Donald Trump the False Compromise of the Pro Life Community

Donald Trump the False Compromise of the Pro Life Community

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo | Posted: Jul 13, 2016

America is currently witnessing the unseemly race of prolife and evangelical leaders into the Trump camp. Their previously unflinching opposition to his candidacy has gone up in smoke. Why?

First in line come the financial considerations of the Trump-supporting crowd. Over at Liberty University, Jerry Falwell, Jr., I am told, is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of federal money. He clearly must be concerned that all this taxpayer funding could well disappear if Hillary Clinton occupies the Oval Office. This problem is not unique to Falwell: Dozens of Christian and Catholic universities have been willing to give up their economic freedom and become dependent on the State in order to expand. As I have argued for many years, the loss of economic freedom inevitably leads to the loss of moral freedom.

In May, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, put her byline on a national column titled: “The Pro-life Case for Trump.” She, like many other pro-life leaders and evangelicals, seems to be desperately seeking to be noticed by the Trump machine and to be in its good graces. Does it cross their minds that Trump is unabashedly happy to manipulate them for his own benefit?

Think through the problem. Donald Trump has promised to change the Republican platform, which at present unconditionally protects the unborn. He has promised to bring abortion into the Republican platform. He would do this by introducing exceptions: rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Anyone familiar with the introduction of abortion nationally and internationally knows that Trump’s mantra matches precisely the line that Planned Parenthood habitually uses to seek abortion on demand. In May when Trump was asked on the Today show if he would change the Republican platform to introduce abortion by having at least three exceptions to kill the unborn, he stated: (telling video), “ Yes I would. Yes I would. Absolutely, for the three exceptions…I would absolutely have the three exceptions…”

This admission alone would have ended the conversation with any other candidate. It is amazing that so many evangelicals and pro-lifers found Mr. Romney unacceptable yet are willing to bring the scourge of abortion into the Republican platform with Trump. I humbly submit that this long-term damage to the only viable pro-life party in America is a serious moral consideration. Being left without a party to vote for if both parties start promoting abortion is to concede the potential loss of political recovery in our nation.

That evangelicals and pro-lifers support Trump after such promises shows that the decline in our nation’s moral culture is not something from which these so-called leaders are immune.

But Trump has said more. He has stated repeatedly that Planned Parenthood does great things for women, “… Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for many, many—millions of women…” On another occasion Trump the “great pro-lifer” had this to say: “ You can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood who are helped greatly…”

Yes, he claims he will defund Planned Parenthood because of abortion, but let’s wake up: Planned Parenthood is about nothing but abortion. Federal funds are already forbidden to be used for the direct killing of the unborn so Trump simply needs to keep the status quo to satisfy his “promise” of defunding abortion.

Some have stated that the important thing is to exert pressure on Donald Trump. But it is not believable to think these leaders exert real influence on Trump. Their good intentions also fail to recognize that Trump’s real advisors are 180 degrees away from being Christian, ethical, or pro-life.

Trump’s Real Pals

Who is Donald Trump actually listening to? Two of his closest advisors are Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. Roger Stone is a notorious swinger. He and his wife regularly swap partners for sexual activities at swing clubs in Miami. Stone has admitted having put ads in swing club magazines soliciting partners for him and his wife. He proclaims often and proudly that, he is “a libertine.”

Paul Manafort has been involved for years supporting dictators like Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych whom Vladimir Putin put in place as Ukrainian President during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He was also involved as the lobbyist for a spy ring of Pakistanis that was eventually taken down by the FBI. Manafort is currently the chairman of the Trump campaign.

More than 900 evangelical leaders met with Donald Trump in New York on June 26th for a so-called “Conversation with Donald Trump.” I was also invited and observed as Trump pandered to the crowd about religious freedom and how important it was for him to meet with these leaders. They didn’t seem to notice when he kept referring to Christianity as “your religion…”

Many are enthusiastic about the list of potential Supreme Court justices, which the Federalist Society put together but they forget to mention that in New York, Trump also mentioned that besides the list he now uses to bolster his “conservative” credentials, there were five more names which he was also considering. Names which, he would disclose at a later date, of course.

To his credit, Princeton professor Robert P. George declined to participate in the New York extravaganza and he issued the following explanation: “I have been a severe critic of Mr. Trump and there is nothing he could say at a meeting in which he is courting conservatives that would alter my low opinion of him… For those of us who believe in limited government, the Rule of Law, flourishing institutions of civil society, and traditional Judeo-Christian moral principles, and who believe that our leaders must be persons of integrity and good character, this election is presenting a horrible choice.”

Cyanide vs. Arsenic?

One political operative at present advising the Trump campaign, reasonably agreed with me that Hillary is cyanide and Trump is arsenic. He further accepted all charges that Trump is a con artist, ignorant on all sorts of subjects, and morally corrupt, and yet proceeded to send me articles attempting to show that cyanide was a bit less poisonous than arsenic. This is what we have come to.

Trump’s successful courtship of American pro-life leaders shows the true colors of many of these leaders and reveals the fundamental reason why our nation is in trouble: There is little moral or intellectual leadership in America these days. These “leaders” fail to see that rational human beings have the third option—not to take any poison and certainly not to offer it to their children. It is possible to engage in the Senate and House races and to prepare a cultural and political opposition to both Clinton and Trump.

