Why I Am a Christian

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Why I Would Have Voted for Trump If I Were an American

     Watching from the other side of the Pacific, I see that my long held predictions about the United States have at last come true: the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum. It is not so much who won the election, but the fact that it was a choice between the two worst candidates. As one of our commentators put it, it was between "a vulgar and undisciplined popularist and a morally compromised machine politician". Another put it more succinctly: between the mad and the bad. (And Sanders wasn't so great, either.) No, I wasn't surprised at the Trump win. I need only refer to the prediction given by Wayne Root, but other commentators from both the left and the right had made the same point: when voting is non-compulsory, the really important factor is the enthusiasm of the candidate's followers. As an outsider, I am not going to talk about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the insecure laptop, or Wikileaks. Nor am I going to praise Trump's virtues because, basically, I can't think of any. Indeed, if it were my country, I would be really be concerned about a loose cannon rolling around the corridors of power. Nevertheless, I had been hoping - nay, praying - for a Trump triumph, for two good reasons.
     America now stands at the crossroads. There are two issues which must be settled during this incumbency, and they will determine the course of America for a long time to come. And with both of them, Trump may not keep his promises, but Clinton definitely would have.

     (1) The first is finding a replacement for Antonin Scalia in the Supreme Court. The United States is a defective democracy in which the most important laws are made, not by the people's elected representatives, but by a handful of unelected judges. It wasn't intended to be that way, but over the last 70 or 80 years the Supreme Court has usurped the authority of the legislature, and its judges have been making decisions, not on the wording of the Constitution, or the intentions of the writers, but according to their own political and social opinions. And it has become increasingly clear that they are completely immoral.
    We can start with Engel v Vitale, banning prayer in public schools, which became the foundation stone of the campaign to remove religion in general, and Christianity in particular, from the public arena. To be sure, it was possible to make the case that this was a valid interpretation of the Constitution. Considering the common practices of previous centuries, and the known opinions of the founders (scroll down here), it was not a good case. Also, when a judge has discretion, he must choose the interpretation which supports right and virtue over wrong. But at least the case could be made. However, in the following decades they advanced to decisions which could not, by even the most imaginative mental gymnastics, be found in the words of the Constitution, and discovered fundamental rights to vices which were universally illegal when the texts were written.
  • Roe v Wade, discovering a right to abortion. This may well have been the most contentious decision of all time, and considering it is still being attacked 40 years later, it is clear that it is never going to obtain popular consensus. It has poisoned the legal atmosphere ever since, and become a litmus test for the appointment of judges.
  • Lawrence v Texas: the right to sodomy.
  • Obergefell v Hodges: a requirement that the law pretend that same sex unions are marriages, and nullifying the express will of the people in several states as revealed by referendums. (And have a look at this article on how the Obama administration connived at it.)
     To quote Matt Walsh: "Maybe they’re all in the same mysterious amendment, written in invisible ink that can only be seen through a special decoder lens that liberal judges pass down through the generations like a family heirloom."
     I could also mention the utter contempt for democracy shown by lesser courts and legislatures conspiring against the popular will. In California the people voted in a referendum to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In retaliation, their representatives then gave same sex unions the same legal rights as genuine marriages. An immoral court then pronounced that, in view of these laws, they must now start calling them marriages. The people then held another referendum, and re-affirmed their original stance - which was promptly overturned by a homosexual judge!
    The perversity and immorality of American Supreme Court has become notorious throughout the English speaking world, and is the main reason why we Australians have consistently resisted attempts by our political masters to introduce a U.S.-style Bill of Rights.
     The results of all this judicial activism were predictable. People looking for radical social change don't lobby their elected representatives; they lobby the judges. And when a vacancy in the Supreme Court occurs, they behave like the citizens of an autocracy when the throne becomes vacant.
      Now, on this issue, the positions of the two candidates were clear. When Hillary's husband was President, he was consistent in two things: in every way, and at every opportunity, he always promoted abortion and homosexuality. Hillary was exactly the same. She has been on the wrong side of every one of the culture wars. And she had made it clear that she intended to pack the Supreme Court, and every other court  within reach, with extreme left wingers who would continue the process of eviscerating the Constitution and destroying public morality. To quote Fr. Robert Hart:
[W]e will have to live with the policies and appointments of one or the other. I know that if Hillary Clinton becomes President that the courts, including the Supreme Court, will be packed with judges and justices who radically stand for things that I very much oppose; and that I may not, in fact, be allowed to live freely without actual persecution by the government on matters concerning which I will not violate my conscience or the Canon Law of my church (which two things happen to be in perfect agreement).
     Trump, on the other hand, has at least promised to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution according to the plain meaning of the words, and the intentions of the writers. Since he has provided a list of 20 nominees, there is no reason to doubt his word. Of course, even then, one of those judges might become a wild card. But the worst scenario would be simply more of the same - which is no worse than what Clinton offered.
     In any case, Trump is virtually the epitome of political incorrectness, and he looks big enough and ugly enough to ride roughshod over the malignant social engineers of our time.

