During the last six weeks, I resolved to reach beyond debates and headlines and read some books in order to get up to speed in the context of a more comprehensive perspective. I’ve read the following:
- “Stealing America” by Dinesh D’souza
- “Great Again” by Donald Trump
- “In Trump We Trust” by Ann Coulter
- “Hillary’s America” by Dinesh D’souza
“Great Again” – in order to hear what Trump was bringing to the table in the absence of screaming protestors and antagonistic critics.
“In Trump We Trust” in order to get the perspective of someone who I knew to be like-minded when it comes to current events and to see how well Trump’s proposals address those concerns.
“Stealing America” and “Hillary’s America” to hear the platform of someone who Obama had imprisoned in part because of the film he made entitled “Obama 2016″ where he reveals Obama to be an “anti-colonialist” based on his family background and his obvious regard for the legal extortion techniques pioneered by Saul Alinski. Anyone who has paid that kind of price for his convictions is worth a hearing and both books are very thought provoking.
The resulting foundation for my voting convictions is solid – at least as far as being able to articulate why I’m voting for Trump as opposed to simply that I’m voting for Trump. Perhaps it’s because of having become better educated where the candidates are concerned that I’m even more frustrated when I hear of people dismissing their responsibility to vote altogether. The two most common would be that #1) both candidates are less than worthy of their consideration #2) the voting system is corrupt.
The Democrat party represents a legacy of theft dressed up in compassion and equality. Hillary is an enhanced version of that paradigm that can trace it’s lineage back to Andrew Jackson. In addition, the substance of America has been substantially minimized with the administration of Barack Obama. Our national debt, our standing in the eyes of other other nations in terms of our foreign policy, the way in which he encourages racial division – these are all manifestations of a mindset that seeks to subtlety, yet strategically, decrease the influence and capacity of America as a nation. And when anyone who represents a conservative mindset begins to disagree or assert a different approach, the tenor of the culture led by Obama discredits them as enemies of progress.
Maybe this is what makes this particular election so volatile. For the Democrats, it’s no longer about promoting the common welfare, as much as it’s about hacking the system, redefining ethics and morality in the name of “equal opportunity” and retooling America’s influence in the world by forcefully bending its knee before the champions of evil and injustice. This election isn’t only about the platform of Donald Trump. What he represents is a very much needed perspective in the world of “politics as usual.” But in a more profound and crucial way, it’s about defeating the Democrat party – specifically those who veil their true intentions beneath a thin layer of noble sounding sentiments.Trump is more than worthy of consideration if only for that reason.
As far as being casual in your resolve to participate in the democratic process because you believe that the system is corrupt, bear in mind that between Hillary and Trump, over $11,000,000.00 dollars have been spent in order to influence voters. Whatever “corruption” exists, it’s more in the context of how party platforms are presented more than the way in which the integrity of ballot boxes are compromised. You have a duty as well as the privilege to become knowledgeable and cast your vote in the direction of a healthy future for this nation. To shrug that off for any reason is lazy, irresponsible and, from a biblical standpoint, even sinful (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:1-2).
While it’s not necessarily unethical, it borders on sinister to see the way in which some of what Trump has said be quoted out of context and twisted into something outrageous by his opponents. It makes sense, however, when you take an inventory of the personalities conducting the violent protests and publishing the damaging smears and calculate what they stand to lose; either in the context of political clout or ill gotten gain should he be elected president.
But What About Trump?
But what about Trump?
Bigot? Typhoon? Hates Women, Warmonger? Hates Veterans?
These days, people hear with their eyes and think with their feelings. Headlines can be misleading and articles can be selective about what is said and what is not said thus leading the reader to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate (click here for an exposition on the difference between Facts, Information and Truth). That’s not to say that Trump makes it difficult for reporters to cast him as a problem child. He rarely holds back in what he thinks, which isn’t always healthy or appropriate.
