Trump, Harris, America’s Future

If one is going to wrap themselves in the Constitution, they should first understand it

I can’t take seriously anyone putting “muh principles” over the future of the nation and, essentially, the free world. Too many are making this argument today in the childish notion that there is no need to do everything possible to stop the Long March of Democrats before they finalize their Cultural Revolution on us, our kids, America and Western Civilization.

Here’s a stack by a guy who is so much more virtuous than any educated and intelligent American that it’s difficult to process. We probably should just prostrate ourselves before him.

Is Trump our Lord and Savior? Nope. Jesus isn’t on the ballot. Nor are we electing our spouse.

Not voting Trump is providing ½ vote for Harris, just as in baseball rankings when one team has a game and another doesn’t. It’s amazing how few grasp this basic math. Thank the NEA/AFT and a unionized teacher.

Is Harris willing “to faithfully execute the laws?” No; and proud of it, and not just at the border.

Can Harris even legitimately take the oath to “protect and defend?” No. She’s already constitutionally disqualified herself with her gun confiscation BS and cannot honestly take the oath of office to defend a Constitution she has told us she will attack. Any serious country would remove her from the ballot just because of that (as it would immediately expel any congressman/woman submitting legislation, in volation of their oath, to control guns or speech or searches without probable cause - can you spell “Patriot Act?”).

She further disqualified herself when she proclaimed she has the authority to confiscate patents, to which the Constitution directly assigns “exclusive” ownership to the creator thereof. This is a straight-up attack on private property. And her idea that we can live in a nation under law without enforcing laws is infantile.

The linked stack goes on about the oath of office of the president, and then just dissolves into a rant demonstrating TDS, pulling in Ukraine, NATO, and “quotes” the enemedia accused Trump of saying which even The Moustache, who loathes Trump and was with him at the time, said were from whole cloth.

He kills considerable photons whining about the Constitution and the oath he, his shipmates (and I, USAFA ‘76) took, about the need to defend Ukraine, the “success” of NATO, when he quite obviously lacks understanding of the Constitution in which he ignorantly wraps himself and his “virtue,” while complaining of Trump’s not doing so.

Is foreign aid even constitutional? No. If you can find in the enumerated powers the redistribution of American tax dollars overseas, get back to me. Until he can find it, supporting – demanding – it just tells the world he isn’t taking his oath or the Constitution seriously enough to read and understand it as he brags about Trump “… not ris[ing] to the level of [his] sufficiency,” and about ensuring the sailors under him had “any idea what is in the [Constitution] you have sworn to die for?”

He further goes on that “There is a well-spring of support for NATO … within the force,” which, frankly, is a big “So, what?” Policy is carried out, not made, by “the force.” The “force” is under the control of the civilians, and the opinion of “the force” irrelevant to policy making. I guess this is too esoteric an insight for the author.

And that’s just foreign aid…  we are fighting a proxy war without asking for even the thin veil of an AUMF (which is arguably unconstitutional as it attempts to alter the Constitution via legislation rather than an amendment) let alone a Declaration, and, yes, our arms, munitions, C^3, and (covert) men are on the ground, in the air, in space and destroying Russian property, people, ships and plant, and our SecDef has stated our purpose is to “weaken” a strategic adversary of the United States, to change Russia’s behavior.

It is surprising to have to break it to this Navy guy, but changing the behavior of an adversary is the entire purpose of war. So… what do you THINK this Administration is conducting?

And we lie to ourselves this isn’t a proxy war with Russia that we instigated for exactly that purpose.

As for “the consent of the governed?” The majority of “the governed” do not want this stupid war desired and demanded only by the M-I Complex, the congressmen/women owned by the Complex, the same legislators who, after exempting themselves from insider trading laws, are invested in and profiting from the Complex… and the ignorant.

Under what possible reading of America’s founding documents is our support of Ukraine justified or even legal?

Reading a guy refusing to vote Trump because of Trump’s lack of support for NATO and the appallingly destructive and utterly stupid proxy war in Ukraine, yet who couches his feelings in ‘true conservatism,’ is just a waste of time, other than to follow the maxim of Sun Tzu in The Art of War, to “know your enemy.”

He writes of NATO being the most successful defensive alliance ever. Really? What has it defended? A conventional NATO didn’t defend Western Europe during the Cold War; American nuclear deterrence did. What has NATO defended in the North Atlantic region? If it has to go to Iraq or Afghanistan or Kuwait to find an offensive opportunity to invade some other country that didn’t attack it… exactly what is its “defensive” accomplishment or purpose? What region is it purposed to defend?

Ukraine’s Total Fertility Rate was 1.3 when “Joe Biden” told the world a “minor incursion” would be one thing, when Obama overthrew Ukraine’s elected government in 2014, when we began supplying artillery shells for our newly- undemocratically-installed comedian to begin shelling his own country – eastern Ukraine - because… OMG! Ethnic Russians lived there!…

As with NATO (TFR: 1.5), there is no – none, zero, nada – logic in sending our kids and our money to die for countries who don’t believe in their future enough to populate that future: defending whom? For what future?

The purpose of NATO since 1992 has been to ensure an ever-larger arms market for the Military Industrial Complex. European elites like NATO because American taxpayers are paying for their defense so they can spend their tax dollars buying votes with welfare and lattes. Congressmen/women and the Pentagon like NATO because it profits them to do so.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a slide from the deck “Joe Biden” used to sell senators on redistributing billions more American tax dollars to Ukraine… notice the prominent position of “defending freedom.” It’s ALL about The Complex; the establishment isn’t even pretending otherwise.

George Kennan, the creator of the successful “Containment” strategy that peacefully doomed the USSR, objected to moving NATO east; and GHW Bush, Margaret Thatcher and other Western Leaders promised Gorbachev NATO would not move east.

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Woerner

And now guys like this writer have their panties in a twist because… Russia trusted us, we lied, and Putin - a national leader who puts his own nation first - responded rationally?

Does Trump have personal failings? Name a leader who didn’t and we can have a conversation. Until then it’s just vain preening.

Not voting for Trump means one is willing to further Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform” the nation in which our children - and theirs - will live and not prosper in un-freedom, be imprisoned for wrongspeech, and be cancelled for wrongthink.

Not voting for Trump is a half-vote for the accelerating totalitarianism of the woke mob.

Adults understand this. People with even a basic grasp of history understand this.

This election is about one thing: a free future under law that is not and never will be perfect, but that has freed and allowed to prosper more people than any other system in history… or the fast-advance of an unconstitutional “pen and a phone” dictatorship.

There is no third way forward. One can support freedom and vote Trump … OR .. not vote / vote Harris. It’s a binary choice.

Not understanding this is to not understand history.

Perhaps substackers like the author of the linked piece should read the Constitution they pretend to defend, and understand that the alternative to Trump is totalitarianism… prior to deciding on their course of “virtue.”