Trump has gone after the mainstream news since he started his campaign. His argument is that the majority of the popular American press is biased against conservatives and especially him. Conservatives who have felt like their causes, issues, and candidates are not only regularly unfairly reported on but, also, routinely mocked have seen Trump as the one person who has the strength and desire to stand up to the media establishment.
Trump and these conservatives are right that the popular media has let their institutional bias become too strong, doing a disservice to both their own profession and the American people. Trump no doubt possesses both the ability and determination to go, head-to-head, with mainstream news–something conservatives have been begging their representatives to do for well over a decade. Trump hitting back against the coastal media elitists has been, if anything, superbly satisfying to many on the right.
But since Trump’s inauguration, some conservatives who refuse to jump completely headfirst into blind Trump super-fandom question if he’s becoming too antagonistic of the ‘free’ press. His press conferences–indeed must-see TV–sometimes can come off as thin skinned and personal. Sure it’s satisfying for many people, including myself. It’s unbelievably satisfying. After years of being treated by the so-called fair and free, unbiased press like second-class, bigoted yokels, for once we are seeing someone more powerful than them discredit their motives and intelligence. However, is the appetite Trump is satisfying a disordered appetite; an appetite in which the satisfaction of would be something to keep tempered? Thoughtful Catholics must always consider this when something feels so good. Because, as we know, just because something feels good doesn’t make it good.
This is the question I have been pondering since his first press conference. Indeed much of the media deserves the spanking they are receiving from the president but is it right for a society that cherishes liberty and the importance of a free press to allow the most powerful (and potentially most destructive) man in the world to so diminish them? After all, the conservatives in today’s era have been unquestionably the biggest proponents of 1st Amendment speech rights. Is their current satisfaction blinding them to their own principles? To be sure, Mr. Trump is not formally attacking the First Amendment; but is his demonization of an entire industry, calling them the “enemy” of the people he serves, harmful to our nation? It’s hard to say. Anyone who knows a pinch of history understands that there can be disastrous and tyrannical outcomes to a leader who squashes a free press either by fiat or undermining. I mean, sure the press is biased and shameful but are they thatout of control?
Yes, they are, is the conclusion I’ve arrived at after this weekend’s reporting on the presidents comments regarding Sweden (ask me again after the next press conference or tweet though). Trump was railing off a list of places overseas which have admitted enormous amounts of immigrant from countries known for terrorism. Trump, in his conversational, spur-of-the-moment style said:
“you look at what’s happening, last night, in Sweden. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible”
There is a blanket narrative now going viral that Trump made “unusual”, disgruntled comments implying that a terrorist attack took place in Sweden the night before that didn’t happen. I think it’s clear to any objective, thinking human familiar with current events (especially with the clarification the White House issued afterward) that the president, however, was not citing something that happened the night before in Sweden but was instead saying that Sweden has been facing an explosion of crime, including many rapes, since the unchecked absorption of many middle eastern men. “Last night” was him referencing he saw an updated news account of it the night before. This is how normal people talk (generally) when discussing things without a script or teleprompter (like most presidents).
Certainly, we are going to encounter episodes like this with a president who talks off-the-cuff about what’s going on in his head (maybe Trump has more in common with Francis than we think). There’s millions of people looking for “gotchya” moments and without a sanitized speech, there’s many more openings for this to happen. I would argue that it’s a small price to pay, though, to finally have a politician who doesn’t have a crippling fear of speaking off-script, neutered by the militant ideology of the politically correct culture.
The fact the press is running with this in this fashion shows just how out of control they are. This is a big, obvious example. Think of how many smaller, less noticeable infractions there are. They are persuading “low-information” consumers of politics news to believe that Trump is either caught in lie or delusional. The bias is extreme and institutional.
I go back and forth on what to think about Trump when it comes to various traditions, principles and institutions of America. But, right now, it’s becoming clear that the media is out of control and someone needs to fight back, even if it’s not exactly how we would do it. In a perfect world the president could push back against a hostile media in a different way, a way that might have less damaging effects in the future. But right now, this is what we have to work with. Enjoy it…but don’t lose your principles. ☩
“A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.”
During the presidential election, many conservatives who were unsettled by the prospect of Donald Trump becoming president felt the only way they could justify voting for the brash billionaire was to “save the court” by filling the empty Supreme Court seat left open by the passing of Antonin Scalia. Mr. Trump promised to nominate a justice that would be “in the mold” of the late intelligent and Catholic constitutionalist–someone who would interpret the constitution as it was originally intended without the filter of recent events or modernism.