But rarely does he not have a point. And the fact that he has nothing to lose, in terms of the game played by your stereotypical politician, makes for a perspective that is very different in the world of politics where candidates go overboard in their efforts to sanitize and filter every word in order to ensure no one is offended and campaign contributions are unhindered.
When I was in the military, I always enjoyed working for combat veterans. They didn’t do “drama.” Having experienced life and death scenarios where your ego was subordinate to getting the job done, these guys tended to lead in a way that intentionally brushed aside the subjective and problematic elements of people’s personalities when it was needful to make a decision and get something accomplished. They weren’t necessarily abrasive, but you knew where you stood at all times. When you did well, you got a pat on the back. When you blew it, you got a good swift kick in the pants, you got over it and did better the next time. It wasn’t about the way you felt or what you thought, it was about what needed to get done in order to promote the corporate role and wellbeing of the unit.
Trump reminds me of that kind of personality / leadership style. He does not allow himself to be distracted by the deployment of debating tactics designed to either minimize the central issue or ignore it altogether. He’s blunt, he’s confident and he’s not at all bothered by those who “have an issue” with what he’s saying. If it was a selfish agenda that he was championing, it would be a problem. I believe that in part because you don’t subject yourself to the kind of abuse and character maligning he’s endured since he announced his candidacy. If you were focused on yourself, you would find other ways to spend your time and money pretty quick. But because he’s genuinely committed to the preservation and promotion of the ideals upon which this country is based, he’s a needed influence in an arena that has deteriorated into a world of corruption and humanistic thinking.
It’s been disappointing to see some prominent personalities come out and mirror the media in their assessment and statements pertaining to Trump. It’s as though there’s a script being circulated and whoever it is that’s willing to parrot the talking points that are documented, they’re broadcasted as much and as loudly as they can – as though they’re trying to drown out the practical and substantial dynamics this man brings to the table.
This brings up a good point.
I Voted for Cruz
I didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries. I voted for Cruz because I tend to gravitate to those who are the most vocal in terms of their faith. If I had to do it again, however, I don’t think I would’ve voted for Cruz and here’s why:
In the military, the fact that you’re a godly man doesn’t mean that you’re an effective leader. I’ve seen this in action. While I might prefer to have a staff enlisted man standing in front of me that can communicate without being crass and can tell me about his most recent exchange with his Heavenly Father, I will take a leader over a manager any day. And if that leader is going to hell on a skateboard, I’ll pray for him, but I’m not going to prefer working for a weak leader who may be godly as opposed to a strong leader that rates my respect, justifies my trust and inspires my best.
Philip Yancey, who’s a great writer, was featured on a video clip recently where he stated that he’s shocked and surprised that any evangelical could support Trump. He cites Trump’s failed marriages, his affairs, and the fact that he’s made a substantial amount of money with his casinos as reasons why you shouldn’t support him.
First of all, it’s not just casinos. His fortune is based on a number of income streams, his most obvious and substantial being commercial real estate. I was somewhat familiar with the Trunp name and brand, but it wasn’t until after I read “Great Again” that I became familiar with the number of buildings and properties he’s developed around the globe. He’s a very talented business man.
What frustrates me most about Yancey’s rhetoric, however, is that, given the agenda of the Democratic party, evangelicals, nor anyone else for that matter, can afford to be less than diligent (see 1 Chron 12:32). When you vote, you’re up to bat. Refusing to swing, or swinging pointlessly at wild pitches, is neither responsible nor wise. The Israelites most likely used Egyptian tools to build the Tabernacle. The Temple and the city wall were both rebuilt as a result of the provisions and administrative endorsesements provided by pagan rulers. Stop insisting that your party’s champion has to be consistent with your spiritual preferences in order to be used by God to accomplish good things. If nothing else, recognize that a failure to vote for Trump represents a vote for Hillary.
