(It is 2:56 a.m. ET, November 5, 2024 Election Day. This was submitted to Crisis Magazine in response to an article published by Janet E. Smith, PhD. on October 25, 2024 entitled “On the Brink”. Crisis has not published my submission yet though in all fairness they have up to 7 days to decide whether to do so and that time has not passed. We are engaged in perhaps the most consequential election of our lifetimes. The issue is not abortion, it is whether the USA turns inward and isolationist or whether it joins with allies and friends to confront the enemies of God and Man — Russia and China. And the essential consideration in the Presidential election is whether or not Donald Trump is loyal to the USA or a Russian asset as Craig Unger concluded in American Kompromat. The evidence strongly supports Unger’s conclusion whether that evidence be Trump’s cowed responses to Putin, Trump’s plan to give Ukraine to Russia by way of neutrality, DNI Dan Coats’ stated concern that he believes Putin has something on Trump, Trump’s accepting Putin’s word that Putin did not meddle in the US 2016 election, Trump’s maintenance of the false claim that the 2020 election was rigged, and Trump’s endless lies all of which further destabilize the USA. Even the slightest doubt as to a candidate’s loyalty should prevent one from voting for that candidate. In Trump’s case, the doubt is very great.)
The Most Fundamental Consideration
There is a considerable amount of hype about this election, and it is important to understand the fundamental issue.
After glancing through “On the Brink” by Janet E. Smith, I thought it a good idea to write this.
Let’s begin with “Inter Mirifica,” or the Decree on the Means of Social Communications, one of the first two documents to issue from Vatican II in December, 1963. It places duties upon the Church, the State, the producers of content, and us, the consumer of news and information. It was excoriated by many – to include prominent Catholics – when it was being considered, and it has been largely forgotten especially with the constant screeching for “free speech” by Elon Musk and others. Had Catholics and our country adopted the principles in the Decree, I tend to think we would be in a better place today than we actually are. In any event, paragraph 10 tells us
“Those who are at the receiving end of the media, and especially the young, should learn moderation and discipline in their use of them. They should aim to understand fully what they see, hear and read. They should discuss them with their teachers and with experts in such matters and should learn to reach correct judgments….”
Janet E. Smith claims Donald Trump has been maligned and he has a better program. In reaching her first conclusion, she makes sweeping statements that the media is “completely biased” and failed “to report extremely important news” while burying “any favorable coverage of Trump”. These are extreme statements in themselves allowing for no exception, and they are therefore on their face inaccurate, or invalid. She is accepting and playing into a divisive dynamic in this society which says basically “don’t listen to the other side.” That attitude leads to conflict at an important, even perhaps perilous, time, and closes one to important information and viewpoints necessary for peace and unity.
First, we have to discern between facts and commentary. That can be done, but determining the important facts is perhaps the greater challenge. That requires some thought and a knowledgeable frame of reference. The latter comes from doing some homework which may include talking to people who know something of the subject matter. A person with stated credentials is not necessarily qualified to speak on something. A lot of people do not know what they are talking about, and everyone writes with a bias. Characterization of the facts – even in news articles – can be detected. You want the most impartial, most serious sources at least to understand the key concepts in order to establish the right framework for assessing facts. Many people – especially in what is called the alt media – are driven by a desire for fame and fortune so they make outlandish claims, provide insufficient support for these claims, take matters and facts out of context, and do not really understand the issues.
A lot of important information is easily available. The internet is a great resource to find legitimate authorities and to gather facts without any filter or mediator. Specifically, I am thinking of YouTube and other platforms. You can observe candidates and others without a filter and you can determine if they actually said something with the search function.
