October 14, 2024

Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness,

Presently, we are embroiled in a presidential campaign. It is the apex of political messaging, as both parties and their well-heeled allies bombard the electorate with varying promises, claims, smears, and deceits.

One of the Democrats’ and their “Never Trump” cohorts’ favorite narratives is that the GOP candidate, former president Trump, is divisive and that he must be defeated to allow the Democrat nominee, Vice President Harris, to unite the nation. To believe this, one must concur with the Democrats and Never Trumpers on two counts: first, Mr. Trump, his MAGA supporters, and the GOP are divisive; and, second, Ms. Harris and the Democrats are not divisive but rather a unifying political force.

For purposes of this piece, let us stipulate Mr. Trump and his MAGA and GOP supporters are “divisive,” if only for the simple reason they dissent from the Democrats radical, extreme, and dangerous agenda; and, moreover, unapologetically champion the populist and conservative principles and policies they believe will promote and protect the liberty, prosperity, and security of our free republic.

Nonetheless, even with this stipulation, it is impossible for an objective mind to conclude Ms. Harris and her Democrat supporters are a unifying force within our deeply divided nation. The Democrats are, by design, a divisive party that premises its campaigns and policies upon identity politics—race, gender, class, etc.; and, at root, offers the electorate varying and increasing levels of paranoia and dependence upon the Leviathan—i.e., the administrative state, which is controlled by their cohorts who are ensconced within the unaccountable and remunerative sinecures housed in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy.

Consider the Democrats’ demanding the citizenry’s obeisance to their DIE (“diversity, inclusivity, and equity”) secular religion, which one is compelled to believe above all else.

The left defines “diversity” with external traits, not internal thoughts. In sum, this inherently divides the entire population by physical traits and social castes into “manageable” political blocs—the “Balkanization” of the American electorate. Their root fallacy is that how you look determines how you think. The left purports it is using one’s “lived experience” to make this differentiation, but this experience is presumed to have occurred (even if it has not) based on your external appearance and/or economic status. Such a prejudicial pronouncement upon one’s fellow citizens is patronizing, demeaning, and—in its most heinous manifestations—racist. (Why do you think progressives have expended so much energy trying to redefine and dilute the definition of “racism” to weaponize it against, not racists, but non-leftists?)

Once an individual has been pigeonholed into one of the Democrats’ diversity classifications and it is marked with its “social credit” connotations, these leftist social engineers will cajole and coerce them into their “inclusive” collective, wherein what matters is not individual rights but one’s allegiance to the left’s ideological dictates. True, some individual rights and licenses are granted by the state, but they are in addition to our unalienable, God-given rights we already possess and that cannot be infringed by the state. The left disagrees, believing the state is the ultimate grantor of rights and that “Our Democracy” must not be impaired by the antiquated concept of unalienable, God-given constitutional rights. Consequently, the left believes a citizen’s rights are not God-given but rather government-given. As such, they constitute not unalienable rights; they are arbitrary and conditional licenses. This subordinates the citizens’ sovereignty to the supremacy of the state.

As the Supreme State doles its licenses, it will decide what is “equitable.” This is merely another of the left’s euphemisms for socialism—as is Ms. Harris’s “Opportunity Society.” But once citizens have been civically and economically diminished by the Democrats’ delineating and dividing them on basis of physical traits and economic status and by being subsumed into a leftist collective, Americans will have little recourse to dissent, let alone rid themselves of such a repressive, autocratic socialist regime.

Why would people subject themselves to this DIE agenda This is where the left’s paranoia pimping enters stage left. The Democrats aver that they and their administrative state are needed to protect citizens from sundry conspiracies out to block Americans’ pursuit of happiness—or worse. Hence, the Greek chorus of Democrats wailing about “Systemic Racism,” “The Patriarchy,” “Threats to Democracy,” and so forth. This is literally a party that smears its opponents as existential threats to “Our Democracy” and demands these opponents be crushed so that they may never again threaten it. Such inherently divisive narratives are designed to lure people into the illusory “security” of the one extant entity capable of controlling Americans’ lives—“Their Government.”

