Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

The Left Doesn’t Mind Dead Children

Tuesday, February 27th, 2018

grim_reaper_ftI’ve listened to the usual suspects in politics and the media telling Americans how those who support the Second Amendment want dead children.  I know a large number of fervent Second Amendment advocates, and I’ve yet to find one among them who wants to see dead children.  This scurrilous sort of claim from the left should be familiar to you by now, because we see it in virtually every issue.  When the issue is healthcare, we’re told we don’t care about people, and want to see Americans die for lack of “affordable healthcare.” Then, as if written in the script, the left institutes a huge government healthcare boondoggle that drives up the cost of healthcare for Americans in the range of four-thousand dollars per year.  Sure, everybody has a healthcare plan, but nobody can afford to use it due to the extraordinary deductibles that have accompanied “universal healthcare.” This is the thing you learn about leftists if you watch them long enough, and see what they actually do.  Every time they accuse their opponents of some evil, you can be sure that not only is it a lie, but that in fact, it is they who seek to enact the very evils they decry.  It’s so predictable that it’s become nauseating, so now I’m going to tell you the truth about the school safety issue:  The left says the NRA and the Republicans want dead children, but I’m going to prove to you that they don’t mind dead children at all, so long as it is they who kills them.

I could stop right there and walk away, task complete, but some would not be convinced by the mere assertion.  They will need some evidence of my accusation, and I am obliged to offer it here.  For decades, all my life really, I have heard the statist left accuse Republicans and Libertarians alike of wanting dead children because those groups will not support gun control.  In the first place, Republicans support all sorts of gun control, and sadly always have. It was Ronald Reagan who signed the 1986 act of Congress that banned the further sale of automatic weapons to civilians.  From that point forward, only those automatic already in civilian hands were to be permitted to exist, and they would be heavily taxed and regulated, and due to the incredibly small number, their prices are so absurdly high that most people could not begin to afford one.  That was enacted by a Republican.  Ronald Reagan?  Remember him?  It was one of the three things he did in the entirety of his presidency about which I still have real heartburn.  (Amnesty, and pulling the troops from Beirut after the barracks bombing and the death of 241 US Marines, for the record.)  Surely, that is gun control, and surely, President Reagan was a Republican. Is he off the hook for his alleged desire to “see children dead?”  No, of course not.

Of course, if we’re interested in the question of dead children, as my friend Mr. L has pointed out recently, they had no problem with more than fifty-million dead children killed in utero by Planned Parenthood. They never miss an opportunity to see as many abortions performed as is possible.  It’s not, as they argue, about the availability of “safe” abortions, but instead, about seeing to it that as many are performed as necessary.  They claim to care about the women too, and accuse opponents of abortion as condemning women to unsafe, back-alley, coat-hanger abortions, but the truth as we have seen is that these clinics are dirty, their doctors don’t have hospital privileges, and women die due to the unsafe, unsanitary conditions, as well as the utter incompetence of the sort of hacks who tend to perform abortions in these human slaughterhouses.

The leftists who run the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association profess to us the undying love and devotion for the children of the teachers they represent, and while I have no doubt about the love many teachers have for their students, I doubt very seriously that either the AFT or the NEA have the first thing to do with it.  I have no doubt but that Coach Feis, who placed himself in the line of fire between the gunman and children, had a deep sense of devotion to the students, but I point out that while the AFT and the NEA are opposed to teachers being armed, Coach Feis was reportedly a concealed carry permit holder, but did not carry at school because it would have violated the law.  I believe the AFT and the NEA prefer dead students and teachers to the alternative of armed teachers.  So much for the AFT’s or NEA’s alleged love of their members, never mind the children.

Then there’s this: These people tell us that they don’t wish to take away our guns, but only make us safer, more like Australia!  Well, in fact, in Australia, they took away guns.  The evidence has shown that crime has increased since.  Imagine what happens to we Texans down here on or near the border when the drug cartels needn’t even worry about being repelled by ranchers with rifles?  It’s astonishing.  In Chicago, daily, they have nearly as man people shot as in the incident in Parkland, Florida, but Chicago has the strictest gun control in the country. In a month, the body county in Chicago rivals or exceeds the casualty count in the notorious Mandalay Bay shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, and many of the dead are children, most of them young black and hispanic males.  They tell us what love they have for people of color, but what the truth reveals is that they have no problem stacking up their bodies like kindling for their socialist funeral pyre.

Even in less lethal circumstances, they always falsely accuse others of what they’ve already done.  Consider Trump. They tell you “he colluded with the Russians to swing the election,” but what we now know is that they worked with Russians and other foreign agents to concoct a story about Trump so they could justify their spying on the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 election season.  They’re even willing to undertake treason, which is the very crime of which they’ve frequently and vociferously accused others.

Now I’m going to let you in on the deadliest of their secret. As they tell you they don’t want full communism, and that that Trump and other Republicans or conservatives are “dictators” or “tyrants,” to date the only evidence of that is when they were inclined to go along with the statist left on issues like gun control. Remembering, as we must, that they accuse others of what they actually intend, consider this: They accuse Republicans of wanting to enslave others, or to kill them outright, so what then must we conclude about the left’s actual intentions?  They say they are not tyrannical, and don’t wish to take our guns, but all the evidence is contrary to that postulate, and all of recent history shows they’re actually inclined to commit the crimes of which they accuse others.  This means, taken to its logical conclusion, that the statist left intends to turn us into North Korea, or some ghastly approximation of it.