For the Record
When a liberal is confronted with a platform that is difficult to dispute, the crosshairs of their criticism is aimed at the person proclaiming that platform. In that way, attention is diverted from the issue being addressed and instead the topic is now whatever accusation they’ve just made. In the case of Donald Trump, his adversaries are both his political opponents and the arm of the Democrat party – the liberal media.
The press has done a fabulous job of painting Trump as a villain that can’t be trusted. Some of this is based on the fact that he’s rich which, from a progressive standpoint, constitutes a form of abuse and thievery by default. President Obama demonstrates this by minimizing the presence of boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship when it comes to building a business, insisting that “you didn’t build that.” Everything from roads, infrastructure, mentors and family are credited with the success any one person could possibly achieve. Work ethic, risk and ingenuity are dismissed all together. This is the philosophical starting point for the Democratic party who thrives on the mantra of the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” It is through this kind of rhetoric that they are able to secure votes and power with which they institute programs that appear to be founded on compassion and equality, but in reality are tactics designed to secure control and power.
Born Into Privilege
Trump is mocked as a person who was born into privilege and his wealth is nothing other than an inherited fortune. But such is not the case. Although Donald’s father wasn’t wealthy to start off with, by the time Donald Trump was ready to go into business for himself, Fred Trump was a rich man.1 When Donald struck out on his own, his father loaned him a million dollars. Trump wanted to venture beyond his father’s territory of Queens and Brooklyn and establish some developments in Manhattan which, at the time, was not a promising endeavor. While some look at a million dollars as proof that Trump had it made right from the start, one has to pause and realize that a million dollars doesn’t go very far when you consider what he was attempting to do and the risk that was involved. Trump made it happen and paid his father back with full interest a few years later.2
Donald was able to succeed because of having a solid work ethic and a real talent as an entrepreneur. That wasn’t the case in his early years, though. He personified what some would expect as far as being a “spoiled brat,”and a troublemaker. To cure that, his parents shipped him of to military school. Initially, he didn’t do well at all. But by the time he graduated, however, he was captain of his cadet class – a position that you had to be voted into by your peers.3
John McCain and the Military Vote
While Trump never served in the military, his respect and appreciate for the military is beyond question. Not simply because of his military academy experience, but also because of the way in which he has supported the military in situations such as the Veteran’s Day Parade in New York City in 1987 and in 1995 when donations were embarrassingly low and Trump stepped in with his own resources and gave the parade and the veterans it honored the dignity it deserved.
That by itself may not mean much to someone who’s focused on Trump’s comments about John McCain or his most recent comments about combat veterans suffering from PTSD as “not being able to handle it.” Fact is, even after Trump insulted McCain’s military service, polls showed that the military preferred Trump to McCain.4 And when you look at the comment made by Trump pertaining to PTSD in context, you see a much different picture than what Trump’s opponents attempt to present.
Take a look at the comment Trump made pertaining to McCain in the context of his conversation with Frank Luntz at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa:
Luntz: Referring to John McCain, a war hero, five and a half years as a POW, and you call him a “dummy.” Is that appropriate in running for president?
Trump: You have to let me speak, Frank, because you interrupt all the time, okay? [laughter] No, I know him too well, that’s the problem.
Let’s take John McCain. I’m in Phoenix. We have a meeting that is going to have 500 people at the Biltmore Hotel. We get a call from the hotel: It’s turmoil. Thousands and thousands of people are showing up three, four days before – they’re pitching tents on the hotel grass. The hotel says, We can’t handle this, it’s gonna destroy the hotel. We move it to the Convention Center. We have fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than Bernie Sanders, bigger than – fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than anybody. And everybody knows it. A beautiful day with incredible people that were wonderful, great Americans, I will tell you.
John McCain goes, Oh, boy, Trump makes my life difficult. He had fifteen thousand crazies show up. “Crazies” – he called them all crazy. I said, They weren’t crazy. They were great Americans. These people, if you would’ve seen these people – I know what crazy is. I know all about crazies. These weren’t crazy.
