The Most Essential Issue In A Trump Victory

Truth Based Logic ^ | June 28, 2016 | William Flax

[Ohioan]

Trump: The Issue

America First: The issue in 2016 Presidential Campaign. Constitution requires putting America & the Americans first. All duties flow from that requirement.

Whether or not there is ambiguity as to American Constitutional intent on some matters, there is absolute clarity as to functional intent with respect to one overriding issue. The primary issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign is clearly to determine whom an American President has the duty to serve; whose interests must be honored; who favored. To address this issue, consider the stated purpose of the Constitution--the avowed intent of the framers--the ratified intent of subscribing States--the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Ohioan]

My hope in posting this is that it will actually draw some constructive criticism. Please, if some of you reading this believe that the anti-Trump folk have an effective answer to my belief that Trump can go all the way by continuing to make this line of attack the center-piece of his campaign. Let's put it on the table for analysis.

We still have over four months till the election. Let's hammer out tactics that most of us can rally around, and go forward to victory. Now is the time to vet, where we go from here. (That is those of us who care where Americans go from here! That, in essence, is why we have already rallied to Donald Trump.)

[Ohioan]

Any thoughts, gentlemen. Do not spare my feelings, if you think I have failed to recognize a possible problem with this approach.

[Don Corleone]

The Most Essential Issue In A Trump Victory

The rebuilding of the Supreme Court!

[Ohioan]

That (the Supreme Court) is certainly a major reason to vote for Trump. But is not that also clearly implied in putting America & the Americans first? Our liberty is the ultimate issue in either sense. And the Preamble makes it very clear that it is the "liberty" of Americans, that is the intention in even having a Federal Constitution--i.e., the document that we want the Supreme Court to apply in every relevant case.

We are basically on the same page. Any speech that our candidate makes on the one subject should absolutely include development of the argument with respect to the other, also.

[Ohioan]

Here is another excerpt from the article--a comment on what the Democrats offer:

"Cruel Indifference Towards America & The Americans

"The policy choices of Leftist politicians repeatedly demonstrate a cruel indifference to the rights & interests of rooted Americans. Consider the incessant demand to limit the right of American citizens to keep & bear arms--even at a time when neglected borders create a far greater than usual risk to the persons & property of many Americans."

[Pelham]

Looks fine to me. Since it’s your own writing you might want to post the entire article to avoid the wrath of the blog-pimp vigilantes.

I particularly liked this part:

Treating Americans Like Lab Rats

Perhaps the cruelest example of Leftist indifference to the rights & interests of rooted Americans, is Obama’s announced project to attack relatively homogeneous neighborhood cohesion by arbitrarily placing persons, who do not have a similar culture, to promote “diversity” in each community. This experiment in social engineering, treats American property owners & tenants, who have voluntarily settled in communities found congenial, as only so many “lab rats”; subjects for experiment in pursuit of a pretense that all are interchangeable products of an immediate social environment. To understand the enormity of the Obama experiment in the American context, one must recall settlement of the original colonies.

Up & down the 17th Century Atlantic coast of British North America, largely Anglo/Celtic settlers created varied ethnic communities, each reflecting a unique cultural, social & theological, value system. These values differed sufficiently from community to community—were sufficiently in conflict—that corresponding factions in the Nations of origin had fought a series of civil wars over them.

When in 1787, descendants of those early settlers came together, as Americans, to form a Federal Union, they embraced, not an arrogant abuse of power by social engineers; but a Constitution that clearly accepted the rights to maintain differences in social values within the States & diverse individual communities, as essential elements of Liberty. The Founders knew we were not lab rats, nor Pavlovian dogs, to be reconditioned—programmed—by an overreaching Government. Sadly, the Left’s social theorists—with little basis for self-respect—never learned to respect the basic rights of others.

[1Old Pro]

He’ll win on:
1) The Economy after the great 7.5 year Obama recession
2) America First on Trade and Immigration
3) Eliminating corrupt pols and adhering to the constitution which also means eliminating the religion of PC
4) Fighting terrorism and supporting our military

[Ohioan]

Thanks. And thanks for the quote--kind of like it myself.

It is not a particularly long article; but seemed still too long to post as a whole. As for the "blog-pimp" accusations, Truth Based Logic is not a blog--no one, not even I can simply log in, and comment. It is an internet journal, with hundreds of fixed articles in place.

