WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR THE UNITED STATES IN THE COMING 2024 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? ONE OF TWO POSSIBILITIES: PRESERVATION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OR ITS UTTER DESTRUCTION
MULTISERIES ARTICLE
PART ONE
DO AMERICANS HAVE THE NECESSARY RESOLVE TO PRESERVE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OR WILL THEY CAPITULATE TO THE MALIGNANT, MALEVOLENT FORCES THAT SEEK THE REPUBLIC’S DEMISE?
ONE LAST CHANCE REMAINS FOR AMERICANS — THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2024
THAT ELECTION WILL TELL THE TALE:
CONTINUED REWARD GAINED FOR US AMERICANS AND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS THROUGH THE COURAGE AND SACRIFICES OF AMERICA’S FIRST PATRIOTS IN THEIR VICTORY OVER TYRANNY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776, OR UTTER CHAOS AND IRRETRIEVABLE LOSS
PART ONE
SUBPART ONE OF SEVEN
THE IMPORTANCE OF “LEGITIMACY” IN THE EXERCISE OF POLITICAL POWER BY INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
A sense of legitimacy attaches to those individuals or groups that connect themselves to venerable institutional structures.
In our political system, connection with one of the three Branches of the Federal Government, the Legislative (Congress), the Executive (the President), and the Judicial (the U.S. Supreme Court) secures “legitimacy.” Broadly, this means an individual has the “right to be there” which assumes the integrity of the electoral system had not been compromised. A person thus fairly elected to the position “legitimately” wields and therefore legitimately enjoys all the power, authority, and perks attendant to the political position thus secured.
This fact creates a problem for those individuals or groups that are not vested in, or that do not have behind them, the gravitas of a Governmental institution through which they gain, with the fact of that power, the “legitimacy” needed to wield and use the power and authority of that Office, which implies that the power and authority obtained was legitimately derived from the vote of the people. And that, in turn, implies the integrity and, hence, the legitimacy of the electoral process was preserved.
But what if a wealthy, powerful person, representative of a Group with vested personal interests destructive of the well-being of the Republic does not obtain high office that would otherwise provide for him and for the Group the vehicle through which they can “legitimately” wield vast power and authority? Such Groups are left to attempt, through their vast wealth and “connections,” to entice those in power to enact legislation or implement edicts or render judicial opinions that serve the interests of that Group.
Lobbying Congress, for example, is one such mechanism developed and honed through time. Lobbying Congress for favors is not part of the U.S. Constitution, and the framers of the Constitution would be justly appalled to believe that “LOBBYING” Congress is lawful and a that it has, through time, grown into an institution.
Lobbying Congress is generally considered lawful if the lobbying does not involve outright “bribes.” But the old saying “money talks” is as true today as it ever was. A donation to a Congressman’s campaign is in effect a bribe to that person, even if “legally” permissible, for it always involves a quid quo pro transaction: a monetary exchange in return for Congressional action pursuant to the wishes of the lobbying effort that might not be consistent with the Congressman’s own belief system and, in many instances—and probably most instances—is not in the best interests of the Country and the American people, and is contrary to the strictures of the U.S. Constitution.
LOBBYING QUA “INFLUENCING THOSE PEOPLE IN POWER” can take many forms.
Congressional lobbying is one thing, but influencing a U.S. President, thereby compromising a U.S. President is quite another—patently illegal, and dangerous “TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.” But it is a way to urge or compel action in accordance with one’s desires or aims when that person or group cannot wield power and authority directly.
But, if a U.S. President is subject to manipulation, is that not also true of the U.S. Supreme Court? Quite simply, it is not done. First, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are not elected. But, they still have to attain their position through the “legitimate” means prescribed by the Constitution.
In our political system, to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is a two-step process. First, the U.S. President has to nominate a person to serve in that position. Second, the person has to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. Senate does not confirm that person, the person does not become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
But, if confirmed to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, that person then wields legitimate authority—such authority consistent with Article 3 of the Nation’s Constitution. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice serves for life unless the Justice resigns or is impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate.
Since 2022, there have been 116 Justices that served on the Court. Of that number one, Samuel Chase, has been impeached by the House but he wasn’t convicted in the Senate. There was a trial in the Senate, to be sure. But since the Senate did not convict him, Chase continued to serve on the High Court until his death in 1811.
The second Justice, Abe Fortas resigned from the Court under the threat of impeachment, in 1969. See the article posted on the “History” website.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices generally have an abundance of integrity. And a lifetime appointment further ensures a Justice is not subject to outside influences in rendering his or her legal Opinion on a case.
A lifetime appointment reduces the threat of outside influence to a near nullity as over two centuries of the U.S. Supreme Court’s existence attests to.
But, the nine Justices can and do influence each other. That is perfectly acceptable, expected, and normal practice.
Justices often render decisions that may be unpopular. This attests to the Justices’ freedom from coercion. But, of late, some in Congress, along with Joe Biden, and many regular Americans have viciously attacked several recent Opinions of the Court. The attacks are emotionally laden rhetorical diatribes, often laced with invective directed at Justices personally. The diatribes are both legally and logically unsound and aimed at exploiting anger and resentment in that segment of the polity sympathetic to the aims and goals of the person who delivers the diatribe.
Many Americans are easy prey for this, easily swayed by emotion, having been captured by a bizarre, irrational belief system through years of psychological conditioning delivered to the public by an unethical Press, unethical cable and broadcast news organizations, and unethical social media companies. One of the most notorious and pernicious examples of unethical rhetorical attacks on the High Court, and one that borders on the criminal as it threatens the life and safety of Justices is that presented by U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer, attacking the Dobbs decision (involving the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the rulings in the Roe vs. Wade abortion case). See the YouTube video. See also the article in “Vox.”
The Chief Justice, John Roberts wasn’t amused and he delivered a strong rebuke.
Republican Senators rightfully called Schumer out for his despicable behavior. But Schumer never apologized. “U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday issued an unusual rebuke of ‘dangerous’ comments by top U.S. Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer about two conservative Supreme Court justices appointed by President Donald Trump and how they might rule in a major abortion case.” See the article in Reuters. Schumer never apologized.
The National Review said this—pointing to intent to “DELEGITIMIZE” the Court.
“The senator’s despicable attack is part of a concerted effort to delegitimize the court.
‘If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices,’ argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.
If we ever needed a pristine example of why justices are bestowed lifetime appointments and shielded from the vagaries of the electorate and the intimidation tactics of unethical politicians, Chuck Schumer has now provided us with one.
While speaking to pro-abortion protesters in front of the Supreme Court today, the Senate minority leader threatened — there’s no other way to put it — two sitting justices with repercussions if they ruled to uphold a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to gain admitting privileges to hospitals before offering their services to women:
I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
It’s conceivable that Schumer — who, like the rest of his party, doesn’t have the slightest interest in protecting babies who’ve survive botched abortions — can’t think of any good reason for hospital-admitting privileges. But treating as an “undue burden” any laws that require abortion clinics to provide basic medical facilities for women is just an example of the Democrats’ extremism on the issue. Threatening justices over the case is hysterical.
Moreover, Schumer’s thuggish attack on Kavanaugh and Gorsuch is a transparent attempt to intimidate justices. And wow — a sitting senator threatening an independent judiciary. Surely the champions of norms and decency will be horrified by this development. When Donald Trump, rather absurdly, demanded that Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves from “Trump-related” Supreme Court cases because of their partisan positions — and, yes Notorious RGB is openly partisan and anti-Trump — it was a major national story. In this case, I suspect we’re going to hear a lot about a general ‘coarsening’ of discourse.”
These reprehensible members of Congress, along with a debilitated, decrepit, demented, corrupt Messenger Boy, pretentiously pretending to be the leader of the Nation, deliberately and callously incite mob reaction directed not only toward the Court’s Opinions, but to specific Justices themselves.
Each Branch of Government should respect the roles and powers and authority of another Branch when authority is exercised consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Of all the Branches of the Federal Government, the U.S. Supreme is the least susceptible to action outside its Constitutional PURVIEW OF AUTHORITY.
If Congress and the Executive Branch disagree with a U.S. Supreme Court decision their reaction should be respectful of the institution. Objections to Opinions should address the soundness of the Opinions if they can. If they can’t, then Congress and Biden should respectfully indicate disagreement on policy grounds if they wish. But they don’t do this. They didn’t do this. They respond with spurious, illogical, and unsound invective, directed to the emotion, not to reason. It is in the nature of this renegade Executive Branch Office of the U.S. President and in the members of Congress who have sold out this Country to confound the public with implausible rationalizations.
THE ONLY BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT—INDEFATIGABLE AND RESOLUTE IN DEFENDING ITS INDEPENDENCE AGAINST ENCROACHMENT BY THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES—HAS, TO DATE, SUCCESSFULLY RESISTED ALL ATTEMPTS BY THOSE WHO SEEK TO CONSTRAIN IT AND PLACE IT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES AND, IN EFFECT, TO CREATE ONE UNITARY BRANCH.
The High Court Justices abide by their Oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. They do not render opinions designed to win popularity contests. This sours powerful interests at home and abroad that have grown frustrated by Supreme Court Opinions that run counter to their Global aims and trajectory. So, they try to change the Court’s composition or attempt unconstitutionally to usurp the Court’s Article 3 Authority. Those elements they control—Congress, and Biden and his Administration, and much of the Federal Bureaucracy, Social Media and the Entertainment and Sports Industry, Finance and Big Business, Technology, the Cable and Broadcast “news” Organizations, and even some in Academia—come out in force to vilify the Court.
“Joe Biden is setting up a bipartisan commission to consider reforming the US Supreme Court, including expanding the bench beyond its current panel of nine justices. The president on Friday fulfilled a campaign promise by issuing an executive order forming the commission of experts, including legal scholars, former federal judges, lawyers and reform advocates. The White House said the purpose of the group was to “provide analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform”. The executive order directed the commission to issue a report on its findings within six months. The commission marks a significant development for liberal advocates of expanding, or ‘packing’, the Supreme Court with additional judges, as well as those who want term limits imposed on justices.”
The Commission issued its comprehensive report in 2021. Fortunately, the Commission indicated its concern over Biden’s proposals. The Commission was of the mind that changing the Court’s composition and constraining the Court’s jurisdiction over a substantial range of cases would compromise the proper functioning of the Court, placing it under the Control of Congress. This would be unconstitutional. The Court has an essential role to play in the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.
The Biden Administration’s attempt to tamper with the Court would imperil the Court. The Administration failed. The integrity of the High Court’s structure would, for the moment at least, remain unscathed, independent. The National Constitutional Center said this,
“On May 28, 1788, Alexander Hamilton published Federalist 78—titled “The Judicial Department.” In this famous Federalist Paper essay, Hamilton offered, perhaps, the most powerful defense of judicial review in the American constitutional canon. On the one hand, Hamilton defined the judicial branch as the ‘least dangerous’ branch of the new national government. On the other hand, he also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary and the power of judicial review. With judicial independence, the Constitution put barriers in place—like life tenure and salary protections—to ensure that the federal courts were independent from the control of the elected branches. And with judicial review, federal judges had the power to review the constitutionality of the laws and actions of the government—ensuring that they met the requirements of the new Constitution. Other than Marbury v. Madison (1803), Hamilton’s essay remains the most famous defense of judicial review in American history, and it even served as the basis for many of Chief Justice John Marshall’s arguments in Marbury itself.” See the article posted in the “Constitution Center.”
The Biden Administration and one of its major echo chambers, The New York Times, couldn’t care less about any of this. If the Biden Administration doesn’t like a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court because the Court’s Opinion doesn’t cohere with the Administration’s policy objectives, then the Administration attacks the Court, mercilessly, without any consideration to the import of the Court’s findings.