So, how does a progressive manage to believe they are the champions of “Our Democracy,” even as they burn it to the ground to persecute their opponents? By reason of a simple intellectual sleight-of-hand. When Democrats bleat “Our Democracy,” it is a “prog whistle” that, translated, means “Our Party.” Conflating the fortunes of their party with those of the country, the Democrats have the capacity for enormous self-regard that allows them to engage in immense amounts of cognitive dissonance and self-justification as they attempt to foist their reckless, harmful agenda on Americans.

Yes, Republicans also believe their fortunes will save “Our Republic.” But there is a critical distinction. Democrats define “unity” as a uniformity of agreement. Republicans define “unity” as a uniformity of acceptance.

This explains why the Democrats are hellbent to force their DIE ideology on people and why Republicans oppose it. It is an overlooked irony that the left, which obsesses over the diversity of external traits, demands the conformity of internal thoughts. The Twentieth Century is replete with bitter instances of such an ideology’s failed attempts to dictate a rigid uniformity of ideological agreement in the vainglorious hopes of recreating and perfecting humanity.

The answer to such state coercion is still federalism and pluralism. A limited, divided government charged with protecting the unalienable God-given rights of sovereign citizens remains the surest path upon which to pursue one’s happiness. The acceptance required is of the ground rules of the nation—of the constitution, of the peaceable means of effectuating constructive change, of someone else’s thoughts and their right to hold and advocate them, and of your reciprocal right to disagree and oppose their ideas. E pluribus unum—“Out of many, one”—has well served and enriched our nation and must remain the abiding goal.

Again, the left deems federalism and pluralism as bars to the implementation of their autocratic, socialist state, which will determine and map your pursuit of happiness whether you like it or not. It is evinced in why the left crafted the word “diversity” to supplant “pluralism.” Ponder that the root of the word, “div-,” as is found in words such as “divisive,” “divest,” “divorce,” and so forth, that do not exactly scream “unity.”

Nor does their pushing of their “Our Democracy” narrative to supplant the reality we live in a constitutional republic with limits upon its enumerated and citizen-delegated powers; and the duty to serve as a guardian of our unalienable God-given rights and the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic—be they a dictator or a mob.

As they do, the left reveals how their clamor and connivance for “Our Democracy” merely mark “Their Duplicity.”

A full two weeks have passed since Iran’s October 1st ballistic missile attack on Israel, which involved some 200 projectiles, many of which caused destruction on the ground (though Israel has been tight-lipped on the extent of it).

The big question has remained: when will Israel retaliate and what form will it take? The Biden administration has over the last many days reportedly been urging for Israel to avoid hitting nuclear sites as well as energy sites. But there have been conflicting reports.

For example on Monday, Harper’s Magazine editor Andrew Cockburn wrote, “Word in Washington is that Biden has approved Israeli strike on Iran’s Natanz nuclear site.”

However, within hours after this speculative statement on X, The Washington Post reported that Israel is walking back from the prospect of bombing oil as well as nuclear facilities.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the Biden administration he is willing to strike military rather than oil or nuclear facilities in Iran, according to two officials familiar with the matter, suggesting a more limited counterstrike aimed at preventing a full-scale war,” the Monday afternoon report said.

President Biden in a phone call with PM Netanyahu last Wednesday reportedly conveyed serious concern that any counterstrikes could lead to all-out war if not kept ‘limited’.

Monday’s afternoon WaPo headline was enough to send oil prices falling, also after morning reports of China’s weak demand…

At the time of last week’s phone call, Netanyahu had reportedly expressed that he favors attacks on the Islamic Republic’s military infrastructure.

The Washington Post now appears to be chalking this up as a win for Biden diplomacy:

Netanyahu was in a “more moderated place” in that discussion than he had previously been, said the U.S. official, describing the call between the two leaders.

The apparent softening of the prime minister’s stance factored into Biden’s decision to send a powerful missile defense system to Israel, both officials said.

So the quid pro quo becomes clear… this is in reference to weekend reports saying the US is sending the THAAD anti-air missile defense system to Israel, for protection against Iran, which will include US troop operators. 

However, at a moment that Israel is already engaged militarily on several fronts, especially in Lebanon with Iran-backed Hezbollah, absolutely nothing is certain.

There remain plenty of hawks in Bibi’s security cabinet who are urging Israel to go big in its response. It is also the case that Netanyahu has been talking about taking out Iran’s nuclear program for many years at this point.