"... the ongoing exposure of Clinton’s mind boggling corrupt and even treacherous behavior has shown she is willing to sacrifice her own country’s interests for her self-aggrandizement, her personal enrichment and for a radically secularist and even totalitarian vision detrimental to the American people and to the nations of the world."
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
"I hate to put a little pressure on you, but the fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering."
Thus spoke Obama, using a prophetic and apocalyptic voice to warn North Carolinians and all Americans that if the Democrats lose the White House, the republic and the entire world order is in jeopardy.
It is tempting to ignore the president. And yet...there is some truth in what he said—it’s just not the truth as he meant it.
Yes, the United States and, because of the powerful position America holds in the world, the entire globe stand at a critical juncture in history.
For the U.S., it is a time not unlike that just before the American Civil War.
Divisions among Americans have reached the place there is no compromise possible between the two radically opposing ideologies of progressivism and conservatism. There is no common ground—never has been, actually. But the fissure between the two viewpoints has turned into a chasm as the Democrats’ ideology is becoming a cult leaning toward totalitarianism, while Republican conservatives have hunkered down so far into trench warfare, it is hard to hear their voices, especially since the left-leaning main stream media is the fourth political arm in the United States.
Adding to the divisiveness is the fact there is no Henry Clay, no Great Compromiser available to prolong the holdoff between two diametrically opposed views of the America nation and the world.
Further adding to the miserable and irresolvable tensions are the two chief candidates for the highest office in the land. Both have characters it is impossible to assassinate. It’s impossible because each has very effectively done him and herself in; through mortal sins in the case of Hillary Clinton and through venial sins in the case of Donald Trump.
But it has become increasingly clear that one candidate is worse than the other—worse for America and worse for the world.
It is well to recall Clinton’s response to the murder of Libya’s Gaddafi. She said “We came, we saw, he died.” And she laughed. Yes, it’s recorded on video. She laughed at the demise of Gaddafi, who was videotaped dying in agony as rebels shoved a knife up his anus. The fact Donald Trump has directed coarse insults to women and his rivals pales in comparison to a Lady Macbeth who laughs at the death she helped orchestrate. She also has been increasingly proved shamelessly corrupt, possessed of a veniality not hitherto seen in American political history.
So it is well to keep in mind there is at least a distinction between Clinton and Trump; namely, that she is worse than him—a thin reed to lean upon perhaps, but still a significant one.
But the choice between Clinton and Trump goes far beyond who will lead America in the future. The choice before Americans will affect the future of the entire globe, including of course, Russia.
The West has been in a similar position more than once. It was the poet T.S. Eliot who put his finger on the choice before England and the West just before the outbreak of World War II. He saw England and the West had a choice between two ways of life, the one a life of freedom characterized particularly by the freedom of religion and free speech; and the other, a life ordered by totalitarianism:
“What we are seeking is not a programme for a party, but a way of life for a people: It is this which totalitarianism has sought partly to revive, and partly to impose by force upon its peoples. Our choice now is not between one abstract form and another, but between a pagan, and necessarily stunted culture, and a religious, and necessarily imperfect culture.”
His prescient remarks are applicable to our situation today. Do Americans going to the voting booth choose a national and international way of life dominated by a reductionist and inherently stunted leftism? Or will they attempt to preserve what is left of what is still a largely Christianized, though imperfect America and the rest of the West? Will America have empathy for Christianized nations? Or will it ally itself with the corrupt?
Will voters choose a person who says he will put his finger in the dam to prevent the flood of corruption from drowning the American republic; or will they choose Hillary Clinton, who will almost certainly continue Obama’s policies, domestic and foreign—policies that have proved disastrous for America and the world?
Particularly germane to the relationship between America and Russia, will the voters of the United States take a stand against the abstract and fantastical preference for a globalist ideology that crushes nations in favor of borderless entities and global institutions and organizations resembling the European Union and the United Nations? Or will America choose a man who acknowledges the rightful existence and preservation of nations whose long histories, cultures and values are justifiably worth maintaining?
For the fact is that unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton is committed to the leftist utopian dream of a world without borders--essentially without national distinctions. She is already committed to erasing of the borders of the United States (and other nations) and uninhibited immigration from nations non-empathetic to American interests and inherently supra-national in outlook.
She is already committed to a rabidly secularist and anti-Christian ideology that will continue its unwarranted and vicious attacks on the Church, its institutions and its peoples unabated. She has openly stated the Church universal must change its outlook and bend to the secularist vision she and the Democratic platform so ardently embrace.
