The word “dark” seems to be getting a ton of usage this year. The d-word is now the liberal media’s favorite buzz word to describe the 2016 presidential elections. It is used to describe the debates, the day-to-day tone of the campaign, and even as a depiction of America’s soul. Yes—our soul. That is some heavy stuff. Here’s a sampling:
- “Election is reflection of dark times in America’s soul” (The Hill, Sept 26)
- “A dark debate: Trump & Clinton spend 90 minutes on the attack” (Chicago Tribune, Oct 17)
- “Dark Times” (The Nation, Oct 11)
- “Their Dark Fantasies” (Paul Krugman, NYT, Oct 17)
- “Warren: Trump has ‘dark and ugly soul’” (CNN, Sept 17)
You can clearly see the use of the d-word is calculated to demoralize or depress Republicans, Trump enthusiasts, or those of a conservative political outlook.
As Crosshairs noted two weeks ago, a lot is on the line in the upcoming elections this November 8, especially with regard to the future of the Supreme Court. Not only is the White House up for grabs but so is control of the U.S. Senate—the 100 legislators who will approve or disapprove the next President’s judicial nominations. As an aside, while possible in theory, the Republican majority in the U.S. House does not seem in serious jeopardy.
In addition to listing the key Senate races, Crosshairs had this to say about the presidential contest: “While Donald Trump may not have been the first choice of some in our readership during the primary, the fact remains that in America, general elections are binary choices. Voting ‘none of the above’ by not turning out is the same as voting for Clinton.”
Developments this month have not deterred Crosshairs from this assessment. In fact, some developments ignored by the mainstream press underscore the real danger to our basic Constitutional rights posed by Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. In a video at a small California fundraiser released last week, Wisconsin Senate candidate Russ Feingold hinted that Clinton would issue executive orders to restrict our Second Amendment gun ownership rights.
In yet another development, Feingold’s loose fundraiser talk seems to be backed up by internal Clinton campaign discussions revealed last week by WikiLeaks. Last year, Clinton’s press strategists discussed on email significant changes to America’s guns laws if she were elected: “…we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President—universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.”
America’s choices are clear. One choice is committed to defending the Second Amendment, protecting hunting heritage, and appointing judges who will defend our Constitution. The other choice will run rough shod over Congress to unilaterally enact gun control.
In either case, SCI will continue fighting the good fight for hunters and for wildlife conservation. We will work with the elected officials the American people have duly picked to represent them in the White House and Congress. We will continue working with state governors and legislators. We will also work with appointed agency officials in Washington and across the country as we already do on a daily basis.
While the choices this year may seem fairly stark, they are not between “darkness” and “light.” If you hunt and love the outdoors, the word “dark” is something that happens when the sun goes down. It is not a reflection of our nation’s soul, nor is it indicative of any electoral contest.
Hunters and outdoor enthusiasts are very engaged this election cycle. They are using social media and our free speech rights to echo pro-hunting messages all over the country. Hopefully they are more engaged than in any previous cycle. And whatever the outcome, these patriotic Americans will always be ready to light a candle and not curse the darkness.