Article Excerpt: “It’s not about President Trump, but about the future of We The People”

An excerpt from an article by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY…

…from a friend who thinks those who may not want to vote for Trump should read. I agree, it’s not about President Trump, but about the future of We The People. Please share!

The choice in 2020 is not simply Trump or Biden. It is: Do you want Mike Pompeo running foreign policy, or, say, Susan Rice? Should we continue building up our military and preparing for China as the great geopolitical challenge of the 21st century, or revert to the Obama-Biden program of hollowing out the armed forces and appeasing Beijing?

Should we follow the free-market economic and financial predilections of Larry Kudlow, or the confiscatory authoritarianism of Bernie Sanders? Should we continue promoting economic innovation, including the natural-gas production that has significantly reduced carbon emissions; or should we follow Biden’s confidant John Kerry back into the Paris climate accord while commencing implementation of the national suicide known as the Green New Deal, touted by Democrat darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Should we continue the regulation-slashing that unleashed economic prosperity and lays the groundwork for recovery even from a once-in-a-century pandemic; or should we empower Biden ally Elizabeth Warren to “reimagine” capitalism and markets under the government’s crushing demands and the Democrats’ grievance politics?

Should we back the nation’s police departments, prioritize the rule of law, and restore order on America’s urban streets; or de-fund police budgets and adopt the “progressive prosecutor” model — which is to say, the non-enforcement model — favored by Democrats? Should the Justice Department and intelligence agencies be run by Bill Barr and Trump’s team; or should we opt for a Keith Ellison–style radical as attorney general, accompanied by the return of Obama officials who politicized intelligence reporting and weaponized the investigative process against political opponents and conservative activists? Why do you suppose Trump was only too ready to put out a list of judges he’d appoint, while Biden declines to identify his alternatives — ideologues who view the judiciary as an instrument of social change? Why do you suppose Biden mulishly refuses to say whether he’d pack the Supreme Court, expanding it so that he could appoint liberal justices and thereby destroy it as a judicial institution?             

Because Trump is president, and for no other reason, there is a real chance that a solid originalist majority could steer the high court for a generation to come, guided by the vision of the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia and anchored by Justice Clarence Thomas’s enduring commitment to the Founders’ Constitution. Because of President Trump’s election in 2016, Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are just two of 218 jurists — adherents to the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation models of judicial restraint, rather than the lawyer-Left template of progressive activism — who have been appointed to the federal bench. This includes a remarkable 53 conservative judges added to the all-important circuit courts of appeals, which decide many more cases than the Supreme Court and largely determine the jurisprudence that decides cases throughout the United States.

Donald Trump did that. But it is a transformation that has yet to be solidified. Many of the slots filled by Trump judges were previously held by Reagan and Bush 41 appointees who took senior status or retired. That enabled a Republican president to fill the vacancies, with indispensable assistance from a GOP-controlled Senate led by Mitch McConnell. To make the judicial branch a bulwark against the unconstitutional overreach and stifling of liberty that a future Democratic-dominated government would portend requires reelecting the president. That is to say, Donald Trump’s candidacy is once again the thin barrier separating what remains of our constitutional order and the very different governing construct that Democrats would impose.

Trump’s candidacy is the difference between retaining the most unapologetically pro-life administration in American history, and having one that would implement a regime of abortion on demand, abortion at late term, and abortion underwritten at home and abroad by American taxpayers. Trump’s candidacy is the difference between having a Justice Department that invokes civil-rights laws to vouchsafe religious freedom, economic liberty, due process on campus, and colorblind college-admissions processes; and having one that contorts civil-rights laws to hamstring police, eviscerate due-process protections, promote the deranged notion of sexual identity as a mental state or social construct, and impose quotas and wealth redistribution based on the insidious “disparate impact” theory of implied, systematic, and institutional racism.

The Trump administration unabashedly set itself against jihadist terrorism and annihilated the ISIS caliphate. Would it be preferable to again have a Democratic administration that forswears use of the word “jihad,” regards terrorist attacks as “man-caused disasters,” purges law-enforcement and intelligence agencies of training in the sharia-supremacist ideology that animates anti-American violence, and turns a blind eye as ISIS amasses a territory larger than Britain? The Trump administration renounced the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, reinstituted sanctions to squeeze Tehran’s monstrous regime, and eliminated its top commander, who’d made a career of targeting Americans. Trump further neutralized Iran by fostering an unprecedented alliance between Israel and Sunni Islamic states, accomplished through peace pacts previously thought unattainable. It was Trump who had the nerve to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem — a confidence-building measure that administrations of both parties had promised to execute, only to renege time and again — over the strident objections of a foreign-service bureaucracy teeming with transnational progressives.

Lest we forget, the Obama-Biden administration’s parting shot was to orchestrate a United Nations branding of our ally Israel as an international outlaw — over settlement construction in territory the Jewish state righteously holds. That was after the Obama-Biden administration meddled in Israel’s election while paying cash bribes to the world’s leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism — the Iranian regime that, to this day, vows to annihilate Israel. A Biden presidency would mark a return to those days.

Given the vigorous opposition of congressional Democrats and judges appointed during the Obama-Biden administration, Trump has made only halting progress on enforcement of immigration law and border security, his signal 2016 issues. But there has been progress, and his stance is the antithesis of the open-borders, non-enforcement Obama policies that Biden would be sure to reimplement. As he ducks the Court-packing question, Biden also dodges the potentially even more destructive Democratic gambit of eliminating the Senate filibuster, which would end minority-opposition rights and pave the way for such debacles as statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico (to cement Democratic control of Congress); a bailout of disastrously mismanaged blue cities; skyrocketing taxes on income, wealth, and business; and such job- and growth-killing green voodoo as bans on fracking and pipeline construction. On the menu would be the Marxist Left’s agenda of a complete government takeover of health care (including a ban on private insurance); the end of school choice; a universal $15-an-hour minimum wage that would deprive young and lower-income people of jobs and entry-level experience; slavery reparations; forced urbanization of the suburbs; and so on. By the way, if you think I’m exaggerating, you need to read the Working Families Party’s “People’s Charter,” recently released and promptly endorsed by leaders of organized labor, Black Lives Matter, and progressive groups, as well as AOC’s Democratic “Squad” in the House.

You don’t want to support President Trump? I certainly don’t blame you for standing on your principles. He does have an exhausting penchant for saying the wrong things. On the coronavirus, to be sure, the president’s rhetoric, understating the seriousness of the pandemic and the imperative to take sensible precautions, has frequently been harmful and unbecoming. But it is absurd for Democrats to blame him for the more than 200,000 COVID-19 deaths while ignoring his restrictions on international travel (which they initially condemned as xenophobic) and the vigor with which the administration ramped up production of medical equipment and development of therapeutics and, possibly, a vaccine. There is no reason to believe Biden would have done better (especially after the Obama administration’s swine-flu foibles). And I won’t argue with you, because I agree, about Trump’s maddening insouciance on runaway entitlements and the metastasizing crisis of debt. I concur that the tariffs and trade wars are counterproductive. I’m frustrated by his lack of discipline and inattentiveness to detail in, for example, failing to formulate a market-oriented replacement for Obamacare — and thus handing Biden and Democrats their best campaign issue.

But to make the election all about Trump is to ape the president’s signature self-absorption. It is not a matter of liking or despising Trump. It is a choice between Trump and what the Biden-Harris Democrats would do to the country. It is not a choice that any of us can avoid. So, I’m making it:

I’m for Trump.

Spread the word. Share this post!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow by Email
Instagram
%d bloggers like this: