A Democrat 2020 Win = Armageddon

This is NOT a “scare-everybody story.” This is a “wake-up” story. There are many American fundamentals on the line in the upcoming 2020 election. I’m sad to say very few Americans know what’s at stake. What IS at stake? The very structure of the United States of America! First, let’s look at those structural elements of the U.S. that are already under fire. Then we’ll discuss what those changes if implemented will do to usher in Armageddon.

“Armageddon” is defined as the site or time of a final and conclusive battle between the forces of good and evil. Mine is a pretty dire prediction. While I believe there will really be a spiritual Armageddon initiated by God against Satan to end life as we know it, I believe the U.S. is facing one today — yes, life as we know it in the United States. How soon we could see it is yet to be determined. Who will initiate it? Political zealots who are bent on the destruction of the historical America that has brought us to where we are today. Who are these zealots? Political far leftists that comprise in part today’s Democrat Party.

I know: it “takes two to Tango.” No doubt the war in which we’re living is full of participants, many of whom do not pledge allegiance to the Democrat Party donkey OR the Republican elephant. There are many options and many different participants. But there are very specific indicators who point to crazed Democrat zealots who are incensed that they do not have leadership in America. And, yes, that stems primarily from the circumstances in 2016 that put Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton in the White House.

When John McCain lost his bid for president in 2008, there certainly were tens of millions of American voters who thought he was a certain winner. The same held true in 2012 when Mitt Romney could not eliminate a second Obama four years in the White House. But in neither election aftermath did Obama opponents take to the streets in anger and actual hatred for the election winner. With the Trump victory, left-leaning zealots immediately began demonstrations that included physical threats for the president and his family. Singer Madonna even at a rally cried she was even thinking about blowing up the White House. Actor Johnny Depp even commented in a public gathering that it had been a long time since a presidential assassination. He quipped that it may be time for that today.

Those may seem quite benign, just blowing off steam and sadness for seeing their favorite candidate handed a surprising election loss. But that’s just the tip of an iceberg. Beneath those antagonistic rallies across the nation lies extreme disdain not just for Donald Trump, but even for those who voted for him. Frequently we hear politicians damning Trump supporters. And it’s not just that he was elected, but the demonization of 100% of the support for any of the policies he supports. Mr. Trump picked up the cause of Pro-Life, Second Amendment Rights, stopping illegal immigration, and canceling hundreds of federal government regulations. He pulled the U.S. out of the Iran Agreement and the Paris Climate Accords which drove the Left crazy. And they’re not upset or angry about any of this, they’re crazed for his doing so. I must say in my 66 years I have not seen the vitriol, hatred, and threatening atmosphere in the nation but one other time: the Vietnam War. But on many fronts, today’s potential war landscape is closer to complete — much closer than we ever were during Vietnam.

Let’s face facts: in most areas of life in America, things are better today than they were in 2016. Specifically, the American economy in every sector has zoomed to previously unanticipated levels. And all of those speak directly to the lives of Americans.

No, the economy is not the only important thing in the lives of Americans. But those finding jobs they couldn’t in 2016, pay increases, profits soaring that turn into new jobs, bonuses, expansion, which all lead to a critically important element for us all: happiness and hope.

Illegal immigration: Fuel for this War

Somewhere, the immigration debate has gotten far off course.  After the last Democrat’s presidential debates, every Democratic candidate appears ready to admit illegal entrants without historic restrictions; harbor them in sanctuary cities; pay their health care with tax dollars (federal and state); permit displacement of lower-income Americans from affordable housing, and tolerate growing homelessness created by unmitigated mass economic migration.  None of this fits American history, rule of law or sovereignty. And a large segment of Americans feels this is a definite affront to the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law while other Americans seem to not even care. Remember: many historical wars are initiated by controversial laws with which a country’s populace differ on their enforcement: like our immigration laws.

First, candidates and mainstream media consciously omit, diminish or ignore a basic distinction in US law – between legal immigration, which is permitted at different levels, based on country of origin and individual, and patently illegal immigration.   The distinction is important, yet purposely blurred.

This fundamental distinction – about which no one wants to speak – is key to resolving the larger debate. From enforcement of U.S. visa laws to naturalization and citizenship, if the distinction between legal and illegal is not acknowledged and enforced as written, then for all intents and purposes – U.S. immigration laws do not exist.