When one examines the results of the “Promise” program exposed in Parkland, Florida, whereby the criminal activities of students were concealed and obscured in order to get more federal dollars for the school district, one cannot help but notice the result: A future killer was left to roam the streets, when in fact, Nikolas Cruz should have been jailed and/or institutionalized long before.  The problem is that this wouldn’t have served their purposes at the time, so that now you know that this kid was a known danger all along, and that they left him free to eventually wreak havoc, like they knew he would.  They’re fine with havoc, so long as it advances their agenda.  They’re always willing to break a few eggs.  In for a penny, in for a pound.  The statist left doesn’t mind deaths that serve their purposes.  The money these greedy leftist school administrators took from the feds is simple blood-money to get the local stooges to happily, perhaps unwittingly play their assigned parts. The longer-term result of suppressing freedoms they hope to abolish is the primary goal of the monsters who provided the federal cash.

Ladies and gentlemen, don’t take my word for it.  Trust your own eyes and ears, and the history you know, and the facts you have discerned. If any political organization in the United States wants the death of children, it is the anti-American, statist left.  They profit from dead children, but the profit they seek is not mere money, but total dominion over your lives.  They want you and your children dead, but only on their schedule, once you’ve served whatever use they have in mind for the remainder of the miserable existence they will permit you to endure.  If Donald Trump gives them an inch, there will be even more dead children because they will have learned where is his weakness, and how to get to him.  President Trump had better catch on fast, or he will have played right into their hands.



President Trump Threatening to Violate Constitution

Monday, February 26th, 2018


I’ve made no secret of the fact that while I admire certain aspects of the way Donald Trump conducts himself, I also have a few problems with his historical behaviors and a number of his policy positions.  I have also noted when President Trump does the right thing with respect to policy, and I’ve also defended him against the outrageous and phony “Russian Collusion” hoax because I value the truth, and I revere justice.  Fighting off the dishonest leftist hordes is a common aim of this blog, but now, I’m faced with the predicament that I feared most about a Donald Trump presidency:  I’m going to have to fight against this president’s moments of foolishness, and his own attacks on the constitution.  In this case, President Trump has decided and announced to a gathering of the nation’s governors that he intends to ban bump-stocks without Congress. Let me apologize in advance for the poor video quality, but in the interests of haste, sometimes you take what you can get:

My response to this is simple: Mr. President, making or amending laws is not your role under our constitution. Also, your technical ignorance is not sufficient excuse to simply strip Americans of their property rights.  In order to carry out such a thing, Donald Trump will need to ignore the fact that all legislative powers of the United States are vested in a bicameral Congress. Article I of the constitution is explicit on this point:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This could neither be more plain nor more definitive.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of Americans own bump-stocks.  This being the case, even if Congress wanted to ban these items, they cannot simply do so without considering the dicta of the Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Most of these “bump-stocks” range in price from around one-hundred dollars to upwards of five-hundred dollars. More, some companies exist that manufacture these devices, and such legislation would effectively put them out of business.  Where is the “just compensation” Mr. President?

This is the sort of thing that will lead to people walking away from Mr. Trump in 2020.  If he goes forward with such a thing, I will not only fight him, but I will vote for his opponent, or a third-party alternative in 2020.  I’m sorry, but if Mr. Trump can’t respect the limits and bounds of the Constitution, then I have no more respect for him than for previous autocrats who have recently occupied the Oval Office.  This is not acceptable, Mr. President.


The Infantilization of America

Wednesday, February 21st, 2018


President Trump wants the sale of firearms curtailed to people between eighteen and twenty years of age.  It’s bad enough that he’s apparently decided to go along with the gun-grabbers in various ways, but now he wishes to further infantilize young adults.  Some of what I will say may ruffle some feathers, and it may be erroneously construed as an attack on the young, but frankly, I don’t give a damn.  We don’t permit 18-20 year-olds to drink.  We do permit them to vote.  We permit them to remain on their parents’ health insurance through their twenty-sixth birthday.  We didn’t permit them to purchase handguns, and now it seems we will deny them any guns of any description.  What has remained unchanged for many generations is that we permit them to serve in our military as early as seventeen.  If you wonder who is to blame for the crass irresponsibility of so many among our young, look no further than the ways in which we diminish them.  Since this seems to be the cultural trend, I think it’s time to amend our constitution to comport with our cultural and legal machinations.  Let’s make the new age of majority twenty-six, and return all those younger to a state of pre-emancipated infantilization.

Some of you will think I’m joking.  Some of you will believe that I couldn’t possibly be serious.  I am completely serious.  Let us revoke adulthood from all those under twenty-five.  Here’s how that would apply:

  • No vote
  • No military service
  • No booze
  • No marijuana even in states where it has been legalized
  • No contracts of any kind
  • No firearms of any sort
  • No “right to privacy”of any kind
  • No marriage
  • No driving

If we want to infantilize our young, let’s at least do it thoroughly and consistently. Let us return them to a state of pre-emancipated minor, subject to all forms of parental intervention, and supervision.  Understand that I don’t want this, but if we’re going to begin stripping rights from them, we must strip them as a set.  Adulthood is an all-or-nothing affair, and I think it’s time we recognize this in law.  Since the previous administration thought twenty-five year-olds should remain on their parents’ health policies, and since the current administration thinks they shouldn’t be able to buy an AR-15, then there’s no point in them being adult in any part.  Any.