Last night President Trump announced he would be picking 10th Circuit judge Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch, if confirmed, would be yet another win for the Culture of Life™ in Washington DC and would also be a win for constitutionalism. Gorsuch, a Christian, while not writing expressly on abortion, has written extensively on his positions on issues relating to euthanasia and has defended Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby against the Obamacare mandates that they pay for contraception and abortifacients.
Gorsuch, who wrote a full book on assisted suicide and euthanasia that, while fairly recapping both sides, came down decisively against legalizing the practice. In the book, Gorsuch offers a detailed critique of Peter Singer’s influential utilitarian argument for allowing euthanasia and of a similar one from fellow Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner, as well as critiques of autonomy-based arguments from philosophers like Ronald Dworkin.
Gorsuch argues for the position that “human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” He insists this is a secular principle that one need not be religious to embrace. It’s not hard to infer what this implies for Gorsuch’s attitudes on abortion, despite his never stating clearly his views on Roe v. Wade and the like in the book.
Gorsuch’s thoughtful approach on the issue of assisted suicide is extremely important in a time when more states are pushing to allow doctors to aide their patients in killing themselves. It’s a terrifying time when a government starts rationalizing the killing of citizens in the name of mercy and this helps block the efforts of the pro-death culture that has, until now, been prevailing in DC. Continuing from the Vox article:
Gorsuch takes a very broad view of religious freedom, and in two separate cases (one of which was the famous Hobby Lobby case) backed religious challenges to the Affordable Care Act. “No one before us disputes that the mandate compels Hobby Lobby and Mardel to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg,” he wrote in a concurrence. “No one disputes that the Greens’ religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.” Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Gorsuch argued, the government must give broad deference to religious groups’ explanations of what their beliefs entail, even if those explanations seem inconsistent or unscientific.
Given how controversial Hobby Lobby remains among reproductive rights activists, expect Democratic senators to raise that issue repeatedly during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. In fairness to Gorsuch, he also ruled in favor of a Native American prisoner in another religious liberty case, indicating his views on this aren’t limited to Christians.
In a trioofcases, Gorsuch has argued for the constitutionality of religious expression in public spaces, including in cases where only one religious tradition is represented (as in the display of a donated Ten Commandments monument). He has argued against the “reasonable observer” test for determining if religious displays are unconstitutional, writing that the test too often results in the rejection of religious displays that were not intended to signal that the government is endorsing one religion or another.
Beyond the Culture of Life™ issues faithful Catholics will be happy to hear about, Gorsuch also would serve as an anchor of objectivity on the bench. The Constitution is the most keen analogy America has to objective Natural Law and it is important that the Constitution remains an immovable buoy regardless of the passing fads and fashions of our generation. As the Roman Catholic Church anchors the world by interpreting unchanging Natural Law, the United States Supreme Court should anchor our country by properly interpreting the unchanging constitution. Whether it be Christ’s Church or a country, nothing can stand if built on always-shifting sands of relativism. As such, this is why Christianity is built upon its “rock”, Peter, and America is built upon its rock, the constitution. This is the way it seems Neil Gorsuch views the Constitution. He, too, is like Scalia in this regard and the Vox article goes on to discuss this:
…what sets Gorsuch apart from other Supreme Court hopefuls is the high intellectual esteem in which he’s held by fellow judges and legal academics. That raises hopes among conservatives that whatever his jurisprudential overlap with Scalia, he would bring the same literary flair and intellectual firepower to the Court that Scalia’s admirers believe he did. And for liberals, that will likely provoke fears that he could wield similar influence to Scalia on the right bloc of the Court, and on conservatives in lower courts.
Beyond its personal encomia devoted to Scalia, [Gorsuch has a] fundamental approach to interpreting law and the Constitution, which is very similar to the late justice’s. Both are textualists, concerned primarily in the literal text of laws and less in their legislative history or social context of passage.
There’s also an argument that Gorsuch may have some influence with Justice Kennedy who sometimes sides with the progressive side of the bench:
…he would be the first justice ever to serve alongside a justice for whom he clerked, namely Anthony Kennedy. That gives conservatives some hope that Gorsuch will be able to sway Kennedy on crucial cases, solidifying the conservative bloc and ensuring a 5-4 conservative majority on key issues.
In normal times, Gorsuch should be a safe pick for confirmation as he was easily confirmed after President George W. Bush appointed him to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by both Republicans and Democrats. However, we don’t live in normal times anymore and Democrats vow to battle and block anyone Trump nominates.