The New York Times actively, avidly supports the wild and toxic statements of Biden, suggesting that the Court is not operating lawfully. In reference to the Court’s recent decision on affirmative action, for example, the Times provided a platform for Biden to unleash his fury on the Court without justification, attacking the integrity of the Court, grounded solely on the Administration’s personal disagreement with the Court’s decision:
“President Biden declared on Thursday that the Supreme Court ‘is not a normal court,’ delivering an extraordinarily critical assessment of another branch of government shortly after the court’s conservative majority ended nearly a half-century of affirmative action in college admissions.”
THE COURT’S JUSTICES DO ELICIT CONTRARY VIEWS ON A CASE, GROUNDED ON THEIR PERSONAL JURISPRUDENTIAL PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN AND DICTATE THE METHODOLOGY THEY EMPLOY WHEN APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE
It may well be that the Opinions of the liberal wing of the High Court, comprising Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and recently, Brown-Jackson, satisfy the Neo-Marxist Cultists, a particularly vocal group, along with the Press, and the Neoliberal Globalists since those Opinions cohere with attempts to harm the Constitution and the foundation of a system derived from America’s First Patriots success in defeating a mighty empire, in the American Revolution of 1776. But the Opinions of these Justices follow upon, are consistent with, and reflect their jurisprudential political and social ideologies and preferences which cohere with the methodologies employed in rendering their decisions. They remain true to their convictions even if their approach to the case is colored by jurisprudential precepts that are contrary to historical precedence.
Similarly, the Conservative wing of the Court, comprising stalwarts Justices Thomas and Alito, do not compromise their principles when rendering their Opinions that seem out of favor with some members of the polity and that are abhorrent to the Biden Administration and the Democrat Party. For these Justices begin their analyses with a basic premise that dictates the methodology they employ when considering the merits of a Governmental action that impacts a fundamental, unalienable right of the people.
These Justices vigorously defend the Constitution in accordance with the original and plain meaning of it. And their reasoning and rulings ably reflect the methodology they employ.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, from her rulings as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and on her rulings as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Her jurisprudential philosophy is in line with that of her brethren, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Justice Neil Gorsuch is reliable and consistent on matters involving the Bill of Rights, but statutory interpretation seems at times discordant. Justice Kavanaugh is a bit of a cypher. His concurrence in the New York City “Gun Transport Case” is difficult to fathom. It reads as if the Justice felt at odds with his vote on the issue of mootness and seems almost as if he is asking for forgiveness (from whom it isn’t clear) for his decision. For, without his vote, the Court would have reviewed the case on the merits and a decision on the right to armed self-defense outside the home might have obviated the need for the Bruen case that arose a couple of years later that Justice Kavanaugh seemingly predicted and welcomed. And that raises the question of why Kavanaugh cast his vote with the Liberal wing and with the Chief Justice John Roberts in the first place.
The jurisprudential philosophy of the Chief Justice, too, is difficult to get a handle on. It seems at times his decisions are motivated more by a desire to achieve equanimity among the two wings of the Court and less by a strict adherence to his professional jurisprudential convictions about a case. But there is no doubt Roberts will defend the Court indefatigably and forcefully against those foes in the Press and antagonistic voices emanating from the other two Branches of Government that castigate him and “His” Court mercilessly.
It wasn’t by accident that Chief Justice Roberts decided to author the Majority Opinion in the recent “student loan” case. The Chief Justice obviously saw a serious problem posed by the Biden Administration that could seriously endanger the doctrine of three Co-Equal Branches and that case illustrated more directly and acutely than any other action of the Administration, that “the President”, Joe Biden, was not only betraying the Oath of Office by failing to faithfully execute the duties of that Office that require a U.S. President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, but that he, Joe Biden, and those in his Administration intended clearly to defy Congressional Statute.
And now, it is apparent that, because the Administration dislikes the Court’s decision in Biden vs. Nebraska, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2793 (the “Student Loan” case), Biden will defy the Court as well.
But why defy the Court on this case in particular?
Might this not have something to do with the fact that Biden had “promised” millions of students that he, on his own initiative, and contrary to law, would waive one-half trillion dollars in student loans? And might the Biden Administration’s motivation for waiving repayment of loans have something to do with an unethical, and no less illegal attempt “TO BUY” votes—millions of votes in the coming 2024 U.S. Presidential election, thereby operating contrary to the Congressional Statute, and outside the strictures of the Electoral System?
And does not this action of the Administration along with many others allude to an Administration that is not only corrupt but wholly compromised by private and foreign interests whose aims are contrary to the well-being of the American People and the Nation, and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this mean in terms of “LEGITIMACY” of the Office of the U.S. President?
It means that the present holder of the Office of the U.S. President serves with only “THE TRAPPINGS” of “LEGITIMACY”—a FAÇADE OF LEGITIMACY, and NOT THE FACT OF LEGITIMACY.
But these TRAPPINGS of LEGITIMACY exclusive of the FACT of LEGITIMACY appear to be enough for this Great Pretender and for the Legacy Press and for many Americans.
And as has become plain, the policies generated by the Office of the U.S. President ARE NOT THOSE OF the “President,” but OF THOSE who tell the President what he can and must do.
Democrats constantly bluster that the Country was in the midst of a Constitutional crisis when Trump was President but that was deflection. Trump brought the Country back in line with the Constitution as dictated by its strictures, and consistent with the intention of the Framers of it. It is Biden, and those many elements inside and outside that are complicit with him, that have brought this Nation to the reality of a TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, that can only be repaired, at the Federal Governmental level by Trump himself. No other individual running for U.S. President on the Republican Party ticket has the fortitude of Trump to resist the powers that crush entire Countries into submission.
David Horowitz, author of “Final Battle,” doesn’t mince words when calling Biden out for treason and betrayal, and explicitly questions why Biden hasn’t been prosecuted for his crimes. On June 15, 2023, in a Newsmax article, Horowitz made plain that——
“. . . that President Joe Biden ‘has been committing treason’ for three decades in what has been nothing less than a ‘betrayal of the United States.’
While discussing his latest book ‘Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last’ on ‘American Agenda,’ Horowitz pointed out that even though former President Donald Trump has been embroiled in a series of legal challenges, ‘there are no charges against Biden’ despite ‘massive evidence that he has been committing treason for 20 or 30 years.’
Referring to allegations by Republican House leaders on the Oversight Committee, Horowitz said about Biden: ‘He's received payments, millions and millions of dollars, and his whole family is on the payroll,’ he said, adding that "what people call ‘influence peddling’ . . . it's really betrayal of the United States.’”
In an earlier Newsmax article, dated, January 4, 2023, David Horowitz categorically expressing his well-reasoned belief that this Country is facing a Constitutional crisis.
“New York Times bestselling author David Horowitz has released a new book, ‘Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last,’ and he tells Newsmax that the book details how the United States is facing a crisis that is the ‘direct result of the Democrats' decision to declare all-out war on Republicans.’
‘Five days after [Donald] Trump's election, they held a meeting with Nancy Pelosi to form what they called a resistance,’ Horowitz said on ‘National Report.’ ‘They never accepted Trump as a legitimate president. They are free with their slanders and lies about him. This is so antithetical to what democracy needs to function.’
He used the example of Jan. 6, telling Newsmax that the first response from Democrats was to call the protests an ‘armed insurrection.’
‘This is before they knew anything,’ he said. ‘There was no investigation. There were no real facts, and then immediately it was revealed that no arms were confiscated, so they just dropped the armed and called it an insurrection, which is treason. How can you have an insurrection if you don't have arms?’”
In such desperate times the Nation needs a leader who has proved his mettle in confronting forces that are intently focused on destroying our Free Republic, subjugating a sovereign people, and bringing ruin to a sovereign, independent Nation-State—the greatest, grandest, and most powerful and successful the world has ever seen.
Even Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida who has done tremendous good for the State has backpedaled his position on Ukraine. See, e.g., AP News Report of March 23, 2023.
“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is walking back his characterization of Russia’s war in Ukraine as a ‘territorial dispute,’ following criticism from a number of fellow Republicans who expressed concern about the potential 2024 presidential candidate’s dismissive description of the conflict.
In excerpts of an interview with Piers Morgan set to air Thursday on Fox Nation, DeSantis said his earlier comments referenced ongoing fighting in the eastern Donbas region, as well as Russia’s 2014 seizure of Crimea. Ukraine’s borders are internationally recognized, including by the United Nations.
‘What I’m referring to is where the fighting is going on now, which is that eastern border region Donbas, and then Crimea, and you have a situation where Russia has had that. I don’t think legitimately, but they had,’ DeSantis said, according to excerpts. ‘There’s a lot of ethnic Russians there. So, that’s some difficult fighting, and that’s what I was referring to, and so it wasn’t that I thought Russia had a right to that, and so if I should have made that more clear, I could have done it.’”
As courageous as this man is, Ron DeSantis does not have the necessary resolve to steadfastly hold to his convictions and his attempt to clarify his position on Ukraine, is proof of this.
_______________
SUBPART TWO OF SEVEN
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A WEALTHY PERSON OR POLITICAL BLOC HAS NO LEGITIMATE POWER OR AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT “IN” GOVERNMENT, BUT WISH TO CONTROL THE DECISIONS OF THOSE WHO ARE IN GOVERNMENT?
WHAT CAN an inordinately wealthy powerful individual or group DO, that is not “IN” the Office of the President and so does not have the LEGITIMATE POWER and the LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to exercise the POWER and AUTHORITY of that Office but deigns to do so—deigns to gain access to the Office to EXERCISE INFLUENCE over the U.S. President?
The Office of the U.S. President—the INSTITUTION OF U.S. PRESIDENCY—wields tremendous power since it controls the vast apparatuses of military, police, and intelligence, among others, and executes policies that generate great effects, for good or naught, on the Nation and the World. Those policies implemented have grave and lasting consequences for the Nation and the World.
This was the situation faced by the mega billionaire Neoliberal Globalists when Donald Trump won the U.S. Presidency in 2020, defeating the Globalists’ choice, Hillary Clinton, whom they thought was a shoo-in. How do these extraordinarily wealthy, powerful, and ruthless individuals, along with the powerful groups they belong to, and those potent and evil forces aligned with it, now “TRANSACT BUSINESS” with an unknown quantity? Is Trump a man whom the NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS can subvert and control?
CONSIDER——
Trump ran on a campaign to reverse what is plain—a SELL-OUT of the Nation. This SELL-OUT commenced under Bill Clinton, proceeded well under George Bush, and greatly expanded, gaining speed under the Presidency of Barack Obama. The results of the SELL-OUT were to be completed once Hillary Clinton gained the mantle of the U.S. Presidency. It is all disheartening.
But the wife of Bill Clinton, DID NOT SECURE A WIN FOR THE NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALISTS.
Both NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS and NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS were both alarmed and flabbergasted and irked by Trump’s win over their chosen candidate Hillary Clinton. Many were enraged.
The NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS HAD A FRIEND IN HILLARY CLINTON. She was, after all, one of their own.
As President she would wield enormous power—all of it gained through THE LEGITIMACY attaching to her election. But her POLICIES and INITIATIVES would be governed or tempered by the wants, needs, and desires of her benefactors, of whom she saw herself as one among them. They had nothing to fear from her Presidency. Their goals were, after all, her goals.
And those goals of the NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS were singularly focused on manipulating and binding the world’s economies to them; inextricably tying them to each other through economic pacts and compacts and treaties among nations. The whole would operate on a global scale, with minimal interference from governments of nation-states, and the wealthy Globalists would reap yet further monetary benefits and tremendous power for themselves, therefrom. Globalization would ensure their ability to continue to amass extraordinary wealth and exert control never before realized.
