The Paris Attacks: A Litmus Test for Presidential Fitness
For years, the elitist faction’s puppet politicians and media pundits have dismissed grassroots’ demands for tough, effective security and law enforcement along America’s border. Those like Tom Tancredo and others (including me) supported those demands. We spoke, wrote and did whatever we could to help raise funds and gather support for the good folks impelled them to make the integrity of our borders one of their top priorities as citizens and voters. They are people of all races, and from all walks of life, moved to action by their experience, common sense and love of country.
When these good folks raised national security concerns, they were dismissed as alarmists. Or they were ridiculed as racist xenophobes. The elitist faction party line was predicated on the assumption that illegal immigration is all about people looking to make a better life and livelihood for themselves; and not at all about the America hating terrorist jihadis who have repeatedly declared that their goal is to destroy our livelihoods and take our lives.
Thanks to the horrific Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris last week, the national security threat connected with losing control of our borders has leapt to the forefront of public concern in the United States. It’s being acknowledged even by elements of the Democrat wing of the elitist faction’s sham party system, not to mention GOP quislings who have connived with them on various border effacing schemes. The elitist faction political teamsters know that they must let startled American voters blow off some steam before resuming our nation’s run towards the shoals of some desperate national emergency, on which they aim to founder our constitutional self-government.
Of course, the channel through which they are to do so is already in place, by the name of Donald Trump. In the last few months he has successfully been made into the focal point of anger against the elitist faction’s determined effort to allow illegal immigration to transform America’s demography. Unlike Tom Tancredo, Trump was never to be seen or heard when stalwart grassroots patriots were, despite slander and derision, to demand security for America’s borders. He was too busy making his fortune from business ventures (casino hotels, for example) that gave him a special interest in keeping labor costs low.
But his stint a reality television star showed him to be a quick study when it comes to delivering his lines with convincing sincerity. He was a good fit for the job of infiltrating the GOP primary process, and making himself the tallest lightning rod in the gathering storm of public disaffection against the elitist faction’s campaign to subvert the sovereignty of the American people. In a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the elitist faction wins either way.
I realize that anyone really caught up in the stagecraft of Trump’s phony political persona will have a hard time seeing things this way. They may even get angry with me because I do. So be it. But long before most people saw Barack Obama for the clear, and presently dangerous, anti-American Rush Limbaugh now recognizes him to be, I did what I could to warn against him. I did so because what I learned about him, including the persistent pattern of his actions, speeches and writings, logically allowed me to reach no other conclusion.
It was this same logical necessity that led me to warn people, in my speeches during the 2000 Presidential campaign and before, that the same lax security that allows illegal immigrants to cross our borders without scrutiny to take jobs in America, allows terrorists to be seeded throughout our country, against the day when they do to us what they have already repeatedly done to others (in Israel for example, and now in Paris), deploying attacks against ‘soft targets’ (e.g., theatres, shopping districts, school activities, and university campuses).
The same respect for logic impelled me to emphasize, starting years ago, that the 2nd amendment is not just a safeguard for each individual’s right to possess some means of self-defense. It is also the basis for a grassroots strategy to defend our communities, at every level, while building the public spirit and discipline needed to maintain and defend our liberty.
These days politicians like Donald Trump say and do whatever is likely to provoke an emotional response. Like the quickly flashing images of an MTV video, their aim is to manipulate. It is precisely intended to prick and goad people this way and that. The effect is more sensual than sensible. It invites a visceral response, with no shadow of logical thought between the motion and the act. In effect, it herds people the way cattle prods or yapping dogs herd mindless animals to be sheared or slaughtered.
This way of dealing with people conditions them to neglect the very aspect of their nature that is most distinctly human, which is their ability to stand back from the moment, in thought, in order to take account of themselves within it. This capacity for reflection allows people to “look before and after”, relating past events to present circumstances; and to ponder what that relationship suggests about future possibilities.
This is the way in which logical thought contributes to foresight: not as a mystical gift but as an attribute of human understanding, a fruit of our capacity for self-consciousness, and for deliberate choice. It has a price, of course, in existential terms. For it is the root of self-alienation and all the lonely, fearful, self-torturing ways that painfully emanate from the wound in being that makes self-consciousness possible. But it also has a prize: for it is the root of responsibility and self-conscious belonging. They, in turn, give special meaning to the term of love with which we define the special bond of our community with others, the one informed by no necessity but the free ascension of our goodwill.
In this sense, our acts of love may be the clearest proof that we are, as the Bible tells us, made in the likeness of God. For they are, like His creation, the gift of being, shared with no constraint except in the will to be for others’ sake what we would have them be for ours. In that bond we give and receive what is due, in a way that preserves all who are party to it, according to the way of being God has prepared for them in common. Rightly understood, it is this bond of love that make true foresight possible. For if we do not consent to preserve the community according to the God intended nature of its participants, we cannot know whether the logic of their experiences, past and present, portends its destruction. But if we know, and nonetheless refuse to act for its preservation, then in truth we prove do not care for it at all.
Those who looked at events, and from ignorance or some other incapacity failed to see the threat they held, have proven themselves unfit to care for the preservation of our community. And those who understood the danger, but chose not to forewarn the nation, clearly didn’t care then and shouldn’t be trusted now. Either way, it makes no more sense to entrust America’s fate to their care than it did to trust Obama with the White House.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.