So he insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. And I said, Somebody should run against John McCain, who has been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him – I supported him for president. I raised a million dollars for him. That’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost, he let us down. But, you know, he lost. So I have never liked him as much after that, because I don’t like losers. [Laughter]
But, Frank, let me get to it.
Luntz: He is a war hero, he’s a war hero.
Trump: He hit me. He’s not a war hero.
Luntz: Five and a half years in a Vietnamese prison camp.
Trump: He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay? I hate to tell you. He was a war hero because he was captured, okay And I believe – perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is: John McCain, I disagree with him, that these people aren’t crazy. And, very importantly, and I speak the truth, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis. So I said – nobody knows that – I said, He graduated last, or second to last, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis.5
While Trump was out of line to minimize McCain’s courage and selflessness as a POW, he wasn’t wrong in state that McCain was out of line himself. One week later, polls showed that veterans and those currently serving in the military preferred Trump to McCain 53% to 41%. That’s because what the press wants to insinuate is distinct from what veterans heard and processed. Reason being is that what was actually said was different than what the press wants to promote.
The same thing applies to Trump’s comments about veterans suffering from PTSD. When you look at what was actually said versus what was quoted, you’re confronted with a much different scenario.
Trump’s business acumen is undeniable. By that I mean, it’s obvious from his accomplishments that he’s capable of some extraordinary things in terms of leading and envisioning a highly successful business venture. But those who want to distract from the multitude of highly successful income streams zealously highlight those instances when he’s declared bankruptcy.
Snopes.com does a great job of providing some balance to what bankruptcy is and how it should affect one’s perspective on Trump’s business acumen. Bankruptcy, while it’s obviously not the signature of a thriving business, is not a tell tale sign of failure either. It’s a restructuring that’s simultaneously conducted in the context of negotiating a manageable way of paying off debt. Trump has not succeeded in every one of business ventures. Then again, to succeed every time in an arena where you can’t control every nuance of a business, that might be more of a cue to question his ability then the situation where his efforts haven’t always succeeded. But when you take stock of his net worth as well as the properties he has scattered throughout the world, it’s obvious that he has exceptional skill and to focus exclusively on the handful of times he’s declared bankruptcy and not give any attention to the multiple times he’s succeeded is neither wise nor fair. The bottom line is he has far more experience and far more accolades in his trophy case than the vast majority of his peers. The fact that his book, “The Art of the Deal” is considered a business classic – yet another indicator that the man’s ability to run a highly successful business wasn’t called into question until he had the gaul to run for president under the Republican banner.
Alicia Machado won the Miss Universe in 1996. Two years later, she was an accessory to murder and further smeared her reputation by threatening to kill the judge that presided over her case. This coupled with her having gained 50 pounds earned Trump the dubious title of a woman-hater when he referred to Machado as “Miss Piggy.” Certainly not one of his finest moments, but not altogether inappropriate given Machado’s obvious lack of character.
The issue of Trump’s tax returns is an interesting topic. First of all, he’s not required to surrender his tax returns. Some do, he has chosen not to. Trump’s 1995 tax returns have been made public. Did you know that it’s illegal to publish a person’s tax returns? I didn’t. Apparently the editor of the New York Times that printed Trump’s returns is facing possible jail time. What’s on that return has been replayed over and over again, as far as how Trump carried a loss forward. The fact that you and I can’t think using those numbers doesn’t change the fact that it’s an accepted practice. The New York Times did the same thing. It’s not uncommon, but it’s being promoted as such by the opponents of Trump in hopes that the public doesn’t take the time to ask how the return was made public to begin with and whether or not what Trump did was a common practice among big businesses.
Finally, the recently released recording of Trump saying some positively lewd things pertaining to women – if you’re not familiar with it, click here, but be forewarned, it’s explicit and vulgar.
