There is much to be said about the election of President Donald Trump in 2016. Many conservatives who voted for him, including the evangelicals, only did so because of the pathetic options they had. It was either Hillary or Trump—you choose. Do you want a president who will try taking your Second Amendment right away, leaving you helpless as a disarmed victim of government authoritarian oppression, or a president who will protect that right?
Do you want a president who will mock the sanctity of life in the womb by supporting Planned Parenthood’s immoral crime of abortion, or one who will respect the infant in a woman’s body, with natural rights to life despite being defenseless? How about choosing someone for the Supreme Court? Obviously a Democrat like Hillary Clinton would have appointed some leftist judge to become a Justice in the Court, only to disregard the fundamentals of U.S. constitutional law, which places the individual above the state?
What about business regulation and the health of the free market? Do you want a president who will support small business and the vital requirements to be free from the shackles of big government control, or one who will strengthen the already-suffocating choke hold the government has on small businesses as the grasp for air in their struggle to grow amid the red tape?
Bottom Line: It’s Not that Simple
What I have just described is a dumbed-down, cookie cutter version of a novice political analyst. Rather, a sophisticated approach comprehends the sum of issues threatening our freedom and prosperity, and finds solutions based on principle.
The Reality of American Politics and the Grassroots
American politics is in a state of total disaster. Average people are fed up with so much, they don’t know how to have civil discourse anymore. Conservatives are ushered out of restaurants because of protesters who aggressively barge in to disrupt their dinner, which they rightfully paid for. Many business establishments that house such patrons often refuse to do business with those of an opposing political view. However, this refusal to associate or do business is their natural right, protected by the First Amendment.
Freedom of speech, the option to associate upon discretion, and private property are rights that go hand-in-hand. However, there is an ideological war over whether that is constitutional or something that should be tolerated.
Liberal Expression and Right of Association
Free expression and the decision to associate or disassociate interlinks with the natural levels of private property: (1) one’s mind and body (intellectual, moral or religious, and corporeal), (2) personal goods or “chattel,” and (3) real property (land or real estate). Personal sovereignty encompasses the self-governance of one’s property, starting with the mind and conscience.
This view is a hardcore libertarian one based on natural rights. It blatantly opposes the agenda of inclusion and other socialist mindsets based on the denial of an individual right to personal sovereignty. Such a statement will easily land me in hot water among the so-called “left” because it allows for discrimination and rejection, of anyone for any reason. Hence many Republicans would not agree with me either.
That said, I have morals and believe the Natural Law, which includes consequences for one’s actions based on the principle of sowing and reaping. No matter what you do with your personal liberty, there are aftermaths of cause-and-effect that follow whether favorable or not. For example, as a non-fundamentalist Christian I oppose racism, which is the belief that one race has a moral right to rule over or subjugate another for labor or service. This is immoral because it violates the natural principles of personal sovereignty and individual liberty, which are “blind” to skin color or ethnic origin.
Nonetheless, racism is not the act of being prejudice. If you are attracted to a certain kind of ethnic group (perhaps your own) and you want to marry one, have friendships with them, and have them as your neighbors while excluding the rest, there is nothing racial about that. You are simply honoring your sincere desires and attractions. Nevertheless, the radical left wants to impose blanket denial of all ethical and racial differences, making us think we are merely numbers in a communist framework for the utilitarian common good.
Collectivism is the antithesis of diversity in humanity because it asserts that an individual’s likes and dislikes or cultural traditions are dangerous if they lead to societal division. Such hypocrisy contradicts the alleged push for inclusion and diversity that progressives so passionately work to achieve.
These two aforementioned words are at odds with each other though, because an authentically diverse culture cannot exist if everyone is “included” amid the group. True diversity only exists when there are opposing views, beliefs, or cultural practices that allow for walls of separation between them. This means “coexistence” only works when each faction leaves the other alone, respecting their differences without threat of harm or interference.
Only opinions and mindsets that lead to the common good of the collective as a whole are accepted. This utilitarian doctrine strips the beauty from society by undermining individuality. Likewise, the collectivist model has been tried several times throughout human history—and has FAILED every time. The Soviet Union fell in 1991, and we all know what happened to the Nazis in their push for national socialism. The communist or socialist regimes that still exist today (North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc.) are a horror show of mass poverty, starvation, and utter tyranny by oppressive governments.
Moreover, socialism and communism are merely the same thing, with socialism being the alleged first stage toward the later. Karl Marx had a philosophy that society would go through phases, in which capitalism would be tried and reach its peak, and then ultimately collapse on itself. This would open the door to a socialist system that would further collectivize the people, setting them on the road toward the ultimate utopian goal of a communist society.
The deception in this train of thought omits the fact that government always becomes authoritarian and abusive in a socialist system. It owns the means of production and redistributes wealth and resources to the collective. The state has all the power and makes the decisions for how each person should live, denying them of self-determination, individual identity, and the free ability to give and share voluntarily without coercion. However, free-market capitalism solves all three dilemmas.