The implications and pragmatic outworking of Clinton’s globalist vision are manifold, but practically speaking, in terms of foreign policies, a president Clinton would mean countries like Russia and Israel will continue to be targets, as the Russians and Israelis believe their very existence is irreducibly contingent on national identity.
The resistance of these two nations (and others such as Hungary) to the Clinton globalist vision of how the world should work and how its people should live has already resulted in hostile stances characteristic of Clinton when her ideology is questioned.
Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu have been targeted by Obama and would continue to be attacked by Clinton. Both have sought Israeli capitulation on issues that are inherently detrimental to Israel’s national welfare and indeed its very existence. The Iran nuclear deal, supported by Clinton, virtually ensures Iran will develop a nuclear weapon; and the release of some 150 billion dollars that will assuredly be used to sponsor terrorism augers ill for Israel’s national existence. This is to say nothing of the well documented anti-Semitic rhetoric and demonization of Israel that are constants at the United Nations, an entity favored by both Obama and Clinton.
Coinciding with the anti-Zionist stance taken by both Obama and Clinton is the demonization of Vladimir Putin and Russia post the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Like Israel, contemporary Russia under Putin sees its existence as a nation as integral to the identity of its people. Putin does not see the assimilation of Russian culture and the nation itself into a secularist vision as anything other than sheer disaster, as Russia has barely extricated itself from the horrors of attempts to actualize a globalist communist order that very nearly destroyed it and every nation it touched. Untold millions died because of a vision that never materialized but which only resulted in mass destruction wherever it prevailed. Putin’s first-hand experience with a globalist political ideology has made him extremely wary of a version similar to that which nearly wrecked Russia.
Putin clearly sees that Hillary Clinton believes in a vision that eradicates nations in favor of global institutions. As a supporter of a “global village,” Clinton will seek to continue the policies of the Obama administration, which has embraced people who, for instance, don’t think in terms of nations and alliances but in terms of empires such as a new caliphate. Such allies, spearheaded by terrorists, have been and still are seen as useful tools to destroy existing nations, even those that were functioning well, if very imperfectly—countries such as Libya.
Those who are puzzled by the incredible destruction happening in the Middle East, for instance, should be reminded of the Left’s commitment to the destruction of existing nations and their institutions as well as their history. The Left in America is committed to the destruction of the country they inhabit, though they call that destruction “fundamental transformation.” The Obama administration has swung its wrecking ball at the United States, and Clinton will continue to swing it, seeking to smash even the most basic institutions of humanity, institutions such as marriage and the distinctions between the sexes.
For Russia and her leader, the bleak truth is that Hillary Clinton is seeking to remake the entire world according to a grand plan, even if it means eliminating the existing government of Russia, Israel, Hungary or any other nation that stands up for the integrity of their nation state. Reform is not the plan. The plan is to get rid of the nation states in order to build a new global order.
The above is basically the rationale behind Clinton’s devotion to the concept of a borderless United States, a plan that would establish a denationalized entity embracing North and South America. Like Obama, she will attack her own nation.
But standing in the way of the Clintonian vision, which is shared by the Left wherever it exists, are powerful countries who do not share the impossibly fantastical leftist vision, including countries like Russia and England, which saw the light and left the EU in favor of retaining its national integrity. Angela Merkel, on the other hand, has embraced the vision with the deleterious results we now see in what was once Germany. It is well to remember Hillary admires Merkel and hopes to emulate her policies here in the United States. We may well see Clinton follow Obama’s policies, imitating Merkel’s disastrous immigration plans while escalating tensions with Russia, perhaps to the point of war.
Finally, also standing in the way of the Clintonian vision is a character with wild orange hair and a brusque and often crude manner. He may not be what some Americans wanted as a candidate for president. However, it seems Trump, though a political oddity—to say the least--is willing to put his finger in the dam in order to at least halt the so-called progress of globalism. It seems he wants to prevent the destruction of the Republic of the United States as well as acknowledge the right to existence of other nation states such as Russia. He understands the concept of national self-interest, American or Russian.
And, again not incidentally, though he has been essentially pagan in outlook most of his life, he appears willing to support freedom of religion in the broad sense of that term—in America and around the world.
On the other hand, the ongoing exposure of Clinton’s mind boggling corrupt and even treacherous behavior has shown she is willing to sacrifice her own country’s interests for her self-aggrandizement, her personal enrichment and for a radically secularist and even totalitarian vision detrimental to the American people and to the nations of the world.
Let us hope and pray that for the sake of America, Russia and the entire world, Hillary Clinton is kept from the office of the president of the United States of America.
--Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online publications, including American Thinker, National Review, RealClearPolitics, CNS, Fox News and Russian Insider.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons