US Elections: What is really at stake

0412trumpclintonmissouriThe stream of incredible news about US presidential hopeful Donald Trump seems endless. We seem to have already grown use to his coarse language, and to his promises of shutting the frontier to Mexican and/or Muslim immigrants. The latest news is that he wants the US to leave the World Trade Organization (!) and that he does not consider it worthwhile to support Estonia or other NATO partners in the (hypothetical) case of a Russian aggression.

Both suggestions are of course nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. Dangerous both for the US and for the rest of the world.

With regard to Hillary Clinton, the (Western European) mass media seem far less critical. This is unfortunate. While there is no doubt that the possible election of Donald Trump should be a reason for concern for any serious-minded observer, the election of Hillary Clinton would hardly be better.

Consider for example Hillary’s close relationship to Planned Parenthood, an organisation that (under the pretext of providing “healthcare”) not only kills unborn children at a commercial scale, but also has set up a trade with the corpses (or parts thereof) of those children. While the world is worried over possible (but at this stage hypothetical) human rights violations under a Trump Administration, Mrs. Clinton has her campaign financed by a baby-killer syndicate that is not only manifestly involved in the murdering of millions of innocent children, but in addition commercialises their body tissues.

Or consider the fact that as a President Mrs. Clinton will be responsible for selecting future judges of the US Supreme Court, which in the current conditions is one of the key prerogatives of the US President. The US Supreme Court has usurped the role of a law-maker (rather than that of a law-enforcer) at the latest in 1973, when it created ex nihilo a pretended constitutional “right” to kill unborn children. The latest coup was the fabrication of an unspeakably absurd right to same-sex “marriage”, despite the fact that such a rights claim had been defeated practically wherever it was subject to a democratic vote. The supposition that the fathers of the US Constitutions in 1787 had intended to outlaw the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman is so outlandish that one cannot but doubt the mental sanity of those making such affirmations – yet President Obama clearly wanted the Court to make such a decision, and he contributed to it by appointing two judges who helped in bringing it about: Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

The truth is: the biggest danger for the Rule of Law nowadays does not emanate from the executive branch of government, but from the judicial branch. And in the US it is the Democrats who absolutely and decidedly want it that way: for them the judicial activism of radical ideologues as Supreme Court Justices is not only an acceptable way of doing politics, but indeed plays a key role in perpetuating their ideology without having to subject it to any democratic scrutiny. And they are not even coy about this: read for example the recent op-ed by Thomas Friedman, a well-known columnist for the NYT, in which he openly proclaims: “I hope Hillary Clinton wins all 50 states and the Democrats take the presidency, the House, the Senate and, effectively, the Supreme Court.

This is deeply worrying. Mr. Friedman is not just one columnist among many, but his statement is perfectly representative of the mindset and ambitions of Democrat politicians and voters, providing evidence how the systematic politicisation of the judiciary has already become mainstream  in what once was regarded the world’s leading democracy. But what does it tell you about this man’s respect for democracy?

Currently only three out of eight Supreme Court Justices (those who voted against last year’s infamous Obergefell vs. Hodges decision, minus Antonin Scalia who has died in the meantime but not yet been replaced) can be regarded as judges. The other five are dangerous ideologues with no respect for the law. And the Democrats want to push this perversion even further.

Make no mistake: more than a Trump administration, it is a Clinton presidency that would create a very serious risk of damaging democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law in the US in a way that could hardly be repair within the next thirty years. This might indeed be the end of the US as a democracy.

Trump will be very bad for the US. Clinton will be even worse.