"You guys"?! There you go again! Projecting your group identity politics as if it were coming from Conservers of Liberty instead of from faux Libs, such as yourself. I am a Stots-Irish-Native American married to a Russian German. My relatives, nephews, and nieces include numerous American Indians, Blacks, Samoans, and Croatians. I never owned slaves and I never want slaves. I consider every American of any color, gender, or orientation who respects the American Ideal as my equal.
Otoh, I consider group-identity Progs to be lowlife, racist, projecting, anti-American infants that would sell out their birthright of freedom for a little more free stuff, free condoms, free sex, free college, and "right" to commoditize children.
Part of your confusion may stem from failing to appreciate the distinction between internal freedom for Americans and external defense and national policy, to preserve that freedom against the lowest depravities that are common throughout of the rest of the world.
What gives you away is when you would equate national defense, per se, to big gov liberalism. Now, if Trump shows to be an idiotic or corrupt neo-nation builder among Islamic nations, then you may have a point. But that is not my reading of what Trump is about. I doubt he would have been so foolish as to squander lives and treasure trying to seed and build democratic ideas in lands infested through and through with Islam.
Look, a national republic, to be a nation, has to defend its borders and its society. That is a no-brainer. That entails national policy, including policies for defense, tariffs, trade, etc. Faux liberals lie when they talk about "free trade." There is no more free trade than there is free lunch. Do you "free trade" with scum, or do you routinely bathe to wash if off? Oligarchic, communistic, socialistic, mercantilistic, and Islamic nations are scum. There is no such thing as free trade with them, or with gangs that would steal the shirt off your back. You're trying to pawn off a chimera. I'll be charitable and attribute it to naivete more so than to being an ignorant or corrupt paid shill.
*Quoting you: "He won the primary and then the presidency by promising to build a taxpayer funded wall to keep immigrants out,create a taxpayer funded force to deport millions of immigrants and engage in a variety of protectionist policies. I.e. he is promising to "bring jobs back" not by deregulation but by tariffs and other punishment of private enterprise."
He is more confused than Daffy Duck. Defending borders is now leftwing big gov? What a joke. So preserving the nation is somehow anti-American? These dufuses give Orwell a run for his money. Next, he will tell us ignorance is strength, Communists are Americans, and Muslims are stout defenders of the free exercise of religion. S/
Your thinking is hidebound to deficient metaphors. Trump is first and foremost an American. To understand Trump, you need better understanding of the American Ideal.
The American Ideal has little to do with studied faithlessness concerning ideas of leftwing/rightwing. The American Revolution was not like those of France or Germany. For a real American, there is not leftwing/rightwing. Rather, there is right and there is wrong.* There is individual freedom and there is collective totalitarianism. Collectivism that leads towards totalitarianism, whether it be in the flavor of communism or fascism, is wrong.
The American Ideal has to do with this: What will help preserve a representative republic that accords decent respect for the freedom and dignity of individual Americans. And concerning that, there is plenty to celebrate.
*Snippets from http://www.americanrhetoric.co...
"This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."
"You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."
"There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness,and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start."
"Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."
The article seems to ignore the meta-driver: Ordinary Americans wanting their nation back. As if by ignoring that burning desire, to try to put that desire back on a back burner.
I hope the election was less about heating up special gang-banging interests and more about nationalism in order to free the energies of competent individuals and save the representative republic. I would hope saving the national republic was finally seen as more important than saving global rule by people-farming elitists.
Faithless globalists have been trying to erase nations and move to a one-world society ruled by elite corporatists for a long time. They exert enormous control over every institution of persuasive significance. They will continue their sidewinding "progress." They will never stop kissing while stabbing. Always, behind their kisses are fangs of rentiers, snakes, and blood suckers.
Do recounts ever flip for Republicans? What are the odds? Do Republicans ever find boxes of previously uncounted votes?
Lefties don't like democracy or republicanism. They like rule by smart elitists, with lots of elitely thought out laws and regulations to ensure fairness, equality, and security are distributed out to the masses -- right down to their toenails and cow farts. Respect for individual freedom of thought, expression, religion, or enterprise -- not so much. PC and hate speech regulations -- you betcha. Microagressions punished -- absolutely. Reeducation camps and gulags to get peoples' minds right -- for the greater good. No more manspreading, and no more macho self reliance, individual competence, or personal as opposed to collective responsibility. All for the cause, and nothing outside the cause. Because no one loves and respects you quite like a Lefty. S/ Lefties: Seldom right, but always infantile and fascist.