Also worth noting is that he is a Colorado native, a man of the ‘flyover states’ unlike the rest of the bench (even though he was educated at Columbia and Harvard). At 49, Neil could also be on the bench for over thirty years which terrifies the left who wishes the court to be as progressive as possible. Gorsuch will need many prayers to get past the inevitable confirmation battle and to, hopefully, get 60 votes (which would be ideal).
Saint Thomas More, pray for Gorsuch and America’s courts. ☩
Many people are trying to explain the national phenomenon which carried Donald Trump into the White House. It’s true that his election signaled a revolt among the non-coastal voters and these voters regard Washington as broken. But why exactly did this unusual candidate resonate? I’d submit that the vast majority of his most fervent supporters couldn’t even fully answer this. Typically the answer to this sort of question would best be revealed in a candidate’s past words and actions, a history that helps one understand exactly their governing philosophy. But Trump isn’t typical and a coherent political past doesn’t exist. He has changed his mind many times and has never had the need to take action in the arena of politics. This leaves many befuddled trying to understand this new Trumpian philosophy. What direction exactly is this administration going to take us? What is their view of America’s position among other nations? How does the White House understand the role of Christianity in the world?
The best way to make sense of these questions is by focusing on a man other than Donald Trump. Sometimes we must ignore the attention Trump naturally draws and see the big picture. Let us shift our attention to Steve Bannon, Trump’s current Chief Strategist and recent campaign chief executive. He is painted by the mainstream news as a racist, nationalist scumbag. The left’s argument can be persuasive, even to conservatives, especially when one is familiar with some questionable episodes in his past, the antagonistic manner his former website (Breitbart) has been run, the fact he has respected-by-conservative enemies such as Ben Shapiro, and, truthfully, his general scumbag appearance. But the mainstream media is shallow, offering only sensational headlines, and this is why the opinions of many seem to be of equal measure. Don’t be fooled, Steven Bannon is a man of depth in almost every way. While indeed controversial, the man is smart with well thought out philosophies and he has Trump’s ear. Mr. Bannon is well decorated, so to say: he is a Navy veteran, graduated from Virginia Tech, holds a masters degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown, received an MBA from Harvard Business School, worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs, was an executive producer in Hollywood (boasting 18 films), was CEO of Affinity Media (after he persuaded Goldman Sachs to invest in them), and, until recently, was the CEO of Breitbart News. Steve is also a practicing Roman Catholic.
“If you read Bannon’s Vatican speech, what you meet is a man almost obsessed by concern for the fragility of freedom and peace in our fallen world. Someone consumed by care for the vulnerable among us, and unafraid to confront their powerful oppressors. Steve is tough, like the sheepdogs described in American Sniper—tough enough to defend the defenseless. He once joked about learning from Lenin, but Bannon won’t break eggs to make human omelets, as Lenin did. No, he will break the omelet-makers—the Islamists and globalists who recklessly threaten the innocent…So if you’re committed to genuine Catholic social teaching—to peace, open markets and the sanctity of human life, Steve’s your man.”
While the ascent of Mr. Bannon may put liberals in hysterics, it’s the Republicans who should brace for impact. As you will soon read, Mr. Bannon DGAF about party politics. With Steve as strategist, it is clear there is a new philosophy in town and Republicans might need to rethink all the positions they have been told by the establishment is gospel. Bannon takes issue with Republican politicians, labeling most as crony capitalists and blaming them for the dire situation we find ourselves in. His opinions and insights carry particular weight since he was a banking insider himself for many years. While we still aren’t positive what policy forms these opinions will take, an attractive argument can certainly be made that it is good to have the comfortable establishment shaken to its core. What we have had for decades clearly doesn’t work for the majority of the country anymore. Many who voted for Trump are in agreement with Bannon: it’s time to rethink everything: trade, labor, the middle class, social policy, national sovereignty, our Christian roots, and the government working for us rather than the other way around.
So what exactly does Steve Bannon think? What is the prevailing philosophy in the White House? Briefly: Fixing a collapsed western economy and culture with a focus on the roots of Judeo-Christian-oriented capitalism, strengthened by economicnationalism, to regain the fruits of which we have taken for granted…and are losing. Less-briefly: the best insight we have right now can be gathered by a conference Mr. Bannon headlined at the Vatican in 2014. In it, he repeatedly discusses the importance of the “Judeo-Christian” underpinnings of the West and the importance of the Church in society. He discusses what caused the crisis in 2008, the reasons voters are revolting, and the problems we face in a series of discussion questions. Buzzfeed posted the entire transcript recently but it is quite long and I contend that a lot of people who might otherwise be interested have avoided it for this reason. Below is some of what I think readers of this blog will find most interesting. Quotes are in order but for full context please read entire transcript. Emphases mine.
