Everyone knows my views on this election season. I have been consistently critical of both Mrs. Clinton and Donald Trump. I have also consistently criticized the foreign and domestic policies of both the Democrats and the Republicans. In addition to the puerile crudity of the political discourse, our democracy has been exposed to be thoroughly fraudulent. And although I do not hold voting in very high esteem, I thought I might attempt to offer a realist analysis of our current political choice, which of course presupposes the hope that we are not simply participating in the illusion of choice to begin with.
We have always known that Mrs. Clinton is contemptuous of traditionalists and those who believe contrary to her secular progressive liberalism. We now have evidence clearly supporting the fact that she views the Roman Catholic Church, the mystical body of Christ, with considerable disdain. Her selections for the Supreme Court will most certainly, and enthusiastically share this contempt.
Mr. Trump, however, has argued many times that he is going to stand with Christians and his most recent letter to the Catholic faithful pledges a friendly allegiance with the Church. He has also stated that the judges he will appoint will be molded in the fashion of Justice Scalia.
I am put off (to say the least) over the character and demeanor of Mr. Trump, but we are already well aware of his moral shortcomings. In fact, as I write this many women are now going to the press claiming that Donald Trump acted in a predatory manner towards them with unwanted touching and kissing. These are troubling accusations, and if they turn out to be credible indictments, our nation is forced to choose between two candidates with very despicable moral records.
In addition to these latest claims, I am also very annoyed by Donald Trump’s inability to debate and defeat Mrs. Clinton. I know that most of his diehard followers think he crushed her in the last debate, but I disagree. He left so many opportunities to dismantle the progressive narrative on the table that it is, in my view, incredibly frustrating. For example, Mr. Trump completely whiffed when the question was asked about Muslim immigration. Mrs. Clinton attempted to argue that we must allow Muslim immigration to continue unabated because we are a nation built on religious freedom and without religious tests (unless you are a Christian baker doing business in your local community, then you are subject to religious testing). Mr. Trump should have replied with something like this, “We are in fact a nation built on religious freedom. This is a right the citizens of this country exercise, and is not legally extended to peoples of other countries. Additionally, the Constitution says there shall be no religious tests for those seeking office, not for people seeking to be citizens of this country through the lawful immigration process. Congress has the authority to pass legislation concerning the naturalization of immigrants seeking citizenship, and if in the name of national security a religious test must be applied, then that is perfectly moral and just. There is no such thing as a right to become a citizen of this country. American policy should invite those who want to become a part of our heritage, but the immigrant must bring with them a mutually beneficial cultural inheritance of their own.” These kinds of opportunities occur throughout the debate and Donald Trump is incapable of taking advantage of them. I am practically yelling at my television while I am watching these interactions. Progressive ideology exist as a politically viable option because of the stupidity of the other major party that is allegedly against the pillars of secularization and our cultural destruction.
Here is something else that needs to be considered when addressing the sensitivity of hearing our ruling class use lewd forms of communication in private conversation. When I was in the military my leaders and soldiers often utilized vulgar language. They did this privately and publicly. Warriors are not prone to use a politically correct vocabulary. If a progressive journalist spent 10 minutes around soldiers and some of our commanding officers, the words and language heard would probably cause this person to pass out in shock. I wish my commanders spoke like Cicero, but reality is usually much different than how I hope it will be.
Am I making excuses for what Mr. Trump has said and done in his life concerning females? Not even close. The fact of the matter is that our political rulers are a product of our vulgar culture. I’m not sure why we expect our elected officials to be less depraved than the pornographically saturated culture they are selected from. But the question that may be more important is who do we want in the Oval Office as our Commander in Chief? Do we want the secular feminist icon committed to prompting war with Iran, Russia, and Syria, the person that seeks to perpetuate the death of innocent unborn life, and the person who seeks to potentially wipe the culture clean of any shred of moral sanity that currently remains? Or do we want a man who has fully extracted the cultural feminist implant from his persona, pledged to stand with Christians in our country and throughout the world against ISIS terrorists, claims to value the lives of the American people over the globalist agenda, seeks to align our foreign interests and national security with other powerful nations against a common enemy, and might tip the Supreme Court towards an originalist understanding of the Constitution for decades to come?
Aside from the moral debauchery both candidates embody, these are the policy realities American citizens must choose from.
My argument is not to put your full and faithful trust in a statesman or political party. I have incredibly negative views of the G.O.P and think that the Republican Party is a den of deceptive thieves. Over the last several decades they have utterly surrendered to their progressive rivals by becoming progressives themselves. They are pathetic, weak, and cowardly. The Democratic Party is basically a demonic death cult. I contend that both major parties are not a home for any faithful Catholic. Moreover, we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation of secularism, liberalism, and progressivism. Every major American institution rejects Christian tenets and fully embraces the pillars of secularism just mentioned. If this is our reality, should we expect any of the politicians seeking office to truly personify the necessary virtues of Christian character? I think it would be naïve to eagerly expect these traits from a representative in a culture such as ours.
I am not saying a vote for a third party is a vote for either candidate. In my view, that sort of reasoning is bogus. I think you should vote your conscience. My faith is in Christ. My politics is centered on a new Christendom. I am simply approaching the election with a dose of realism, rather than the fake ideals the media forces down our throat while simultaneously violating these very ideals as they are embodied in their chosen candidate.
– Lucas G. Westman