You're hung up on a misleading, outdated paradigm. Rightwing leftwing makes little sense. Like trying to recite a distinction that makes a difference with regard to Hitlerian national socialism and Stalinist international communism. They were both totalitarian systems and they both used different mixes of capitalism and corporatism.
The better political scale relates to individual freedom versus collectivist totalitarianism. For example, I am not a conservative. Rather, I am a Conserver of Liberty. On most issues, the test for me is this: Given our situation, how best can individual freedom and dignity be decently preserved?
The people I take to be Conservers of Liberty HAVE advocated for fines for employing illegals. It's the cronycrat oligarchs that fund the Bernie Sanders halfwits that want the cheap labor and feel no love of country or of representative republicanism that erect roadblocks at every turn to forestall effective enforcement of the border.
We Conservers of Liberty want the border enforced. And we want whatever tools in the kit are needed to accomplish that purpose. And we think it takes a lot of chutzpah for a modern "Liberal" to pretend to be in any way concerned with human liberty as opposed to human cattle farming.
Early Leftism may have been explainable on account of the suffering of the masses. But the key to modern Leftism is the failure of its adherents to grow up on account of excessive and often infantile sheltering. This is manifested in every aspect of their lives, including aspects of sexual and familial relations and allocations of individual and social responsibility.
This is likely why modern Western Lefties are so tolerantly fascinated with homosexuality, pedophilia, polygamy, group orgies, choom parties, sado-masochism, sadistic games, fringe religion, sadistic religion, sadistic gov, elitist fascism, flag burning, pants drooping, baby dropping, rap booming, and whiny howling.
When a niche becomes so successful that it can afford to entertain genetic and memetic drag, how long will it have before such drag ruins its success? Answer: Absent mature spiritual insight, it will not have long. We need to judge better. We need to judge (profile) those that likely stand for nothing that is higher minded, and we need to judge those with whom we can likely assimilate to bring forth a humane civilization that accords decent respect for one another's freedom and dignity. Dominus vobiscum.
Hamilton was born within the British Empire and made a lateral move within it from the British West Indies, whereupon he attended King's College in NYC before the U.S. was even a confederation, much less a separate nation. He, like many of the Founders, was a British Citizen. Strictly speaking, he was no more an immigrant to the U.S. than any of the other Founders.
Moreover, both he and LaFayette were attracted to the American Ideal of individual liberty. Neither did LaFayette come to the U.S. intending to establish a permanent residence. So, in that sense, he also was not an immigrant. (An immigrant is a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.)
Regardless, in neither case did Hamiltion or LaFayette come to the U.S. for the purpose of asserting any claim of entitlement to be supported in indolence by the rest of society. They were not invaders who snuck into the country against the wishes of the general residents.
Neither Hamilton nor LaFayette asserted that everyone in the world had some innate right to come to establish permanent residency in the U.S. It would take an idiot of a Prog to argue for any such a right based on the example of either of them. Just as it took a Prog Muslim (Khan) to argue similarly based on his nutso interpretation of his pocket Constitution.
Do-gooder be-fairers have pushed to put too much power in the central fed gov. Nowadays, the 14th A means whatever the heck a progie wants to say it means. Every issue of Big Momma intrusive fascist "fairness" is "justified" via the 14A. The 14A has been so far abused that the Constitution is in danger of being swallowed. No doubt, thenext big proggie putcsh will be to"legitimize" pedophiles and polygamists. Eff the 14th A.
We need a COS to revitalize the 10A. If creampuffs wanna whine about "fairness" in order to undermine faith, family, fidelity, then let them do it at the State levels. I am so tired of mommaboy basementwussies wanting to legislate every issue of "fairness" as a fed case. Putting the whiny infants in charge is no way to run either a household or a federal republic. Eff the ACLU.
It would be stupid for Trump to engage the area of "Gay Rights." It is a Constitutional matter that would now require a Constitutional Amendment to change. That's the realm for a COS. For Trump to spend political capital in that realm would be to squander his opportunity to proceed with plans to MAGA.
If we could rewind history, Scotus should not have intruded in this area. But it did. The only chance to change it now is to appoint better justices and wait, or to seek a Constitutional Amendment. Mere legislation cannot accomplish much now, and, even if it could, it would cost political capital. There are far more dire threats that need immediate attention.
Scotus screwed this topic. The Feds have no business intruding in this area. 10th Amendment.