What We Are Called to Do

Christians and pro-lifers are called to cease accommodating the world and its invasion of corrupt morals into our society, our religious communities, and our politics. This slow death by a thousand wounds will continue as long as we are lacking true intellectual and moral clarity. Not casting a vote under such circumstances is perfectly reasonable and it is an absurdity of logic to claim that this is unethical or theologically unsound. We are not responsible for the ultimate direction the American population may decide to take.

It is also shortsighted and pessimistic to think all is lost, even in such dark times. Politics may go terribly wrong in our culture as it did in many nations in the 20th century. What saved those nations and restored them were leaders who would not accommodate to the corrupt and immoral politicians of their time. People like Lech Walesa in Poland, Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic, Mart Laar in Estonia, Pope John Paul II, and many others, resisted the temptation of easy compromises. Eventually, when a better day came, these leaders were instrumental in restoring their nations after years of darkness. I have known all these men personally and Trump is a Lilliputian in comparison.

Almost any candidate could beat Hillary Clinton with the possible exception of Donald Trump. The Republican leadership cannot, or does not, see this. Nor do they see that Trump is wholly unfit to rule, and as I have argued, is likely in great need of a psychological evaluation. I argue that the delegates should be given a free vote in conscience and declare Trump mentally, morally and intellectually unfit to serve as president and cast a vote for a more suitable candidate.

In my view, Trump is not the remnant of the forces of civilization. Trump is what happens when civilization starts to breakdown. The barbarian arriving to rule the civilized world is what he so transparently embodies.

The failures of the GOP establishment, the opportunistic pro-life supporters of Trump, and Trump himself, are not the fault of those who wisely refuse to pick their poison. Suicide pacts are immoral. Those leaders supporting Trump need a nudge from their constituencies to remind them why they are in the pro-life fight to begin with. Candidates supporting Planned Parenthood and promising to bring abortion into the Republican Party are a morally impossible choice for true pro-lifers.

Get AQ Email Updates

26 comments on “Donald Trump the False Compromise of the Pro Life Community

  1. [To be “fair and balanced”]

    Hillary Clinton Paves the Way For Easy Treason Against America

    Fr. Marcel Guarnizo | Posted: Jul 07, 2016

    With each passing news day, the scandal deepens around Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized removal of U.S. secrets during her tenure as Secretary of State.

    The process of this unauthorized extraction of U.S. secrets by Mrs. Clinton makes one thing impossibly clear. This conspiracy was anything but convenient to Mrs. Clinton. Contrary to what she disingenuously claimed, convenience was most definitely not the reason for her actions. To remove top secret information and hundreds of other classified documents from the government’s care, she had to risk jail and even get others to collude in this process.

    For nearly eight months, I observe that the most important question is still not being asked of Hillary Clinton and her partisans. Why was Clinton doing this?

    As anyone knows it is impossible for Hillary Clinton to end up with a colossal stash of U.S. national secrets on her personal server by accident. She could not simply email herself most of this information. She had to engage others to do that which put them at obvious risk of breaking the espionage act and ending up in jail. It is absurd that the F.B.I. director Comey and several pundits continue to give her a pass on the absolutely bogus and irrational excuse that it was all done for the sake of convenience.

    The real question is why was Hillary Clinton doing this? Here is one theory: She was trafficking in U.S. National Security secrets for personal gain, money. She was also making this information available to Bill Clinton and The Clinton Foundation people. Their information being extremely valuable to intelligence services and private corporations was being rewarded through contributions to The Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation essentially was being used to launder payments for influence and information under the guise of a legitimate charitable purpose.

    The Clinton National Security Scandal is a more accurate name for what is occurring than the cynical euphemism, “ The Clinton E-mail scandal.” E-mail scandals are a dime a dozen.

    Her unprecedented actions are materially no different than the actions of any person (formally charged for espionage) who provides or makes available secrets of the highest caliber to a host of “contributors.”

    It matters little, that someone trafficking in U.S. secrets may not have been enlisted formally by a foreign government. Trafficking in U.S. National security secrets is exactly what these notorious spies were doing and in this regard it is becoming apparently clear, that Clinton’s actions are really all that any mole or spy would have to do to sell or profit from revealing U.S. secrets.

    Allegedly, the Clinton breach also contained names of our human assets and their methods, endangering thus their lives and indeed making available by her actions the most coveted information sought by foreign intelligence services.

    Selling Secrets in the Age of Cyber Space

    From a philosophical point of view, the essence of spying and treason (trafficking in U.S. National Security secrets) requires that fundamentally two necessary actions take place:

    1. The spy or traitor has to accomplish the removal in an unauthorized manner of sensitive information, classified information, or, even graver, top secret information, from its rightful owner, namely the U.S. government. Indeed Clinton had authority to read the information–she had access. But she certainly did not have the authority to remove top secret information and put it on an unsecured server, or allow others not authorized, access to U.S. National secrets.

    Stealing information, or removing the information from its proper owner (The U.S. government) without proper authorization is half of the operation required for a mole to betray secrets.

    Most information mercenaries and spies have licit access to the information, but they certainly do not have permission to remove it or make it their own and certainly they are not allowed to put it on an unsecured servers where the enemies of America can come and collect the information.