Actually then, the Democratic presidential candidates, beyond pushing mass government control, higher taxes, socialized medicine, federally defined and paid higher education, and shutting down fossil fuel production, are promoting lawlessness in the area of immigration.

Let’s be specific.  Today, in the United States, we have laws permitting presence in the United States under differing circumstances.  We have laws that distinguish between legal and illegal presence, between employer-sponsored visas (H1B), independent work visas (EB-1), investor visas (EB-5), PhD visas (EB-2), presence by birth to foreign parents, presence by green-card lottery, and upon legal residence for five years, application for citizenship.  These are laws, meant to be enforced.

By opening the flood gates at our southern border to lawless entry, Democrats not only render meaningless our asylum laws — requiring proof of a specific, objective “well-founded fear of persecution” to the individual by the country of origin’s government — and mock refugee laws, but we ignore the entire legal framework for visas, residency, legal employment, and potential citizenship.

Here is the rub:  Democrats are effectively saying –  “Laws do not matter, just come and we will hide you, house you, pay for your health care, shield you from federal law enforcement, permit your crimes to go unreported, and not deport you.”  Under such circumstances, exactly where is respect for the rule of law?  Nowhere, as these Democratic candidates are effectively throwing out US law.

Second, think for a moment about what a “nation” is.  Without borders, a plot of land and people have no claim to nationhood.  As early Americans knew, immigration would eventually grow and require restriction – and the restrictions would require enforcement, to preserve our sovereignty.

We forget that our founders left Europe to escape an environment of elite lawlessness by governments. Equality for all citizens and protection for all citizens was their objective: “A Nation of Laws,” and “Equal Justice under the law.” That has always included Immigration laws. As New York statesman Governor Morris argued at the Constitutional Convention, “every society from a great nation down to a club has the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”  Incidentally, he wrote the Preamble to the Constitution, was a signatory to the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution.

His point is plain – then, and now.  While our Constitution grants the power to Congress “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” restrictions on immigration are required for nationhood. As one constitutional scholar noted: “The people have delegated to Congress the power to fix the terms under which America will consent to an immigrant become a member of the American political community,” who, when and how.  This implies legal limits, and it guarantees no right of entry.

American citizens elect leaders to make and enforce laws, pursuant to the Constitution.  These laws only matter – and civil society only truly exists – if they are enforced.  The federal government determines who will be admitted, when and under what conditions.  Immigrants cannot – under any circumstances – legally impose themselves on our political community, particularly in the ignoring of express laws.

Yet here come these promise-anything, give-away-the-nation candidates, indifferent to history, law and logic, apparently untroubled by rising social, political, economic and moral costs imposed by their de facto “open borders” policy, an invitation to illegals to violate U.S. law.  To a one, these Democratic candidates are complicit in advancing lawlessness, knowingly or recklessly upending rule of law.

How can any of them seriously desire to take an oath of office to be President of the United States, solemnly swearing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and federal laws, while knowingly advocating lawlessness?  Who would trust any of them to protect us?

One can debate motives – whether the aim is to empower a growing mass of illegal aliens to vote for Democrats who buy votes with public money, or another hard-to-discern motive – but the bigger question is how any candidate can advocate lawlessness while seeking the presidency.


To put a point on it:  Someone – and in 17 months it will be the voters – need to hold these bold advocates of lawless immigration accountable.  Laws, borders, sovereignty, and enforcement either matter, or they do not.  Most Americans believe they do, and that this is what civil society is about.

It is actually reasonable to believe that this lawlessness being promoted by these Democrat presidential candidates could if implemented formally and continued “could” lead to some type of internal war — maybe not with tanks and fighter jets, but with National Guard units and Marshall Law. And if that should develop, who could rule out an Armageddon?

There are plenty of other strange legal, political, and economic theories being advocated, but if we cannot agree that laws matter, that rule of law counts, that enforcing federal immigration laws is central to our existence as a nation, who are we?

More precisely, who are these people who fight to lead – if they do not believe in our laws, liberties, limits and protecting lives of American citizens?  Simple questions often produce sobering answers.

Will we see an Armageddon if a Democrat wins the White House? Who can say? One thing I’m certain of: Americans do NOT want a nation without laws.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.