In the past, whenever faced with the choice between a socialist Democrat (oops — a little redundant there) and a less than conservative Republican candidate for President, I’ve been very comfortable voting for a third party candidate. In fact, I’ll do the same this year in the election for US Representative in my district, given the voting record of Luke Messer. Even the third party candidates are often not that great, especially Libertarians, but I’ve regarded the vote as a statement rather than a realistic attempt to elect a candidate.
There are many reasons to be reluctant to vote for Donald Trump. He has very little in the way of conservative credentials, having donated money to the campaigns of liberal politicians, and supported liberal positions. On the other hand, he so far hasn’t surrounded himself with leftist advisors, such as members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and in the current campaign he’s made promises that, if kept, could help to reverse the dangerous course we’ve been on.
Since Trump isn’t the ideal candidate for conservatives, many have suggested that a principled voter should again go third party. As much as I’d like to cast a principled vote regardless of the unlikelihood of electing my candidate, this year I think the situation is fundamentally different. That’s because four or more years of another Clinton presidency would likely give the left sufficient time to “legalize” enough socialist immigrants to build a permanent one-party Democrat political system. It would also solidify the precedent of ruling by executive decree that Obama has run so wild with. Finally, it would deliver the Supreme Court permanently to the progressives. For all practical purposes, that would make this year’s election the last one ever. Oh, there would probably be a few more pro-forma elections, but all conservative parties would be relegated to third party status. What good would my principled vote be then?
It all boils down to the certainty of permanent national disaster under Clinton, and at least a chance that our republic would continue to limp along under Trump. Maybe we can do better four years from now. But this year, our only chance of a political solution to our nation’s decline into a socialist tyranny is the election of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump’s recent fumbling over a question of punishment for abortion has raised a flurry of responses from the “pro-life” movement. The controversy centered on Trump’s waffling over whether a mother who aborts her child should receive some kind of punishment if abortion were ever to become illegal again. Jill Stanek, Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List National Campaign, clarified that the pro-life movement considers the mother of an aborted child to be purely a victim, not a perpetrator. By that definition, the mother bears no guilt and must not be punished. Consequently, Trump’s uncertainty over the issue calls into question his qualification as a pro-life candidate.
I’ve always refrained from calling myself “pro-life,” simply because I don’t like the attempt to make everything sound positive. I’m very happy to be known as “anti-abortion,” just as I would be happy to call myself “anti-murder, “anti-Nazi,” or “anti-socialist.” Further, since the pro-life movement is dominated by the Roman Catholic church, it has assimilated that church’s objection to the death penalty. I find that doctrine to be anti-Biblical as well as unjust and damaging to the social order. That’s yet another reason to shun the pro-life label.
Stanek’s protestations against the guilt of an aborting mother defy logic. Yes, some mothers are forced by evil parents or sexual partners to have abortions, and can fairly be called victims. The vast majority are complicit in the murder of their children in the same sense as the mobster who contracts a hired killer. The law on contract killing places responsibility for the murder as much on the one who hired the killer as on the killer himself. If our nation ever returns to its senses and makes abortion legally equivalent to murder, the mother who willingly undergoes the procedure must receive the punishment for murder along with the “doctor” and associated personnel.
The tragic death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is the scariest event of this century so far. It gives Saul Alinsky’s most successful disciple, B.H. Obama, the opportunity to pack the court with radical leftists. In fact, that is such an important opportunity for the left, that the timing of Scalia’s death is extremely suspicious. So is the fact that he had a pillow over his head when he was found, and the rapid foreclosure of the opportunity to investigate the cause of death. Many Americans, myself among them, would put absolutely nothing past the current administration and its allies.
As a side note, I’m sure that some readers will cite the desire of Scalia’s family not to have an autopsy. Determining the cause of death in this case is a matter of national security. No family’s sensitivities about an autopsy carries any weight compared to that. I don’t think it’s too extreme to say that his death presents an existential threat to the Constitution.
Regardless of whether Scalia’s death was an Act of God or an act of enemies of the Constitution, it puts the Senate in the hot seat. Some Senators have assured us that they will not confirm any replacement nominated by this president. That’s not surprising and I’m glad to hear it, but the Republicans who now control the Senate have consistently caved to pressure from the left. There is a real danger that they might do the same again in this case.
Even if the Senate does not confirm Obama’s choice, they could do so passively by going into recess any time before Obama leaves office. The Constitution gives the president the power to make an appointment without Senate confirmation during congressional recesses. Any hope that he would not do so would be magical thinking. The only way to prevent that is to forego any recesses while Obama holds the presidency.
Yes, the one third of the Senators that are up for reelection would not be able to campaign personally in their home states. But with modern communications, they could campaign remotely. Just making it clear publicly that they are staying in Washington to protect the Constitution from the rogue Supreme Court should be enough to get Republican Senators reelected. And let’s face it; loss of Senate control would not be as bad as having Scalia replaced on the Supreme Court by another radical leftist.
So I urge the Senate Republican leadership to keep the body in session until the next president is inaugurated.