Only capitalism restores freedom and prosperity and eliminates poverty. This is because the right to choose how to live one’s life must be honored as sacred. Personal sovereignty is embedded in the framework of all human beings. We were created with natural rights that must be respected. We must take accountability and responsibility for our actions and chose to act based on conscience rather than coercion.
Trump Supporters are Often Simple-Minded and Gullible
Many supporters of President Trump are ignorant followers with little knowledge of constitutional law. Since the campaign trail they have jumped on to the Trump bandwagon with almost blind obedience. I distinctively remember having conversions with some of these people on social media or actual life. They almost instantly demonized me for criticizing the character of Donald Trump, sometimes to the point of slewing ad hominem attacks. This was pretty pathetic.
Such people are dumbed-down from a continuous barrage of propaganda of American exceptionalism from both the Christian-right and the neoconservative Republican Party of glyphosate-laden apple pie with a misconstrued understanding of George Washington. I am being facetious, but with a point. The concept of American patriotism has changed over the centuries, especially after the Civil War’s Reconstruction Era. More recently, the rise of Evangelism as well as the waves of feminism and Marxist-style leftism have shaken the original foundations of what it means to be an American.
The rise of the police state since the September 11th attacks of 2001 began with intense protests (on both political sides) against government intrusion, highlighting the threat of George Orwell’s book 1984. However, as time went on both Democrats and Republicans became complacent. We slowly got accustomed to TSA agents at airports checking our personal belongings. Our initial outrage from former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden soon became less important as Americans became used to the fact that both Big Brother and mega-corporations are spying on our every move in the Internet Age.
Considering this cultural mindset, Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that Edward Snowden was a traitor and even implied capital punishment as a remedy. This sickly twisted view of patriotism is disgusting. Donald Trump never harped on the growing rise of the police state usurping our civil liberties protected by the many of the Bill of Rights, chiefly the Fourth Amendment. I have heard Trump speak highly of Abraham Lincoln, a president who suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed dissenters all the while violating the sovereign right of states protected by the Tenth Amendment.
The screws of this disaster were tightened during the Reconstruction by the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment placed a choke-hold on states by complicating the due process system, making it harder for state courts to rule independently.
Moreover, the vast majority of Donald Trump supporters I meet have no problem with his disregard for fundamental constitutional tenets, such as civil liberties. His filthy support for the military-industrial complex and our interventionist foreign policy are no different from the acts of President George W. Bush concerning Iraq, Afghanistan and the “War on Terror.”
I am sickened by President Trump’s appointment of Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA, an agent who oversaw a secret government torturing program during the George W. Bush administration. The crimes were covered up until former CIA case officer John Kiriakou blew the whistle by coming forth on national news. Apparently his conscience wouldn’t let him remain silent. As a result, he was tried and prosecuted by the federal government and sentenced to 30 months in prison.
If only it ended there. President Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor, along with Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, are the last people I would want leading our foreign affairs. John Bolton is a cruel, hawkish warmonger. His statements during the George W. Bush administration as well as his actions today are OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID. The man seems to have an internal complex with control and supreme authority, because he advocates for virtually instant war toward any foreign power without exception.
John Bolton’s solution to just about every foreign nation that crosses U.S. interests seems to be merciless blatant war, regardless of the bloodshed and fiscal consequences. John Bolton is a complete LUNATIC.
Why the hell did Donald Trump appoint such bad people? There are people who voted for him who say the same thing. I myself know, however, which I why did not vote. I went to the ballet box for no one on November 8th, 2016, because I had less than 70 percent confidence in all of the candidates. Some look at the refusing to vote as unAmerican or even dangerous. I say such people are idiots. I will NOT vote for Trump despite the few policies I do agree with—because his other policies are insane.
No One Can Fit Me Into Categories: I am too Weird for ‘Simple’
Many of them would gawk at me, a former U.S. Marine, present-day gun owner, and yet a yoga and pole fitness devotee and plant-based eater. I don’t fit the nice, neat “cookie-cutter” mold that they would like to place me into. Such unsophisticated people haven’t the IQ to comprehend an open intellectual mind. I still buy coffee at Starbucks, and I drive a Prius to save money on gas. Thus I am an avid supporter of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, which includes an unabridged right to keep and bear arms for defense against a tyrannical government. Not to mention I consider my gender fluid and neutral. I DO believe there are more than two genders despite the biological facts about male and female sex.
Am I a social justice warrior? Absolutely not. If you really wanted to know what I think about race and ethnic rights I would say we are all equal on moral ground, but have differing levels of IQ and variations of intelligence. There is no one size fits all phenomenon in this world. There are countless gray areas, and my worldview does not fall neatly and succinctly with the average conservative mind. Therefore, I am not a conservative according to their standards; neither am I a liberal for that matter, but an Individual that uses my brain and thinks for myself. If I had to label my political or ideological persuasion, it would be a Natural Law advocate, which basically sums up the underlying groundwork for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I may at times refer to myself as libertarian (lower-case “l”), but am careful due to the ignorance and misunderstandings of such definitions.