Today, Saturday October 22, 2016 Donald Trump gave what I consider the most important speech of his presidential campaign. He chose to give this speech at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania because of the association we make with President Lincoln’s famous address, in which the phrase, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is forever enshrined.
If you love Mr. Trump, you will see his choice to speak in Gettysburg as meaningful and appropriate. If you hate him, you will consider it nothing more than a political ploy. So much about this election seems to hinge on how we feel about the candidates. And so much of what we feel comes from who we believe.
So many people are outraged by accusations that paint a picture of Mr. Trump as a moral degenerate who preys on women. Yet, he has not only denied those accusations, but says that he did not even know these women who are accusing him, and that they all are lying.
In my previous post I asked who is lying. In an age when scandal and lying are commonplace and propaganda has replaced journalism, truth has become a rare and precious commodity. It seems to come down to who is the slickest at manipulating your feelings. And frankly, for many years I have seen both government and media doing a yeoman’s job of doing just that. Michael Savage has called it “the government-media complex”, building on President Eisenhower’s phrase, “the military-industrial complex” which described the power broker system of the 50s and 60s that threatened our form of representational government set forth by the Constitution.
In 2001, our President was the likable George W. Bush. Like many other American conservatives, I had high hopes for his presidency. If you recall, Bush had the blessing of a Republican Congress – for the first time in something like 40 years, if I recall correctly. He even called himself a “compassionate conservative”.
But before very long I began to have grave misgivings about this President. 9-11 put us into a “war on terrorism”. At the time, 15 of the 19 terrorists responsible for 9-11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. And yet we took no actions against that country. In fact, our State Department continued to authorize the Saudis to issue U.S. visas themselves! We took no security precautions to protect our own nation from the now-established threat posed by terrorists entering our country as easily as tourists.
I couldn’t understand how a responsible State Department could do that. They were more concerned with keeping the Saudis happy than with keeping American citizens safe. But Bush made a big show of being a military tough guy by dramatically invading Iraq. It allowed Americans to vent their rage, and many Americans cheered.
But then I noticed something very peculiar. After a certain point, our forces didn’t seem to be fighting to win. One day I was watching coverage of the Iraq war on TV. A large jeep-type truck could be seen from overhead, driving along a desert road. The announcer said that riding in this truck was an important enemy leader and some of his lieutenants. In those days, the military had made up a sort of deck of cards with the faces of all the bad guys on them. This constituted a ‘hit’ list of the most dangerous leaders. And the man in the truck was one of the faces in that deck of cards.
The TV announcer was saying that at any moment they could obliterate the target with a “smart bomb” that was already targeted on the truck and that observers on the ground were just waiting for authorization to fire. I watched as the truck continued for some time to drive down the road, yet nothing happened. All the time, the announcer continued talking and waiting. Eventually, the truck drove out of danger and disappeared. The authorization to fire never came.
This whole episode only lasted a few minutes. There was a very brief window of opportunity, and we had failed to act. But who was it who failed to act? The military? No. The rules of engagement did not give the military the authority to decide when to shoot at the enemy. So, who was given that authority, under the Commander-in-Chief, to decide when and where the military may pull the trigger?
That authority was given to the CIA. The authorization that our ground forces had waited for was from a CIA control center, here in our own country. The decision of whether or not to blow up a truck known to be transporting a major enemy leader was not being made by a commander of the units that were fighting, nor by a person who was even there. We were fighting the war just as if we were running a huge, faceless bureaucracy. Who was the person who failed to act in time? Was it someone under the direction and scrutiny of the Commander-in-Chief?
I sent letters and emails to Bush, asking him what incompetent person was running the show. But of course, I never got a reply, because little tax-paying citizens like me don’t matter one whit to the big brothers of the globalist “community”, of which Bush and his Republican majority were proven members.