I had an M16 thrust into my hands for the first time at age seventeen.  I was a big kid, so it was assumed I would also make a good candidate to drag around an M60 machine gun, with the M16 cross-slung on my back.  They seemed to think I was able to bear up under the load, and so I was, amazingly.  There’s a lesson in there, but of course, it’s lost on a President who thinks 18-20 year-olds shouldn’t have AR-15s.  My question is:  When will President Trump order Secretary Mattis to discharge all servicemembers under the age of 21?   The weapons with which they are routinely entrusted are far more lethal than anything you can pick up in your local gun shop.

Or will the President recognize that just as there is variability in young adults with respect to their fitness for military service, there’s just as much variability among the young adults and their capacity to safely own firearms?  It seems the Commander-in-Chief is confused.  He’s certainly confusing me.  He’s causing me to ask why, if he will not stand up for the rights of all Americans, including young adults, I should endeavor to defend him against the “Russian Collusion” hoax.  Truth is truth.

Meanwhile, in Florida, our children, who haven’t the good sense to defer to their parents on politics, are being exploited by the anti-gun phalanx.  They’re kids, after all, and we already know that they don’t use logic until their brains are more fully developed, as late as twenty-five?  Why do we think car insurance drops in price for people obtaining the age of twenty-five?  It’s because they make better decisions on average, because we’ve known for years that their brains aren’t fully developed until then. Of course, some people remain dominated by emotionalism in their decision-making into their seventies, apparently.

What I really believe is that all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of adulthood go together as a set.  When we define the age of adulthood, that’s the end of the argument.  It’s always been abominable to me that at seventeen, they shoved an M16 in my hands, but I was forbidden a beer or a handgun.  Now it seems the President wishes to add rifles to the round-up of things young adults cannot possess.  I think it’s horrible policy, but if we’re going to do this, then let us pick the age of adulthood and let it stand in all circumstances, in every case, everywhere and at once.

Like all such reflexive measures taken in the aftermath of a tragedy, this is another horrible mass abolition of rights for law-abiding people because in our society, we have a handful of lunatics.  I’m tired of losing my rights due to criminals.  I’m tired of losing my rights to the pleas of hyper-emotional, arrested development children. Let us at least be consistent in defining what are adults.




The Scandal the Memo Didn’t Reveal

Monday, February 5th, 2018

memo_p1_ftNow that the country has had seventy-two hours to digest the memo released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it’s time to consider what the memo tells us, and to decide what we ought to do with this information.  In this examination, we must first ignore all of the shrill dismissals and whispered urgency that has characterized this release in the media all week.  On the one hand, we have hyperventilating leftists telling us that the Republicans have produced a “nothing-burger” that undermines national security and/or the rule of law.  On the other, we now have a DC establishment that’s interested in protecting Robert Mueller’s investigation, as though they’re under his thumb.  What’s never admitted by the latter, and what is completely obscured through the huffing and puffing of the former is what really happened, and what this memorandum really means, or where it should lead us.  What does the memo really say?  Is it really a “partisan nothing-burger that is intended to undermine national security?” Is it really “unrelated to Mueller and the Russia investigation?”  Let’s find out if there’s something hidden in plain sight.

The first thing to note is the subject of the memo:

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations

For those of you who may or may not be aware, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA) is a law that governs the way surveillance is conducted on US citizens and legal residents in the foreign arena or with foreign actors.  It sets up a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(FISC,) the purpose of which is to allow warrants to be granted in a secret process not open to the public, and not ordinarily subject to public scrutiny, all on the basis that such surveillance may be necessary from time to time for the purposes of national security, and that the rights of Americans must be protected even in this context.

What happened specifically in this case is muddied, but what we do know from this disclosure is that:

  • FISA Warrants were sought and granted in the matter of US citizen Carter Page
  • Carter Page was a low-level adviser with the Trump Campaign
  • The primary basis for the granting of the warrant was the “Steele Dossier”
  • The “Steele Dossier” was generated by former British agent Christopher Steele working with Fusion GPS
  • Fusion GPS was at the time being paid by the DNC
  • The DNC was under the functional control of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Campaign
  • The information provided to the FISC was known by those seeking the warrants to be of dubious providence
  • After Steele was let go by the FBI as a source, the FBI and DOJ continued to use Fusion GPS as a source because they hired Ohr’s wife

I might add another point, though it’s under dispute at this time:

  • The entire “Russia Collusion” narrative is based on fabricated information largely derived from the Steele Dossier

On its face, this seems pretty damning, but there’s something not made clear by this memo, something to be found between the lines, or to be understood contextually if you prefer, that intimates something deeply disturbing and devious.  To understand this context, we have to view this in the time in which it occurred.  This was done in order to conduct surveillance on the Trump Campaign.  All of the rationalizations being offered now, after the fact, are cover stories being propagated by the actors and their ideological brethren.  The real order of events looks more like this:

