2016: The Hamilton vs. Soros election

This is perhaps the strangest presidential election in American history. On the Republican side we have a nominee so coarse and combative that some usually friendly pundits and fellow Republicans are stunned into either outright rebellion or passive resistance. On the Democratic side we have a candidate who may have committed crimes on a scale that make Jack Abramoff and Richard Nixon look like choirboys.  

But when one cuts through all of that, which voters must ultimately do, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton offer one of the starkest differences of any two candidates since Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Their visions give Americans the choice between two people who view our country in vastly different ways. 

{mosads}Hillary Clinton subscribes to the open borders, one-world vision of George Soros. Donald Trump instinctively knows what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 17: that people care most about issues geographically closest to where they live. This election is a referendum on these two visions.  

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), one of Ronald Reagan’s senior speechwriters who helped shape the Reagan Doctrine, said that one of the biggest mistakes we can make as a country is to relinquish our sovereignty to an unelected foreign government. But that is exactly what George Soros has been pushing and funding for many years and it is what the Wikileaks publications reveal that Hillary Clinton believes in too.  

In Clinton’s and Soros’s leftist circles, it is highly fashionable to denigrate American patriotism and promote the idea that our country is no better than Iran or Eritrea. This belief leads to their wish of dissolving our national borders by rendering null and void our immigration laws and giving the United Nations increased control over United States policy.  

Aside from the fact that the United Nations gives some of the world’s greatest human rights abusers prime seats on the Security and Human Rights councils, their unelected bureaucrats spend their time debating issues such as whether Wonder Woman should be a worldwide symbol of womanhood.  

It doesn’t seem to matter that perhaps a more important issue to focus on is whether many of their most prominent members, like China and Saudi Arabia, are going to continue imprisoning and torturing people who advocate for free elections. 

Unlike many politicians, Donald Trump already knows that the United States does not need dictators and their apologists determining what our laws should be while lecturing us about cartoon characters. Were we to go that path, it would not only be undemocratic it would be disastrous.  

Which leads us directly to the Federalist Papers and Alexander Hamilton’s defense of keeping government close to the electorate. While he favored a strong central government, Hamilton knew that the citizenry could only rightly be expected to care about local issues — things that directly affect their families and their well beings. 

In other words, it is unlikely that someone in inner city Detroit is going to have the same concerns as someone in Oslo, Norway. That they should have the same dictates coming down on them from an unelected foreign government is madness and it won’t work. That is why we have sovereign borders and a republic.   

Donald Trump, in spite of his lack of certain graces, instinctively knows that America is a geographical location, not just an amorphous idea, which should be protected and celebrated. The people who live within those sovereign borders, he has said, will be his first priority.  

This radical stance is a wholesale rejection of Hillary Clinton and George Soros’ embrace of hemispheric markets and open borders. Trump has dared to challenge every single tenet of cosmopolitan liberalism and has paid for it dearly in the press. 

The question this election ultimately is: do Americans want to adhere to the Hamiltonian constitutional protections that formed our republic, or will we go the way of Soros’s utopian one-world vision?  

We will soon find out.