They would be unaffected by multivarious concerns of the populaces of the nation-states and would not be impeded by Governments of the various nation-states, including the United States. That was the aim; that was the goal.
They have had success before, as reported by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (“CAFTA”).
“The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a free trade agreement between Canada, the United States (US), and Mexico. NAFTA was built on the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which was brought into force in 1989 and superseded by NAFTA in 1994. Designed to eliminate trade and investment barriers between the three countries, the agreement came into force on 1 January 1994. In addition to being one of the most ambitious trade agreements in history, NAFTA also created the world’s largest free trade area. Since 1994, NAFTA generated economic growth and rising standards of living for the people of all three member countries.
Under NAFTA, tariffs on all covered goods traded between Canada and Mexico were eliminated in 2008. In 2015, NAFTA represented 28% of the world’s gross domestic product, which amounts to a combined total of US$20.7 trillion in trade despite having less than 7% of the world’s population. Over the nearly three decades of NAFTA and the CUSFTA, Canada’s agri-food exports grew by more than five-fold, from under $10 billion in 1988 to $56 billion in 2016. Together, the United States and Mexico account for more than half of these exports.
NAFTA served as an institutional cornerstone to agri-food trade in North America and was very beneficial for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Canada is among the top five suppliers of in eight of ten of the United States’ top agri-food food imports, and is the a top supplier in nine of ten of Mexico’s top agri-food imports. Since the adoption of NAFTA, US agri-food exports to Canada and Mexico have more than quadrupled from $8.9 billion in 1994 to $38.6 in 2015.
While Canadian agri-food exporters have largely benefited from NAFTA, there are areas in which NAFTA could be improved. Renegotiation should not allow new tariffs, new non-tariff barriers, or any other provisions that could be used to limit trade. A successful modernization of NAFTA could serve as a model agreement that can be used by the partners to promote trade liberalization in other multilateral and plurilateral negotiations.”
The creation of previous trade pacts in the latter part of the Twentieth Century and into the first years of the Twenty-First was just a steppingstone.
The NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS had grander objectives.
They directed their immediate goal to subordinating the laws of the individual nation-states to international law. Legal issues that arise were to be dealt with either in international tribunals or in the courts of member nation-states that would be compelled to apply international law, rather than local law. Those laws would be established in the various pacts, agreements, and alliances.
And those laws would be weighted heavily in favor of the WILL of the NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS as specified in meticulous detail in those TRADE AGREEMENTS, PACTS, and TREATIES that were expected to be passed by the GOVERNMENTS of the member nations, and with relative ease, having previously obtained compliance from the leaders of those Governments.
Through time, once NEOLIBERAL GLOBAL POLITICS gained a measure of “LEGITIMACY,” the GLOBALISTS would next turn their attention to devising strategies to further subordinate, to their will, such powers wielded by Governments of nation-states in other spheres, impacting the societies of those nations generally.
Their ultimate goal was clarifying to the astute observer: Through the device of multilevel and expansive “FREE TRADE,” the GLOBALISTS would not derive immediate monetary benefits, these devices would drastically reduce the independence and sovereignty of individual nation-states. Eventually the import and purport of nation-states would become superfluous and redundant. The very idea of and concept of ‘NATION-STATE’ would become meaningless. For all Economic, Political, Social, and Juridical matters would devolve to them, THE NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALISTS, in fact if not in perception. They would become the world’s OVERSEERS.
To the meaninglessness of the concept of ‘nation-state’ would there now be added the concepts, ‘citizen’ and ‘patriotism.’ These expressions, too, would grow to be strange, archaic, anachronistic.
A NEO-FEUDAL WORLD EMPIRE would emerge. A new reality would manifest for billions of people throughout the world, and—with the aid of technology—a that would not take long to be achieved, aided by weak and compliant Governments, whose allegiances would be secured with bribes and with the trappings of power.
The culture, history, and heritage of many nation-states would erode and eventually be extinguished.
Mass conformity of thought and conduct would be encouraged, and eventually legally enforced. The vast populations of the Earth would be subjugated and reduced to penury. The United States would be no exception to this.
America’s vast wealth and resources, and the strength of America’s military, police, and intelligence apparatuses and the innovations coming out of the technology sector, would all be harnessed by and utilized by the Neoliberal Globalists, who as supreme rulers, would maintain that power through legions of military and paramilitary forces, and intelligence apparatuses. All laws and edicts would come from these new NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST LORDS and TASKMASTERS of PLANET EARTH—changing at will as whim or circumstance dictate. A world PRESS/PROPAGANDA ORGAN would pass along and explain the news laws and edicts to the world’s new SERF CLASS—THE PRETERTITE—BILLIONS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. That was the goal—the NEW NEOLIBERAL INTERNATIONAL ORDER.
_____________________________
SUBPART THREE OF SEVEN
THE STUMBLING BLOCK FOR THE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS: DONALD TRUMP AND THE DEMISE OF THE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST INITIATIVES: TPP AND T-TIP
Back in 2016, Brookings Executive Vice President Martin Indyk, said, “I think that Hillary Clinton—if she is the nominee of the Democratic Party, which seems to be a fair assumption at this point—will continue a lot of Obama’s policy as I’ve outlined it. . . .” But what of Donald Trump if he were to become President? Martin Indyk said this, as reported in Brookings,
“In the case of Donald Trump, it’s a complete guess as to where exactly he’s going to come down, partly because it’s not clear that he actually means what he says at any particular moment, partly because in the foreign policy speech that he outlined [April 27], which was the most coherent expression of his foreign policy, there were a lot of contradictions . . . . On the one hand, he’s going to be a reliable ally, but on the other hand he’s going to make our allies pay for [our] part of defending them, as opposed to paying for their own part of defending themselves, paying more for that. And if they don’t do that, then he’s going to break the alliances, and that doesn’t make us a very reliable player.
“Then there’s the whole suggestion that he would enter into trade wars; [and] the big question mark over what he would to do with ISIS, because he says he’s not going to let anyone know about that. So we don’t have a really good, clear sense of where he’s going except that he’s clearly much more in the kind of nationalist, populist, and perhaps isolationist mode of America foreign policy.”
WITH TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE GLOBALISTS WOULD NOT DARE MISTAKE HIM WITH CLINTON. THEY HAD NO ILLUSION THAT HIS PRESIDENCY WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY. See article in the “New York Intelligencer,”
“One of the phrases that kept cropping up in Republican election rhetoric is that Hillary Clinton is ‘running for Obama’s third term.’ Oftentimes it is used as though the distastefulness of such a scenario is self-evident. ‘POTUS making no bones about it: Hillary running for Obama’s third term,’ gloated Republican senator John Cornyn during Obama’s convention speech.”
The import of a THIRD OBAMA TERM through his SECRETARY OF STATE is that the NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST goal of creating more “FREE TRADE PACTS and TREATIES and ALLIANCES through which they would ultimately neutralize Government control over their activities AND permit them to control Governments POLITICALLY as well as ECONOMICALLY was to be recognized and realized through a massive new venture that they were working on in secret, first with its first stirrings in the Bush Administration at the turn of the Century and then moving apace under Obama, a centerpiece of his Administration, as reported in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and it was fast-tracked to be enacted and signed by the member nations. See also articles in “Cultural Survival”, and “The Balance.” It was completed in 2015, the year before the U.S. Presidential election. An election that would be a milestone for the People and headache, ultimately for the wealthy NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS.
And it was all taking shape beyond the purview of the American public. See report by the Electronic Frontier Association (EFF).
This NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST “TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP) controversy became a subject of conversation back on July 27, 2016. The controversy arose during a U.S. Presidential Debate between the Democrat Party Candidate, Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Party Candidate, Donald Trump. The details of what was said about the TPP during the Debate proved interesting. CNN reported this,
“Hillary Clinton hasn’t even said anything about the Trans-Pacific Partnership recently – and yet, in 24 hours, she became embroiled in a new controversy about her stance on the deal.
A top ally’s prediction that Clinton would flip-flop after the election and support the trade pact – after escaping the political threat from Bernie Sanders.
Making things more uncomfortable: President Barack Obama’s appearance Wednesday night to make the case for Clinton. His administration negotiated the deal; she says she opposes it.
Whether that was ever true, her opponent, Donald Trump, DID OPPOSE it, and he seized on the Democrats’ mixed messaging Tuesday to slam Clinton, as reported by CNN.
Referred to colloquially, as “NAFTA on Steroids”, the Bernie Sanders Neo-Marxist crowd hated it, the Trade Unions hated it, Trump supporters hated it, but Bush Republicans and the Neoliberal Globalists who supported Obama and Hillary Clinton who helped craft the thing, in secret, for many years, loved it, wanted to have it, and intended to make it a reality once Clinton got into Office on January 20, 2021. That was necessary; an important condition precedent to gaining supremacy over the world’s economies and piggybacking off that to gain further control over the political, social, and legal institutions of western nation-states. See article in “The Nation.”
CNN added this about the TPP:
“Think of the TPP as a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover traditional trade matters. The rest embody the most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation. They include new investor safeguards to ease job offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services, land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more.” Id.
During their debate, on September 26, 2016, a little over a month before the election, Donald Trump pointed out that Clinton said TPP was a wonderful thing, “a Gold Standard in Trade Agreements.”
Hillary Clinton demurred. She lied and even the Radical Left Washington Post Rag had to acknowledge Clinton’s bald-faced lie:
“Fact Check: Clinton did call TPP ‘the gold standard’
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it’s the finest deal you’ve ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are — I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated.
THE FACT CHECKER: Trump is right. Clinton is subtly adjusting her words here when confronted with a question about her consistency on policy positions.
But the fact is she never used the word ‘hoped.’ Instead, she was more declarative, using the phrase ‘gold standard’ when she was Secretary of State.”
“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” she said in Australia in 2012. ‘And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.’”
Clinton was caught in a difficult situation. To appease the Neo-Marxists Sanders supporters in the Party and in the Nation at large, and thereby encourag them to vote for her rather than sit out the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, she constantly stated she would not support the TPP. And the Press and media, avid supporters of Clinton, pushed the narrative on the American public. See, e.g., articles in Time; October 8, 2016 article in Politico; and October 7, 2015 article in CNN Politics.
But the Neoliberal Globalists would have none of this. The TPP wasn’t just something they wanted to have. It was something THEY HAD TO HAVE.
There was no way in Hell that Clinton, a Globalist in her own right, was not going to sign the TPP into law when or if she became President. In fact the Neoliberal Globalists knew her overtures to the Bernie Sanders crowd was an inveterate lie, mere “posturing” as they said, as reported in an article on the website, “Our Future”:
“The business community, for example, sees Clinton's position as simple posturing to voters for the election, believing she will switch back to supporting the agreement immediately after the election, as Obama did on NAFTA after promising throughout the 2008 campaign to renegotiate the agreement.
For example, Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue went so far as to say in a recent Bloomberg TV interview that he believes Clinton will switch to supporting TPP after the election. . . .
The business community doesn't believe for a minute that Clinton really opposes TPP.”
Fortunately, for the American people and the welfare of the Nation Clinton lost to Trump, surprising to most people and the Press, and to the rest of the world.
Democrats were infuriated, but all that anger, fury, and frustration, was somewhat ameliorated by the fact that Trump would not sign on to the TPP.
The Neoliberal Globalists, i.e., the “BIG BUSINESS COMMUNITY,” for their part, was worried.
Shortly after he became U.S. President, Trump, in one of his first actions as President, as reported by the BBC on January 24, 2017, said that——
“President Donald Trump has fulfilled a campaign pledge by signing an executive order to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The 12-nation trade deal was a linchpin of former President Barack Obama's Asia policy.