  • FISA Warrants are sought in order to permit extensive spying on the Trump campaign for political motives
  • A justification is needed to have cover for doing the surveillance – enter “Russian Collusion”
  • Internal polling showed Clinton was not invincible
  • Trump wins the election, leaving the actors in a potentially ‘outed’ position
  • The “Russian Collusion” narrative is furthered to justify the previous political activities of the Obama administration and executive departments
  • Mueller is appointed as Special Counsel because somebody must be guilty to preserve that narrative
  • The entire narrative becomes the basis for Democrat obstructionism in order to undermine and oppose the new president
  • James Comey apparently perjured himself multiple times in testimony to Congress
  • Barack Obama knew or ought to have known what was being done
  • The entire Democrat-Media complex is now engaging in a coverup to protect the Mueller probe to give him time to find something

Ladies and gentlemen, when you boil it down, this document is damning, but it’s most damning in terms of what it does not explicitly state.  I don’t know if it constitutes “one-hundred times worse than Watergate,” but it is substantially worse than Watergate, and there are some critical reasons why this is true.

Watergate was about actions taken to hide or cover-up embarrassing actions by unofficial political actors. President Nixon covered-up, or attempted to cover-up embarrassing criminal actions of some political henchmen who acted without his foreknowledge, endorsement, authorization, or collusion.  That’s all about the conduct of a President using his office to conceal ugly criminal actions of political allies and underlings acting on his behalf, without his knowledge.

This case, for which there is strangely no agreed-upon catchy name(like “Watergate” for example,) is much worse because it involves the following elements:

  • A President’s administration seems to have been complicit in conspiring to commit criminal actions under color of their official offices
  • Actors within the various departments seem to have colluded with a political candidate in order to attack another political candidate
  • The FISC seems to have gone along with this because it did not seek to validate the providence of the documents
  • Much of the so-called “mainstream media” was complicit and acted as agents for this conspiracy
  • The conspirators remain at large to propagate their defense from the shadows and from official offices
  • Conspirators include a presidential candidate, at least one former President, his “kitchen cabinet,” and appointees, who remain in place in the government

Ladies and gentlemen, this is “the swamp.” This explains a good deal, because while the memo doesn’t go beyond the facts of the FISA abuses, it’s what those facts tell us about the overall corruption in Washington DC, how our government operates, and the extent to which abuses of power are the norm in the daily operation of government.  It also shows why we must from time to time clean out the Federal bureaucracy.  Too much power, too long-enjoyed by a like-minded group of people, perhaps operating from a shared ideological base, or from a common political organization, tends toward grotesque abuses of power.

This is just the first stone being overturned.  There are much worse abuses directly implied by the facts disclosed in this memo. For instance, was Peter Strzok the person who built the FISA application(s)? If so, aren’t the applications’ omissions of facts regarding the providence of the Steele Dossier essentially a defrauding of the FISC?  And if this is so, what happens to every case in which Strzok is or has been involved? Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, for instance.  Is this the reason that Mueller requested a delay in the sentencing of Flynn last Thursday?

One of the things that we know, historically, is that when testimony from an officer or investigator is shown to be tainted in some way, and particularly when that witness is found to have known his testimony was false, there are generally sanctions from the court, but more, all other cases involving the witness are thrown into question.  When it is shown that a police officer lied in testimony to a court in obtaining a search warrant, not only is that warrant thrown out, but there is a high probability that every instance of testimony in any case in which that officer had been a witness is thrown into question. It essentially ends the officer’s career, as nothing he says from that date forward is given any veracity.  No prosecutor will use his testimony, and no judge will thereafter consider his warrant applications.  In other words, Strzok and every case in which he has been involved will be thrown into question.  Every case.  Strzok helped write the Clinton email exoneration.  Strzok interviewed Flynn.  There’s no end to the possibilities, and Strzok has been moved out of Mueller’s team, and out of field investigations, to the Human Resources department.  That’s because he’s of no use whatever as an investigator of any sort.  His career as a field agent is and should be over.  He may face civil and/or criminal sanctions if he lied to a court, either directly or by omission.

Who signed off on these applications at the DOJ and the FBI?  The memo makes that plain:

  • James Comey
  • Sally Yates
  • Rod Rosenstein
  • Andrew McCabe

Comey and Yates have been fired, Rosenstein is still in place, and McCabe was placed on administrative leave by FBI director Christopher Wray on Monday, after he read the memo on Sunday. These people may all face civil or criminal sanctions on the same basis.  Rosenstein is being left in place to protect Mueller, and on Sunday, we had the spectacle of Trey Gowdy claiming that this memo has nothing to do with “Russia” or Mueller.  This is a preposterous assertion, as Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch made clear in a video briefing, and during an interview on Friday, when he was asked about Speaker Ryan’s claims to the same effect.  Here’s Fitton on Fox:

Now, compare this with what Trey Gowdy, (R-SC) had to say about it, Sunday, on [de]Face the Nation:

These two views are irreconcilable.  Either Fitton is correct, or Gowdy is correct. I don’t see room for any middle ground. Gowdy claims:

  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with the meeting with George Papadopoulos in Great Britain
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with “obstruction of justice”