[Ohioan]

All that you list are good issues—and should (and I am sure will be) pursued. But there is historic precedent for banging away on one central—more easily grasped—central issue, as the key to victory. (”Fifty-Four Forty of Fight”; “He Kept Us Out Of War” (admittedly not for long after the campaign); “A Chicken In Every Pot”; “No New Taxes” (also unfortunately misleading); etc..

[1Old Pro]

OK, how about this: Make America Great again

[LS]

Bill, my only quibble is that the “general welfare” clause does not mean what modern people think: it was specific to business, and ALL powers delineated under “general welfare” provisions are congress’s powers to enhance business-— for example, the Post Office is viewed as part of the general welfare because of its connection to business information transmission.

[DungeonMaster]

Kill political correctness and start telling the truth about our enemies, all of them.

[Ohioan]

A good slogan. But it is not as specific as "America First."

The specific implications of "America First," confer the benefit. Hillary could claim her policies would make America greater; she cannot claim some of her past actions, put America & the Americans first--at least not with any credible evidence of same.

[Ohioan]

You are correct. "General" Welfare is the precise opposite of particular welfare, such as that instigated in the name of Welfare by FDR, LBJ and other levelers of American achievement.

Note how Jefferson described how they provided for the particular needs of the incapacitated in Virginia, under the heading of that variety of "Welfare." (Jefferson On Welfare.) And it actually appears to have worked!

[Ohioan]

Trump’s campaign has struck the most effective blow yet against the “politically correct,” bullying of Americans into silence on vital issues. That is a very valid reason for supporting him. But again, it does not have the rallying clarity, for millions not ordinarily in the ideological battle, that “America First,” has.

[DungeonMaster]

But again, it does not have the rallying clarity, for millions not ordinarily in the ideological battle, that “America First,” has.

Sadly, when you take ideology out of the picture all that's left in politics is money. "Vote Trump for more money". That's what politics and elections always boils down to.

[Ohioan]

Most people are not ideologically driven. That does not mean that they do not have priorities; just that they do not have a clearly definable reasoning process behind those priorities.

Nothing in that statement means that it is only about money--far from it. Nor does it mean that their priorities are suspect.

If you look at the present tactic being employed by those who are trying to retie England to the EC, they have been trying to foment a financial panic as a devise. But millions of Brits, who could not very well define why they are patriots, why there must always be an England in their view, with philosophic clarity, or define why Brexit is actually a financially very, very sound move; are simply supporting their preference, regardless of their understanding of money issues.

[Ohioan]

Here is another quotation from the article, which rebukes political correctness:

"Another extreme example of cruel indifference to the interests of America & the Americans, is the arbitrary way that Obama has resettled "refugees" from backgrounds completely dissimilar to those of native Americans, in small to medium sized American cities. Such resettlements, without consulting the rooted inhabitants, not only undermine social cohesion in each afflicted community; they have seriously disrupted public school systems, to the disadvantage of American children. (This is, of course, the same tactic that Stalin adopted to destroy social cohesion in parts of the Ukraine & Baltic States after World War II. But then, no one ever suggested that Stalin was anything but indifferent to the well being or tranquility of potential foes. His "indifference" was the least of their problems.)"

[DungeonMaster]

Here is another quotation from the article, which rebukes political correctness: "Another extreme example of cruel indifference to the interests of America & the Americans, is the arbitrary way that Obama has resettled "refugees" from backgrounds completely dissimilar to those of native Americans, in small to medium sized American cities. Such resettlements, without consulting the rooted inhabitants, not only undermine social cohesion in each afflicted community; they have seriously disrupted public school systems, to the disadvantage of American children.

Thanks for explaining. I have a much better understanding of your point now.

Who was it that said Obama doesn't know how to be an American? It was some politician and he got slammed by the libs for daring to say that. The truth is, that is the whole problem. Obama is trying to destroy.... Americanism. I guess that means something a little different to each American but with each of us there is a lot of overlap. Not with the immigrants. No overlap and no desire for overlap.

Now, how to put all of that on a bumper sticker, pin or hat. "Making America American again". Or something like that.

[Ohioan]

Obama's formative impressions--long before he was systematically indoctrinated by notorious Leftist operatives--were formed not in America, but in Indonesia. If the Left was not dominated by anti-American theorists, no one Left or Right would have thought it made any sense to run one for President, whose formative impressions had been instilled in a land as culturally different from America as Indonesia.

The very idea of such a background is ludicrous, if you care about the continuity of your heritage, culture, etc..

The tragedy is that the PC bullies had intimidated so much of the media and academia, that few even alluded to what was really relevant--from an American standpoint--in the situation.