‘Great thing for the American worker what we just did,’ said Mr. Trump as he dumped the pact with a stroke of a pen.
He also cut funding for international groups that provide abortions and froze hiring of some federal workers.
Mr. Trump's executive order on TPP was largely symbolic since the deal has not been ratified by a divided US Congress. [But the executive order served another purpose apart from that of a campaign pledge. Trump was telling Congress that, if they passed the TPP, he would veto it. Congress never took the thing up. The Neoliberal Globalists were furious, for all their secretive work hammered out over years, since the early days of the Bush Administration, came to naught]
During his presidential campaign, he criticized the accord as a ‘potential disaster for our country’, arguing it harmed US manufacturiHis action won some plaudits from the left as well as the right.
Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders told the BBC he backed it because trade deals like this have been a ‘disaster’ and cost millions of jobs.”
But the TPP was only part of the picture. There was another major Trade Agreement the Neoliberal Globalists were hammering out on the other side of the world: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).
This project started in 2013. See article in Investopedia.
Also see archival report of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) that posits:
“The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) is an ambitious, comprehensive, and high-standard trade and investment agreement being negotiated between the United States and the European Union (EU). T-TIP will help unlock opportunity for American families, workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers through increased access to European markets for Made-in-America goods and services. This will help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.
The U.S. and EU economies are two of the most modern, most developed, and most committed to high standards of consumer protection in the world. T-TIP aims to bolster that already strong relationship in a way that will help boost economic growth and add to the more than 13 million American and EU jobs already supported by transatlantic trade and investment. T-TIP will be a cutting edge agreement aimed at providing greater compatibility and transparency in trade and investment regulation, while maintaining high levels of health, safety, and environmental protection. T-TIP presents an extraordinary opportunity to strengthen the bond between vital strategic and economic partners.”
The British Guardian newspaper points out that what is good for the Globalists is not good for average workers:
“TTIP will hit Europeans like you in the pocket, critics argue, so you need to pay attention. While the European commission estimates that, by 2027, TTIP could boost the size of the EU economy by £94bn or 0.5% of GDP, an economic study by Jeronim Capaldo of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University argues that the commission’s econometric modelling is jejune and that, in fact, TTIP will clobber Europeans. Capaldo predicts 600,000 European job losses as a result of TTIP, a net fall in EU exports, declining GDPs for EU member states and a fall in Europeans’ personal income.”
Trump halted T-TIP negotiations as well since they were inconsistent with his agenda to protect American business.
He was using Tariffs, a mechanism incompatible with the T-TIP and TPP, and the economy was doing well under his tutelage.
Back in June 2018, The New York Times acknowledged if grudgingly, as its benefactors were and are Neoliberal Globalists, that, under the Trump Presidency, there was little to be gained from signing on to T-TIP because——
“The United States is fighting from a position of strength, with the American economy on track for one of its strongest years in a decade. Europe doesn’t have the same defenses. Growth in the region is slowing, and that weakness has been compounded by political turmoil in Italy and Germany, as well as Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.”
But, the mega-billionaire Neoliberal Globalists attempted to change Trump’s mind. They sent their messenger, Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, to talk to Trump; to attempt to appease him.
During a meeting of the two at the White House, on July 26, 2018, there was an inkling of an agreement on T-TIP, as reported by The New York Times:
“Mr. Trump’s threat to impose large new unilateral tariffs on imported automobiles shook German business to the core — and it would also have had a large impact on the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain and other countries that are important suppliers and manufacturers to the German car industry.
Now the president has agreed to push that threat to the side as the two parties begin broader negotiations. The trade war erupted after Mr. Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the European Union responded with retaliatory tariffs on iconic American products like bluejeans, bourbon and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Those tariffs will remain for now, but will be part of the negotiations.
‘Juncker’s achievement was to get Trump to say publicly that he would reconsider’ steel and aluminum tariffs and not impose car tariffs in return for a negotiation,’ said Guntram B. Wolff, director of Bruegel. ‘For the E.U., the gun is still loaded but it’s not pointed at our heads, so for us it’s a good moment to negotiate.’
Indeed, some analysts argued that the new negotiations effectively represent a resurrection, in some fashion, of the effort begun by former President Barack Obama — and halted by President Trump — for a free-trade pact with Europe, known then as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. Together, the United States and the European Union comprise half of the global economy, and analysts were optimistic about the commitment by Mr. Trump and Mr. Juncker to work together to overhaul the World Trade Organization, especially given the rising power of China.”
There would be no deal.
The Neoliberal Globalists, first furious over the TPP failure, now added T-TIP to the list of their reason to hate Trump. These Trade Agreements were essential to their goal to amass further wealth by reining in governments’ exercise over them as they sought to gain control over the world market.
Given the tone of the Guardian Newspaper’s report of the failure of T-TIP, it is apparent the Neoliberal Globalists were venting their anger toward Trump.
And to add to this the Globalists, through their Press mouthpiece, wouldn’t allow Trump to receive benefit for his actions from the Sanders crowd and from the Unions. The Guardian said the deal was dead anyway, regardless of Trump’s actions.
But this simply means that European workers themselves had nothing to gain from T-TIP and everything to lose from it if Trump had agreed to it, which, as President, he could have done. So, by helping America’s workers, Trump was also aiding Europe’s workers.
Neither the workers in Europe nor those here at home, in the U.S., had any say in the matter.
The Neoliberal Globalists, through the British Guardian newspaper, did a Hit Piece on Trump, arguing that, although the political left in this Country might be appeased by Trump’s actions, Trump should get no credit for it, as his actions were self-serving and it “helped him to get his racist message a hearing”—What? “[R]acist message”?——
“Donald Trump’s victory should be a warning to those on the centre left pushing for more ‘market’ in our lives. But early signs suggest that there is every danger of Europe’s leaders falling into an even deeper sleep.
The United States-European Union Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade agreement has become a hated modern symbol of the power of big business and the market over our societies. The TTIP deal has rightly been seen as less a traditional agreement on tariffs and more an attempt to give big business new powers over our laws and public services. All of this would be enforceable in special ‘corporate courts’ only accessible to large foreign investors.
Trump cynically exploited working-class anger over these sorts of trade deals. He spoke of the devastation caused by TTIP’s forerunner, the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), which radically speeded up the ability of corporations to ‘offshore’ jobs to Mexico, leaving communities hollowed out and their voices silenced in the mainstream media. He also promised to halt TTIP’s sister deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
All this helped him to get his racist message a hearing in traditionally Democrat parts of the US. But Trump offers no hope for those who are rightly angry about the sort of politics that TTIP represents.
First, TTIP is already dead. It has been killed off by the millions of European and American activists who have campaigned against it for the last three years. This campaign has been run not by Trump supporters but by people who believe in an open, equal and democratic society where diversity is embraced and everyone’s rights are respected.
These activists objected to TTIP largely because it will further erode our democracy and hand power to big money – and to businessmen like Trump. In fact, Trump proudly admitted during his campaign that he has got rich by exploiting trade agreements such as Nafta to ‘offshore’ jobs and avoid regulation.
Second, despite his rhetoric, Trump believes in the power of big business. Within a certain framework, he supports the deregulation and privatization agenda embodied in TTIP. Where he differs is in his belief in massive public investment and industrial strategy, but for Trump this is all about creating a much closer relationship between big business and the nation state.
Trump’s support for public investment and industrial strategy are, at their most basic, simply essential tools any governments should use to plan and manage economies. Neoliberalism’s rejection of these tools is economically illiterate. It’s how these tools are used that should be the central question.”
Just what is it that the Guardian newspaper, on behalf of the Neoliberal Globalists, is saying? Is it that multi-Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists don’t give a damn about European workers but that is okay because Donald Trump doesn’t care about America’s workers either? That remark is false. But if it were true, so what? What matters is Trump’s policies and their impact on the Country and on the American people. And his policies benefitted small business and the hard-working American.
What the NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS were beginning to see from the actions of Trump on TPP and T-TIP was that Trump had no compunction about crafting and then implementing policies that did not coincide with their wishes, and that would have ramifications beyond these abstruse economic desires and aims of the Neoliberal Globalists.
Neither entreating Trump to play along nor cajoling him to go along would not work. The GLOBALISTS saw further problems looming. They did not wish to contend with a U.S. President who, for four years, would uproot their goals, carefully developed for and planned for decades, hammered out with difficulty but that had moved ahead inexorably, if not altogether smoothly, for twenty-six years before Trump’s election to the U.S. Presidency. They began to consider removing him from Office.
________________________
SUBPART FOUR OF SEVEN
TRUMP’S INTERESTS NOT IN LINE WITH THE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS BUT WAS TRUMP TRUTHFUL TO HIS MESSAGE TO THOSE WHO SUPPORTED HIM AND VOTED HIM INTO OFFICE?
The legacy Press never made much of any claim that Trump came into Office serving his own interests. If there is anything on the World-Wide Web about it, it is well hidden. How could there be anything? The headaches that the job brings to any man is plentiful and the ugly forces martialed against Trump from the first day he assumed the heavy task to the day he left Office was one long slugfest. In fact, he was attacked incessantly long prior to taking Office, while campaigning. There was certainly little if any money to be made in the job. In fact, Trump was the one of a very few Presidents in history to give away most or all of his salary. See, e.g. story in the Business Insider. The website says Trump promised to give away all his U.S. Presidential salary, and did not do so, but acknowledges that, for the first three and a half years he did give away his salary, which left the last 6 months uncertain, and yet if he kept his salary for the last 6 months, is that supposed to be a worthy basis to hound him for it? But that is what Business Insider does, retrieveing information from and referencing an article from the Washington Post. Business Insider says,
“It is unclear what Donald Trump did with his salary from his last 6 months in office, which he promised to donate, according to The Washington Post.
While in office Donald Trump pledged to give away all of his $400,000 annual presidential salary. For the first three and a half of his presidency, he donated the money to federal agencies.
The Washington Post said it surveyed all major federal agencies and none reported receiving anything from Trump after a gift in July 2020.
The paper said it could not account for the last $220,000 of his salary.”
Of course, if Trump gave his salary away for the entire 4 years of service to his Country, there would be no story. But, the fact that his enemies in the Press would nitpick this shows poor form.
To say that Trump took the job of U.S. President for personal profit would be ridiculous. In fact the incessant, vicious, virulent, vile attacks on him and his family during his entire tenure in Office belie any claim that the U.S. Presidency was a boon to him and his family. So his enemies in the Press forbear.
Rather, his enemies in media, both at home and abroad, talk incessantly about Trump’s purported “CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.” See, e.g., the BBC article posted in 2017, and a 2016 article appearing in Time Magazine.
The arguments made against Trump are weak and should not be of matter to anyone unless there is corruption. And a case for that against Trump would be weak at the get-go, unlike corruption in the Biden Administration. In fact, Joe Biden is arguably the most corrupt person to ever sit in the Oval Office. His corruption and lies concerning that corruption are legion.
The Press should have a field day with this. In fact, the Press, for the most part, seems not only uninterested but has actively engaged in a media blackout over myriad scandal. See, e.g., May 13, 2023 article in The Hill.
WHAT A PERSON CAMPAIGNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, AND, WHAT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR A PERSON WHO IS CAMPAIGNING FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IS, ONE, HIS OR HER POSITION ON MATTERS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE, TWO, THAT PERSON’S POLICY STATEMENTS (WHAT EACH SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE JOB AND, EXPECIALLY, DURING THE FIRST THIRTY DAYS), AND, THREE, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PARTY WHO GAINS THE PRESIDENCY ATTEMPTS TO ACHIEVE THOSE CAMPAIGN PROMISES?