    2. The second necessary action for a person profiteering in U.S. intelligence secrets is to manage to make available the illicitly gathered secrets in her possession to foreign intelligence services and other entities or individuals that are seeking this information. The individual must carry out the actual transfer of the information (or make it possible for others to collect that information) or simply talk about it with interested parties.

    But notice that step number two—making the classified information available to our enemies or to unauthorized institutions or individuals—is one of the very risky aspects of profiteering from information or worse, betraying one’s nation. Having to make a dead drop, meet the counter intelligence officer, leaving signals, and even communicating with one’s handlers—each consists of a physical action that enormously increases the risk of capture for the traitor. Many a spy has been caught delivering or collecting a drop.

    The act of transmitting or making available the information is always a very high-risk operation. But in the age of cyberspace possibilities, step #2, the physical dead drop of information, is no longer necessary.

    In fact today, an information mercenary does not actually have to incriminate herself or take enormous risks by actually delivering top secret materials to unauthorized parties. She simply can make it available on an unsecure personal server in her own house or elsewhere and the foreign intelligence services will come and hack or access the unsecured server in the shadows of cyber anonymity in order to collect the cyber drop.

    This cyber drop is all that is needed to complete the transaction. The cyber drop of classified information into an unsecured server is analogous to the physical drop previously needed or carried out in a remote or secret location. A cyber drop (placing secrets in an unsecured server) is the totality of what a treasonous dead drop would consist of today for a mole. In fact the receiving party to the treasonous information does not even need to take the information with him. He simply copies it, or reads it. In fact they do not even need to hack the personal server as the individual putting classified and top-secret information on that server can also give them a password so they can access the information.

    Clinton the Perfect Subject for Blackmail from Our Enemies

    This possibility is so serious that it is amazing Clinton is still running for president and indeed laughing the matter off. That Hillary Clinton and apparently her assistants still hold security clearances is beyond comprehension.

    But there is more. What will happen if Clinton is elected president of the U.S. and she flies over for a meeting with say, Vladimir Putin and upon arrival she is informed privately that the Russians have her emails. This, if made public, would be her political undoing and most likely secure jail time. Since Clinton will cover up this fact, she will clearly thereafter be in their pocket; they will own her. Clinton not only has apparently done the unthinkable but she is at present regardless of other considerations, the likely subject for blackmail.

    If consequences of Mrs. Clinton’s actions, as director Comey seems to think, are not necessary, then what spy worth his mettle would not be prepared to suffer this to achieve his ends by doing exactly what Mrs. Clinton has done? If the Secretary of State can get away with something that materially does not differ from actual spying, why would not any lawyer defending a spy that used the Clinton methodology to sell or reveal U.S. secrets, not argue that his client should not be punished to any greater extent than Mrs. Clinton? If to take classified information and place it on an unsecured server is all that a spy needs to do to complete a dead drop, how are Mrs. Clinton’s actions not creating a lethal precedent in our security apparatus?

    But the erasing of tracks could go further. Once the private server of a potential spy has classified materials on it, it certainly becomes government property. But what if a suspect is so brazen that after being forced to turn over the server returns it blank? This is like trying to dispose of evidence when being chased by the police. Clinton had her personal server wiped (not with a cloth). Why?

    The Disappearing Money Trail

    The astonishing leeway thus far given to Mrs. Clinton while Secretary of State has in another way cleared the path for covert operations of moles and traitors within our government and security agencies.

    Why would a mole not simply establish a foundation claiming a charitable purpose and receive remuneration for his services through this establishment? It need not even be a formal arrangement with a foreign government to sell secrets. One side simply provides information on an unsecured personal server or talks about it at fundraising meetings of his foundation and the foreign interested parties keep on giving “gifts” to the foundation to keep the relationship with these mercenaries going.

    As long as they keep on donating money to the foundation, the flow of information continues. The risks are minimized in every way. Apparently, Bill Clinton and the Clinton foundation also had access to much of this information. Why?

    I am stating here that any traitor or mole can now reproduce exactly what Mrs. Clinton has done and successfully spy against the United States. If Mrs. Clinton walks away with minor or no consequences, it is quite probable that real traitors will follow her steps, and their lawyers will place Clinton’s actions at the center of their lines of defense. Mrs. Clinton has therefore laid the perfect path for espionage from within our own governmental structures.

    And that being the case, should a presidential candidate potentially trafficking in U.S. secrets and likely subject to blackmail be seeking the highest office in the land?

    Foreign intelligence services are undoubtedly paying close attention to the consequences of Mrs. Clinton’s alleged breach of law and protocol. And it is reasonable to believe that if this method proves to be a low opportunity cost way to spy, then many a mole will simply follow the path now laid before us by Mrs. Clinton.

  2. One reason Planned Parenthood has not been defunded, even in the aftermath of expose videos about their real stock and trade, is because Republican politicians *DESPITE THE GOP PARTY PLATFORM* are all on board with artificial birth control.

    Look at Ted Cruz’s interview with ABC wherein he extolled the benefits of birth control and stated quite clearly that bc was perfectly in line with the thinking of conservatives. Even himself as he is so glad that Heidi and he have only 2 children instead of 17.