On their face, all but the fourth of these claims seem true, except for one significant problem: The first three are certainly independent events, unrelated in terms of the specific actors, however, they are related by virtue of a timeline.  These are independent events, each in a vacuum, but they are events that add up to something illegitimate once taken together in a timeline with other things like the Steele Dossier.  To analogize, let us imagine that conspirators had agreed to take their independent parts in a plot to ensure that I would slip on a banana peel in front of cameras on my birthday. (I could see my siblings setting something like this up.) One brother buys a banana, eats the fruit, and carries the peel to the appointed place. Another brother arranges for the cameras to be present at the appointed place and time. My sister finds me, and asks me to accompany her to look at something.  Upon my arrival, my sister on my arm, another sibling distracts me and gets me to look left, as from the right, the brother with the banana peel tosses it into my path and my sister nudges me over it.  I land on my backside, and all have a great laugh at my expense. If I’m gullible, I might believe that the brother with the banana peel innocently discarded it into my path.  I might believe another brother just happened to have arranged for the cameras to be right there at that moment to record it for posterity, and I might believe my sister hadn’t been complicit in walking me into it while another brother took my attention off the path immediately in front of me.  I might be that gullible.  Is Trey Gowdy that gullible?  Is speaker Ryan?

As for the “obstruction” nonsense, just in the last week, we’ve learned how Andrew McCabe tried to set up Reince Priebus, and this is another example of a Republican being walked onto a banana peel by a duplicitous Democrat, the whole point of which was to create the impression that the Trump administration was trying to improperly influence Mueller’s fiasco of an investigation.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked congressman Chris Stewart(R-UT) if House Republicans are “more concerned with protecting us from the Russians or protecting us from the FBI?” Here’s the video:

That’s disgraceful. You can watch the entire Fox News Sunday show if you like, but any time Chris Wallace is involved, it’s going to have a leftist slant.

This isn’t over, because the DC establishment intends to rid themselves of Trump.  As readers will know, I’m not a Trump fan, but I am a fan of the rule of law and the US Constitution.  The forces arrayed against Trump here are formidable, but the question remains: Will President Trump rise to the challenge?  Will he find a way to empower his Attorney General, who has been neutered almost from the outset?  By the way, I think what should happen at this point is that AG Sessions should fire Rosenstein, then rescind his recusal on the “Russian Collusion” matter, and appoint another Special Counsel to investigate corruption within the executive branch departments, including the FBI and the DOJ, and also the State Department.  Apparently, I’m not alone in believing this, as Rep Paul Gosar, (R-AZ) wants to see some criminal prosecutions. At the same time, Rep. Louis Gohmert(R-TX) is pressing to see the transcripts of the FISC hearings that adjudicated these warrant applications.


Note: All of this made me curious to see if I could find out a bit more about Fitton’s view on things, and so I went looking around, finding this, which was interesting:


The Memo: Read it Here

Friday, February 2nd, 2018


For now, I’m just posting a link to a copy of the memo. It’s the biggest scandal in American history.

The government website is swamped. I’ve copied it and placed it here:



The Silent Coup d’état

Thursday, January 25th, 2018


It’s become pretty clear that the permanent government in Washington DC is corrupt beyond repair.  Tuesday, it was reported that a “Secret Society” was formed at the Federal Bureau of Investigations in order to stop Donald Trump from winning the 2016 election in the first instance, but having failed that, in the second instance to see him removed from office.  The most damnable aspect of this is that the latter is still ongoing.   Before losing perspective, remember that I’m not a particular fan of President Trump, and certainly no apologist for him, but in this instance, it’s certain that the forces arrayed against him are acting outside the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, and they’re showing no signs of relenting.  Worse, because the Attorney General of the United States has recused himself from the “Russian Collusion” investigation, there’s nobody who can put a stop to this madness.  What we have is an open-ended coup d’état in progress against the current President of the United States, putting the entire nation at risk.  Left unchecked, this silent executive branch revolt threatens to demolish our constitutional republic, and every legitimate officer of the United States federal government has taken an oath to prevent this.  I really don’t care about the political differences I may have with President Trump from time to time in this context, because my loyalty is reserved to the republic, and I renew my pledge each and every day: “…and to the Republic for which it stands…”  Attorney General Sessions had ought to review his own oath.  Members of Congress had better review their oaths.  It is time to fulfill them, and Americans are right to demand it.  Mark Levin has been right to call this a “Silent Coup,” and heads must roll.

Naturally, it’s worse than just the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.  That’s merely the point at which we enter into this issue.  When it became public knowledge last week that there was a classified memo by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Devin Nunes, there erupted a call for the document to be released to the public by various House members and also people in the media, such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham on their respective shows on FoxNews.  This memo purportedly gives some indication of just how corrupt the permanent ruling class in Washington DC has become in administering the Federal Government.   On Facebook and  Twitter, the phrases “ReleaseTheMemo” and “ReleaseTheDocument” became explosively popular hashtags.  On Tuesday, the ranking member of Nunes’ committee, Adam Schiff(D-CA,) together with fellow Californian Senator Dianne Feinstein(D-CA,) sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, CEOs of Facebook and Twitter, respectively, requesting that they investigate the allegation that “Russian Bots” were driving the meme on those two platforms.