IN REGARD TO THREE, DID THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE THE CAMPAIGN PROMISES MADE? IF SO, HOW MANY? AND, OF THOSE, DID THE PRESIDENT ACHIEVE HIS POLICY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OR, ACHIEVE THEM PARTIALLY, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, DID THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPT TO MEET THOSE CAMPAIGN PROMISES? AND DID HE FORBEAR FROM ACHIEVING SOME? IF SO, WHICH OF THEM WERE SIDELINED. AND, WORST OF ALL, DID THE PRESIDENT WORK TO ACHIEVE THE CONTRARY OF ONE OR MORE CAMPAIGN PROMISES? DID HE LIE TO THE PUBLIC AND ACTIVELY WORKED AGAINST ACHIEVING CAMPAIGN PROMISES OR OTHERWISE DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT POLICY THAT CONTRADICTS THE PROMISES HE MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
WHAT MATTERS OR SHOULD MATTER TO THE VOTER IS WHETHER A PERSON WHOM A VOTER SUPPORTS IS TRUE TO HIS WORD ABOUT THE PROMISES HE MAKES TO THE VOTER TO OBTAIN THAT VOTER’S VOTE.
Integrity is of late in very short supply, especially when discussion turns to politicians. A person campaigning for the U.S. Presidency, or for any public office for that matter, is that the person is true to his word, and to his message, and to the promises he makes.
A voter is called upon to trust the person campaigning for public office. The person campaigning is telling the voter that the voter can rely on what the person campaigning is saying to him, especially in regard to campaign promises and pledges. If a person agrees with the messaging and the promises made, he tends to vote for that person. If the person does not agree with the messaging and the promises, then doesn’t vote for that person, or certainly shouldn’t. If none of the people campaigning for a particular office, are not to the liking of the voter, both equally repugnant to the voter, then he has the right to abstain or to write-in a candidate of one’s choosing.
For all the caustic, vile remarks made about Trump by politicians, the Press, and by ordinary Americans, no one ever claimed—certainly with any proof or conviction—that Trump wasn’t truthful about his campaign promises and pledges.
In fact, in one fair, comprehensive appraisal, the BBC provided the reader with a list of Trump’s major accomplishments on October 15, 2020, based on the promises he made to the voter.
The report shows that Trump made good on the majority of the promises and even on those the BBC labels “No Progress” because the BBC’s explanation following upon the label belies the label. President Trump did make true progress on those. Finally, apropos of those that the BBC labels, “Abandoned,”—there are only three—the label suggests that Trump made a campaign promise that he later reneged on. In two cases that is true, and in one, the BBC is categorically wrong, and, in fact, miscategorized. We provide a synopsis of these forthwith and encourage our readers to peruse the BBC report, themselves.
On 20 major campaign promises, the British BBC captions them either ‘DELIVERED,” or “PARTIALLY DELIVERED” and proceeds to assert what they are.
In the case of three of the election promises that the BBC designated “PARTIALLY DELIVERED”, Trump’s achievements involved multi-step processes and were therefore complicated endeavors that were subject either to changed events in the world or to a situation where Trump was unable to follow through due to Court action or Congressional action that blocked him.
On four of the election promises, the BBC uses the label, “NO PROGRESS.” But the accompanying explanation on three of them belie the label since Trump made specific progress in achieving those campaign promises, and more could have been accomplished but for the actions of the Courts and/or Congress that created hurdles for Trump.
In fact, no U.S. President in history has suffered such extensive and intensive constraints imposed on him by Congress, the Press, or by many other forces than what President Trump had to contend with for the four years of his tenure as U.S. President.
On one of those seeming, “NO PROGRESS” items, the BBC says, as Democrats and the Press point out, that Trump promised to have Mexico pay for a “Wall” on the Southern Border and that didn’t happen. So what? That’s de minimis. Trump DID build the Wall, thereby doing his best to protect the Nation’s security, and Congress fought him all the while on this, abandoning a wall—allowing building materials to rust, once the Great Pretender, and Grand De-Unifer, Biden took over.
Apart from Congressional obstacles, in some instances, Trump faced outright sabotage from his own people: staff and bureaucrats dutybound to assist the President.
For example, Trump wanted to post 250,000 troops on the Southern Border to help secure it. His own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper countermanded the order from his Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump. See the article in The Hill.
Trump wanted to send troops into Mexico to hunt cartels if the Mexican Government refused to help. There was no serious work done on this. Trump’s National Security officials balked. See the article in “Business Insider.”
On another promise labeled, “NO PROGRESS,” that had involved the deportation of illegal aliens, the BBC quotes the President as having said during his campaign “that every single undocumented immigrant—of which there are estimated to be more than 11.3 million—‘have to go’.” To say that these illegal aliens “have to go” doesn’t mean that Trump promised that he will deport every one of them. It simply alludes to his desire to remove them. And, in fact, he did deport 267,000 of them.
Trump also sought to rescind Obama’s “DACA” program, taking the matter all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him. The fault for failing to deliver on his desire to remove millions of illegals, then, does not rest with Trump, it rests with the Court. Trump respected the decision of the Court even if he disagreed with it, something that Biden would not do in the very recent Biden vs. Nebraska (Student Loan Case) that we discuss in Part Three of this essay to be finalized and posted as soon as time permits.
The British Public Broadcasting Corporation placed the label “ABANDONED” on three campaign promises. But the matters involved in those election promises are more nuanced, as explained in the BBC’s explanation of them.
On “Rebuilding Infrastructure,” the BBC quotes Trump as saying, during his victory speech that “The country's infrastructure ‘will become, by the way, second to none, and we will put millions of our people back to work as we rebuild it.” The BBC said that he had “ABANDONED” this. But did he? By way of explanation, the BBC says,
“By March 2018 Congress had allocated $21bn for infrastructure spending - far short of the $1.5tn Mr Trump has called for. The money will be spent on a wide range of upgrades and investments, according to a congressional graphic. In April 2019, Mr Trump and Democratic leaders agreed to spend $2tn on infrastructure, an agreement that later fell apart. This June there were reports the Trump administration had a $1tn plan in the works, but no announcement has been made.” This doesn’t sound at all like Trump abandoned the campaign promise. In fact by the BBC’s own account, Trump sought to make this happen. But Congress controls the purse strings, and Congress would not provide the monies that would make the policy goal a reality. Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this. See, e.g., a May 17, 2018 article in The Hill.
Two of the items that the BBC marks “ABANDONED” are, concededly, the result of false bravado, and Trump would have done better not to recite them as campaign promises. One of them had to do with reinstating the Bush program of “torture” on international terrorists. Trump’s comment is, admittedly, ridiculous, and would be contrary to our own laws and the U.S. Constitution if employed, quite apart from international law. And, yes, we are aware that the Bush Administration sought to get around legal issues by creating a new category for Islamic Terrorists, referring to them as “ENEMY COMBATANTS” rather than as “PRISONERS OF WAR” or simply common “CRIMINALS.”
Press Reports, Government papers, papers written by the ABA and others, and academic articles on this are legion. But, the reader should keep in mind that, with this Biden Administration, the DOJ and White House have both said or insinuated that Domestic Terrorists, loosely defined as “WHITE EXTREMISTS,” WHITE SUPREMACISTS,” and even people designated by the Administration and by the legacy Press as “MAGA REPUBLICANS,” or “CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS” and possibly including anyone who vocalizes opposition to the BIDEN REGIME to be the most serious threat posed to “DEMOCRACY” and to the COUNTRY. If so, and if “Torture” were reinstated as a matter of Government policy, what would stop the Biden Administration from using “Torture” on American citizens.
Just consider the outrages committed to date on ordinary Americans who happened to venture into the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, at the behest of people like Ray Epps and others, and suffered from Biden Administration prosecution and persecution as a result. See e.g., recent Washington Examiner article on Ray Epps, posted July 18, 2023, and article that appeared in the New York Post on March 8, 2023.
Trump had also stated that he would request the DOJ to appoint a Special Prosecutor to take a fresh look at Hillary Clinton’s ostensible criminal behavior on a multiple of matters. Trump did abandon this. Chalk this one up to simply playing to his base of supporters. It was right to address the egregious conduct of the DOJ and FBI in this matter. But, Trump should simply have said that this matter should be looked into, without committing to doing anything on it that would just rile the Democrats and their mob of NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS, and as Trump said, as reported by the BBC in the article, Trump “had other priorities,”—definitely true, even if Clinton has walked away, free, as have so many other politicians and bureaucrats. Such is the state of our Country.
And, last, the BBC said that Trump pointed out that NATO is obsolete but, on assuming Office he said that NATO isn’t obsolete, but he did point the following out in 2018, as reported by the BBC, “suggesting the US might still leave [NATO] if allies did not acquiesce to his budget demands.” See also December 12, 2019 article in the New York Post.
___________________________
SUBPART FIVE OF SEVEN
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT EVER SUFFER GOVERNMENT TYRANNY; THEY MUST THEREFORE REMAIN VIGILANT, EVER ALERT TO SIGNS OF ITS MANIFESTATION
THIS NATION’S HISTORY, HERITAGE, CULTURE, ETHOS, AND JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHIC ARE ALL REFLECTIONS OF ITS CORE VALUES, GROUNDED ON THE TENETS AND PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS OF INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE WHOLE OF IT IS IN DANGER OF BEING SWEPT ASIDE, REPLACED WITH THE TENETS, PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS OF COLLECTIVISM
The concept of Individualism undergirds the U.S. Constitution. And the essence follows upon recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of one’s Selfhood. Compare that with the concept of Collectivism, which is the political and social philosophical foundation of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist internationalists. During the period of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, AQ wrote: From a political, social, cultural, juridical standpoint, the coming election is one between adherents of the tenets of Collectivism and the adherents of Individualism. It is about those who support the Bill of Rights—and the one fundamental right that preserves all other rights along with the sovereignty of the American people, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—and those who abhor, absolutely loathe, the very notion of the supremacy of the individual over that of the Collective, and who intend to erase free speech, free association, and the ability of the American citizen TO BE his own person, individual; to see Government amass unlimited power, usurping the natural sovereignty of the people. These radical Marxists and Billionaire Globalists do not intend to leave the American citizen alone, but to subjugate the citizen, reduce the citizen to penury, and to keep the American citizen in a constant state of fear. We see the plans of these Destructors of our Nation playing out today, even before the General election. These Destructors of our Nation are providing the American citizenry a foretaste of what it can expect and what it will experience if the Destructors do secure complete control over the Federal Government. They will never permit the individual TO BE individual. They will never leave the individual alone. They will control all thought and conduct. And to avoid revolt, they will never sanction the citizenry's ownership of and possession of firearms and ammunition. Guns and ammunition will be the first things they will confiscate. They will reconfigure the Country, turning it from one where Government is the servant of the people to one where the people are the servants of Government, a Government to be merged into a new world order. Supporters of Individualism are fighting back against this push of Destructors both here and abroad who intend to wrest the Nation from the citizenry. Supporters of Individualism wish to preserve our Nation as the founders presented it to us, as set forth in the Nation’s blueprint, the U.S. Constitution; as the framers of our Constitution intended for our Nation to remain: a free Constitutional Republic, in which the people, themselves, are sovereign. Supporters of Collectivism want to eradicate our Nation’s history, culture, and core Christian values. They intend to create an entirely new and alien economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct, grounded on an expansive, powerful, centralized governmental authority through which the lives, thoughts, and actions of individuals are strictly controlled and modulated, according to a uniform standard, permitting no deviancy in thought, action, or conduct. Nothing better exemplifies the vast irreconcilable differences between those who adhere to the tenets of Individualism and those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism than in the manner each perceives the Bill of Rights. Individualists perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as codifications of natural law bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator.” See the AQ article posted on July 9, 2020. Also see the AQ article title, “In The Throes of America’s Modern Day Civil War.” Peruse our Blog for many other articles on this subject.