    Sorry, but birth control IS provided by Planned Parenthood. These are the services, despite them being little more than seed planting efforts to reap the profit off of abortion, are what is being extolled as good. And those GOP candidates who refuse to speak to that when stumping for office are the true deceivers. For they feign upholding the party platform while openly advocating the entre to abortion. Contraception.

    Trump just said it openly and tagged PP as offering as much. Sorry, but the leading the evangelical sheep to the desired pen under the banner of defunding abortion is too often just a predictable rally card to elicit votes while all-the-while promoting the roots of abortion. Roots that will regrow the menace despite a moment’s green lawn.

    Please don’t fall for tossing away a vote for the basics. Our liberty is on the line. And while there are those who would paint Donald Trump as vile and unacceptable, the alternative is Hillary Clinton who openly stated that CHURCHES must be made to change their position on abortion, etc.

    THAT’s dangerous. THAT’s signing right on board to zero chance at all.

  3. “….Almost any candidate could beat Hillary Clinton with the possible exception of Donald Trump. The Republican leadership cannot, or does not, see this. Nor do they see that Trump is wholly unfit to rule, and as I have argued, is likely in great need of a psychological evaluation. I argue that the delegates should be given a free vote in conscience and declare Trump mentally, morally and intellectually unfit to serve as president and cast a vote for a more suitable candidate.”

    This is utter hogwash as the GOP does see what’s wrong with Trump. What’s wrong with Trump is that he is actually naming problems. THAT is precisely the lame-duck , what-is-wrong-with-you that the GOP fears. The reason is because a great many are compromised as they play the necessary game to keep their jobs under the pretext of upholding the party platform – a party platform that doesn’t represent what they actually believe, but what they have believed is necessary to “say” in order to garner your vote, Father.

    The border has been an open wound for decades. The issue of national security more of a joke and a stumping point – not something to be solved. Same thing for defunding Planned Parenthood. Poverty is only increased when our own suffering are ignored so that we can appear great on the world stage by taking in countless others, many of which are being shipped into this country with a mind to destablize us.

    IF Trump is the narcissist that so many believe him to be – GOOD. Most world leaders are. Those who believe in the benevolence of their leaders are living a pipe dream propped up by news media and their own idealism. The reality is those with a lofty senses of self worth and their own ability are precisely the ones who run for office. It is, in part, that ego that tends to help some make good decisions because they don’t want to be perceived of as ineffective.

    Obama, contrary to what many believe, is, in my view, covered over with his own idea that he is meeting the dictates of his agenda. An agenda that is NOT in line with protecting the United States or her people, but rather that of delivering us over to those who chose and groomed him for office.

    Again, stop promoting the ridiculous of Catholics throwing away their votes. We have a duty to our country, if only to take care of our citizens, our neighbors right next door. We may not deserve a leader who will help us in the effort to clean the blood off of our hands, but we will still have our hands under Trump. Not so with Clinton who has spoken very clearly of cutting off religious anything. To include Father’s right to free speech.

    Good grief.

    It is precisely EGO that leads many a Christian to believe it is principled to throw away the freedom of their vote. Something purchased for them by the BLOOD of others. Others they forget because of the rampant shedding of blood that continues today. But one must do what one can. Not feign principle by pulling back from the cross of getting one’s hands dirty when the tool on the table is not the pristine one that “we” would have liked.

    Sorry, Father. Moms, Dads, kids, we all need to fight for this country that God has given us. With that which God has provided we should make use of.

    • Ego? I never voted for Dubya Bush. I threw it to providence. I feel vindicated — Bush is about as bad a pres as we’ve ever had.

      I can’t see sitting this election out. I don’t trust Trump. He has vile character traits. Only a few folks are worse, and HRC is obviously one of them.

  4. What’s with Fr. G? We’ve been told for 24 years now that “conservatives” vote for pro-aborts as the lesser of two evils: Bush, Bush, Romney, McCain, etc etc. Trump’s the least on this issue, i.e., he’s not rabid like HRC, and is willing to say he’s opposed to abortion. The main difference with HRC is the next tier of homicide, the end-of-life, take-the-pill approach of ObamaCare and HRC. Death panels. Trump is likely to remove the draconian rules which would free folks to determine their own end. This issue alone is enough reason to vote DJT. Why can’t Father see that?

  5. I think much of what he says about Trump is likely true. Anybody who thinks we’re going to make meaningful gains to support the culture of life and family with a Trump presidency is delusional.

    That’s not to say that his ‘conclusions’ are the only allowable Catholic ones. A vote for Trump, while I do not plan to do it, certainly is allowable and not a mortal sin. Fr. also needs to recognize that the innate flaws in Americanism are going to militate against any actions on behalf of social truth teachings. The deck was always stacked against us, it’s just that the set of dealers we have had to cope with gets longer and longer, and our position correspondingly gets weaker and weaker.

    My advice for Fr.: don’t be so concerned about how bad Trump may be nor the Prot heretical sell-outs. Work to restored the Church; then the Church can try to redeem the country.

    • You’re right about no “meaningful gains to support the culture of life.” The issue is the next killing field which has already begun, i.e., end-of-life, death with dignity. Gov’t death panels. There’s a good chance that DJT will end ObamaCare which will end the death panels. No, it won’t promote a culture of life, as folks will still want suicide, but it will prevent the gov’t from killing us.

