Battle Lines: The 2020 Election

Let’s talk Andrew McCabe:

Fox, in this case, got things right.  Andrew McCabe, as acting director of the FBI (after James Comey was fired), used the full power of the FBI to try and secure support for the removal of President Trump, via the 25th Amendment, and the people involved in this attempted coup d’etat should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

At the same time, as much as I am against coup d’état attempts, I cannot endorse everything our President does, such as his attempt to gain funding for a border wall through the declaration of a national emergency.

While I agree that we need to extend some of our border walls along the southern border, and while I agree that each caravan represents a national emergency as they approach the border, I do not believe that the President has the legal authority to build a wall without Congressional approval, and the fact that Congress is derelict in it’s duty by not supporting the wall, does not change that.

I firmly believe that Trump’s attempt to fund a wall by declaring a national emergency will be tied up in court for some time, and at the end of the day, the Supreme Court will tell Trump that he cannot build more walls (beyond the $1.8 billion Congress did authorize) until Congress provides funding.

But today’s news is not about walls.  It’s not even about how the head of the FBI tried (and failed) to mount a coup d’état in 2017.  It’s about how these two issues frame the upcoming 2020 election.

We are being given a clear choice for 2020, in which Democrats, such as Beto O’Rourke, want to tear down all barriers at the border to make illegal immigration easier and safer, and in which Republicans want a secure border.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has gone so far as to say that people of Native American blood, or Hispanic blood, are the only legal residents in our country. She ignores the fact that South America is a separate continent, and that someone whose heritage is native to South America is no more native to North America than is someone of purely European heritage. We are all, after all, of native heritage somewhere.

The hypocrisy of the left on this issue is truly startling. If we are to truly support the rights of ‘first persons’ in every nation, everywhere on Earth, then should we not protect the rights of white Europeans in Europe? No. In Europe, the rights of the migrants outweigh the rights of the First People Europeans.

Elizabeth Warren, in the meantime, claims to be Cherokee, when she has less Native American blood than does the average person born in England.  Elizabeth Warren’s own DNA results make her very likely the whitest person on the face of the Earth, but when the left favors ethnicity over all else, why should she not claim to be what she is not?  It’s not like she’s alone.  Robert O’Rourke goes by ‘Beto,’ giving him a link to the Hispanic community, in spite of the fact that he’s English, Irish, Scottish, and German.

If a Republican with Beto O’Rourke’s ethnicity went by ‘Beto’, the cries of cultural appropriation would be deafening.  When a Democrat does it, the move may well make him the Democrat front-runner – if he can beat the fake Cherokee for the nomination…

Anyone who is legally a citizen of the United States is, by definition, an American.  Anyone who is not a citizen, is not, by definition, an American.  This distinction frames the immigration debate in clear terms: either you believe in the rule of law, or the rule of aggrieved status.  You cannot believe in both.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, believes in the rule of law, and the far-left believes in the rule of aggrieved status.

Getting back to the 2017 coup d’état attempt…  Why is it that Andrew McCabe is on a book tour, instead of being in front of a firing squad?  The answer, of course, is that a sizeable percentage of Americans no longer believe in the rule of law, and would have been very happy had Andrew McCabe’s coup attempt succeeded.

The left has become completely consumed with ethnicity, and we can see how they view the world by looking at their definition of the word ‘racism’.

Here is the old definition, from my American Heritage Dictionary, published in 1985: “1. The notion that one’s own ethnic stock is superior. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on racism. -racist (noun).”

Note that under this definition, one’s ethnicity does not have anything to do with whether or not they are racist. That determination is based solely on what someone believes.

The more ‘modern’ definition, which originated from a book by Patricia Bicol in 1970, and which is almost universally used as THE definition by the political left, is, “Prejudice plus Power,” and based on this definition, only those ‘in power’ can be racist. That’s a big shift from what the American Heritage Dictionary says. Note too that no sense of inferiority or superiority is included in this definition. Any form of prejudice is sufficient.

Note too that ‘prejudice’ can now be entirely subconscious, and the left assumes that everyone has subconscious prejudices based on ethnicity, whether they ever display them or not.

Based on that, if you are white, your subconscious prejudice, along with your membership in the in-power ethnic group, makes you inherently racist, and makes your actions inherently filled with racism, even though you do not intend for that to be the case.

Someone who is not white lacks power in a predominantly white society that is run by subconscious prejudice, and hence, all white people are racists, and nobody else in our society can be racist.

According to the hard-left, our nation is a Euro-centric patriarchy that oppresses anyone who is not male, or who is not white.  Racism, according to this view, is the fabric of our nation, and it can only be removed by a complete and utter transformation of the United States.  This transformation must take place, not with the white majority, but in spite of it.

The left has drawn a very clear distinction here, in which what you do does not matter anywhere near as much as who you are, and in which ‘any means necessary’ are justified in pursuit of the left’s goals.

As a white man, by the way, I’m not supposed to have an opinion.  CNN ran an article just yesterday, telling people like me to stop whitesplaining.

The left does not want a land of laws.  They want a land of aggrieved groups, in which a so-called ‘moral and intellectual elite’ can do whatever they deem appropriate to correct for any perceived injustice, whether real or imagined.  Any attempt at defending one’s self against accusations of injustice can be dismissed as ‘mansplaining,’ ‘whitesplaining’ or some other form of ‘splaining’, making evidence and logic irrelevant.  All that matters are the feelings of the supposedly aggrieved, and the power to correct all perceived injustices.

Where but in the United States could Jussie Smollett pay two brothers to attack him, and then when the fact that he orchestrated his own attack becomes evident, claim that the reason people question him is that they are racist?

And the left is all-in on this, to the degree that when they lose elections, the FBI attempts a coup d’état, which, if unsuccessful, gets spun into a book tour, rather than a prison sentence.

Trump has faults, but in spite of them, he is a man who has done remarkably well in our country, and who has tremendous gratitude, if not to the people of the country, then at least to the nation within which he has had such good fortune.  And when the courts tell him he cannot build a wall, he will obey their verdict.  The wall will be one of the center pieces of the 2020 election, but Trump will not be able to ignore Congress.

Trump loves America, and wants to make it stronger.  The left has created a clear distinction, with active calls to tear our country to shreds, and they spin Trump, and any who support him, in whatever negative light fits their needs.

What, in the meantime, will the left do, should they lose the next election?  In the case of Andrew McCabe, and the FBI under his watch, the answer is an attempted coup d’état, followed by a book deal…