The ACLU coalition with commies, atheists, hedonists, and people-farmers kept Congress and Scotus active in this area, which should always have been for the States.
The more that unholy coalition gets its way, the more desecration it makes of faith, family, fidelity, i.e., the fundaments by which any decent society is assimilated, without which society is reduced to rutting cattle for entertaining and servicing elites.
Globalist elites want to rule. They don't want to be checked by liberty literates. Wannabe rulers want enough liberty illiterates to vote for elitist rule and globalism so they never have to listen to voters again.
They will bastardize the voting process to "move on" to a NWO where the votes of the masses will not matter. Since that is their goal, since they do not believe in democracy except as a means to destroy democracy, there is no outrage they will not countenance if it moves them "forward" in their pursuit of the NWO for ruling the masses. Collectivism, as it becomes more powerful, becomes ever more bloody.
The goal of wannabe rulers is not to make the masses equal, but to make the masses politically irrelevant. The proggies that vote for globalism are in effect voting to make themselves irrelevant, except as perpetually dependent infants. It's too bad they insist on taking most other people with them. They share that kind of madness with jihadis, as well as with the suicidal parent that takes his children to the grave with him or her,
I would not want for a neighbor or fellow citizen anyone that believes his most sacred duty and purpose is tied to the following:
- Disallowing music, pork, dogs, and unaccompanied women in the presence of men;
- Instructing everyone else to disallow music, pork, dogs, and unaccompanied women in the presence of men;
- Or forcing people that allow music, pork, dogs, and unaccompanied women in the presence of men to choose between paying a special tax, subjugating themselves beneath him, or being killed.
I would not want for a neighbor anyone that believes such things and also that he should deceive others regarding his intentions until he has acquired enough support and resources suddenly to enforce them. I do not care whether such a neighbor called such things the markings of religion. I do not want such a fundamentally polluted and indecent mind for a neighbor. Nor do I want for a neighbor anyone so stupid as to think such people are tolerable.
I want for my representatives and their agents people that understand that I want a republic that defends human freedom of thought, expression, and enterprise against all those that believe their most sacred duty and purpose is tied to disallowing music, pork, dogs, and unaccompanied women in the presence of men. Or any other things as stupid and subhuman. IOW, I do not wish to tolerate that which is fundamentally ungodly and intolerable, because it is subhuman and mind enslaving.
Given unfit individuals, what is the niche that must evolve to support them? If we reason backwards, that would.seem to be a niche largely built by better preceding generations. If acceptable to reason backwards, the individuals most fit for our present niche are those that would have been less fit for the niche of 50, 75, or 150 years ago.
"Fittest" is hardly a term of rigor. Less so when the context can only vaguely be appreciated.
EDIT: "Fittest" seems to entail a subjective value judgment. For such judgment to have communicable meaning, a common Source of values is implicated. What is fittest seems to entail a process of feedback and reconciliation that is complicated by a mix of factors that are both measurably finite (quantifiable) and immeasurably infinite (qualifiable). Beyond our paygrade, the Godhead fluxes to present its aspects to us among three faces: Ineffable consciousness, proximately measurable substance, and cumulating in-form-ation. Whatever it unfolds, we call "evolution." But to pretend the unfolding can be entirely or rigorously "explained" by science concerning just one of its three faces (Substance) is little more than hubristic scientism.
- Meta Consciousness is the immeasurable stuff whose idealizations interfunction with an innate field of math to project that which its inferior perspectives observe to abide as measurables of Substance.
- Substance consists of those locally renormalized measurables that are signified to and experienced by perspectives adapted to their unfolding localities.
- Information consists of past cumulations of Substance now availed as sequentialized records and representations.
Consciousness functions (idealizes, conceptualizes, observes, appreciates, feeds back) in the present based on cumulations of Information from the past to transition presentations of Substance that flow from potentiality to manifestation to recorded history. C,S, I are interdependents, each abiding as a fluxing face of the Godhead.
Substance is the placeholding signification of present Consciousness.
Information is the sequential storehouse of the knowledge of Consciousness.
Consciousness is that without which there would abide no meaningful Substance or Information.
- Substance itself would not exist without means for signifying it and then storing it. It itself is not Conscious, but it is the signification of Consciousness.
- Consciousness itself is not measurable, but is the innate companion of all that is measurable.
- Information itself is not the rule of math, but is the aura of the innate field of Math.
The Godhead is that through which, as companion to field of Math, all that is potential (of the past and future) is subject to idealization or manifestation (of the present).