Friends, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage have, as has been noted before, much in common, in terms of their views, their outsized personalities, and, perhaps most of all, in the sheer "derangement" they provoke amongst progressives. There's one crucial difference, though: Trump has plied his political trade within the Republican Party -- the Grand Old Party -- dragging it, sometimes kicking and screaming, into the Trumpian era. Farage, by contrast, has pushed for Brexit, British nationalism, and restrictions on immigration from outside of the Conservative Party -- the "Tories" -- who have led the right in the U.K. since the 19th century. Farage has never been elected to Parliament, despite trying on many occasions, but he has influenced the Conservatives by threatening to poach votes from their right wing. In fact, by leading the fight for Brexit, he upended British politics in a more fundamental way than arguably any Prime Minister has in the modern era. Now his Reform Party is contesting the upcoming U.K. election, and this time Farage might actually make it into Parliament -- and his party might, just might, win more votes than the establishment Conservatives. The practical effect of this would be an historic electoral wipeout for the Conservatives, who currently govern the country -- or misgovern it, if you think like Nigel Farage. That would mean a massive majority for Labour, which could, among other things, raise taxes, increase immigration, and impose any number of woke diktats on the British people. Farage seems to feel, however, that the Conservatives, and Britain, deserve such a humiliation, such a catastrophe, and that, in the end, they will all be better off when a new and better conservative movement arises from the ashes. He could be right, or he could be paving the way for Britain to become a socialist, P.C. hellhole. Stay tuned!
https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-uk-election-reform-uk-party/
Hello Mr. Filbert (I post on this site as Ray)
ReplyDeleteYour fine response to Dr. Waddy's article reminds me of a book I have in my personal library by Adam Freedman titled "A Less Perfect Union, The Case for States' Rights". Anyway, it's our 50 states (or half of them) that are preventing the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship as such. I could have worded what I just said much better, but I think you get my point. Thanks again for your informative post. Apologies for any typos on my post.
Lee from Jack: I also comment regularly at Dr. Waddy's blog. Your comments above offer views I have not heard before and which have very much merit. I hope you will continue to participate. It would be a very wise move by a restored DJT to encourage the states to exercise their sovereignty to resist presumptuous Federal woke mandates. Together with what would be a grimly determined Trump administration effort to disempower the woke far left, significant strides in restoring common sense may be accomplished.
ReplyDeleteHopelessly antiamerican left states like NY (the leading exemplar of this), CA etc may have simply to be isolated by a protective barrier of public disdain, commercial ostracism, denial of Federal funding, perhaps even limited borders etc. in effect much like the oyster does to internal irritants. NY government has already made clear its determination to filter Constitutional rights, even those confirmed by our now lawful Scotus, (eg. 2nd amendment rights and the right to life of unborn humans)through its presumptuous and ever more dictatorial screen. In doing so it casually and unapologetically disenfranchises those NYers of conservative values. Those who laud this would have no moral authority to object if conservative states choose to flex their antiwoke muscles.
In the 60's, some of the education and justice functions of several southern states' governments were taken over by the Feds because those states had flatly refused to enforce some Constitutionally affirmed civil rights for all. I would rejoice to see a second DJT administration humble our NY State in this manner, starting with the abrogation of the state's power to govern 2nd amendment rights and protections for any NYers upon which the vindictive state might consequently seek retribution This might set a chastening example. Dr. Waddy has expressed plausible objections to this opinion of mine.
As for the celebrated "right" to kill unborn children at whim, at present NY state has a Scotus confirmed Constitutional right to exercise wide discretion in this appalling practice. It deserves widely held pariah status for being so ruthless and consequent legislation rescuing the unlucky unborn in our immeasurably degraded state.
For close to 60 years the antiamerican "New" left has striven, with often amoral dismissiveness,to destroy America and replace it with a totalitarian dream. Wokeism and lawfare are the latest manifestations of this relentless and incipient onslaught. Let a DJT restoration herald a conviction, based on effort on a wide spectrum of settings, to stop these abominations. Let the power you have noted as resident in state government, together with all that is possible for a Federal Executive Branch restored to sanity and common sense, bend their united prime purpose to the vital task of delivering America from this still astonishing and counterintuitive threat to all we cherish and uphold.