The Constitution together with the Nation’s Declaration of Independence are assertions of the Framers’ strongly held belief that the sole purpose of Government is to serve the interests of the people. And if Tyranny arises within it, then it is the moral right—and, under the Constitution, the legal duty and responsibility—of the American people to take the strongest action against it, to restore and secure their sole and ultimate sovereignty and authority over it.
This may also necessitate the people forcibly compelling a recalcitrant Government to yield—when it demonstrates a disinclination to do so or outright repugnance to do so—to the fundamental, unalienable, unmodifiable, immutable eternal, and absolute Natural Law Rights of the people as the Divine Creator bestowed those Natural Law Rights on them, which therefore preexist in them, mandating the Government refrain from imposing any constraints over or curtailing the exercise of them.
DOES A COUNTRY NEED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT?
This was the most urgent focus of the Founders when hashing out a Constitution for the Nation, for it brought into question whether the Nation needed a Constitution at all if the primary purpose of a Constitution was to establish THE FACT of a powerful CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, apart from the States.
In that debate there were two camps: The FEDERALISTS and the ANTIFEDERALISTS. See, e.g., the article from the Gilder Lehrman Institute.
“The differences between the Federalists and the Antifederalists are vast and at times complex. Federalists’ beliefs could be better described as nationalist. The Federalists were instrumental in 1787 in shaping the new US Constitution, which strengthened the national government at the expense, according to the Antifederalists, of the states and the people. The Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the US Constitution, but they never organized efficiently across all thirteen states, and so had to fight the ratification at every state convention. Their great success was in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a bill of rights to ensure the liberties that the Antifederalists felt the Constitution violated.”
See, also the article in the “National Archives” on this:
“The Federalists, who believed that a strong central government was necessary to face the nation’s challenges, needed to convert at least three states. The Anti-Federalists fought hard against the Constitution because it created a powerful central government that reminded them of the one they had just overthrown, and it lacked a bill of rights.”
The Federalists won the day on this. But they, no less than the Anti-Federalists, realized the danger inherent in a strong centralized Government for the Nation because all Government, regardless of the nature of it, tends to tyranny. That is an inherent dilemma inherent in the existence of a strong centralized Government.
The Antifederalists concluded there is no way out of the dilemma, so they felt that the best way to deal with the problem is avoiding entangling one in it at the outset since it would be extraordinarily difficult, and probably impossible, to extricate oneself from the negative effects of Government devolving into Tyranny, short of war, and that next war would involve Americans fighting other Americans.
One of the great Founders of the Republic and Framers of the Constitution was James Madison. He said this:
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” (James Madison, The Federalist No. 51” cited in the CATO Institute).
This passage might suggest that Madison was an Antifederalist. He wasn’t. He was a Federalist. He felt a strong central Government for the United States was necessary. He therefore felt the dilemma of Tyranny in Government could not be avoided but must, then, be dealt with.
The Federalists began with this assumption: All Nations require a strong Central Government for self-preservation.
But self-preservation from whom, exactly. If from abroad, that is understandable. For, with the American Revolution of 1776 foremost in their mind, and with their knowledge of both Ancient History and European History, in their time, they understood that the most efficient and effective way for a Nation to deal with outside threats was through a strong Central Government and a STANDING ARMY.” Protecting the Nation, then, for the Federalists, also meant protecting the citizens of the Nation from Outside Threat.
Okay, fine. And now suppose the threat to the Nation and its people comes from the Government itself? This is the dilemma, and it isn’t hypothetical. Americans now living in this 21st Century see TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT COME TO THE LAND, firsthand, OR IS IT? Many Americans—perhaps even most Americans—would say that this present Government, especially with the present Biden Administration is problematic, but would balk at saying the Nation’s Central Government, i.e., the Nation’s “FEDERAL” GOVERNMENT HAS DESCENDED into Tyranny even if there is a threat the Government “MAY” DESCEND into Tyranny. And that, in any case, the best way to deal with THAT EVENTUALITY is through the ELECTORAL PROCESS.
But, what if the Nation’s “ELECTORAL PROCESS” is compromised? What if the “ELECTORAL PROCESS” was compromised during the 2020 General Election? If so then, the person sitting in the OVAL OFFICE” isn’t really the LEGITIMATE U.S. PRESIDENT” at all. That would mean the Nation has suffered a coup d’état. And that fact entails the disturbing conclusion that TYRANNY HAS DESCENDED on America. For, if one BRANCH of GOVERNMENT is FALSE, the entirety of Government is FALSE.
Of course there can be no debate over the issue of the integrity of the 2020 Electoral Process. Both the Federal Government, and the Legacy Press have placed a damper on that. And what might “WE THE PEOPLE” expect of a fair and aboveboard General Election in 2024, if the same mechanisms and procedures in place in 2020, are utilized once again in 2024?
Once the Antifederalists were forced to capitulate to the Federalists on the question of drafting a Constitution for the Nation which meant, most importantly, creating FOR THE NATION, a central “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, the salient issue for the Framers of the CONSTITUTION, and one that underwent substantial debate and iterations, focused on the precise nature of this CENTRALIZED “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” for the NASCENT Nation with the aim of GRANTING TO THIS GOVERNMENT specific, i.e., limited, although significant powers and authority. Carefully, carving out for the Government a set of powers and authority but describing and explicating the nature of them, demarcating their parameters, and doling them out among three CO-EQUAL BRANCHES, was all expected to FORESTALL, or INHIBIT, or “CHECK,” but LIKELY NOT PREVENT the onset of TYRANNY.
THAT at least was the ANTIFDERALISTS CONSTANT CONCERN. Hence, after “OFFICIAL” ratification of the ARTICLES of the U.S. CONSTITUTION, on June 21, 1788.
The Antifederalists insisted on inclusion of a set of AMENDMENTS to it, that would serve better or as a final FAILSAFE to prevent TYRANNY through subsequent ratification of a BILL OF RIGHTS for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. And the Bill of Rights was “OFFICIALLY” Ratified on December 15, 1791.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson engaged in serious debates on the matter. See “Teaching American History.”
But, from what is in evidence today, the debates would have been unnecessary. Whatever reservations that Madison might have had over a formal, written “Bill of Rights” at the time, would be moot if he could but witness those forces at work today attempting to destroy the fundamental natural law rights of the American people. The only thing that constrains these forces that crush is the fact that our Bill of Rights is explicit, formally codified and incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.
______________________________
SUBPART SIX OF SEVEN
IF THE FOUNDERS OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC COULD VIEW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TODAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD MAKE OF IT AND THE WHETHER OR NOT TYRANNY HAS COME TO AMERICA TODAY”
IF FOUNDERS CONCLUDED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DESCENDED INTO TYRANNY WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE THE FOUNDERS WOULD SUGGEST THE PEOPLE DO ABOUT IT? ANYTHING AND, IF SO WHAT? NOTHING? AND THEN WHAT?
The Framers of the Constitution of a fledging Nation were well aware of a paradoxical concern in creating such a Government: the rise of Tyranny. What would they think of the monstrous creature they had spawned that was supposed to protect the Nation and its People and not has turned on the Nation and its People? They must have known the Federal Government—a Powerful Entity—is by definition a FORMIDABLE BEAST, as it was clearly expected to be. A perusal of Articles 1 through 3 makes the point. But, what if that FORMIDABLE BEAST turns its back on foes outside the Nation and, facing the Nation and its People, turns against the Nation and its People, using the mighty powers it has to destroy the Republic and to subjugate the people? It has then become a MONSTER, wielding MONSTROUS POWERS WIELDED AGAINST THE PEOPLE.
The Founders of the Republic, having eliminated one Tyranny, did not wish to see a new one take its place and one, all the worse, because they themselves had a hand in seeding it, albeit unintentionally. Recognizing the possibility of this, they created a Government of three Co-Equal Branches—each with substantial but carefully defined, limited powers. NO one organ or “BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT” would be lawfully permitted to exercise all the powers of this new central “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.”
The purpose of each BRANCH would be explicated and demarcated in the Constitution, principally, in the FIRST THREE ARTICLES. And to each BRANCH, would be allotted specific powers and authority.
To make clear the powers and authority of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT were not to consist of any but those that the Articles of the CONSTITUTION provide for, a BILL OF RIGHTS was thereafter ratified by the States and then incorporated into the CONSTITUTION to make certain the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT ASSUME FURTHER POWERS AND AUTHORITY FOR ITSELF, USURPING THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY RESERVED TO THE STATES AND TO THE PEOPLE AND CURTAILING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.
The Doctrine of Federalism, proclaimed in the TENTH AMENDMENT of the BILL OF RIGHTS, establishing the RELATIONSHIP between FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and STATES said expressly that——
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Other provisions of the Bill of Rights, the FIRST NINE AMENDMENTS, and those held by the people in the TENTH, or JOINTLY held by the People and the States, are construed as clear and categorical CODIFICATIONS OF “NATURAL LAW RIGHTS” or, in a few instances, imply CODIFICATIONS of NATURAL LAW RIGHTS preexisting in man, and, so, fall outside the lawful power of Government to deny, forbid, ignore, dismiss, modify, or abrogate.
The distinction between the Bill of Rights and the Articles is stark. The BILL OF RIGHTS are EXPLICIT GOD-GIVEN LAW, NOT MANMADE.
The ARTICLES are MANDMADE CONSTRUCTS and those subsequent Amendments to the Constitution that are PROCEDURAL MECHANISMS are MANMADE LAW or “POSITIVE” MANMADE RIGHTS, (see discussion infra).
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. A FREE REPUBLIC EXISTS DUE TO IT, AND WILL CEASE TO EXIST IF IT IS ERASED OR ELSE, NOT ADHERED TO.
The PREAMBLE of the CONSTITUTION DECLARES THE PURPOSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, FROM WHOM IT DERIVES, namely, “WE THE PEOPLE” (AND NOT GOVERNMENT), THE RULES UPON WHICH THE CENTRAL “FEDERAL” GOVERNMENT OPERATES, and THE NATURE OF AND MANNER OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE STAES AND THE PEOPLE.
Importantly, the PREAMBLE of the CONSTITUTION makes categorically clear that it is the PEOPLE that have created the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and are therefore SOLE SOVEREIGN over it. Since the People alone have created the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it is THEY and THEY ALONE, who may LAWFULLY DISSOLVE IT.
Of the BILL OF RIGHTS itself—AMENDMENTS ONE THROUGH EIGHT CONSIST OF A SPECIFIC SET OF ENUMERATED RIGHTS, and ONE, the NINTH, is a statement of UNENUMERATED RIGHTS of MAN.
The TENTH AMENDMENT is a STATEMENT of RESIDUAL, UNENUMERATED RIGHTS HELD BY THE STATE which also serve an explicit description of the relationship between the STATES and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which is a reference to the DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM, alluding to the fact that STATES reserve to themselves through the powers they wield, SOVEREIGNTY that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT must respect. Since “THE PEOPLE” are also mentioned in the TENTH AMENDMENT, this must be given effect. THE PEOPLE HOLD POWERS TOO. But the use of the term, ‘OR’ in the TENTH AMENDMENT is not clear: IS IT AN “INCLUSIVE” or an “EXCLUSIVE” ‘OR’?
