After New Hampshire, the Trump candidacy, one which formerly was relegated to a token if not a jovial intermission, has sparked concern. No longer are fancies tickled by this unrestrained self funder. Today, with South Carolina looming, forces are stiffening, lines are being drawn and pacts are being made with one goal in mind.
This was never so evident as when from afar, the Pope erred with his critique of Trump’s pledge to secure our Southern border. The inappropriate and brash context of the Pope’s denouncing of Trump’s Christianity does not conform with his station, yet may add to the volume of anti-Trump innuendoes.
Today’s politics continues off balanced from the initial birthing of the Tea Party. And yes, both Senators [score]Ted Cruz[/score] (R-TX) and [score]Marco Rubio[/score] (R-FL) were benefactors of this traditionally based resurgence. Now, as candidate Trump begins to show credibility, and long before democrats begin to fret, the power brokers and shadowy game callers are amassing against what they view as a more general and demanding threat.
In certain circles, Trump’s bid for the Presidency mostly likely has been rebuked, as his insider chums probably consider his turnaround to be a blatant betrayal. After all, why would a billionaire bother with the meagerness of a political campaign verses the financial gains which could and should be had for the taking? More so, given his insider knowledge and experiences, Heaven forbid he should actually be serious when pledging to “make America great again.”
There is total consensus that this 2016 election is so much more than just another Presidential choice. Given the offering, one side presents the usual socialistic teasers while the other now calls a spade a spade. The economic diversity between a Sanders/Clinton or a Trump Presidency is monumental in all aspects. It is as clear cut as life or death.
Current media buzz is centered mostly upon the outsider candidates, of which somehow, Cruz claims standing. Nuzzled close behind is another vocal critic of Obama policies, Marco Rubio. While both gained enough Tea Party support during their initial Senate races, their brief Senate stay is now reminiscent of another Senator whose oratory became a spell caster.
In addition to the two junior Senators, the establishment regulars of Bush, Kasich and until recently, Christie, kindled the hopes of the RINO sect. Also included was a renown Doctor, new to the political game, but who spoke softly and intelligently and who amassed a legitimate following.
As such, it was obvious that his input had to be marginalized. Also, it’s worth mentioning that on debate nights, the pre-lim roster often presented a more productive and in-depth discussion of the issues.
Today, with a smaller field of candidates, every source and influence, every voice has been called into play against Donald Trump. Just recently, the Governor of South Carolina jumped into Rubio’s corner. This was expected given that Rubio has now claimed the mantle of the Establishment from Bush, and the Governor is apparently a good little soldier after her outlawing of the Confederate Flag. A lure of a Republican female Presidential candidate has proven too irresistible given Haley’s apparent sharp turn into the Establishment’s lane.
Meanwhile, Trump’s support is exasperating. It’s uncanny from a political viewpoint and I imagine damn frustrating from a competitor’s position. His animosity against the mocked niceties of politically correct speak has enthralled, but more importantly, has insulated him. His numbers are steady, if not increasing. And his talk remains unfiltered and effective. In other words, the honesty contained within his non-political speak connects.
Heading into South Carolina’s primary, twenty-year-old quotes are now being aired so that voters may question Trump’s conservative claims. This in itself is nonsensical when seriously delving into why this “conservative” tag has become so revered?
If I may point out, the derivative of this word, a term that many Republicans have hung their reputations on, is to conserve, a general limitation which supposedly pertains to government. So, why would this be such a mantel of respect when viewing our continual governmental growth?
Now compare that elastic title to that of being a Constitutionalist. Obviously, this identity erases the wiggle room of a “conservative” since it is so much more precise and exacting to maintain.
While questions of Trump being a defender of our Constitution will arise, remember back to who brought up the issue of “anchor babies.” If truth be known, or the Constitution be once again taken seriously, his position is quite legitimate and correct. So, why is it that our legislators from both parties, throughout most of the twentieth century till now, continue to ignore this Constitutional abuse?
Another point involves the issue of being a “natural born citizen.” It was Trump that shined the light onto this Constitutional requirement, one which Rubio has yet to comment about and for obvious reasons.
Long before Trump’s candidacy, he was instrumental in what has been dubbed “the Birther movement,” which uncomfortably questioned Obama’s origins. And yes, it still remains unsettled, due to the continual disinterest from the same media which heralded Obama’s 2008 campaign.
If a fair and balanced report is submitted, Trump’s Constitutional bravado exhibits a sincere loyalty and concern for the mandates of our Founding. Especially so when comparing another candidate’s supposed Constitutional acumen verses his “anchor baby” silence. At this point, Trump out distances his competition for being a Constitutional steward since he has raised issues that otherwise would have remained in the shadows.
Currently, and most likely well into our future, certain Constitutional omissions may simply be inspired by a self protective instinct. After all, who wants to rock the boat that offers a safe passage?
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com