First off, I think it’s significant that it’s 11 years old. Someone had to invest a fair amount of time to find this and the timing of it being made public – I doubt is coincidental. It’s even more suspicious when you consider some of the testimonies coming from several parties that state the tape was purposefully leaked by GOP elites who are uncomfortable with Trump. Should that prove to be credible, Paul Ryan, and those who think like him, may find himself in a very awkward position.
What Trump says is disgusting. It’s in line with Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Oval Office, Hillary’s role in destroying the reputation of anyone who would presume to indict Bill for molesting them, JFK’s multiple affairs and Lyndon B. Johnson exposing himself to female reporters. Joe Biden swimming naked in his pool in front of female Secret Service agents he had assigned to him. Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick and Barry Sanders’ essay entitled “Man and Woman” where he elaborates on his take on rape. What’s significant about those who fly the banner of the Democrat party is that their exploits aren’t viewed with the same kind of disdain. There’s a sanctimonious dynamic deployed by those who would condemn Trump that doesn’t make sense when you consider their party and, in some cases, their own indiscretions.
Here’s the bottom line: Moses was a killer, David was an adulterer and Abraham was a liar. Paul was a Pharisee and Peter was a coward. Moral failings are not unique and fairly common, especially among those who fly solo in the face of temptation rather than align themselves with the Power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 10:13). Even those who are fully equipped to overcome whatever potential compromise stands in their way are not always consistent in their resolve to give the keys to their Heavenly Father and they wind up as moral disasters.
Where does Trump fall in all of this? Is he wrong? Yes. What should be expected of him now, eleven years after the fact? Own it. Apologize. He has. Is it indicative of a flawed character that’s unqualified to lead? Not according to the legacy of the Democrat party, yet this is where the majority of the indictments are coming from.
What about the conscience of the person who’s mortified by what Trump said, yet still plans on supporting him in the election? Is it hypocrisy to endorse a man who has this kind of dynamic in his past?
It would be hypocritical to contribute to a Democrat victory by either not voting for him or refusing to vote at all. It’s his platform that I’m supporting, not the actions and attitudes he displayed in 2005.
Paul talks about slavery in Colossians 3:22. He’s not condoning slavery (Ex 21:16; Lev 25:39-43), he’s encouraging wisdom and noble behavior in the context of a vice that some were being compelled to participate in. I don’t see Trump as a “vice,” but in the absence of someone who’s completely consistent with my preferences, I’m compelled to be wise and not just “convicted.” I”m not cutting him slack nor am I being hypocritical. I’m being wise in that he represents the best match for the one who will champion policies and legislation in keeping with Biblical Absolutes and the common good.
Connecting the Dots
Here’s the bottom line: Trump receives toxic condemnation and ridicule from both sides of the political aisle. Why? Is it because of what he says? To some extent. But the bottom line is that he’s saying something. And oftentimes what he says rattles the cage of either those whose political convictions run contrary to the welfare of America or agitate those who fly the Republican banner, but would rather appear to be an advocate of change than actually champion real progress.
America as an ideal is under attack by those who fill the ranks of the Democrat party. The genius behind the attack, however, is that the issues that serves as the bullet points for the Democrat party are not topics as much as they are tactics. Whether it’s racism, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, foreign policy – whatever it is that constitutes a headline – is used to promote further government control. And when you couple the liberal rhetoric with the themes of the media and entertainment, it’s downright unnerving when you begin to connect the dots.
Trump sees unsecured borders and talks about solving it in the context of a wall. Did you know that there’s already a wall in Arizona? You would thing Trump was introducing something demonic, given the way his ideas on border control have been sneered at. But it’s a good plan and it needs to happen. The fact that he’s even talking about it is significant given the way border patrol is often discussed but never acted upon
He sees a 32 trillion dollar debt and talks about solving it in the context of retooling trade agreements. He wants to repeal Obamacare. When asked about “Black Lives Matter” in the first presidential debate, his first comment was “law and order.”
