LF: It’s Time to Rally Around Donald Trump

Bozell states that Cruz is the one candidate who will return the United States to “her Constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian values,” explaining:

On every issue of crucial importance to conservatives—defunding Planned Parenthood, ending the Obamacare nightmare, reducing the size of government, opposing amnesty—Cruz is not only with conservatives, he’s led the fight for conservatives.

To be honest, if these were the only issues under discussion in this GOP presidential primary season I would hardly be able to make myself pay attention. It’s not that they are unimportant issues. Personally, I support every one of them. But they are not existential issues. They are not the issues on which the very future of the Republic hangs. They are issues that a responsible Republican House and Senate, if they were loyal to their oath and to their constituents, could today begin to rectify all by themselves.

If they did — or if, say, a President Cruz were to ensure that Planned Parenthood was defunded, Obamacare ended, government trimmed, and amnesty once again staved off for another election cycle — we would all rejoice. However, the Constitution, the Republic, would be no more secure. On the contrary, they would still teeter on the edge of extinction, lost in a demographic, political, and cultural transformation that our fathers, founding and otherwise, would find inconceivable — and particularly if they ever found out that the crisis took hold when We the People lost our nerve even to talk about immigration and Islam.

It is in this danger zone of lost nerve and the vanishing nation-state where the extraordinary presidential candidacy of Donald Trump began. Like the nation-state itself, it started with the concept of a border, when Donald Trump told us he wanted to build a wall. Circa 21st-century-America, that took a lot of nerve.

After all, Americans don’t have walls. We don’t even have a border. We have “border surges,” and “unaccompanied alien minors.” We have “sanctuary cities,” and a continuous government raid on our own pocketbooks to pay for what amounts to our own invasion. That’s not even counting the attendant pathologies, burdens, and immeasurable cultural dislocation that comes about when “no one speaks English anymore.” A wall, the man says?

The enthusiasm real people (as opposed to media and #GOPSmartSet) have shown for Trump and his paradigm-shattering wall is something new and exciting on the political scene. So is the “yuge” sigh of relief. Someone sees the nation bleeding out and wants to stanch the flow. Yes, we can (build a wall). From that day forward, it has been Trump, dominating the GOP primary process and setting all of the potentially restorative points of the agenda, compelling the other candidates to address them, and the MSM, too. Blasting through hard, dense layers of “political correctness” with plain talk that shocks, Trump has set in motion very rusty wheels of reality-based thinking, beginning a long-overdue honest-to-goodness public debate about the future of America — or, better, whether there will be a future for America. That debate starts at the border, too.

A well-defended border is an obvious requisite for any nation-state. It bears noting, however, that before Donald Trump, not one commander in chief, and (aside from former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO), not one figure of national fame and repute I can think of had ever put it to the people of this land that a wall was a way to stop our border crisis: the unceasing flow into the nation of illegal masses of mainly Spanish-speaking aliens, among them terrorists, criminals (yes, including rapists and murderers) and transnational gangs. On the contrary, crime and chaos at the U.S. non-border are what every branch and bureaucracy of our government expect We, the People to accept as normal — and pay for as good citizens.

But good citizens of what — the world?

For many decades, the unspoken answer to this inconceivable question (inconceivable, that is, before Trump) has been yes. “We Are the World” has been the USA’s unofficial anthem, the political muzak of our times that we either hum along to, or accept in teeth-gritted silence for fear of censure (or cancelled party invitations). “Openness,” “multiculturalism,” “globalism” — all have been pounded into us for so long that I think Americans despaired of ever hearing anyone give voice again to a patriotic vision of American interests. Then Trump came along and changed the tune. Americans perked up their ears. Maybe a wall — which is just the beginning of Trump’s detailed immigration policy, which Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) calls “exactly the plan America needs” — would make America possible again. That would be great, indeed.

Does Trump see it all this way, or is he going on “feel”? I don’t claim to know, although by this time in the political season, I think I am beginning to get a sense of Trump. When it comes to what is important, beginning with immigration, Trump’s instincts are as formidable as his courage. Notwithstanding Cruz and his consistent conservatism (in which Bozell places great stock), immigration wouldn’t even be a campaign issue without Donald Trump. In my opinion, the Trump plan is absoutely essential to any possible return, as Bozell puts it, to America’s constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian principles. I actually think of it as our last shot.

In the meantime, Trump continues to catapult issues, one after another, into the heart of the multicultural/universalist narrative that long ago marginalized the very idea of American interests. His judiciously sensible, also unprecedented, call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration following the San Bernardino jihad attacks is a perfect example. Citing polling commissioned by the Center for Security Policy that reveals shockingly high support among Muslims in America for 1) violent jihad in America — 25 percent believe it is justified, and 2) sharia law in America — 51 percent believe they should have the choice of being governed here by Islamic law (sharia), Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

As Trump makes clear, our country’s representatives have no clue. Worse, they seem content to remain in ignorance no matter how many Americans die, no matter how far sharia spreads. Not Trump. When you think about it, his call for a Muslim immigration moratorium is really a no-brainer — but whose “politically correct” brain is capable even of thinking of it, let alone calling for it out loud? I regret to say that Sen. Cruz does not support Trump’s moratorium, deferring instead to a rosier vision of Islam and immigration screening both in order, politely, to reject it.

