Hot on the heels of the improbable election of a libertarian to the presidency of long-socialist Argentina comes the election of a nativist firebrand as leader of famously multicultural The Netherlands. Those two events appear to have finally woken the wokerati up to the distasteful reality that people are fed up with their agenda.
As to the part about Trump's treatment of the Constitution, the same could be said of Franklin Roosevelt. We survived 12+ years of FDR and were saved another four only by his death in office. The Supreme Court and the Congress got in Roosevelt's way on occasion and perhaps those same bodies would save us from the worst of Trump's excesses. I don't favor another four years of the Orange Man but let's not forget we're concerned he could be elected President ... not King. We're undergoing four years at the hands of a not-quite-total idiot, but we'll come out the other end -- scarred and bruised, to be sure -- but whole and hearty. Right this minute we can be morose and complaining about a perceived fact not yet in evidence or we can work in favor of something different. What could be beneficial is a choice now between Haley and DeSantis and a concerted effort to push that choice forward. How to accomplish that? I'm not sure. But in a bygone time they spoke of kingmakers and influence peddlers and back rooms filled with cigar smoke and if it came to that I'd be onboard. (There's much conjecture about what course of action the DNC will take to rid itself of Biden and Harris. Perhaps it's time we decided in favor of, "No more mister nice guy.") Once upon a time in America, a man named Lincoln was elected President against all odds. They say anything is possible.
The last true Constitutionalist was Coolidge. Reagan got part of it right but part of it wrong.
If Trump wins the Presidency in 2024, what happens next will much depend on what happens in Congress - but one thing I am sure of, there will be some chaos and there will be some extraConstitutional executive orders.
I’m too concerned about the current Leftists in power who are using the pendulum to gleefully destroy the U.S., with at best disdainful, usurious, facile constitutional regard, than to be concerned with whether it’s Trump or DeSantis or any other non-Marxist from the right.
Our founding fathers thought much like you on immigration. It can be beneficial when done right. For instance, James Madison wrote in 1790:
"I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States."
This is contrary to what the reflexive contrarians often instead quote - a phrase from the poem on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses." What most who reference this never stop to consider is that:
1) These words were penned in 1883 as part of a poem by Emma Lazarus in an effort to raise money to construct the pedestal (the statue arrived from France in 1885 and the pedestal was not completed until 1886)
2) These words were penned long after our founding fathers had passed
3) These words run contrary to what our founding fathers believed.
One must read the rest of the poem, titled "The New Colossus," to gain full understanding:
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
What it embraces, is one honestly assesses it, is horrific. While there is benefit in wanting immigrants who would be productive, asking to inherit other countries' problems is simply asking for self-destruction.
I know, I spent a little too much time on a single point, but it is an important one. This country was founded by immigrants, but it was expected to become a country of natives (the Constitution even places requirements of being native-born on particular positions in government), and immigration was expected to slow as the population grew organically. Like you said, we no longer have a sustainable rate of reproduction (perhaps because so many choose instead to murder their children pre-birth - but that is another issue), so immigration is necessary; but we do not need to import "refuse;" we have enough of our own, and the founding fathers would agree:
"My opinion with respect to emigration is, that except of useful mechanic’s—and some particular descriptions of men—or professions—there is no need of extra encouragement: while the policy, or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing they retain the language, habits & principles (good or bad) which they bring with them; whereas, by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, manners and laws: in a word, soon become one people." - George Washington to John Adams, 15 November 1794
There are few, if any, politicians who know, understand, or even care about the Constitution. To the vast, vast, vast (did I mention vast?) majority in office, it is simply a tool for manipulating the masses. "You have a Constitutional right to...." (don't even get me started on the speciousness of the phrase "Constitutional right"). They are able to take advantage of this because most people don't read and don't know the Constitution. It is truly a sad state of affairs. The pendulum swings at all because people act based on emotion rather than reason.
As to the part about Trump's treatment of the Constitution, the same could be said of Franklin Roosevelt. We survived 12+ years of FDR and were saved another four only by his death in office. The Supreme Court and the Congress got in Roosevelt's way on occasion and perhaps those same bodies would save us from the worst of Trump's excesses. I don't favor another four years of the Orange Man but let's not forget we're concerned he could be elected President ... not King. We're undergoing four years at the hands of a not-quite-total idiot, but we'll come out the other end -- scarred and bruised, to be sure -- but whole and hearty. Right this minute we can be morose and complaining about a perceived fact not yet in evidence or we can work in favor of something different. What could be beneficial is a choice now between Haley and DeSantis and a concerted effort to push that choice forward. How to accomplish that? I'm not sure. But in a bygone time they spoke of kingmakers and influence peddlers and back rooms filled with cigar smoke and if it came to that I'd be onboard. (There's much conjecture about what course of action the DNC will take to rid itself of Biden and Harris. Perhaps it's time we decided in favor of, "No more mister nice guy.") Once upon a time in America, a man named Lincoln was elected President against all odds. They say anything is possible.
The last true Constitutionalist was Coolidge. Reagan got part of it right but part of it wrong.
If Trump wins the Presidency in 2024, what happens next will much depend on what happens in Congress - but one thing I am sure of, there will be some chaos and there will be some extraConstitutional executive orders.
I’m too concerned about the current Leftists in power who are using the pendulum to gleefully destroy the U.S., with at best disdainful, usurious, facile constitutional regard, than to be concerned with whether it’s Trump or DeSantis or any other non-Marxist from the right.
One of your best Peter.
Thanks!
Our founding fathers thought much like you on immigration. It can be beneficial when done right. For instance, James Madison wrote in 1790:
"I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States."
This is contrary to what the reflexive contrarians often instead quote - a phrase from the poem on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses." What most who reference this never stop to consider is that:
1) These words were penned in 1883 as part of a poem by Emma Lazarus in an effort to raise money to construct the pedestal (the statue arrived from France in 1885 and the pedestal was not completed until 1886)
2) These words were penned long after our founding fathers had passed
3) These words run contrary to what our founding fathers believed.
One must read the rest of the poem, titled "The New Colossus," to gain full understanding:
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
What it embraces, is one honestly assesses it, is horrific. While there is benefit in wanting immigrants who would be productive, asking to inherit other countries' problems is simply asking for self-destruction.
I know, I spent a little too much time on a single point, but it is an important one. This country was founded by immigrants, but it was expected to become a country of natives (the Constitution even places requirements of being native-born on particular positions in government), and immigration was expected to slow as the population grew organically. Like you said, we no longer have a sustainable rate of reproduction (perhaps because so many choose instead to murder their children pre-birth - but that is another issue), so immigration is necessary; but we do not need to import "refuse;" we have enough of our own, and the founding fathers would agree:
"My opinion with respect to emigration is, that except of useful mechanic’s—and some particular descriptions of men—or professions—there is no need of extra encouragement: while the policy, or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing they retain the language, habits & principles (good or bad) which they bring with them; whereas, by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, manners and laws: in a word, soon become one people." - George Washington to John Adams, 15 November 1794
There are few, if any, politicians who know, understand, or even care about the Constitution. To the vast, vast, vast (did I mention vast?) majority in office, it is simply a tool for manipulating the masses. "You have a Constitutional right to...." (don't even get me started on the speciousness of the phrase "Constitutional right"). They are able to take advantage of this because most people don't read and don't know the Constitution. It is truly a sad state of affairs. The pendulum swings at all because people act based on emotion rather than reason.