  6. The reality of the situation is that the choice is not between Trump and Mother Teresa (or King Louis IX of the Capetian Dynasty). It is between Trump and Hillary Clinton. If there were a realistic possibility of a majority of American voters being interested in embracing Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life and the Social Kingship of Christ, we might have the luxury of documenting and analyzing the weaknesses, deficiencies, vulgarities, and character flaws of a thrice-married Presbyterian casino owner from Queens. For now, that will have to wait until Hillary and her Saul Alinsky totalitarianism are safely returned to private life in Chappaqua or whatever lair she will occupy.

    The numbers are not there for American voters to embrace and adopt the Catholic teachings on these issues. The modernists in the USCCB seem utterly uninterested even in restoring Catholic identity on the Catholic property of Catholic colleges and universities. Civilization is declining and will disappear in Europe in the next few decades. It won’t be pretty. Everyone should start considering their options and talking about it.

  7. [A neo-con channels William F. Buckley, whom he claims would support Hillary over The Donald as the real conservative in the race!]

    Why William F. Buckley Would Vote For Hillary Clinton

    Hillary Clinton is more conservative than Donald Trump. Yes, really.

    By Robert Zubrin:

    Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Energy of Lakewood, Colorado, chairman of the American Mars Society, and author of The Case for Mars (a multi-trillion dollar project to establish and sustain a colony on Mars).

    JULY 15, 2016

    National Review founder William F. Buckley long argued conservatives should support the most conservative electable candidate. Unless the underdog delegate revolt at the Republican National Convention is successful, the only two electable candidates for president this year will be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

    One suspects Buckley would have found neither of these particularly attractive. Yet according to his pragmatic criterion, he would have to choose one or the other. Neither may be considered a conservative in any absolute sense, but clearly, since they do differ in many respects, one must be the more conservative of the two.

    So who is the most conservative electable candidate: Hillary or Trump? To answer this question properly, it is necessary to focus on the most important issues. The preamble to the Constitution mentions preserving the union, establishing justice, providing for national defense, promoting economic prosperity, and preserving liberty as the central purposes of the U.S. government. To these primary areas I would add fiscal competence as a central area of concern, as unless the government is financially sound, it will not be able to discharge its responsibilities regarding any of its other identified purposes.

    Neither candidate has a problem with preserving the union, so in that respect, they are both equally acceptable. Regarding national defense and the economy, the case is rather different.

    Key Elements of the Postwar World

    The postwar peace and prosperity that the United States and the West more generally have enjoyed since the end of World War II occurred because a very serious and smart group of men realized that, if the fruits of the hard-won victory were not to turn rotten again, the flaws in the world system that had led to the global conflagration needed to be corrected.

    So they created two critical institutions. The first was the Western alliance, later formalized as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to provide for collective security of the democratic world and thereby decisively deter any future totalitarian aggression. The second was a system of international free trade, formalized as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, later renamed the World Trade Organization), to enable global economic recovery and prosperity, thereby ensuring the continued stability and growing strength of the democracies themselves.

    The creators of the postwar order built on the basis of hard-won knowledge. Free trade is necessary for economic prosperity for the same reason that long-distance transport is. By blocking trade, tariffs do as much harm to the world economy as would be done by sinking most of the world’s merchant ships. Thus it was the trade war, initiated by the U.S. Smoot-Hawley tariff bill and similar measures foreign governments took that made the Great Depression great.

    The creators learned from this. Similarly, they also learned from the debacle of the 1930s what happens when democracies abandon their collective security arrangements and allow tyrants to start picking off weaker members one at a time. So they put in place something called the Free World, within which enterprise and trade could prosper, without fear of either excessive intergovernmental interference or external attack.

    The result was the greatest period of economic growth the world has ever seen. America was transformed from poverty-riddled depression America to suburbia America, with a vast middle class owning homes, cars, and televisions and sending their children to college. Europe and Japan were completely rebuilt, with South Korea, Taiwan, and numerous other previously undeveloped countries lifting themselves out of hunger and desperation. Furthermore, despite the continued existence of two very dangerous totalitarian potential adversaries, the general peace was preserved.

    Both Hate Liberty, But Hillary Is More Stable

    As a result of this profound success, whatever the differences between the two major parties may have been on other issues, these two fundamental bedrock principles underlying the creation and continuation of the post-1945 world order have remained uncontroversial among serious political leaders for the seven decades ever since.

    While deviating a bit from support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which in fact she wrote) to deal with the Sanders insurgency in the Democratic primaries, there is little question that in general Clinton supports the postwar consensus on both international trade and the Western alliance. In sharp contrast, Trump has been a sharp critic of both. Indeed, support for protectionist trade war is a central plank of the Trump campaign, while his readiness to gut NATO and America’s Asian alliances has earned Trump the enthusiastic endorsement of the Kremlin and the North Korean government.

    With respect to preserving liberty, both candidates are severely defective. The Democratic platform includes support for politically prosecuting those denying the party line on climate change. In addition to being an attack on political freedom, this is also an assault on science, whose progress requires settling debate with reason, rather than force. Trump, on the other hand, advocates a change in law to allow government officials to sue the press or other members of the public who speak ill of them. Such a proposal would effectively end freedom of speech and of the press in the United States.