Janet E. Smith accepts the alternative narrative of reality. You can use technology to question and debunk this alternative narrative. You can search things Trump supposedly said such as when he says he is not a Christian, where he says he will be a dictator from day one, where if elected this year there will be no more elections, where there are enemies within that will cause him to call out the military. You can find books by reputable authors (e.g., Craig Unger, American Kompromat, Luke Harding’s Shadow State, Bob Woodward, War) and articles that discuss Trump’s ties with Putin, a violent dictator who started a war. You can find the comments of Dan Coats, Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence, who concluded that Putin had something on Trump. You can watch videos of Trump’s and Putin’s interactions. You can also read a recent Wall Street Journal article that discusses Elon Musk’s ties to Putin, and a Fortune article that shows part ownership of X by Russians also with ties to Putin.
The internet allows you to access important documents without a filter of any kind. Good reporting nowadays always has a hyperlink to the original document that may be referenced to allow you to look at it yourself. For instance, you can find Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s 165 page filing in federal court asking the court to proceed with a prosecution of Trump. In it you will find references to testimony by a number of witnesses who said Trump and his aides knew that there was no evidence supporting his claims of a rigged election. In that same vein, you can discover the dozens of failed lawsuits brought to overturn the election. You can gain an insight into Trump’s character that would explain why he would lie about the election if you watch a YouTube video of Tony Schwartz’ talk at Oxford in October, 2016, about two weeks before the election. Schwartz was the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal and he said then that if Trump lost that election Trump would claim the election was rigged. Claiming the 2020 election was rigged is a lie that hurts our system and destabilizes our country.
You can also find the Mueller Report and though it is over 400 pages in length, you can read the executive summary. You will find that the term “collusion” was itself meaningless, and people were in fact charged for violations of the criminal law. This included two Russians whose “hacking and dumping operations” violated US criminal law and others “affiliated with the Trump campaign” who lied to the Congress and the Special Prosecutor. Most importantly, Mueller “identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”
Approving Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) demonstrates Janet E. Smith is not objective, having bought into the alternative narrative that promotes Trump but also divides and destabilizes our country. TDS is used as a personal attack on someone who questions Trump or his policies. Accusing one of TDS implies the person is mentally ill, something the Communists did and still probably do. To avoid TDS, one must submit to Trump and whatever he says despite vast, credible evidence to the contrary. It is a recipe for destroying our institutions which are necessary for our life together in this country, and it is a good country that allows us to live good lives.
Janet E. Smith says Trump’s policies will improve the prospects of better protecting the unborn. I question that. The Financial Times just ran a story about Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine. That plan forces neutrality on Ukraine which is something Putin also wants. Having studied international law and conversed extensively with other practitioners, forcing neutrality on Ukraine strips Ukraine of sovereignty or the ability to defend itself. Again, this is what Putin wants. Putin has a history of gobbling up neighboring countries after destabilizing the country by causing internal strife. Ukraine must be able to defend itself against Putin. Giving Putin what he wants hurts the national security of the United States, and threatens the security and safety of other countries and peoples around the world. JD Vance refused to acknowledge Russia as an enemy after being told by Jake Tapper (and rightly so) that Putin has declared the United States an enemy. All of this supports the claims by many credible people that Trump is compromised and will advance the interests of Putin, our enemy, to our detriment.
Former Ambassador to Russia, John J. Sullivan (Trump appointee) wrote a book explaining Russia is at war with the United States. In the last two days Jamie Dimon said we are in a world war with Russia and China, and that they seek to overthrow the world order which is partly based on Christian, Catholic, doctrine. Watching the UN General Assembly discussions at the end of September on YouTube will show that the countries of the world condemn Putin’s aggression, and fear for their safety. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, we suffer a defeat and the world suffers.
A father is a danger to his family if he does not recognize the enemy when the enemy presents itself. We cannot be lead by someone who is controlled by or beholden to a foreign power. We cannot elect someone if we have any doubt as to their undivided and primary loyalty to this country and our institutions. Nothing else matters without this fundamental and basic requirement. In my humble opinion, when it comes to this essential requirement, Trump gets an F.
David Wemhoff is an attorney in private practice, former adjunct professor of Constitutional Law, and holds an advanced degree in international law.