This was when I realized the Republican Party no longer stood for conservative principles. They were no more concerned about preserving the Constitution than their Democrat pals on the other side of the aisle. No better. Under Bush (the self-proclaimed “compassionate conservative”) the size of government exploded – a sure sign that he never really was a conservative. You can’t be a conservative without being opposed to big government. It’s that simple.
That’s why I decided to affiliate with the Constitution Party. They are a tiny party, but I agree with their principles and can vote for them with a clear conscience – that is, if a Constitution Party candidate is allowed on the ballot – something that has become increasingly difficult to accomplish, as the “Big Two” tighten their strangle-hold to control elections.
Now, some 15 years later, I can’t even vote for Darrell Castle as a write-in candidate in California because the Constitution Party has failed to produce the 55 Presidential Electors needed to authorize a write-in candidacy. That makes it impossible for me to “vote my conscience”, something jaded Cruz supporters have complained a lot about.
So offended are they – that the Republican candidate isn’t really a Republican, and certainly not a conservative – that they refuse to give their vote to a man who has betrayed their party values! They portray their principled outrage to be as pure as the wind-driven snow. And to those conservatives and (God help us) Christians who will cast their votes for Trump, the self-proclaimed purists cast aspersions of whoring after the devil and accuse them of being lead down a primrose path of false promises by a false messiah.
My, oh my. To you purists – my dear colleagues – I want you to know that the shock and distress over your party abandoning it principles will fade in time. Please wake up to the fact that the Republican Party no longer represents your values and ideals. Eventually, you will see a much bigger picture – one in which all Americans, liberal, moderate and conservative, must live together, in communities, united as a people – one nation under God, indivisible.
That means we have to stop falling prey to emotions that divide us. We have to stop hating, stop condemning and start trying to work together with what we have. That means you may have to vote for a candidate who isn’t a Republican. But it also means you may have to vote for a Republican candidate with whom you have substantial disagreements.
If you listen to Donald Trump’s Gettysburg speech, I think you will agree that what he offers as a candidate is the genuine hope and vision that we as Americans can begin to work together towards real goals which we can share and take credible and intelligent steps to achieve. But under Hillary, I see nothing other than the perpetuation, growth and eventual collapse of a totally unrealistic Nanny State.
A vote for Trump isn’t a vote for an idealistically pure Republican Party. They have long since ceased to stand for republican ideals and have sold themselves down the river of globalism. A vote for Trump isn’t a vote for pure conservatism. True conservatives are a rare breed today. A truly conservative party, the Constitution Party is a very tiny entity compared to either of the mega parties.
Finally, a vote for Trump isn’t a vote for pure Biblical faith. According to one study, only 9% of “Christians” even have a Biblical world view. We live in a society that more than just being diverse, has become primarily secular. It is unrealistic to expect a candidate with popular appeal to be a Bible-believing Christian. For true believers, it should be enough to recognize that Trump is pro-life and supports various issues that come under the heading, freedom of religion.
My unsolicited advice to all readers is, don’t be a fool. Don’t allow your judgment to be manipulated by your emotions. Don’t abrogate your responsibility to vote simply because you don’t like a candidate. All humans are imperfect. We aren’t electing a preacher or a Pope or a saint. This election has exposed the weaknesses and failings of both candidates. Neither Trump nor Clinton have been able to hide behind the respective labels of their political parties. Hopefully, they both will be seen for the individuals they are, although among Democrats, there is a much greater tendency to vote party, disregarding the actual qualities of a candidate.
But Trump’s Gettysburg speech makes it clear to me, that I would be a fool not to vote for him. Not because he is a Republican, for I am not. Not because he is a conservative, for he is more a moderate, compared to me. Not because he is a “Christian”. That label means different things to different people. But to me, he seems to respect the concerns of Christians. I would be a fool not to vote for Trump because he at least has a rational, cogent plan to correct many of the problems that plague our nation.
A world in which Hillary Clinton is the President of the United States would be a nightmare. Delusion, distortion, anguish and destruction. A road of lies leading to a future of loss. Don’t be fooled and don’t be a fool.