Those among my readers that have followed my straight path down the years are used to my finding a reasonable approach to politics. I believe in paying my bills, and in order to do so, never incur great debt. I believe in the inalienable right to life for the innocent (especially those who are just ready to be born). I believe in the right of self preservation from violence, the first one mentioned by the Declaration of Independence. I believe that no nation on Earth can survive with open borders. I believe in the government’s duty to defend America against all foes, whether foreign or domestic. I believe in the right of individual citizens to legally acquire property and freely develop enterprise. Could that be construed as opposition to diversity?
Those are the fundamentals of the U.S. constitution, and it is only on those bases that diversity can be welcomed and built. Unfortunately, this is not the current rule of the land in the United States. The evidence is incontestable. Not many US voters are interested in these tenets of liberty, and the majority doesn’t even care. The history of this nation is not taught any more in our schools today unless adulterated and twisted with “Political correctness” Am I a cynic? Yes, but also an informed one.
The contemporary Democratic Party is not interested in the law of the land, only in its rule. Readers can take that to the bank. Democrats no longer represent the ideas of their party’s founder, Thomas Jefferson, or even that of former President Harry S. Truman. They are now the crowd of Obama, and Mrs. Clinton. All these thoughts came to mind while reading an essay by the gifted writer Professor José Azel PhD, with whom I have consistently agreed in the past.
Obviously, not this time around. The fact that an important portion of new arrivals from Castroland, together with a number of descendants of Cubans or Cuban Americans are registering in the Democrat ranks is not a step forward for diversity at all, but a sure indicator of ignorance. Among the so-called Cuban-American “liberals” of the first American generation, many are victims of academic “liberal” misinformation and brain washing. I happen to know many of them together with their teachers, and their parents.
And for those members of the Republican Party and establishment now backing the candidacy of Clinton, there are many selfish reasons. Their case cannot be explained by ignorance alone. Let me suggest that one of their motivations could be bitterness against candidate Trump following his very uncivil debate exchanges with them.
Personal animosities that can produce terrible results are not new to American politics. The most deleterious consequence of the feud between the late millionaire businessman Ross Perot and President George H. W. Bush was Perot’s candidacy that resulted in the election of Bill Clinton. Another motivation could be corruption, plain and simple.
The practical objectives of the present Democratic Party have nothing to do with diversity; least of all diversity of ideas. The democrats of today are just after raw power, and if in the process they can achieve total power, so be it. That and nothing else could bring a lifelong taker of our hard earned taxes like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders almost to the threshold of the presidential candidacy as the champion of the young, poor, and downtrodden.
In the meantime, it is imperative to be on a level plain to deal effectively with tough political realities. That is what happened at the Trump rally a week ago when we weren’t looking from any ivory tower.