     (2) The second major issue is illegal immigration. Here in Australia it is almost impossible to imagine that the U.S. already has 11 million illegals in the country. What have they done about it? Nothing! In fact, the Democrats won't even mention the term; they call them "undocumented" immigrants - as if, by some oversight, someone forgot to document their lawful arrival. Again, Clinton's position was quite clear. She intended to give them amnesty - thereby encouraging another 11 million to make the crossing. She had actively promoted open borders. She wanted to greatly increase the number of Muslim refugees - and settle them in red states where they could become Democrat Trojan horses.
     The reasons for this are perfectly clear: the Great Replacement. It has been going on for years in the United States, Europe and, to a lesser extent, in Australia and New Zealand. Governments of the left have been systematically bringing in large numbers of unassimilatable foreigners, firstly because they despise their own society, but mostly in order to build up an electorate which they can bribe with welfare. You only have to look at the statistics: non-Hispanic whites are a decreasing proportion of the population, and they are the ones who are consistently voting Republican. (See also here.) Were it not for the increasing Hispanic presence, the Republicans would be the natural party of government. The Clintons of the nation realise that if they can swamp the white population with Hispanics, they can build up an unassailable Democrat majority indefinitely. (Of course, the same thing happens elsewhere. The Australian Labor Party promotes Asian immigration and multi-culturalism for the same reason.)
     And again, Trump was the only candidate who was prepared to tackle illegal immigration head-on. He may not be successful, but something is better than nothing. At least, there will be no amnesty on his watch.

How did this all happen? I don't mean how did Trump get elected? I mean how did it ever come to the stage of a great country reduced to having two lunatics fighting to take over the asylum?
     Clinton's case is no real problem. Essentially, she was the leading edge of the Democrat movement. She represented all the perversity and immorality which has been building up in the party for a long time.
     In the case of Trump, it was because he was an outsider. He may have been crude, rude, and lewd, but he was the only person prepared to say what the average person wanted to hear. In the past, the Republican leaders had all talked the talk, but they didn't walk the walk. When it came to the crunch, they were prepared to roll over and accept the destructive policies inflicted on them by the establishment of the left.

Why should I care? Strictly speaking, if Trump is as isolationist as he sounds, he may have negative effects on Australia.
      Nevertheless, for some time America has been like a well-loved, well-to-do relative or friend gradually falling apart from bad business deals, a broken marriage, or an insidious vice. It is not pretty to watch a great nation self-destruct, especially if that nation shares our language, history, and democratic heritage, even if it is not a part of the Commonwealth.
     Also, as I've mentioned before, the forces of evil in Australia watch the American scene carefully, and anything they can get away with over there they always attempt over here. But if a populist leader in the US can roll back some of their gains, it may put a bit of backbone into our own political masters.

Some Advice to Americans
     American discussions on illegal immigration sound completely nonsensical on this side of the Pacific. The previous government lost power to a large extent because of their laxity in tackling the issue. Admittedly, we have the advantage of being an island, but on illegal immigration we show no mercy and never grant amnesty. If we find you are in the country illegally, you will be kicked out. If we can't kick you out right away, you will be put in detention until we can. If you try to come by boat, you will be sent to an offshore island, but you won't be allowed in. Australia perfected the art of turning back the boats. People who had flown to Indonesia, torn up their passports, and paid people smugglers to take them to Australia, found that their boats were intercepted by the navy. They were then towed back to just outside the Indonesian territorial limits in a special boat with just enough fuel to get them to the mainland.
     You'll hear Americans say you can't get rid of 11 million illegals. Can't you? Rounding up every last one might be difficult, but getting rid of most of them is prevented only by lack of moral courage. Here are my suggestions:
  1. Build a wall. Man it. Don't let anyone through without a permit.
  2. Deport any illegal you find. Put a total ban on them ever coming back. Fingerprint or tattoo them if you have to.
  3. Enforce severe penalties on anyone employing an illegal immigrant, or assisting him to remain.
  4. Give them three or six months to leave voluntarily, on the understanding that they can then take their chances with a legal application for immigration, against the certainty of never being allowed back in if they are caught.
  5. At the end of that period, conduct a thorough inventory of every employee and every student. Specify exactly what documents will be required to establish citizenship. Deport every illegal found and punish every employer hiding one.
  6. Get rid of the "anchor baby" concept. If you can't prevent a foreigner born in the USA from becoming a citizen, you can still deport the parents. If they want to take the baby with them, and if he decides to return as an adult, that is he right, but the parents will never be allowed back in, and the anchor baby will never be able to sponsor them or any other relatives.
  7. The Constitution requires not only that a person be born in the U.S., but also subject to its jurisdiction. Children born to foreign diplomats are not citizens, and it took a special act of Congress to make the Indians citizens. It is arguable that children of illegal immigrants are not subject to its jurisdiction either, and it would be an idea to test that in the Supreme Court.