Human Dignity Institute Conference, Vatican, Summer 2014
[Steve Bannon:] I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis…and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.
…100 years ago, at the exact moment we’re talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind’s history…There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians. Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.
That war triggered a century of barbaric — unparalleled in mankind’s history — virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we’re children of that: We’re children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.
But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people…really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal…That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana…And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.
We’re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the Church Militant [TSP: so traditional, oh my!], to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we’ve been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.
I think that you’re seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity…
I see that every day. I’m a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it’s a very, very tough environment…So I don’t want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, “Let’s all hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’ around capitalism.”
But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.
One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn’t spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.
The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism…However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost…
The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West…especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.
That call converges with something we have to face, and it’s a very unpleasant topic…jihadist Islamic fascism. And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it.
That war is expanding and it’s …, unfortunately, something that we’re going to have to face, and we’re going to have to face very quickly.
So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution? It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth? What is the purpose of what I’m doing with the ability that God has given us, that divine providence has given us to actually be a creator of jobs and a creator of wealth?”
And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.
[the following quotes are parts of responses to various questions]
If you look at the leaders of capitalism at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West. They were either active participants in the Jewish faith, they were active participants in the Christians’ faith, and they took their beliefs, and the underpinnings of their beliefs was manifested in the work they did.
…the middle class, the working men and women in the world who are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos. A group of kind of — we’re not conspiracy-theory guys, but there’s certainly — and I could see this when I worked at Goldman Sachs — there are people in New York that feel closer to people in London and in Berlin than they do to people in Kansas and in Colorado, and they have more of this elite mentality that they’re going to dictate to everybody how the world’s going to be run.
I will tell you that the working men and women of Europe and Asia and the United States and Latin America don’t believe that. They believe they know what’s best for how they will comport their lives. They think they know best about how to raise their families and how to educate their families. So I think you’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government
…we believe in the benefits of capitalism…However, like I said, there’s two strands of capitalism that we’re quite concerned about.
One is crony capitalism, or what we call state-controlled capitalism, and that’s the big thing the tea party is fighting in the United States…The tea party in the United States’ biggest fight is with the the Republican establishment, which is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules of how they’re going to comport themselves and how they’re going to run things. And, quite frankly, it’s the reason that the United States’ financial situation is so dire…we’re the voice of the anti-abortion movement, the voice of the traditional marriage movement…
…middle-class and working-class people — they’re saying, “Hey, I’m working harder than I’ve ever worked. I’m getting less benefits than I’m ever getting through this, I’m incurring less wealth myself, and I’m seeing a system of fat cats who say they’re conservative and say they back capitalist principles, but all they’re doing is binding with corporatists.” Right?
… there’s a relatively obscure agency in the federal government…called the Export-Import Bank…it was a bank that helped finance things that other banks wouldn’t do. And what’s happening over time is that it’s metastasized to be a cheap form of financing to General Electric and to Boeing and to other large corporations. You get this financing from other places if they wanted to, but they’re putting this onto the middle-class taxpayers to support this.
…General Electric and these major corporations that are in bed with the federal government are not what we’d consider free-enterprise capitalists. We’re backers of entrepreneurial capitalists. They’re not. They’re what we call corporatist…the fight you’re seeing is between entrepreneur capitalism and the people like the corporatists that are closer to the people like we think in Beijing and Moscow than they are to the entrepreneurial capitalist spirit of the United States.
The 2008 crisis, I think the financial crisis — which, by the way, I don’t think we’ve come through — is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks…traditionally the best banks are leveraged 8:1. When we had the financial crisis in 2008, the investment banks were leveraged 35:1…That made the banks not really investment banks, but made them hedge funds — and highly susceptible to changes in liquidity. And so the crisis of 2008 was, quite frankly, really never recovered from in the United States…
And one of the reasons is that we’ve never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems of 2008. Particularly the fact — think about it — not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and none of their equity was taken… I think you need a real clean-up of the banks balance sheets.
I think you really need to go back and make banks do what they do: Commercial banks lend money, and investment banks invest in entrepreneurs and to get away from this trading — you know, the hedge fund securitization, which they’ve all become basically trading operations and securitizations and not put capital back and really grow businesses and to grow the economy…the underpinning of this populist revolt is the financial crisis of 2008. That revolt, the way that it was dealt with, the way that the people who ran the banks and ran the hedge funds have never really been held accountable for what they did…
…it’s incumbent upon freedom-loving people to make sure that we sort out these governments and make sure that we sort out particularly this crony capitalism so that the benefits become more of this entrepreneurial spirit and that can flow back to working-class and middle-class people.
