Free Candy*; Part 2

*It has been pointed out to me that some take my rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek remarks such as this seriously. Please understand that "free candy" means the promise of government benefits at someone else's expense.

**also denotes a tongue-in-cheek statement.

Well, two more primary contests down, and it's still not looking particularly good for the home team.**  The "free candy"* message continues to strike a note with the voters, and none of the candidates that I think would bring about the change that we need are getting any traction. In fact it seems that they are beating each other to death while the others are stealing the show.

I must admit that, while I continue to hope that a better candidate emerges, I find myself ready to settle for less than what could be.

So what am I looking for as I decide for whom I will vote? I find that three issues are surfacing in my thinking.

I mentioned in my last post that Lou Dobbs on Fox News commented about his impression that in this election year Christians are willing to support anyone for president who will not hate us. This is a primary concern for me. There is no question that Queen Hillary** is going to follow the same Evangelical-bashing line that King Baraack** has followed in his administration. And it seems that she will be just as willing to circumvent the Congress, and the Constitution itself to achieve her ends. Evangelical Christians will have to accept her standards, either by reason of legislation, or by executive order, or by supreme court ruling, which will be in her favor if she or her predecessor appoint a liberal to the high court. This Supreme Court issue is particularly important as it will live on well beyond the next administration.

Her opponent, Mr. Sanders, being Jewish, probably is more sympathetic to the religious beliefs of Christians, given the history of his people's own religious persecution, both in this country and around the world. I doubt that he would be as bad, and may even be more respectful to Evangelicals. Of course, I would still have to disagree with the direction he wants to take our country.

And then there's "Teflon Don" Trump (it seems that none of his opponents' criticisms stick to him).** I would never get into the position that Pope Francis did, by trying to say that he is not a Christian (yes, the Pope did say that. I heard it myself. The implication was unmistakable!) yet it seems clear that he is guided by the gospel of himself, rather than that of Jesus Christ.** Nevertheless, he has already won the endorsement of some prominent Evangelicals. At the very  least, he will not hate us, and may even be supportive sometimes. Score this one for Trump.

Then there's my second important issue, that of self-determination. Self-determination is a term that you don't hear much anymore. For those who may never have heard it, it means the right of an individual in a democratic society to follow a life-course in which they will be able to determine their own destiny. Socialism is the very antithesis of self-determination. Socialism seeks "the greatest good for the greatest number", often at the expense of the individual. The larger society is paramount, and the individual whose needs and desires may be different from the majority is insignificant. This goes beyond entrepreneurialism and extends to such things as excessive taxation, excessive regulatory statutes, and extensive restrictions on everyday life. This is the stuff of the bureaucrat's  dream. While it is unlikely that Bernie Sanders can turn the country to socialism completely in his term, there can be no doubt that he will make a valiant attempt, and that during his administration he can make enough progress to leave self-determination in the dust. That leaves him out for me.

The "closet socialist", Mrs. Clinton, has already declared her belief that "it takes a village" and there is every indication that she has no regard for any village member who will not go along with her ideas,** The greatest good for the greatest number at the expense of the minority. I think not.

Mr. Trump is himself the beneficiary of self-determination, and is doubtlessly in favor of it.

My third issue of importance is the destruction of the Second Amendment. Never before in history has there been such a concerted effort on the part of some politicians to remove the effect of an amendment to the Constitution, if not to outright repeal it as there is for this amendment today! I avoided the NRA most of my life as they formerly seemed a bit over-the-top. I became a member of the NRA about five or six years ago because I realized that they were the only organization in the nation that was standing up for the rights and interests of law-abiding gun owners such as myself.

In recent years, in addition to hunting and target shooting I am seeing more necessity for the self-defense function of firearms ownership as well. On the Police Department where I served for twenty-five years, we were very proud of our response times, less than five minutes usually. We watched this erode through the years as more pressure was upon us to do more with less manpower. Still, we were able to keep this to under five minutes in the instances of violent crimes. I expressed this to a young man from Chicago once. He replied to me that in his town the police could be right next door when you called about a life-threatening event, "and you're still dead"! Enough said about that.

Hillary has made it no secret about her desire to disarm everyone (except the criminals of course), and make us all dependent on Law Enforcement response (who she also hates and would restrict in any way that she can). Mr. Sanders does not seem as ready to disarm ordinary citizens, yet he also expresses no particular commitment to retaining the Second Amendment intact. I fear that he would cave in to the anti-gun wing of his party if he found it expedient.

Mr. Trump does in fact express a commitment to the right to keep and bear arms. I'm afraid that this one goes to the Donald too.

So why am I not taking any of the other candidates seriously? It is hard to do so when they are all barely breaking double-digits in the polls. If there was only one of them to accrue the "other-than-Trump" vote, it would be different. I am personally very favorable to Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio, as I also was toward Mr. Huckabee, and Jindal, who have both fallen by the wayside. The electorate seems not to be willing to get behind any of the candidates that I would prefer over Mr. Trump.

I know that many of the things that I have expressed above are somewhat subjective. They seem that way to me as well. But I am just a voter, trying to figure out where to place my one and only vote.

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.