Download the entire Feinstein & Schiff_letter in PDF format

 If you read the letter carefully, you will notice that already, Feinstein and Schiff are trying to distribute their own characterization of the memo, by way of defaming it.  Also, a question arises as to how Senator Feinstein has access to the memo to the extent she can comment about the character of its contents, since the memo is supposed to be classified and reserved at this point only to House members.  So why is a Senator commenting on the character of the memo?  It implies directly that she’s seen it.  Did Schiff disclose a classified document improperly to a colleague in the Senate?  More, when did members of Congress get the authority to make requests that sound more like demands of corporations?  These people certainly appear to be desperate to stop the disclosure of the memo in question to the public, and the reason for this is clear:  It will demolish the entire Democrat Party.  On Tuesday evening, both Schiff’s and Feinstein’s offices were hanging up on a deluge of callers letting the two Democrat hacks know that they were not “Russian Bots.”

There seems little impetus in Washington DC to release the memo, despite all the obvious evidence that the government is completely out of control.  Many Republicans seem more intent on fighting with President Trump than in pursuing the reckless, treasonous cabal that has sought and continues to seek to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States.  I cannot stress this point nearly enough: These people are traitors, and they have committed treason, and if they are not brought to justice, the United States Constitution is dead. If these conspirators are permitted to evade the full measure of justice, and if their masters are likewise able to escape detection and prosecution, our constitution is dead.  The country over.  In such a circumstance, there is no longer any moral law to restrain any person of integrity.  This must be an instance in which the great multitude of the American people must proclaim: “No justice, No Peace!”

Your country is being stolen from you.  At this moment, they are conspiring to steal the law from you.  They are conspiring to steal a duly elected President from you.  You may not like Donald Trump so well, but if you now stubbornly cling to #NeverTrump in spite of the current circumstance, you are forsaking your country.  Even if you are not a Trump fan, you must know what is at stake.  This is the sort of occasion for which sincere pledges of allegiance and oaths to protect and defend the constitution were made.  The last time this nation faced such a thorough mortal threat to its very existence from within, the year was 1861, Lincoln had been inaugurated, and the Civil War had commenced. I do not mean to say that Donald Trump is equivalent to, or even like Abraham Lincoln, as it is all too plain that he is not, but just like Abraham Lincoln, he is the duly elected President of the United States, and the conspiracy against him is no less broad or deep than the conspiracy that resulted in Lincoln’s assassination in 1865.  In fact, it is fair to say that while these conspirators have not yet resorted to violent means, it is certainly true that the conspiracy is wider in scope, and worse, it is secreted within the government of the United States.

None have yet asserted it, but it is possible that Robert Mueller is a party to this conspiracy.  Attorney General Sessions must immediately step in and put an end to Mueller’s bogus investigation.  He must dispatch the US Marshals to secure all pertinent evidence in the Department of Justice, including at the FBI, and within the NSA and CIA, and any other agencies in which there were participants in this attack on the United States.  Make no mistake about it: This was(and remains) a serious attack on the integrity of a US Presidential election, not by Russians, but by agents of our own government, perhaps in coordination with members and officials of the political party in power over the executive branch at the time.  More, there is now evidence that at least two of the conspirators were involved in getting the Mueller investigation going, and getting Mueller appointed by another person who may either be another conspirator, or may have been incompetent in acting as their puppet.  This entire ordeal stinks of wretched, skulking treason, and Robert Mueller is tainted with its stench.  It is time for Attorney General Sessions to formally rescind his recusal, and to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this conspiracy, and setting to right all those instances in which justice was thwarted or obstructed, and to bring to justice those who had any part in it.  This must include any members of previous administration(s) who were even tangentially connected, and it must bring charges against all the participants, no matter how highly they had been placed in former regimes. It may be that there are members of Congress, judges, and elected or appointed officials of the executive branch who will be rounded-up under this mandate, but this must be ended, and ended with swift and unyielding reverence for our constitution.

Editor’s Note: As I finished typing up this posting, Mark Levin‘s broadcast of Wednesday evening had begun.  His first hour focused on this subject, and it was Levin who coined the term “Silent Coup” in this context, so he should be credited with that.  I’d urge you to listen to that first hour, as it covers most of the facts we now know, and in truth, it had been Levin who first began piecing together this story of treachery and treason nearly one year ago. You can listen to Levin’s audio rewind in the player below:

Donald Trump Finally Gets With Program: Repeal Now, Replace Later

Friday, June 30th, 2017


repealnowreplacelater_ftAt long last, I think President Trump may finally be getting the message clearly from the American people, because his latest tweet on the matter makes it clear that he wants something done, and soon. “…immediately REPEAL, and REPLACE at a later date!” That’s what I’ve said since the outset.  Two years ago, the House and Senate each passed a basically clean repeal bill, and sent it to Obama, who naturally vetoed it.  One doesn’t need to be a cynic to suspect that many of the Republicans who passed that bill did so because they knew Obama would veto it.  Now that they have a President who might actually sign it into law, they’ve come up with all these permutations of a replacement law that effectively do nothing to rid us of Obama-care.