    So, on the issue of liberty, they are both terrible, but Trump is worse, as his policy would end freedom of speech with respect to all controversial political issues, whereas Hillary would only destroy it regarding one. Furthermore, while Hillary is unquestionably an advocate of big government, Trump appears to support a concept of unlimited government, unconstrained in its reach, arbitrary in its discretion, and, under the sole authority of the White House, able to act independently of the Constitution and statute law.

    We Can Do Better

    As to the establishment of justice, neither candidate is particularly attractive. Rather, they both have repeatedly engaged in activities that would almost certainly have landed less influential individuals in prison for a very long time. However, there is a difference. While both have cheated, Trump has publicly attacked and made threats against the judge in the class-action law suit launched against him by thousands of Americans whose life savings he allegedly bilked. This is an assault on the legal system itself.

    Trump has also expressed admiration for foreign dictators convicted of war crimes, and has promised that as president, he would adopt similar methods, and impose punishments of U.S. military personnel who refused to engage in criminal activity at his behest. Furthermore, Trump has used demagoguery to assemble a large group of agitated supporters whom he has encouraged to engage in extralegal actions including boycotts of corporations, physical violence against left-wingers, and threats of violence against Republican opponents. Such techniques for achieving political objectives are not compatible with the rule of law.

    Finally, according to experts who have examined the proposed budgets of both candidates, by the end of their second terms, Clinton’s program would increase the national debt of $250 billion, whereas Trump would nearly double it by adding another $10 trillion to the nation’s debt burden. In short, on a basis of a comparison of these two candidates regarding their handling of defense, the economy, the defense of liberty, the maintenance of justice, and the nation’s treasury, as incredible as it may seem, William F. Buckley would have no choice but to vote for Clinton.

    Surely we can do better. Currently there is an effort to free the delegates to the Republican National Convention so they can have the opportunity to nominate a candidate more worthy than Trump. Let’s hope they succeed. America deserves a better choice.

  8. [Earlier another neo-con in the same rag invoked the Buckley rule (adding Alexander Hamilton to the mix) to support Hillary over The Donald as a means of saving the (neo-)Conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the Republic itself]

    I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

    The future of the entire conservative movement is at stake, and a Hillary Clinton victory over Donald Trump might be the only hope of saving it.

    By Tom Nichols

    Tom Nichols has good neo-con credentials as a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. He has been a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Relations, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In Washington, he served as personal staff for defense and security affairs in the United States Senate to the late Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania.

    FEBRUARY 24, 2016

    Donald Trump could end up being the Republican nominee, and the idea fills many conservatives (like me) with despair. By “conservatives,” I mean actual conservatives, the people who believe in limited government, a strong national defense, American federalism, and who reject the nanny state in all of its smothering incarnations. Put another way, I mean: people who are not liberals, like Donald Trump.

    Star-struck, low-information celebrity cultists will vote for Trump under any circumstances because they do not know any better and do not care. For them, Trump is whatever they want him to be, and they will never change their minds. The rest of us, however, have a much more difficult choice to make. Will we really oppose Trump to the point of accepting any alternative, including Hillary Clinton?

    The answer, at least for me, is: Yes. If forced into a choice between Clinton and Trump, I will prefer Hillary Clinton. The future of the entire conservative movement is at stake, and a Clinton victory over Trump might be the only hope of saving it.

    The Hamilton Rule

    A few years ago, The Federalist’s publisher, Ben Domenech, suggested that conservatives consider dumping the “Buckley Rule,” the late William F. Buckley’s admonition always to choose the most conservative candidate who can win. As Ben pointed out, things have changed since Buckley first issued this advice, including that the elite determination of “who can win” is often flawed. The Buckley Rule, for example, might have led to supporting Charlie Crist—you may shudder at will—instead of Marco Rubio in the 2010 Florida Senate race.

    In its place, Ben raised the possibility of a “Hamilton Rule,” named after Alexander Hamilton. Although both were Federalists, Hamilton despised John Adams and his coterie among his own party to the point where he was willing to lose the election of 1800. “If we must have an enemy at the head of government,” Hamilton said in exasperation, “let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”

    In other words: Better to lose to a true enemy whose policies you can fight and repudiate, rather than to a false friend whose schemes will drag you down with him. This is a painful choice, but it also embraces realism while protecting the possibility of recovery in the future. The need to live to fight another day is why conservatives should adopt a Hamilton Rule if, God forbid, the choice comes down to Hillary and Trump.

    Hillary Clinton Is Despicable, But Trump Is Worse

    My hands almost could not type those words, because I think Hillary Clinton is one of the worst human beings in American politics. She has few principles that I can discern, other than her firm conviction that she deserves the Oval Office for enabling and then defending her sexually neurotic husband. She lies as easily as the rest of us breathe. She has compromised national security through sheer laziness at best, and corrupt intent at worst. If elected, she will enrich Wall Street and raid the public coffers while preaching hateful doctrines of identity politics to distract America’s poor and working classes.

    But Trump will be worse. Morally unmoored, emotionally unstable, a crony capitalist of the worst kind, Trump will be every bit as liberal as Hillary—perhaps more so, given his statements over the years. He is by reflex and instinct a New York Democrat whose formal party affiliation is negotiable, as is everything about him. He has little commitment to anything but himself and his “deals,” none of which will work in favor of conservatives or their priorities.

