In a recent column cautioning against Donald Trump’s specious claim to be a “conservative,” I once again noted my conclusion that real conservatives should
… reject, out of hand, whichever candidate the elitist faction sham sends forth to beguile us into surrendering… . Donald Trump is such a candidate. So in fact are all the men and woman who have “made their bones” in either of the elitist gangs now masquerading as opposing political parties.
As invariably happens, someone who supports one or another of the gaggle of contenders for the GOP’s presidential nomination objects to this blanket rejection, contending that the candidate they favor is obviously an exception.
I used the phrase “made their bones” to anticipate this objection. In gangster culture this phrase refers to a fatally compromising violation of the laws of God and men (usually some act of murder) by which a gang member establishes the fact that their loyalty to the gang and its leader or code is irreversible. In the context of the elitist faction’s agenda to overthrow our constitutional self-government, this has a rough equivalent when it comes to candidates for the GOP’s presidential nomination. No one is allowed into the field who is not committed to contradicting the GOP platform with at least one stand fatal to the republican form of government which, in Article IV.4, the U.S. Constitution explicitly requires the U.S. Government to guarantee.
In this respect the GOP is a bad tree. I have it on good authority that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Of course, on account of God’s special endowment of our nature, human beings can choose the tree to which we belong. If we choose to hang ourselves from a bad tree, no mob is to blame for the perception that we are bad fruit. If we make the choice from ignorance, or because we have been taken in by false appearances, we may be excused, but only until the bad experiences generated by the error leave us without excuses.
The GOP masquerades as a party for people who have true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, and the logic of the Declaration of Independence from which its provisions take root. Because its words acknowledge God as the sovereign authority for right and justice, the Declaration is good seed. By their subsequent choices at critical junctures in our nation’s history, the people of the United States have verified, time and again, that a good tree has taken root from it. Indeed, they endured momentous trials to prove that they were, on the whole, a people governed by God’s authority, from whose consent just powers of government are derived.
But like the purity of a flowing stream, the character of a people is subject to constant vicissitudes. Its integrity can only be maintained by constant trials, during which its current condition runs through the screening process set up as part of its political constitution. Thus it is tested against the standard of its condition at the high source from which it arose. According to America’s republican form of government, the Constitution provides for elections of and by the people. The integrity of our tree of liberty will be maintained only if those elections produce results that discard the gross impurities that degrade and must ultimately destroy it.
Though people are not always conscious of it, we constantly allude to this function when we talk about elections. The etymology of the word “candidate,” for example, is “from Latin candidum ‘white, pure; sincere, honest, upright,’ from candere ‘to shine’… (see candle).” Contrary to the corrupting dogma purveyed by elitist faction academics since the 1950’s, elections are not supposed to be about pandering to the self-gratifying passions. It is about the sovereign’s duty to serve the common good. This is particularly true in the American Republic, where the sovereign act of ordaining the Constitution is proclaimed by the voice of the people. The body of the citizens (the body politic) is the human sovereign’s body. At every level of government, the voters perform an office vital to the formation and expression of the sovereign’s will.
But the sovereign’s duty is to the whole. As a voting member of the sovereign body of the people each individual voter’s duty is to the common good, not to his or her own selfish interests. In the proper sense of the term, candidates are supposed to be competing to represent the citizens in their commitment to do that duty. But how can service to the common good be understood or discussed without regard to a standard of good that gives and takes account of the nature and integrity of the whole, i.e., the common possession of the people, (from which the name republic, from the Latin res publica, derives its meaning).
Nothing about the elitist faction’s sham political process respects, or even takes account of this office, which every voter is obliged to carry out. Candidacy is predicated on selfish ambition. Voters are mobilized on the basis of selfish fears and interests. The only considerations that even approach the concept of the common good are those which have to do with national security. But even that term is understood without regard to the common commitment to do (exercise) right that is the practical foundation of the American people’s claim to sovereign office.
It’s telling that the first question posed to the GOP candidates during their mock-up of a debate was about their allegiance to the GOP. As if party loyalty can ever be the most important consideration for a candidate for president of the United States, much less during a time when Barack Obama’s administration represents, at the highest level, the most overt threat to constitutional self-government in the history of the United States.
All the candidates avowed their intention to support the party’s nominee except for Donald Trump. This goes to prove my contention that all of them are subject to the understanding of politics, corrupt and corrupting, that drives the elitist faction’s agenda. Only Donald Trump refused to rule out a so-called “third party” run in the general election. Only Donald Trump ostensibly refused to put loyalty to the elitist faction’s sham party system above loyalty to the Constitution and people of the United States. But that’s because, by choosing to involve himself in the GOP primary process, he has already done so.
Here is a man who boasts of being able to fund his campaign out of his own resources. If, with even a modicum of good intelligence, he devoted those resources to mobilizing voters in the general election, he could make himself the focal point of a movement to restore the political basis for truly representative government in the United States. Instead he chose a course calculated to induce GOP voters, decisively disappointed and angered by the GOP quislings’ continual betrayals, to remain in the GOP’s rigged casino for one more throw of the electoral dice. Yet his past and present stands on more than one “fatal flaw” issue correspond in substance to the quislings’ betrayals.
Trump’s run doesn’t offer true representation to the frustrated people whose votes he seeks to exploit. It does not even best serve his own declared ambition to be president. (In present circumstances, his personal ambition would be better served by concentrating all his own resources on the General Election.) It serves only to make sure that no determined effort, by and among the people themselves, interferes with the elitist faction’s stranglehold on the political process before the liberty of the American people can be done to death, finally, irrevocably, once and for all.