While you can connect the dots, in terms of the way in which the Democrat party and it’s accessories have contributed to the deterioration of the nation on every possible level, you can just as easily connect the dots where Trump’s vision, plans, experience and confidence is concerned.
I’m voting for Trump.
- When Obama leaves office, he will have accumulated more debt than every president before him combined.
- Paul Ryan, the current Republican Speaker of the House, came out recently and stated that he would not support Donald Trump as president.
Those two dynamics taken together represent a need to interrupt politics as usual and assert a personality that is not dependent on a government check for their sustenance, nor is he resolved to lessen the substance of America, all the while claiming to do so in the name of equal opportunity and justice.
RINO stands for “Republican In Name Only.” Ann Coulter does a great job of bringing into the light the fact that a number of Republican congressman do a stellar job of looking into the camera and stating exactly what their constituents want to hear, but then make a career of not putting any any of their words into action. This was especially evident during the Republican debates when the topic of illegal immigration came up. In 2014, Senator Mitch McConnell promised to block Obama’s “executive amnesty,” if only the voters would facilitate a Republican majority in the Senate. The Republicans won a majority in both houses and the voters were promptly betrayed.6
Now you’ve got talking heads in the Republican party conveniently broadcast by the liberal media stating that they will not support Trump. At this point, as a whole, they’ve so worn out their welcome in the mind of the attentive voter that their endorsement doesn’t really matter. If anything, it reinforces the notion that they realize there’s a new sheriff in town who will hold them accountable and that makes them squirm.
As far as Barak Obama and the Democrat party is concerned, consider this:
Andrew Jackson established himself as a wealthy man through the art of extortion – specifically in the context of real estate. He positioned himself as the “Great Father” to Indians before either manipulating them or forcefully removing them from their land. This was happening while he was simultaneously deploying surveyors to assess the same land at which point he would buy it and then sell it at a tremendous profit.
Steve Inskeep, in his book, “Jacksonland” elaborates by saying:
Jackson managed national security affairs in a way that match his interest in land development…He shaped his real estate investments to compliment his official duties, and performed his official duties in a way that benefited his real estate interests.7
Behold the founder of today’s Democrat / Progressive movement. The idea is to seize a topic and turn it into a tactic that can be used to influence voters resulting in greater government control and enhanced income streams for those in positions of power.
The events leading up to the Civil War, in terms of the preservation of slavery, were championed by Democrats. Not just in the South, but even Northern Democrats were vehement in their belief that slavery was a good thing and even healthy for blacks. As stated in the Charleston Mercury during the Secession debate, the duty of the South was to, “…rally under the banner of the Democratic Party which has recognized and supported…the rights of the South.”8
Oftentimes when the issue of slavery is discussed, it’s referenced as an “American” sin. It’s not. It was promoted and protected my men who were decidedly Democrats. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow and other techniques were deployed by the the South beneath the flag of the Democrat party.
It’s confusing, sometimes, to equate Democrats with racism given the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 were all championed by Lyndon B. Johnson and it was Johnson who convinced a Democratic Congress to pass all three.
But Johnson was simply reinforcing Constitutional amendments that had been passed immediately following the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship and equal rights to blacks. Two years later, in 1868, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed which gave voting rights to black people. The Civil Rights Movement in the 60′s was nothing more than bait. Lyndon Johnson appeared to be aggressive in drumming up support for the Civil Rights Act. Traveling on Air Force One with two governors, he told them both how important it was that they vote in favor of it. When asked why, he told them both that it was part of his long term strategy. “I’ll have them n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”9
The fact of the matter was, the Democrats needed the black vote. As the South became less agrarian, the Republican message of upward mobility resonated more so than racism. As more and more white people migrated over to the Republican side, the black vote grew more crucial.