If, ‘INCLUSIVE,’ this means that the PEOPLE hold the same POWERS as the State which may be a statement of PARALLEL POWERS, or a single set of POWERS “JOINTLY” held. And to the extent that THE BILL OF RIGHTS is an expression of “GOD BESTOWED” NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, this means such POWERS that THE PEOPLE have may be expressed as RIGHTS. This is, admittedly, a novel theory. But, it helps resolve a problem remaining between the STATES and PEOPLE, especially apropos of the STATES’ use of their POLICE POWERS to curb the PEOPLES’ EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.
Several States, such as New York claim a right to interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms even after the rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
The McDonald case relied extensively on the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to bring the exercise of the SECOND AMENDMENT into the ORBIT of mandatory State recognition of the RIGHT. But States, like New York, New Jersey, California, et. al., still balk.
There is an argument to be made though, whether States are required to adhere to the SECOND AMENDMENT through the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE of the “FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,” apart from the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. An appeal may also be made to the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE that appears in ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2 of the U.S. CONSTITUTION, which obviously predates inclusion of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. CONSTITUTION.
There is substantial room for debate on this.
ON THE NATURE OF “NEGATIVE” NATURAL LAW RIGHTS AND “POSITIVE” NATURAL LAW RIGHTS”
The FIRST NINE AMENDMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE REFERRED TO, AND ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD BOTH LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY, AS “NEGATIVE RIGHTS” meaning that such rights accruing to MAN by DIVINE RIGHT and are not to be intruded upon by any other MAN or GOVERNMENT. See article posted in the Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics on this.
“POSITIVE RIGHTS” unlike “NEGATIVE RIGHTS” are essentially MAN-MADE, NOT NATURAL LAW RIGHTS—inclusions that help secure one’s well-being: gainful employment, a good education, housing, medical care, food, are examples.
“NEGATIVE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS” emanate from God, not from MAN, nor from GOVERNMENT. These RIGHTS operate as prohibitions on GOVERNMENT and on OTHER MEN. They are ETERNAL and they are ABSOLUTE.
They are basically laws of NONINTERFERENCE. It is through these NEGATIVE “NATURAL” LAWS that the SANCTITY and INVIOLABILITY of the INDIVIDUAL is understood and realized.
The Federal Government under the Biden Administration and many of the States have waged war on exercise of the Bill of Rights. The FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, the RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, AND THE RIGHT ARE SEVERELY CONSTRAINED, AND RE: FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, THE GOVERNMENT HAS INTRUDED INTO THIS AREA, ALONG WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS THAT OFTEN OPERATES AS A PROXY FOR GOVERNMENT THAT EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT NOW NO LONGER EXISTS. IT’S BEEN ESSENTIALLY EXTINGUISHED, AND MUCH OF THE PUBLIC DOESN’T EVEN KNOW THIS.
Erosion of NATURAL LAW RIGHTS is one salient sign of TYRANNY. The problem arises what to do about it. If Americans are expected to deal with it through the Electoral Process alone, and, if powerful forces seeking to harm this Country—both those in Government, and those outside it—have effectively compromised the Electoral System, what then might Americans do? Reliance on the Second Amendment is a drastic measure, and while armed resistance by one hundred million Americans with assistance from parts of the military might effectively topple a Tyrannical Government, much tragedy and bloodshed would be the result. But there are other issues before one even gets to the utility of armed resistance.
Below in BULLET POINTS, we simply set down a few of them, to be dealt with at a later time, although AQ has already written extensively on TYRANNY. But consider:
WHAT TRULY ARE THE SIGNS OF TYRANNY?
HOW FAR DOES TYRANNY HAVE TO PROCEED BEFORE THE PUBLIC MAY MORALLY, IF NOT LAWFULLY, TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST IT?
A TYRANT NEVER ADMITS TO HIS TYRANNY AND MANY AMERICANS, DUPED THOUGH THEY BE, WILLINGLY ACCEPT IT, OR AVIDLY ENDORSE IT. SO IF A SIZABLE PORTION OF THE POLITY WILLINGLY ACCEPTS TYRANNY, IS IT MORAL OR IMMORAL (WHETHER COWARDLY OR NOT) FOR THE REST OF THE POLITY TO ACCEPT TYRANNY AND SURRENDER ALL EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO AVOID PERSECUTION, PROSECUTION, DETENTION, AND, PERHAPS EVEN, DEATH?
ARE “LEGAL” CHANNELS TO OVERTHROW TYRANNY, I.E., THE ELECTORAL PROCESS THE ONLY TENABLE CHANNEL TO REMOVE A TYRANT? AND, WHAT IF THAT ELECTORAL PROCESS IS COMPROMISED?
IF THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE TYRANNY IN THEIR MIDST AND WISH TO RESIST TYRANNY, DO THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO, APART FROM THE MORAL DUTY? AND, IF SO, WHAT ARE THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST A TYRANNICAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
The first and last bullet points are the most perplexing and vexing. And we will deal with them at length in a future essay. We are focused here primarily on the legal and moral and historical bases for resisting tyranny, and this necessarily raises important Bill of Rights issues—especially Second Amendment right to bear arms issues, and First Amendment Right of speech/dissent and freedom of (political-expressive) association, entailed by the freedom of speech clause.
__________________________________
SUBPART SEVEN OF SEVEN
THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP TO THE PRESIDENCY IN 2016 SERVES AS AN EXPRESSION OF AMERICANS’ REASSERTION OF THEIR RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE—A REASSERTION OF MAN’S FAITH IN THE PROMISES GAINED FROM THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776.
AMERICANS SAW IN RECENT PRESIDENCIES A DISTURBING DRIFT TOWARD TYRANNY, AS GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO INTRUDE ON THEIR NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, AND MANY AMERICANS TURNED AWAY IN DISGUST.
Several writers today, having seen the damage done to the Country through the Presidencies of Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama.
These writers recognized in the Presidency of Donald Trump, a return to normalcy—a return to the core values of this Country.
One writer, Dick Morris, writes, in “The Return,” that “Donald J. Trump has been one of America’s great presidents. Not just good, but great. Part of his greatness is reflected in his immense achievements. But the greater tribute is how he defied the economic establishment by getting Congress to pass a massive tax cut, skillfully crafted to aim at the middle class, the working poor, and small businesses. This establishment said cut taxes on the wealthy, and it will trickle-down doesn’t always happens. So he made sure his tax cuts were the first in recent history to target the lower middle class—the working class. Trump sighed a law giving a tax credit of $2,000 per child, and changed tax rates so the lower-income people did not even have to file returns.”
Does this sound like a man who has an uncaring attitude toward American workers and the plight of low income families? Trump represents American workers like Democrats once did or purported to do, but no longer care about decades later.
Bill Clinton knew that, in the coming General Election of 2016, Hillary should not take the vote of workers for granted. She did. She apparently thought the Union Head, like AFL-CIO Richard Trumpka would be able to get Union workers to toe the line and vote for Clinton over Trump. She was wrong. They didn’t.
To this day the Democrat Party Big shots can’t wrap their head around the idea that most Americans are individuals, first, not anonymous, conformist, amorphous, unthinking blobs. Democrats can’t see this because, at an extremely deep level of the psyche below clear conscious awareness rests the foundational premises of their ideology grounded on Collectivism.
The problem for Democrats is that the foundation of American culture, history, heritage, and National Ethos, is grounded on the tenets and precepts of Individualism and those tenets and precepts are reflected in the Constitution itself, through the first Three Articles that recognizes the threat of a large, powerful Federal Government. Thus, the framers constructed a Government of limited, demarcated powers, distributed among three co-equal Branches. Then, there is the Bill of Rights, unlike any existent in the world for the fundamental rights and liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights are, unlike the Articles, not the man-made constructs, but codifications of Natural Law, preexistent in Man, and bestowed upon Him by the Divine Creator.
None of this is accepted by the Democrat Party leadership nor by many rank and file Democrats, whether they see themselves as wealthy, sophisticated, fashionable, liberal “elites” or Neo-Marxist Cultist Academicians, or simply knee-jerk Democrat Party members, whatever their race or socio-economic standing. What many of these people seek is the creation of a new America, over-throwing the ideals of the American Revolution of 1776 but for others, who simply vote the Democrat Party ticket because that is something they have always done, and that is something their parents and grandparents and relatives have always done, but without realizing that that Democrat Party of today has transformed into something manifestly different from the Party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, and even Bill Clinton. But the Legacy Press and the Propagandistic organs of broadcast and cable news, and social media, and “influencers” on Tick Tock, and the popular sports figure heroes of the masses and the groupies who follow singers, and actors all create a mythology that hides a sinister agenda. And, now that the Neoliberal Globalist puppet masters have in Office puppets who do their bidding, unhesitatingly, without complaint, legitimizing the power of High Office even though they do not make policy but simply implement the policy made for them, it is not necessary for these powerful interests to hold Office themselves.
That was very much different when Trump came into Office. He was a force to be reckoned with. By nature he isn’t the sort of person to take orders from the Globalists.
As the writer says, in “The Return,” “The establishment wanted free trace, just like Adam Smith prescribed. But Trump insisted that we use our power to stop China from cheating, and force it to compete on a level playing field. The establishment cautioned him not to mess with China as we owe them so much money, they could pull the plug on us anytime they want to. But, as a businessman, Trump understood that it is we who have th upper hand because we buy three times as much from China as they buy from us.
The establishment wanted free flow of labor and open borders. But Trump demanded that we keep illegal immigrants out. He said that if we have millions of people willing to work for very little, there’s no way the middle class can move up in wages.” Curiously, the Communist Bernie Sanders said the same thing, back in 2019 (see the article in Politico) before it became unfashionable to buck the Democrats’ changing position that an “Open Borders” policy is good for the Country, although they don’t wish to acknowledge the obvious that the Southern Border of the Country is, in fact, open.
The Conservative Economist, Milton Friedman, agreed with Trump’s assessment on Open Borders and with the same assessment that Sanders came to—a Libertarian concept out of sync with Communism but at least Sanders at the time did wish implement policies that would aid the low or middle income American wage earner.
The Heritage Foundation pointed out, back in 2007 that,
“A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. ‘It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state,’ he warned. This remark adds insight to the current debate over immigration in the U.S. Senate.
To be fully understood, Friedman's comment should be viewed as applying not merely to means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing, but to the entire redistributive transfer state. In the ‘transfer state,’ government taxes the upper middle class and shifts some $1.5 trillion in economic resources to lower-income groups through a vast variety benefits and subsidies. Across the globe, this sort of economic redistribution is the largest, if not the predominant, function of government in advanced societies.
The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels. Low-skill immigrants become natural recipients in this process. On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.
There is a rough one-to-one fiscal balance between low-skill immigrant families and upper-middle-class families. It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family. Even Julian Simon, the godfather of open-border advocates, acknowledged that imposing such a burden on taxpayers was unreasonable, stating, ‘immigrants who would be a direct economic burden upon citizens through the public coffers should have no claim to be admitted’ into the nation.
There is also a political dimension to the transfer state. Elections in modern societies are, to a considerable degree, referenda on the magnitude of future income redistribution. An immigration policy which grants citizenship to vast numbers of low-skill, low-income immigrants not only creates new beneficiaries for government transfers, but new voters likely to support even greater transfers in the future.”
Trump was obviously aware of all of this. He sought to find common ground between helping lower income wage earners and also upper-middle Class Americans. In other words, as U.S. President he recognized that implementing policies that benefitted most of the citizenry would be the best way to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”
The Democrats, including the radical NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS AND the fabulously wealthy NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS didn’t care about any of this. Application of their policies provided the worst of both worlds. Kept lower income workers in a constant state of despair, and possibly throwing them and many lower middle class workers into abject poverty, while adding yet more wealth to the most wealthy individuals in the world. Whether the Neo-Marxists could understand any of this is debatable. They were and are so wrapped up in bizarre dogmas they take to be reality that the Globalists accede to their games, and both go their merry way to destabilize and destroy the United States, each gaining something from destruction of the U.S. Constitution and the dismantling of the world’s only truly free Constitutional Republic.
