WASHINGTON. Over the next few weeks, the United States Senate will consider a proposal put forward by radical-left Democrats under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: that the constitutionally sanctioned election of the US president in 2016 be overturned because, well, the current occupant doesn’t quite measure up to the high standards of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s political party. So far, congressional Democrats have been hard-pressed to articulate what these standards are or how it is that President Trump violated them. But the New York Times’ (NYT) recent endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar provides some needed clarity.
In the preface to its editorial (HERE), The NYT provides the setup. President Trump has:
- Successfully used the presidential pulpit to heat up the “culture wars.”
- Stacked the federal judiciary “with ideologues.”
- Abandoned the internationalist project with “America First unilateralism abroad.”
That is to say, Trump is winning… and bigly.
THE CULTURE WARS
This is unprecedented where Republican presidents are concerned. These usually timid souls considered themselves above the fray, deeming it unseemly to engage their critics in verbal combat. They and their advisors never understood how this silence was correctly seen as surrender by their enemies and, more importantly, their fellow Americans.
Trump is decidedly different. Whether it’s Rosie O’Donnell or the editors at the New York Times, Trump is a one-man rapid response team. And his retorts have had a significant effect.
O’Donnell can dish it out and is never been shy when it comes to comparing Trump to Hitler. But this did not shield the comedian from the barbs of her number one heckler.
In 2016, she admitted to W magazine she suffered a “severe shock” to her system and “beliefs in the order of the world” when Trump was elected president. You may recall that Trump gave a special shout-out to O’Donnell during the first GOP presidential debate sponsored by Fox News in 2015.
Fox Moderator Megyn Kelly began by asking Trump a loaded question:
“You call women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals…”
Candidate Trump was quick to interrupt:
“Only Rosie O’Donnell.”
The question was designed to paint Trump as a monstrous sexist. Trump turned the tables by showing his attacks are targeted based on the specific miscreant in question.
Their sex being of no consequence.
Trump also assailed the New York Times for its skewed coverage of his campaign and, later, his administration. Trump’s use of the term “Fake news” and describing the “newspaper of record” as “the failing New York Times” had its effect.
As the Times noted in October of 2018:
“Increasingly, the president’s almost daily attacks [on the mainstream media] seem to be delivering the desired effect, despite the many examples of powerful reporting on his presidency. By one measure, a CBS News poll over the summer, 91 percent of ‘strong Trump supporters’ trust him to provide accurate information; 11 percent said the same about the news media.”
These small Trump victories against the voices of the left are what the Times means when it expresses concern at the president’s “escalating [the] culture wars.”
The left is unaccustomed to full-throated opposition. And history has conditioned them to expect Republicans to be reliably skittish. Trump’s combativeness is what truly separates him from the prim and proper weak sisters among never-Trump Republicans.
And then there are Trump’s judicial appointments. According to the Washington Post:
“After three years in office, President Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November’s election.”
Again, the left assumes that it is the obligation of Republican presidents to respect their notions of judicial activism. That the “living Constitution” demands the appointment of creative justices to concoct fanciful interpretations of the founding document. And to fill the federal bench with judges who wish to limit the document’s clearly-written and defined right to bear arms while simultaneously preserving the invented “right” of women to kill the unborn.
Interpreting laws as written (“Congress shall make no law…”) limits the power of government and prevents abuse of judicial power. Restraining their power preserves those for whom the Constitution is written… the free, individual American.
LOWERING THE HAMMER
Lastly, there’s the question of “America-First unilateralism.” There was no greater example of this than Trump’s recent take-down of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani.
As head of Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force, Soleimani was responsible for Iran’s military (terrorist) operations overseas; from the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires to the improvised explosive devices that killed American servicemen in Iraq.
When Iran-backed Iraqi militias stormed the US diplomatic compound in Baghdad, Trump ordered the reinforcement by Marines of the facility and the drone strike that killed Soleimani.
According to The Atlantic:
“International law would… require him [Trump] to seek the approval of the United Nations Security Council before resorting to force, unless the host state consents (which it did not) or the action qualifies for the express, but narrow, self-defense exception. Trump did not seek approval in either forum.”
Trump’s statement regarding the Soleimani strike sent a message to friend and foe alike.
“So, let this be a warning to terrorists, if you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our citizens.”
Trump refuses to allow the UN Security Council or the Iran-friendly government of Iraq to decide whether American lives are worth preserving.
THE TIMES’ CURE FOR TRUMP’S AMERICA
The Times’ editorial claims to endorse Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren for president. But in reality, it endorses the tired and discredited ideas of a man who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, Bernie Sanders. His many years on Earth may have diminished his amorous and fleshly inclinations, but his arousal at the thought of totalitarian collectivism burns brightly. In that one regard, the honeymoon continues.
According to the NYT:
“Some of the most compelling ideas are not emerging from the center, but from the left-wing of the Democratic Party. That’s a testament to the effectiveness of the case that Bernie Sanders and Senator Warren have made about what ails the country… Senator Sanders has spent nearly four decades advocating revolutionary change for a nation whose politics often move with glacial slowness… Many of his ideas that were once labeled radical… are now mainstream, and may attract voters who helped elect Mr. Trump in 2016.”
The NYT fails to mention that the “compelling ideas” in question have a name – socialism.
For his part, Sanders works tirelessly to paper over the dismal history of death, poverty, and starvation so inseparable from the unnatural doctrine of socialism. He does so by coupling it with the soft balm of democracy.
James Madison, the father of our Constitution, described democracy as…
“… spectacles of turbulence and contention…. [that] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Couple democracy’s “turbulence and contention” with socialism and you have the ingredients for a lethal cocktail. Venezuela’s fall into the darkness of totalitarianism is only the latest example.
The Electoral College: Fighting the tyranny of the majority
But Madison and his remarkable fellow Founders created an antidote for the tyranny of the majority: the constitutional mechanism of the Electoral College. Presidential candidates must form political coalitions over large regions of the nation to secure their election – not simply a majority of votes from the large population centers along our two coasts.
Hillary Clinton won three million more popular votes than Trump in 2016, but was trounced by him in the Electoral College. These “deplorables,” for whom Clinton expressed open contempt, turned out to have the votes necessary to elect the nation’s 45th president – 77 more to be exact.
And in our federal republic, these are the only votes that matter under our constitutional system. A system that has existed from the time of George Washington to Barack Obama. A system of ordered liberty both Warren and Sanders wish to eliminate.
It was during a CNN town hall that Warren said:
“My view is that every vote matters. And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
And it was Bernie Sanders who told the Washington Post:
“Presidential elections cannot be fought out in just a dozen ‘battleground states.’ I believe that we need to reexamine the concept of the Electoral College.”
You see, Trump is not what troubles The New York Times, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders.
It’s the power inherent in our Constitution as to those whose votes now affect the culture wars, determine the philosophical complexion of our courts, and pose a threat to unelected UN bureaucrats and terrorists alike.
That threat hails from the folks living in flyover country.
Democratic House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff hinted at this during his opening argument at President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial:
“The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box. For we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”
In other words, the people in the appropriately named “battleground states” must be silenced through “democratic” disenfranchisement if the struggle to advance the authoritarian socialist project in America is to succeed.
And in the end, this is what the outcome of President Trump’s impeachment trial and the 2020 election will determine.
Top Images: (Left) Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren photos by Gage Skidmore via flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/40775242393
Bernei Sanders inset photo by Matt Johnson via flickr,