It’s interesting when you look at the percentage of Democrats versus the percentage of Republicans that voted in favor of the various Civil Rights Acts. Even with a Democratic president spearheading the campaign, Republicans outnumbered the Democrats when the final tally was made. Had the Republicans voted in the same proportion as the Democrats, those laws would never have passed. So even in the guise of equality and compassion, the Democrat party has always been the seat of racism. The fact that black minorities typically vote Democrat is because of the way the Democrats’ pitch how subsidies are more of a priority than salaries and entitlement should be preferred over employment. But what makes this even more sinister is the way in which this platform so gracefully segues into fascism.
Obamacare, free college education, EPA regulations, financial subsidies – these all represent stages of increasing government control. On the surface, it may appear like a logical solution to the challenges facing individuals, but there’s more to it than that. Obamacare represents control over the healthcare industry. Secondary education, the energy sector and the banking industry are all being retooled to make them more accessible, but the catch is that the government now has control, and this is the goal of the Progressive movement that characterizes the Democrat party.
FDR admired Mussolini. JFK had some good things to say about Hitler before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and compelled the USA to enter WWII. Prior to that, however, Fascism appealed to FDR for the way in which economic unrest could justify greater control over the private sector. The “New Deal” centralized power; put a new class of planners in charge of the productive wealth of the society, restricted the operation of the free market and used modern propaganda techniques to rally the masses in the name of collective solidarity.
In the aftermath of WWII, the terminology had to be made more subtle and approachable, but the aim remained the same. A new approach, a different vocabulary, but the same goal.
Saul Alinski represents the next phase of Progressivism in that he was able to enhance the technique represented by the mafioso phrase, “a deal you can’t refuse.” He found that by approaching an industry or an iconic company, simply by threatening to create a disturbance in the name of “injustice,” he could extort all kinds of favors and financial rewards.
While he’s often heralded as a champion of the working man and an advocate of civil rights, his actions and his words reveal otherwise. Still, the fact that he was successful in his shakedown operations was appealing, especially to young people in the sixties who saw the establishment as something that needed to be changed.
One individual in particular was a college student at Wellesley college. She was drawn to Alinsky and based her thesis on his life. What inspired her imagination, however, was the possibility of being able to deploy his tactics in a way that went beyond corporate America. She felt that more could be accomplished from a position of authority rather than constantly warring against the authority. Alinski disagreed. Still, he was impressed with this young lady’s passion and ambition and offered her a job. She turned it down to go to Yale Law School.
Over time, she would prove Alinski wrong. By prosecuting your agenda from within the halls of government, you can control the NSA and have access to an unlimited amount of private information. You can control the IRS and use the threat of audits and other forms of intimidation to get what you want. You can control the judiciary, as far as who gets prosecuted and who gets pardoned. In short, you don’t have to fight “the power,” you can be “the power.” This is exactly what this young lady did and today she is the Democrat nominee for president.
The election that’s getting ready to happen this November represents a difficult landscape to navigate. Evangelicals are longing for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” career politicians stress over having to answer to an outsider, the press constantly and aggressively pursues anything it can seize upon in order to smear and distort anyone who has the gaul to champion a Republican agenda. But in the end, it’s about establishing a presence in the White House that defeats the extortion, the fascism, the treachery that is condoned and used by the Democrat party the same way Andrew Jackson used his position to build the Hermitage. It’s twisted, but it’s real. And while not every Democrat falls into the category of a fascist, if you’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, or cast a vote in a way that boosts Hillary’s chances of success, you endorse that school of thought by default.
I will vote for Donald Trump.
1. “Great Again”, Donald J. Trump, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2015, p128 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump)
2. Ibid, p99
3. Ibid, p129
4. “In Trump We Trust”, Ann Coulter, Penguin Random House, New York, NY, 2016, p40
5. Ibid, p109
6. Ibid, 171
7. Jacksonland, Steve Inskeep, Penguin Press, New York, 2015, p92, 104
8. “Hillary’s America”, Dinesh D’souza, Regewery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2016, p69
9. Ibid, p139
10. Ibid, p163
11. Ibid, p171