HomeOpinion & AnalysisIn US elections, change is coming, but for whose benefit?

In US elections, change is coming, but for whose benefit?

Until Barack Obama’s government, (2008-2016) governments came and went, but there were no fundamental changes in the fabric of society. The social and moral fabric of society has changed to such an extent it is rare for Progressives to have lunch with conservatives.

The Progressives (associated with Democrats) have captured the intellectual heights of society and intimidated the corporate world to pay lip service to their alternative reality.

The Republicans, to their surprise, found that the carpet had been whipped out of their feet, and all the pillars of society they had held dear, were in dispute. In history, generally, populations find out that the past was not all bad when it is too late. It was this realisation that brought out the outliers (the forgotten white people) to elect Donald Trump in an attempt to build a firewall against further erosion of their way of life.

As I write, the third week of October is occupied by the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court.

The significance of this nomination is that US intellectuals, through the commanding heights of the judiciary, had imposed their alternative reality by-passing Congress.

The Supreme Court is therefore the final arbiter of these contrasting realities.

For instance, gay marriage and abortion on demand were imposed by the Supreme Court.

The changing role of the US Supreme Court is a departure from the previously accepted norm that the American enlightenment, unlike the European enlightenment, was based on moral reason.

So, add to this the certainty of liberty; all reasonable men are presumed to know that certain issues, the basis on which society rests, assume both moral and legal status.

Natural law and morality are brothers and sisters.

Bear with me, my brothers.

The state has a moral and a legal responsibility to make sure that the father exercises his authority over his family with compassion. Similarly, two men committing sodomy attract the wrathful attention of the state because they neither constitute a family nor a moral basis for a prosperous family.

Ha! Now our beloved patrons, I have you where the battle between Progressives and conservatives begins. What if the very foundations of the family, the authority of the father, and the assumption that natural law is in favour of complementality (man and woman) are no longer held to be true?
If some professor were to teach your children that gender differentiation is a social creation rather than a natural condition; and if we are to add that at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of being, of meaning, of the universe, sexuality, and of the mystery of life; ah, my dear friends, then you have trouble before you.

What if your girl child comes from school and announces that she wants to be a boy because the teacher told her she can become whatever she wants?
This is called alternative reality.

President Bill Clinton’s 1994 policy of “Do not ask, do not tell” was a brave compromise.

Even as Clinton tried to salvage some “certainty” (legal term) by the law defending complementary marriage (1994), the bird had already flown from the nest.

Two scoundrels, John Geddes and Tyrone Garner of Texas, placed themselves in a position where a Texas Ranger noticed their scandalous sodomite lifestyle.
People of faith prayed that the Supreme Court would find Solomon’s wisdom. Instead, the court, now in the hands of Progressives, found that the state of Texas had “legitimate state interest” in the scandalous behaviour. Further, the two malefactors were entitled to protection by the law.

Michelle Obama expressed it this way: “A man (or woman) should not be judged by who he sleeps with, or whom he loves.”

If the Holy Fathers and the angels in heaven were shocked by the insouciance of the judges, their journey was just beginning.

The error is there for those who have eyes to see. The Supreme Court, by this singular injudicious act, ruled out any interest in moral conduct by the state in the affairs of their citizens.

This decision was followed by many other actions at state and federal level. Married people pay more taxes than if they filed separately. While a parent pays tuition fees for his children, he has no right to demand to see their grades. A parent has no right to punish a child under his care. A no-fault divorce allows a spouse to walk out of marriage for any reason or no reason at all. The state will support a single mother, but not if she keeps her husband.

In 2013, Obama overthrew the remaining fortifications by fiat. Military chaplains could preside over gay marriages. With Vice-President Joe Biden the two approached the United Nations and the word with missionary zeal preaching a new gospel: “Hear ye men of Jerusalem, gay rights are the new frontier of civil rights.”

I now return to Judge Barrett who is driving Progressives into a frenzy. Barrett is Catholic; and when at law school, she and her future husband lived under the roof of People of Praise, a faith group that abhors sexual promiscuity. That alone is enough for the Progressives. Remember, their “alternative reality” is that the state has no business in the moral health of its people.

She has five children of her own, and two adopted black kids from Haiti. One of these kids is disabled. Boston University Professor Ibrahim Kendi finds the presence of a virtuous woman intolerable.

Please, readers, I am not making up a story. “Some white colonisers adopted black children,” he said, in order to “civilise the savages in their superior ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting off the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”

This imbecile attack on Barrett needs no further comment from me.

Progressives see Barrett’s old-fashioned values as offensive.

Progressive Virginia Governor Ralph Governor Northam, MD, says a live foetus can be made comfortable while the doctor and the mother debate whether to proceed with termination.

Northam’s moral darkness needs no comment from me.

The last straw is the 1619 Project, by the New York Times and Sister Nikole Jones. Simply stated, Jones says that the whole history of the US is based on a lie that all men were created equal. This statement is not disputable since blacks were enslaved.

The dispute is in the conflation by the NYT of slavery and Trumpism and the logical conclusion that the system is irredeemable. Therefore, the whole system must be abolished; the police must be defunded, white people are racist whether they know it or not, the Electoral College must be abolished; the statutes of slave owners Thomas Jefferson and George Washington be defenestrated.

l Ken Mufuka is a patriot who writes from the US. His award-winning books, Matters of Conscience, Matters of Dignity and Letters from America can be found at

Innov Bookshops in Zimbabwe and at kenmufukabooks.com in the wider world.

Recent Posts

Stories you will enjoy

Recommended reading