Now that “show votes” won’t cut the mustard, and they’re actually going to need to produce something, a large contingent of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have suddenly gone soft on Obama-care.  It’s time to hold these rotten, lying scoundrels to account.  For years, in cycle after cycle, beginning with the elections of 2010, they have promised us that they would strip Obama-care out of the law, bit by bloody bit, but now that it’s time to deliver, we find the sickening truth: Many of the House and Senate Republicans had been using this as a mere rallying cry for re/election to office, but had no intentions to actually repeal the horrible, freedom-stripping monstrosity that is Obama-care.

President Trump had talked a good deal about “repeal and replace,” both during the campaign and since, and it was one of the reasons my support for Mr. Trump has remained less than whole-hearted.  If he can manage to completely rid us of Obama-care, he will manage to gain the more active support of some reluctant conservatives. After all, this is one of the most devastating pieces of legislation in generations, and it has done more to kill jobs and people than any legislation in my lifetime.  The tax burdens and redistribution of wealth explicit in Obama-care are killing the country.  The law, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, is simply a Trojan horse for the worst predatory actions of a centralized government run amok in the history of our country.  It is fitting then, as we enter the Independence Day weekend, that we begin to address one of the worst attacks on American independence in the history of the nation.

It’s time to repeal Obama-care, outright, and without replacement.  If it’s to be replaced with something to address concerns at some future date, that’s fine, and we can have those arguments then, but no more of this holding Obama-care over our heads as they try to get something only slightly less obnoxious to our liberties through the Congress.  Repeal NOW, and replace later!  That’s what should have been this President’s intention from the outset, and while I’m disappointed that it’s taken this long for him to see it, I believe in this case that it’s a case of “better late than never.”

One of the things that surfaced this week is the sad story, heart-rending, and insanely outrageous story of a little baby, Charlie Gard, who will be left to die by virtue of the National Health Service in the UK, and the Human Rights Panel of the European Union.  The child has a rare, almost always lethal condition that is killing him, and his parents raised more than $1.4 million to finance an experimental treatment in the US, but the EU’s Human Rights Commission(a.k.a. “Death Panel”) has determined that they may not take their child to the US for this treatment.

All of my life, I have heard the complaint of various leftists advocating on behalf of government-run healthcare that conservatives and libertarians who wish to rely upon the free market are cruel and heartless, but what could be more cruel than a government entity essentially sentencing your baby to death when you had raised the money to try one last thing to save his or her young life?  What is more hideous is that under Obama-care, and soon, if the leftists succeed in moving us to a single-payer system, this is what we’ll have here in America as well:  An unsustainable health financing system that kills off the most vulnerable among us, whether or not one has the ability to pay.

This is the ugly secret of all Marxist healthcare systems, anywhere on the globe, including Obama-care: They promise free healthcare for all, but in truth, nothing is free, and all people wind up dependent upon and enslaved by the system.   All choice and discretion is removed.  Out-of-program health expenditures are forbidden.  New treatments and drugs are aborted in order to fund current demands.  In the end, what you get is a “free healthcare” system that is neither free nor “healthcare.”

This is why Obama-care must be repealed, fully, and at once.  I’m contacting all my members of the Congress, and those in leadership in both houses, to Repeal NOW and worry about replacement later.  I’m glad President Trump is finally seeing it this way.  We must demand our members support the same legislation that was vetoed by Obama in 2015, and we must demand it at once!



Repeal, Replace, or Regurgitate?

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017


With the slim details that are thus far available of the Senate’s Obamacare replacement legislation, I must say that I am both saddened and disgusted with the state of the Republican party in Congress, and highly annoyed with Donald Trump’s insistence on Wednesday night that more tax-payer money equals heart. That’s what he said, and it makes me ill. If Mr. Trump wishes to have more “heart” in healthcare, let him donate his billions. Most of us don’t have billions to give, or even hundreds, and the government doesn’t exactly “solicit donations.” It aims a gun at our heads, making demands for payment. What may disappoint me most about this is that from his base of support, a loud groan did not erupt when he made that statement before the audience in Iowa.  Conservatism is dying because to a large extent, so many Americans, so fatigued by Obama’s war against them, would accept two smiling lashes per day from another President if it meant escaping Obama’s ten, delivered across their backs with full leftist fury. So happy are they to be removed from Obama’s ever more weighty iron jack-boot, that they’re willing to have Donald Trump’s wingtip on their neck.  The stark truth of this whole situation is very simple, and it comes down to this: You cannot repeal a despicable law like Obamacare and then replace it with something very nearly as egregious, while hoping Americans won’t notice.

Apparently, most of a handful of Senators today noticed too: Senators Cruz(R-TX,) Johnson(R-WI,) Lee(R-UT,) and Paul(R-KY) signed a joint statement to the effect that they cannot support the Senate bill. I want to know where the other 48 Republican Senators are hiding.  This bill is a scandal, promising to saddle our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt that reaches out to infinity.  President Trump should be ashamed.  Vice President Pence should join him in guilt for this bill. Over in the House, Paul Ryan should be breathing at least a momentary sigh of relief as the worst Republican bill to come out of Congress in memory is no longer his pet, now reduced instead to a close second in the standings.

