona identifies him as an elitist faction magnate. This makes it logical to assume that his present rhetorical posturing is simply a means of exploiting the people’s present anger and frustration in the service of that faction’s campaign to overthrow our constitutional Republic.
Tragically for the American people, all the GOP candidates have signified, in one policy stance or another, their submission to the elitist faction’s rejection of the premises for government set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. That submission is obvious in every case but that of Senator Cruz. But in his case a thoughtful examination of his record shows that he has signified his elitist faction allegiance in several respects. These include:
- His submission to the deceptive “free trade” agenda, which internationalizes comprehensively regulatory socialism (including mercantilism, the corporate elitist form of socialism), not free enterprise economics;
- His de facto submission to the false doctrine of “judicial supremacy”, (notwithstanding the rhetorical strategy he now deploys to the contrary); and
- His refusal to develop the God-endowed natural law/rights argument (advanced in the American Declaration of Independence) to oppose the U.S. Supreme court’s Constitutional travesty in the Obergefell decision, or even to prove his own status as a “natural born citizen” of the United States. If he deployed the Declaration’s logic in the latter context he would, at the same time, help Americans to get past the false notion, essential for the success of the judicial supremacists, that the logic of natural law/rights has no bearing on Constitutional jurisprudence.
Again tragically for the American people, the present GOP nominating process must end in a ticket that again offers no real alternative to the elitist faction socialism so far advanced (with the help of the GOP quislings) by Obama and the Democrats. Possibly perfumed with the choice of Ted Cruz as his running mate, the bully Trump could end up in the White House. At which point, I trust the wisdom of America’s founders when I say that those who think he will be the people’s bully are in for a fatal surprise. For the only question will be to determine whether the tyranny that results reflects the collegial rule of his elitist faction buddies, or the emergence of a Caesarian empire, like that of Augustus. Either way, when it comes to government, the people, like God, will no longer be brought into the picture.
I think I would have to disagree with Alan’s assertion on Ted Cruz’s trade stance. He claims Ted Cruz supports free trade. In point of fact, Ted Cruz ultimately opposed fast track authority for the TPP. This only leaves Alan’s assertion that Ted Cruz supports judicial supremacy and that he does not invoke natural law in his defense of the natural born citizenship issue, et al. I’m not sure that is the case but I do agree Ted Cruz has not come out, to my knowledge, like Mike Huckabee has and stated the Obergefell decision is to not be obeyed since it contradicts natural law(or God’s law, whichever may be the case for Huckabee). Indeed, if ever there were a year in politics for someone to make an assertion that the republic need not obey Supreme Court decisions and to take that before the American people, despite the fire that person would take from the DLPM(Degenerate Liberal Propaganda Media) and the Left, this would be that year, in my opinion. The republic seems ripe for a revolution; a revolution to throw off the shackles of apathy and ignorance, and to restore the foundations of the Constitution to the republic.
Cruz has flip-flopped on the fast-track issue, but his last “no” vote wasn’t a rejection of free trade. He objected to the way certain issue were handled. I therefore cannot count his “no” vote as proof that he rejects the free trade agenda. He’s just haggling about the terms on which it should proceed in this case or that. (I think the article at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/08/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-changed-position-trade-promotion-authorit/ accurately sums up his record. I am, of course, open to correction about this if the facts it reports are incorrect in some relevant respect.)
But what is now falsely portrayed as the “free trade” agenda is objectionable in principle since it involves the imposition of supranational, centralized, regulatory control over international commerce. This is tantamount to global socialism. It results in adjudications and actions, by tribunals that are in no way duly dependent on the will of the people of the United States. Such results can nullify policies that fall within the purview of the State governments in our Union,as per the terms of the 10th Amendment. This gives the national government the power to use treaties to extinguish the reserved powers of the States, overthrowing the Constitution’s mandate for Federalism in every aspect of our nation’s economic life.
How is this not, in principle, fatal to liberty and every other species of unalienable right?
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have to say. I see that no trade agreements have come before the Senate during Cruz’s time in office, except for the TPP. I do believe Cruz holds US sovereignty to be paramount in discussions of free trade; however, we will see when the rubber meets the road; either in his capacity as the next president, or in his current capacity as Senator from Texas.
I would like to hear more of your thoughts on how treaties can effectively nullify the Constitution. I has always been my opinion that any treaty which goes against the Constitution is nullified from its very beginning.