[QUESTIONER:] …What was the feeling on Wall Street when they bailed out the banks? How should Christians feel about advocating or being against that?
[Back to Bannon:] I think one is about responsibility. For Christians, and particularly for those who believe in the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West, I don’t believe that we should have a bailout…it was a lot of misinformation that was presented about the bailouts of the banks in the West.
Middle-class taxpayers, people making incomes under $50,000 and $60,000, it was the burden of those taxpayers, right, that bailed out the elites. And let’s think about it for a second. Here’s how capitalism metastasized, is that all the burdens put on the working-class people who get none of the upside. All of the upside goes to the crony capitalists.
The bailouts were absolutely outrageous, and here’s why: It bailed out a group of shareholders and executives who were specifically accountable…
One of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on… there’s a sense between the law firms, and the accounting firms, and the investment banks, and their stooges on Capitol Hill, they looked the other way.
So you can understand why middle class people having a tough go of it making $50 or $60 thousand a year and see their taxes go up, and they see that their taxes are going to pay for government sponsored bailouts…and that is what I think is fueling this populist revolt.
It’s all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they’ve never been held accountable today. Trust me — they are going to be held accountable.
[QUESTIONER:] What do you think is the major threat today, to the Judeo-Christian Civilization? Secularism, or the Muslim world?
[Back to Bannon:] I certainly think secularism has sapped the strength of the Judeo-Christian West to defend its ideals.
If you go back to your home countries and your proponent of the defense of the Judeo-Christian West and its tenets, often times, particularly when you deal with the elites, you’re looked at as someone who is quite odd. So it has kind of sapped the strength.
[Talking about a different topic now] When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism…
I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.
[QUESTIONER:] …How should the West respond to radical Islam and not lose itself in the process?
[Back to Bannon:] I believe you should take a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam.
…If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out of the world…
And I would ask everybody in the audience today, because you really are the movers and drivers and shakers and thought leaders in the Catholic Church today, is to think, when people 500 years from now are going to think about today…ask yourself, 500 years from today, what are they going to say about me? What are they going to say about what I did at the beginning stages of this crisis?
Because it is a crisis, and it’s not going away. You don’t have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the news every day, see what’s coming up, see what they’re putting on Twitter, what they’re putting on Facebook, see what’s on CNN, what’s on BBC.
Prevailing political philosophy has just shifted monumentally in the White House. Your thoughts? ☩
Despite being told he couldn’t from the moment he entered the race, Trump cleared every hurdle and doubt placed in front of him. His message to the Americans “forgotten about” rightfully resonated. People are sick of every interest group and foreign group being put in front of the concerns of everyday Americans who just want to have families and live without Washington belittling, mocking, and using them.
It’s not only the Democrats that have been defeated but also the establishment GOP. The establishment GOP is dead. Elitists on both sides of the aisle have forgotten about Americans for too long. Political correctness, secular orthodoxy, and political careers have infested our capital and Trump’s call to “drain the swamp” is something many people found very attractive.
The big losers of the night were President Obama (because of the violent repudiation of his tenure as president), the establishment political parties, and the media. The big winners are those who care about the Supreme Court not becoming more activist and those whom Washington has essentially “forgotten” about.
While it’s argued (even by me) that Trump is rather unprincipled, he won by running a race based on putting the country he wishes to lead first and unapologetic conservative principles in a way that most modern Republicans are too scared to do. This is how so many people looked past his openly and proudly immoral past. Who cares how he lives as long as he wants to protect how they (social conservatives, Christians, etc) live is the thought.
However, it cannot be understated how bad of a candidate Hillary was. Trump’s popular vote is less that both McCain’s and Romney’s totals in their losses against Obama. This means no one wanted to vote for Hillary.
Also, it’s not smooth sailing now. There is work cut out for us with the president-elect as he is no doubt flawed. We need to pray for him. It is however comforting seeing the people he is surrounding himself with including his partner Mike Pence who is a very principled and Christian conservative.
Congratulations to Mr. Trump doing the impossible. May God guide him as he leads our nation. I’m sure there will be plenty more to discuss in the coming months. ☩
Donald Trump sat down with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo for a 16-minute interview covering topics ranging from his thinking of women to how Hillary views Catholics to St. John Paul II to if he’s saying “bigly” or “big league”. No need to opine on the interview here because there’s no longer a need for Trump to make his argument on why he’d be better for the Church, and Christians in general, than his opponent as president (at least for rationally thinking people). I will say Mr. Arroyo’s questions were pretty good though. Transcript and Video: