There is an expression:
“I will leave you naked before your enemies”…
A proactive assertion essentially stating: if you chose to engage in war with me – not only do I promise your defeat against my interests, but I will lay you open to exposure from all adversaries – who will then take advantage of your new vulnerability.
Presidential Candidate Donald Trump is doing a remarkable job filling the role behind this proclamation. In a seismic political shift Trump has gone far beyond drawing a line in the sand. He has openly dug a trench on his pre-selected battle space within conservative encampments.
Without any apology or hidden motive, he has filled the trench with a highly explosive electorate fuel (the result from years of Republican lies and deceit) and he is openly standing behind his formation twirling a Zippo while looking toward the deceivers.
As a direct result of this approach the enemy inside the wire is being forced to expose themselves. The various “Robert’s-The Bruce”, per se’, are in a precarious position of attacking -in vain effort to retain the necessary ruse- however, consequently exposing their alignment with usurping powers of Machiavellian intent.
A little over a week ago Jonah Goldberg writing for National Review penned an outline encapsulating his disappointment toward those who support Donald Trump. After a few days of reflection we, coincidentally along with John Nolte via Breitbart, responded.
My initial response, “An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg“, was not advancing the proposition that Donald Trump was the be-all end-all harbinger of conservatism, it was never our intent.
Exactly the opposite is true, which is profoundly evident in my own expressed motives “Why I Support Donald Trump” Part I, Part 2 and Part 3. The key word in that prior paragraph is “motive”; we stand open with our motive – the opponents do not.
We have previously used the metaphor that our constitutional republic was akin to the most beautiful classic car ever created, a beauty that is now in desperate need of restoration.
This metaphor allowed me to present the question: Do we begin restoration to remove the rust with a ground up painstaking process intended to regain the full value, but will be exceedingly costly; or, do we as a nation once again put bondo over the rot and give it an appearance only paint job to maintain the impression?
My supported position, given all the rot and disrepair we know exists, is to not ignore the growing insufferable issues evident by hiding problems (McConnell, Boehner, U.S. CoC) under layers of shiny paint (Romney, Jeb).
Instead we have proposed, and many like-minded agree, we tear it down (using Trump) and begin an arduous but worthy process of rebuilding.
Given that proposition, it would be silly to think we should take Lady Liberty to the restoration “finisher”.
We first need to take her to the world class “Trump body team” who will take her down to the frame, cut out the rust, and rebuild the foundation. This is the essential element in a proper restoration.
Jonah Goldberg, and to a larger extent NRO’s Editor Rich Lowry, are presenting a conflated argument. They decry the laying of facts for why it is better to take Lady Liberty down to the foundation (removal of the rot), by arguing the body team is not experienced enough in the art of finishing.
In doing so they both defend years of associations with vested interests (Beltway DC political crowd) who hold a like-minded view of the body politic (bondo just fine), by claiming restoration opponents are not delivering an appropriate curriculum vitae for the chosen “finishing” contractor.
However, worse than just defending the “status quo” approach, they hide their agenda and thus become “the enemy inside the wire” that Donald Trump is exposing.
How do we know this to be true?
It’s really not that difficult.
First, you’ll never see Goldberg or Lowry pen an opinion “why I support”, or “why I don’t support”, and then begin to outline their advocacy. Each preferring to float in that weird space where personal stake (financial livelihood) is viewed through the prism of risk. What if the Lords and Masters take exception? What happens then?
Secondly, consider the retort from NRO which carries a headline: “The Great Trumpian Divide“, and the original coded headline message: https://www.nationalreview.com/article/423901/donald-trump-conservatives-war (<– note “conservatives war”)
Beyond the headline, and considering the Lords and Masters, look closely at the article, and compare to the article they are refuting, and you’ll find something revealing:
When you identify what’s missing – SEE HERE – you can see what Goldberg and Lowry chose to specifically leave out.
There’s a conscious act here. They didn’t just copy/paste the bullets, they intentionally chose to leave out two bullets that are between the circled bullet points they could accept.
Why?
What is it about those two hidden truths that represents such risk? Why did Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry view those two specifically removed points as too uncomfortable to present in their publication? The motive is brutally evident.
Anyone who has followed politics for any length of time knows who the vested interests are behind that intentional omission. The Lords and Masters:
Yes indeed, Donald Trump is leaving his adversaries naked to their enemy, and for the first time in decades we are afforded an awakening to see who the enemy is “inside the wire”. Many masks are being removed….
…And Candidate Donald Trump is the “Huckle-bearer“.