That’s too bad, but so it goes, further testament to the fearless, agenda-setting powers of Trump. It’s really quite incredible: soon, maybe even before it’s too late, GOP primary voters will have a clear choice on walls, borders, immigration, even Islamic immigration (and, I would hope, the related issue of Islamic law), all because Donald Trump plucked these crucial issues from the void where the politicians, including good conservatives, have been eager to leave them.

Go Trump!

I have no idea what Trump can or will do if elected. He's an opportunist who specializes in bluster. I like him because all the usual suspects who destroyed Palin and thought they could destroy him are frustrated as hell. In fact, every time they fire a volley at Trump, Trump comes out stronger.

Palin would've been a thousand times better than Trump . She was anti- establishment and had a proven solid record as an elected leader . Trump has no clue about what he will have to deal with . He thinks he can use the Kennedy model of picking 'great ' people to carry out his dictates . It doesn't work that way. There are 535 Reps and Senators who will not be beholden to him for their jobs ,and thousands of employees embedded in the bureaucracy who have been there through a number of administrations ,and don't particularily care about the political leanings of the administration in office . This has vexed many a President .

If Congress rises to its senses and follows, then the Republic will start to move in the right direction again.

But if Congress won't, we've already seen a weak Obama and a weak W Bush, and Clinton, and a Bush and a Reagan, and a Carter before him (55 mph speed limit, anyone), charge ahead using the formidable executive power.

Trump will try it cooperatively. But if all he gets from Congress is what you suggest he will - and even should - get, then Trump will use all of the Executive powers ever accumulated to bull his plan - for which the people will have voted by voting for him, right over a Congress.

And he MIGHT bull over the Supreme Court too, if they try to stop him. Lincoln did and Jackson did.

To get elected, Trump will have to get a big majority of the people, and it will be for HIS plan, as no party agrees with him. They will have voted for the man and the plan. And if the rest of the corrupt government which has ruled so long against the will of the people tries to use corrupt procedure to stop him, he will use precedential authority to plow them under and do what he was elected to do.

The idea that everybody is going to mutually disarm and go back to 1787 is a fantasy. We have checks and balances that have, in fact, because a means to entrench corruption. And when they've been used to try to STOP bad things, the corrupt have bulled ahead and established new precedents of executive power.

Elect Trump, and he will use ALL of the Executive power to override Congress, as so many Presidents have, but ALSO to override the Supreme Court, like Jackson and Lincoln did, in order to re-establish government the way the people want it.

He won't be elected if the people don't want that. But the people DO want what he offers, which is why he will be elected. And that will also be why he has the MANDATE to abuse the hell out of Executive Power, if that's what it takes to reduce the Supreme Court back to what it was intended to be, and to defeat the powers of Congress to entrench corruption,

Our Republic doesn't work anymore. We're going to have a Caesar. I'd prefer that Caesar be a man who is elected by the people who want what he wants, as opposed to an Obama or another Bush.

Lincoln did indeed defy Ex parte Merryman in a time of insurrection by almost half the country . Jackson did not defy the court even though he boastfully threatened to do so. Worcester v. Georgia ;SCOTUS over-turned the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia law that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional. Scotus ordered Worcester be freed, and Georgia complied . Jackson is famous for saying But Worcester imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce; so it was easy for him to write "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

And the people who support him will be complicit in the destruction of our constitutional republic . That's the real bottom line. I thought the people of the Tea Party ,the conservative movement ,and yes even the libertarian were looking for a restoration of constitutional law. I guess not .

Tom thinks that because someone wrote it, it must be true however it is not preceded by a preamble which says we hold these truths to be self evident, what it really says is this will do for now

For a governing document to be speaking of 'truths' ,it would have to be doctrinaire .The US Constitution is not that . It is a document that defines the powers of the government .

Yes we still live in a constitutional republic because although it has been weakened (no one could argue against that ),we still have separations of powers ,and a Federal system. I do not have patience for people who lament the loss of the system ,and then support someone they say will take the abuses of past executives and use them on steroids (with the intent of restoring the constitution ?????Really ???? ) .Cruz believes our constitutional arrangements are basically sound but that the leadership class that manages those arrangements has got to go. Trump, on the other hand, rejects those arrangements altogether; and based on the commentary I've seen lately ,Trumps supporters no longer believe in the constitutional arrangement . They are more like the Italian people who supported Il Duce Mussolini because he would make Italy great again .

Like how about where it says ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL money has to be coined and regulated by congress. Not the Federal Reserve which I highly suspect you respect.

The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress. Congress can amend or repeal it any time they choose.

That shows you don't respect the constitution. You don't even know what it is. You're a very ignorant person.

You say congress is allowed to pass an unconstitutional act then if they want they can repeal it. Lamer.

it would be a waste of my time to rehash a debate that started with the disputes between Jefferson and Hamilton. What you are telling me is that one of the authors of the Federalist Papers was wrong about Congressional powers regarding the monetaty and banking powers of the government .

No I am not defending the Federal Reserve. They have too much power . The question you should be asking is why do WE THE PEOPLE allow Congress to abdicate their constitutional powers ?

With a Cruz Presidency and electing Reps in both Houses of Congress that respect their authority ,you have the chance for restoring the idea of a government limited by the Constitution with enumerated powers. The Trump supporters are openly telling us that they want him because the Constitution will not be a hinderance ,and will be further abused for their cause .

Brent Bozell has called on conservatives to rally around Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the Republican presidential nomination. Ted Cruz is a good man and a fine candidate — my own second choice — but I believe GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is the candidate for American patriots to rally around.