Dick Morris writes, “The civil rights movement (more specifically, the Black Lives Matter movement) said that minorities have been discriminated against for decades and that we must abandon the idea of equality. Instead, they claimed that we must begin discriminating against white people. They called it ‘equity.; Trump stood firm for colorblind government and cut the ground out form under them by ushering in policies that led to Black household income rising to historic heights.”
Myth creation is a major component of the Neo-Marxist plan to reeducate “WHITE” and “BLACK” America. It is not an easy thing to do, involving a lot of work to create, fabricate, manufacture new dogmas and to sell them to the public. That requires assistance from Government, from the business, social media, the legacy Press, academia and education. It involves marginalizing core traditional institutions like the family and traditional Religion, love of one’s Country. It involves denigrating the cherishing of our Nation’s fundamental, unalienable, eternal Rights and Liberties bestowed onto man by the Loving, omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and omni-benevolent Divine Creator. It involves besmirching the lofty works and texts of Founders of our Republic and being respectful of their memories. It involves the desecration of and dismantling of our sacred artifacts, including statues, monuments, and art work, and our historical relics, including flags, medals, uniforms—every conceivable referent to our history—to erase the whole of it.
In his work, “Final Battle,” the author David Horowitz alludes to the Neo-Marxists’ reprehensible resurrection of race hatred; the conjuring of armies of White Supremacist hordes—Ghosts from the Antebellum South—to support their new mythology, comprising batteries of Dogmas and vocabularies to thrust on the American public and on the school children, all with the help of the Press, Academia, and NGOs, and not least of all by word of mouth. This is all aided by the marvels of technology that allow for rapid dissemination of content on an industrial scale throughout the Country, via television, radio, and smartphone. Such is the power of the World-wide Web.
Horowitz writes, “Because America in 2021 was such a racially integrated and egalitarian society, and because racists were such an obviously marginal group, the left had developed an entire Aesopian vocabulary to obscure the fact that racism was already confied to a marginalized and insignificant social fringe. Terms such as unconscious bias, implicit bias, and structural racism, which for cecades were mainly the purview of academia, came to the fore, deployed by the left to obscure the rarity of visible racist in the body politic and also to absolve supposed victim groups of responsibility for their circumstances.”
Donald Trump had to contend with this insidious, caustic, dangerous nonsense during his Presidency. It exploded on America when the Great Pretender, Joe Biden, took over the Executive Suite on January 20, 2021.
Horowitz continues, “The importance of these subterfuges became apparent as the Biden administration unveiled a new term to describe the central theme of its policy agenda: equity [a point recognized by Dick Morris, too, see quote infra]. This buzzword quickly emerged as the guiding principle of the new administration’s social and economic policies.”
In his book, “Justice for All,” the author Greg Kelly, son of celebrated NYPD Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly, also mentions the word, ‘equity’ and devotes an entire section of his book to it. He writes, ‘Equity’ is a funny word, as the wokesters use it. It sounds a lot like equality but actually means the exact opposite. When we talk about equality in society, we usually mean that everyone should get an equal shot—equality of opportunity. Everyone should have access to education and training. Everyone should get treated fairly when it comes to getting a bank loan or getting a job. That’s why we instituted antidiscrimination laws almost six decades ago, in order to ensure that people could get equyal treatment before the law.” The author continues,
“Equity is something else. Equity means taking into consideration the fact that not everybody gets an equal shot at opportunity for a variety of reasons. . . .
According to Ibram X. Kendi, ‘Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.’ Equity means equality of outcome, in other words.” . . . Equity is meant to eliminate ‘disparate impact,’ which is the tendency of different groups to do different things and excel in different ways. Economist Thomas Sowell has analyzed the ways in which different ethnic or national groups all over the world have, for a variety of reasons pertaining to culture, family, caste, or history gravitated toward specific trades or professions. This ‘sorting’ is occasionally the result of discrimination but occurs naturally in free societies. . . .
In any case, all discussion of disparate impact, equity, structural racism, etc., is pointed toward one main idea: that America is a white supremacist authoritarian state, and white Americans are in a stupor of denial about it because the current state of affairs protects their ill-gotten riches. According to the 1619 Project, among many other leftist misreadings of history, all of the wealth of America was generated by the unpaid labor of black slaves which demands repayment in the form of reparations. White people owe black people trillions upon trillions of dollars—essentially everything.”
Note, the fiction of this 1619 project is actively and avidly promoted by the New York Times. This speaks volumes of the newspaper’s complicity in destroying this Nation. In an attempt to justify this monstrous action, the editors, curiously don’t try to hide the fact of their deception, but actually engage in relishing it. The NY Times writes: “The goal of The 1619 Project is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year. Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country. [“The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” (from the NY Times)]
The Biden Administration having having sympathetic agencies such as the New York Times to assist it, crafted its propaganda campaign targeting the American people, and it wasted no time in implementing this destructive, psychic damaging meme on the Nation.
In the Horowitz book, “Final Battle,” the author continues,
“On Inauguration Day, Biden issued an executive order outlining his agenda titled ‘On Advancing Racial Equity,’ which read, in part: “Equal opportunity is the bedrock of American democracy, and diversity is one of our country’s greatest strengths. But for too many, the American Dream remains out of reach. Entrenched disparities in our laws and public policies, and in our public and private institutions, have often denied that equal opportunity to individuals and communities.”
“But, if there were actually ‘entrenched disparities’ in American laws and policies resulting in discrimination against particular races and genders, they would be illegal. This made it clear from the outset that the new administration had no intention of dealing with actual denials of equal opportunity. It would instead implement a socialist vision in which government would redistribute income and privilege on the basis of gender and race. Mere disparities would become the unexamined rationale for this unconstitutional, unlawful, and anti-American redistribution of wealth by the Biden administration.
Biden’s Executive Order continued: ‘Our country faces converging economic, health, and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism. . . .’ This was a veiled reference to the Black Lives Matter Movement, a Marxist organization that was officially endorsed by the Democrat Party and which had allegedly helped raise $60 million for Biden’s presidential campaign but produced no evidence for its claims of systemic racism and white supremacy and showed no interest in justice if the injustices were committed by blacks.”
The Marxist group Black Lives Matter plays a central role in the development of and implementation of mythology of endemic, systemic racism. And reference to the group crops up with frequency in “Final Battle.” “The Democrat Party had already enthusiastically endorsed Black Lives Matter and its many fictional slanders, despite or perhaps because of its leaders’ dedication to convicted domestic terrorists such as cop-killer Assata Shakur. Biden campaign staffers even donated money to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, an organization that funded bail for the rioters charged with serious crimes. . . .
On the very day Joe Biden assumed the office of the presidency, he described the inspiration for one of his first Executive Orders as ‘a historic movement for justice [which] has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism,’ a clear allusion to Black Lives Matter. A more accurate description of what Black Lives Matter had done was to highlight and exploit the lives of the new anti-white, anti-cop hatred that was driving the lft’s violent assaults on American cities.”
Clearly, “Black Lives Matter” has a use beyond its rhetoric. It provides a vehicle through which the Biden Administration can engage in societal terrorism by using this organization as cover for what would otherwise be evident unlawful conduct engaged in by the Government itself. That would mean the Biden Administration, and by extension, the entire Executive Branch of Government is a renegade syndicate, consciously, contemptuously, and systematically, engaging in terrorism against society, the Constitution, and the American people in furtherance of a heinous agenda. Some Americans are onboard with all of this. Many other Americans are oblivious to this, refusing to see the truth that exists before their very eyes—so blinded are they by a rabid hatred of Trump. They refuse to countenance the fact that Trump had actually improved their personal lives and secured the Nation from grievous harm caused by the very agents and agencies they think are their friends.
And how did this abhorrence of Trump come to be? There is no real secret to this.
It is the result of four years of incessant, vicious, vile, erroneous messaging, a wall of noxious noise, simplistic sloganeering, reiterated endlessly, buffeting their psyches relentlessly, and delivered to them, mainly through Cable and Broadcast “news” organizations including such old stalwarts as ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS—all working in tandem with and at the behest of the DNC and the Biden Administration, likely with assistance of and guidance from wealthy, powerful, well-organized, shadowy, sinister individuals and groups, operating both here in the U.S. and overseas.
We continue our discussion of the dire threat facing our Country in PART TWO of this MULTISERIES on the DIRE THREAT TO THE CONTINUATION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION STATE, AND A FREE AND SOVEREIGN CITIZENRY.
This Nation is at a flexion point. The Country can go either way:
PRESERVE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC BORN OF THE FOUNDERS’ VICTORY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776, OR LOSE EVERYTHING AS A RESULT OF THE UNSTATED BUT VERY REAL NEO-MARXIST/NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST COUNTERREVOLUTION THAT MALEVOLENT, MALIGNANT FORCES HAVE ACTUALLY UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE BIRTH OF OUR NATION, HAVE PROCEEDED INEXORABLY IN THE DECADES AND CENTURIES SINCE AND WHICH MAY ARGUABLY BE SAID TO HAVE SUCCEEDED IF “DEMOCRATS” RETAIN CONTROL OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN 2024.
Democrats and their wealthy secretive benefactors here and abroad have shown no sense of moderating their wild radical policies at least for the next several months preceding the 2024 election.
This suggests that they feel they have sufficient control over the levers of power of Government, over “Big Tech”, “Big Business”, the Press, the Electoral System, the populace, and other major institutions, that they feel secure in their belief they will emerge victorious after the 2024 General Election.
But, Patriotic Americans inured to the propaganda permeating all around them, voted Trump into Office once, and he began to turn matters around, for the benefit of the Country, revitalizing the economy, securing our physical borders, providing hope for the future of our Nation to millions of Americans.
The Neoliberal Globalists were furious, but despite all the monies and organization effort to remove Trump from Office, they could not do so. Such was the energy and fortitude of the man. In a last ditch effort, these malevolent, malignant forces took control over the electoral process and engineered a coup, sitting a weak, corrupt, demented fool in the White House—someone who would willingly act the part of messenger boy without moral compunction, likely unaware of what he was even doing or saying. And, in less than three years, the forces that crush civilizations had reverted the Nation back to the place it had been when Obama had left Office.
Slowly, the forces that crush have secured a noose around the neck of an independent, sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic, and the Hangman has slowly, inexorably tightened that noose, strangling the life out of the Nation.
Americans can still turn the nightmare around. We can rid ourselves of the diseased corruption of the Administration presently holding Office. This requires first and foremost that Patriotic Americans support the most recent attacks on Trump—this time through the filing of a multitude of lawsuits, Federal and State.
The prosecution and persecution of this man continues unabated. This means that the forces that crush are very, very worried. Let them remain fearful.
We must all support Trump and we must encourage the RNC and the candidates for the Republican Party Nomination to switch gears and get behind Trump. Trump is a force to be reckoned with. We, Americans can still save our Nation. And the way to do so is to support Trump’s candidacy for the Republican Party Nomination so that he can serve the second Term that was wrongly denied him and secure for our Country and for all Americans the promise of the Founders of our Republic: continuation of the only truly Free Constitutional Republic on Earth. Trump is the only person that can do this for us. He is the only one with the fortitude to stand up to those powerful ruthless elements that seek to destroy our Great Nation and to reduce the average American to servitude and misery. Trump has proved his mettle to fight for Americans. Let us not lose faith in him.
__________________________