    His judicial appointments will likely be liberal friends from New York. His Great Wall of Mexico will never be built, and employers will go right on hiring cheap labor and outsourcing jobs, just as Trump does with his made-in-Mexico suits. His China Smoot-Hawley Tariff will never be implemented. His administration, led by a vulgar, aging man-child who is firmly pro-abortion, who jokes about having sex with his daughter, and brags about his wealth, will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable among us—including the unborn.

    Trump Will Tar Conservatives Forever

    Trump, of course, will dissemble and whine about all these eventual failures. His fans will excuse him, as they do now, but they have short attention spans and will vanish in later midterm elections and future presidential contests. His white nationalist supporters, clinging to him like lice in the fur of an angry chimp, will shake their fists along with him for a time, until they too eventually slink away. By 2020, his core constituency will be a tiny sliver of what’s left of the white working class, pathetically standing at the gates of empty factories they thought Trump would re-open.

    More to the point, after four years of thrashing around in the Oval Office like the ignorant boor he is, voters will no longer be able distinguish between the words “Trump,” “Republican,” “conservative,” and “buffoon.” He will obliterate Republicans further down the ticket in 2016 and 2020, smear conservatism as nothing more than his own brand of narcissism, and destroy decades of hard work, including Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

    Conservatives can recover from four, or even eight, years of Hillary Clinton. We might even flourish: remember, President Obama’s cult of personality—to which Trump’s mindless fan base bears more than a little resemblance—sacrificed more than 900 Democratic seats and a passel of governorships on its altar over the past seven years. President Obama won two elections and the Democratic Party lost hundreds. If Trump’s victory means this kind of “winning,” conservatives should want no part of it.

    Our Long-Awaited Goal Was Right There for Us

    In the end, a Trump administration will not only avert the first chance at unified Republican government in years, but will finish off the conservative movement itself. Indeed, it is a bitter irony that some of Trump’s blind followers are willing to declare defeat at the moment of impending victory, when a complete GOP takeover of all elected branches could finally overcome the obstruction of divided government. Trump’s voters are willing to “shake up the status quo”—whatever that means—by putting an ignoramus at the head of a party and a movement he’s actually trying to destroy.

    And destroy it he will. If Trump is at the top of the ticket, Republicans will likely lose the Senate, but that pales in comparison to the overall discrediting of conservatism that will follow. In pulling down the GOP, Trump will take conservatism with it, and enshrine 30 or 40 more years of liberal dominance, beginning with his own liberal administration.

    Again, cruel ironies will abound, as working-class whites in the Rust Belt and heartland who thought they were finally getting control of the government will find that a liberal coastal billionaire has actually frozen them out of it for the rest of their lifetimes, and maybe their children’s lifetimes, as well.

    All of this will happen merely because Trump has chosen to identify himself as a Republican as a matter of egotistical convenience this time around. Conservatives and Republicans should be having none of it, which is why I intend to observe the Hamilton Rule should all this come to pass. It is time to think beyond Trump’s possible election and to take steps to protect conservatism as a movement capable of opposing liberalism long after Trump is gone.

    It is precisely to protect the viability of the conservative movement that I will stand aside and accept that, if all else fails, Hillary must beat The Donald.

    • The future of the conservative movement was at stake when McCain and Romney ran lackluster RINO campaigns and when Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld tanked the Republican brand. Restarting the Conservative Movement will not be any more imperiled by returning Hillary to private life, far away from totalitarian control of the country. You will not be protecting conservatism by helping Hillary into the White House to destroy what’s left of this country.

    • If Trump is at the top of the ticket, Republicans will likely lose the Senate, but that pales in comparison to the overall discrediting of conservatism that will follow. In pulling down the GOP, Trump will take conservatism with it

      This is a riot! “Discrediting of conservatism!?” The GOP has spared no effort to discredit conservatism since 1988 when Lee Atwater opened the “big tent” to baby killers. The demise is, in part, due to Buckley’s mandate to choose the chimerical “electable” before the definable “conservative.”

      This Nichols guy, like all the #NeverTrump’ers are the very ones who have been feeding us RINOs for decades, and are now crying elephant tears over DJT! I smell dead fish — I think these guys are seeing their crony world of the Bushes, McCains, Romneys, and McConnells going up in smoke. All I can say is, GOOD RIDDANCE. By Nichols’ own argument, I’m glad to see the death of the GOPe, as it is the clandestine enemy of conservatism. As long as we play by their rules, we’ll have Bushes interleaved with Obamas and Clintons for the next Century.

      • When Jeb Bush and Romney give sermons on Conservatism, when Paul Ryan thinks the essence of conservatism is in Ayn Rand’s novels, when George Will and neocons say we need to preserve the purity of conservatism by electing Hillary and her Alinskyite minions, we better start work on rolling back Common Core, the abridged and socially-engineered A.P. History, and the rest of this absurd nonsense real fast.

        If there is a 100% pure conservative who could get elected, where is he and what happened to him? You really think that Hillary is preferable?
        What good will the profits for multinational corporate CEO’s from cheap slave labor be if middle-class Americans don’t have jobs empowering them to buy the products? “Oh, who cares about middle-class Americans having jobs if my stocks are doing OK…” That’s conservatism? On what planet? In what country?