My mistake in saying that Scotus has confirmed a Constitutional right to life for feti. I believe it has not. Jack
ReplyDeleteGreat to hear from you, Lee! We miss you at the RT meetings, and we value your contributions here more highly than you can imagine!
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point that the U.K. is more centralized and, thus, more vulnerable to a radical leftist takeover. That much is true! Protections for civil liberties, judicial review, and state and local governance are all weaker there. On the other hand, I wouldn't exaggerate the independence or "sovereignty" of our states. None of them have been willing to flagrantly defy federal writ since 1865, as far as I know. The federal government has resources -- especially financial -- that few entities or individuals can realistically struggle against, or will actually struggle against. So, yeah, we have the infrastructure to resist a tyrannical federal government...but would anyone or would any state be bold enough to use them? I have my doubts.
And, for the record, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a weaker federal government and greater states' rights...but anyone who wants that is swimming against the tide of history. Trump certainly didn't put the Feds in their place, and he hardly even tried.
Jack is right that, theoretically, federal power could be turned against blue states, and it might goad them into adopting more conservative policies and respecting our constitutional rights. The irony here is that we might only be able to restore "common sense" and "states' rights" through coercive means -- which could, in the long run, undermine everything we hold dear. Talk about a Catch 22!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: When a very partisan faction indoctrinated with principles which are inimical to the rest of the country, including deep contempt for any opposition, obtains executive power and unhesitatingly uses it to force its radical ideas into realization , then a society is rent with eventually unbearable domestic conflict. We can be CERTAIN of what is intended for all simply in considering the dictatorial, incipiently totalitarian mien of the present Federal Executive branch and in the legislatively unassailable regime in NY state. NY has demonstrated its firm determination to, in effect, abrogate the 2nd Amendment in its fiefdom and Americans yet resident here lack the electoral means to prevent it. When after prolonged and expensive lawsuit, it is gainsaid, it simply passes even worse legislation. Recently it was spanked by our now lawful Scotus for violating 1st Amendment rights of those who exercise the 2nd Amendment but I fully expect it to work summary contradiction of it in state law. " So sue us why doncha!" Our present Federal Executive blithely ignores our immigration law at appalling cost to America and arrogantly pontificates with avuncular dismissiveness when protest manifests.
ReplyDeleteFriendly persuasion is futile in the face of such protototalitarian imposition. It must be confronted with overwhelming outrage in our national election and the resolute organized power of states where common sense and Americanism prevails. Texas has shown signs of being willing to extend itself in this regard at its border and over 20 states have commiserated with it. Raw political force, including unlawful presumption, can only be met with greater force, applied unapologetically, if we are to stop the progressive, expeditious and amoral takeover of America by adherents of the most inhuman doctrine ever conceived: marxism. Already organized and well functioning state governments which embody American principles and values must form the loyal domestic core(hopefully under the leadership of a national administration returned to common sense) of a forceful discreditation and marginalization of this onerous threat to our national life.
Jack, red states could initiate and sustain a vigorous resistance to centrally-directed leftist tyranny, yes, especially if they get support from the federal courts and/or elements of federal law enforcement and the federal bureaucracy...but much depends on how much coercion the Left would be willing to apply, and how much conservatives in the hinterland were prepared to lose for the sake of their principles. I would much prefer to see the American people, at the ballot box, put these incipient oligarchs in their place...but as yet I don't see much reason to hope that they will. The American people are, at best, erratic and muted in their outrage at leftist excesses.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I stand corrected. If the evidence presented in an article titled "Not a Democrat" ,by Joe Klein, is reliable, the Clinton administration did make an extensive effort to cut government spending.
ReplyDeleteThe article was posted on RealClearPolitics for 11/22. Jack
ReplyDelete