        • It’s conservatism without middle-class Christian Americans. The conservatism of stock options and cheap foreign labor with jobless, abandoned towns, and FOR SALE signs everywhere but no buyers.

          • Exactly. It’s all deficit-funded wealth transfer from working folks to Wall Street, a practice begun under Reagan and accelerated ever since. Obama has all but guaranteed a depression by his reductio ad absurdum approach to Fed money printing and Wall-Street robbery of all middle-class savings. It’s taxation without representation, extolled by Dems but fully supported by RINOs. DJT might blow up their plans, and I’ll look forward to that. But it’s going to be a rough road paying off the $20 trillion that Bush-Obama have racked up. Let’s not let HRC add another $10 trillion.

            • Sir Cyprian, I hazard that she won’t stop until the national debt hits $ 70 trillion, Which just happens to be a reasonable estimate of the entire net worth generated by all the nations on this planet.

      • The Republican Party was gone a long time ago with Atwater’s “big tent” policy. But it’s gone further over the cliff with a standing ovation tonight for a sodomite:

        PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel steals the show at RNC Convention. Thiel came out as gay and the RNC gave him a STANDING OVATION!

        From the “conservative” website run by delighted homo Jim Hoft:

        Likewise, this week Breitbart News trotted around their pet faggot, Milo, to upset the libs. Hey, if a sod is OK with us, we’re OK with him, right? Who are we to judge.

        The Donald is not a friend of ours, and the Republicans are now adrift on a new adventure. Eventually, they’ll be OK with men in the ladies room (observe Republican gov Baker in MA signing the bill), and fining Christians for noncompliance with fag demands (Pence backtracking). It can only be worse with Hillary, of course. But we’ll see where our country is in a few years.

        • “Fake culture wars”: social conservatives no longer welcome (help me Pence)?

          Drudge (one of them, too?) features prominent headlines atop column 3:

          THIEL: Fake Culture Wars Only Distract Us From Our Economic Decline…


          • Donald Trump probably knows very well that the LGBTQ community makes a good customer base. After all, they have lots of disposable income, since they are not raising children like “normal” people. But will Trump ever figure out that sterile lifestyles produce short-term prosperity, but long-term decadence; indeed the death of a civilization?

            • Figure? What’s to figure?

              Come on baby, gimme 7’s, Melania give me luck, come on baby, Daddy’s gonna rule the world … lucky 7’s!!!! Convention sweep!! They drank it. They love me, baby!

              Now, where were we? Oh yeah, Corrupt Hillary. Back on the shtick. Here we go!

            • There’s a strange one in the jungle
              And I think I hear him calling my name
              There’s a strange one in the jungle
              And he’s offering death without pain

              Freshen up, freshen up, freshen up

              There’s a strange one in Cleveland
              And he says that death need not hurt
              There’s a strange one in Cleveland
              He’s got something to quench your thirst

              Freshen up, freshen up, freshen up

              Freshen up, freshen up, freshen up

              Guyana punch, uh-oh, uh-oh-oh

  9. The flaw in that kind of absurd argument concerns the Supreme Court appointments a President Hillary would make. The Trump policies that some conservatives take issue with could be blocked by Congress or moderated by the persuasion of Trump administration advisers. Hillary’s Supreme Court appointees could do tremendous damage to the country for decades to come without any recourse. As would the barbarians she would allow into the country without screening or vetting with crazy open borders policies and liberal multiculturalism.

    If some conservatives or establishment RINO Republicans are worried about the “vulgarity” of Trump’s Queens, New York, bravado and bombast, perhaps they should think more about the vulgarity, immorality, and totalitarianism of Hillary’s likely Supreme Court appointments and what they would do to what’s left of American culture. Bloviate about Trump’s vulgarity and flaws AFTER Hillary is sent back to private life, safely away from the reins of power in Washington. If George Will’s Trump Derangement Syndrome has him serisouly thinking a Hillary Clinton Imperial Presidency would be preferable, he should donate his brain to science to find out what might be going on in there.

  10. How much money does Hillary plan to borrow from China to battle globull warming? Hmmmm….

  11. The Donald’s final message to us came blaring through the loudspeakers. It was the Stones, but not Fred and Barney. I would have preferred Guyana Punch.
    (BTW, if anyone knows what this song means, well, actually, I don’t want to know.)

    You Can’t Always Get What You Want
    Rolling Stones (Richards, Jagger)

    I saw her today at the reception
    A glass of wine in her hand
    I knew she would meet her connection
    At her feet was her footloose man

    No, you can’t always get what you want
    You can’t always get what you want
    You can’t always get what you want
    But if you try sometime you find
    You get what you need

    We went down to the demonstration
    To get your fair share of abuse
    Singing, “We’re gonna vent our frustration
    If we don’t we’re gonna blow a fifty-amp fuse”

    You can’t always get what you want
    You can’t always get what you want
    You can’t always get what you want
    But if you try sometimes well you just might find
    You get what you need

    I saw her today at the reception
    In her glass was a bleeding man
    She was practiced at the art of deception
    Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

    You can’t always get what you want

  12. The theme song for the Democrats’ convention will be “Sympathy for the Devil”, complete with Saul Alinsky’s dedication to Lucifer in Rules for Radicals. It is quite strange how they try to explain that away with nervous laughter. Hillary’s cackling demon laugh is a bit worrisome.

Leave a Reply