I realize President Trump is not a conservative, but leans somewhat conservative on a few issues.  At present, however, he’s flirting with losing conservatives’ support because of this bill.  The Republicans in both houses of Congress have failed to provide a true repeal of Obamacare, and I cannot possibly express how thoroughly disappointing this development has been.  Rather than scrap the whole damnable thing, they are nearly all of the spending, and merely trimming some of the tax burdens Obamacare imposes.  That’s not “repeal.” It’s scarcely “replace.”

The sad truth is that our country is headed into the toilet of world history, and this bill will do nothing to arrest its fall.  We cannot have a system in which half the citizens are the beneficiaries of the lashes across the other half’s backs. I had hoped Trump would fight the left, rather than encouraging them, but this sort of thing provides fresh evidence that he’s just another big-government Republican, little different in this respect from the parade of so-called “moderates” who have repeatedly disappointed us.

President Trump’s supporters had better get in touch with Mr. “Big heart” and let him know that money doesn’t equal compassion when it is extracted at gunpoint, or affixed like a ball and chain to generations yet unborn. I could vomit.


The War on America

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017


There have been a number of considerable turning points in American history, and I believe we have reached another.  After 9/11, one of the conclusions of the Commission set up to investigate the attack concluded, among other things, that one of the reasons the attackers had been successful is that while through the 1990s, al-Qaeda had been in an openly-declared war against the United States, for the most part, our government had conducted itself as though no war existed, taking little action against al-Qaeda despite a ratcheting escalation against our nation, with attacks at the Kobar Towers, The USS Cole, the embassies that came under attack in Africa, and numerous other less infamous attacks.  The critique of the 9/11 Commission on this point was correct, and in many ways, it should have served as a warning that history provides a nation for its future remembrance and consideration, but it seems the lesson is lost on our people and our politicians.  As bad as al-Qaeda or ISIS may be, and as mortifying as their campaign of terrorism and murderous intentions may be, I believe we now face a more virulent threat, one that threatens to destroy not only people and planes and buildings, but America itself.  Here, I do not mean “the United States,” but instead the very idea that is and has been “America,” writ large across history’s pages.  Most frightening of all, it seems too many Americans are blissfully unaware, but what we now face is an irrational enemy that rivals al-Qaeda in their evil intentions, and possesses one significant advantage in its war against us:  They are of us. They are among us.  They are everywhere around you, and their hatred of America is no less sincere, and no less vengeful.  Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a war undeclared in words, but a war nevertheless affirmed by their actions, and it is a war on everything we love. We must adopt the appropriate mindset.

I have cited here before the amazing and simultaneously terrifying similarities between the radical left and militant Islam.  In terms of the peculiarities of their respective grievances with America, it would seem at least superficially distinct, but upon closer examination, one begins to note that in truth, there are very few differences that amount to much.  One might argue, for instance, that the radical left supports extended special rights and protections for homosexuals, whereas militant Islam seems to be most comfortable when heaving homosexuals from rooftops, such that one would never think that the two groups could have much in common, but I beg you reconsider.  For the radical left, homosexuals are just another pressure group in their endless war of identity politics. The “LGBTQ community” is merely another vehicle for the advance of their deepest socio-political ambitions, which care not in the least for the actual people one whose behalf they claim to advocate.  Note instead that in a choice between supporting militant Islam and conservative Americans, the left gleefully chooses the former, since the latter is their true enemy.

In the same way, militant Islamists would seem to share no particular affinity for leftists, until you consider their ruling philosophy.  It is true that while the left is generally secularist in its thinking, and militant Islam is thoroughly religious on its face, both seek the same basic union: Leftists desire the aggregation of all power and law under a secular government, removing all individual discretion of any kind, including thought or expression, while Islamists seek to remove all obstacles to a theocracy that likewise eschews any notion of the individual human being.  Both claim the supremacy of their respective goals;  to carry out either ultimate plans requires the forceful subsumption of all human discretion under their immediate martial control.  In theory, this distinction between the secular and religious would seem a broad difference, but in practice, it requires the same ultimate series of oppressive undertakings, requiring the absolute suppression of the individual in any personal dimension.

We have arrived in a state of our culture in which the more committed radical leftists now take up arms to carry out their own sort of Jihad against Republican legislators.  What makes this different from the parade of political assassins of the left in times gone by is that here, the Jihadist didn’t care so much about a particular target, but was instead motivated by extraordinary hatred against the core ideas of America.  He shot Congressman Scalise, but Scalise wasn’t a specific target, except inasmuch as he happened to be a Republican.  What signals to me the onset of the open war against America is not merely the attack waged by this leftist goon, but instead the disgusting, despicable reaction of the whole leftist media and political establishment that immediately set out to justify and rationalize the attack, turning to blaming the victims of the attack, intimating that Scalise(and all Republicans) deserve what they get.

At the same time, the radical left, which is now nearly the whole body and appendages of the mainstream media and the government bureaucracy are now aligned to destroy President Donald Trump.  As you will have known, I am not Trump’s greatest advocate, but he is after all the duly elected President of the United States, is qualified to hold that office, and he seems to be setting about fulfilling his duties despite my sometimes significant disagreements with his policy preferences.  This circumstance is wholly unacceptable to the virulent radical left.  They will remove him from office, one way or the other, and indeed, any Republican who would follow him, not because he is all that far from the more moderate folk in their political party, but because he is of the opposition, and that he might manage a mildly conservative thing or two, and reverse some parts of the drive toward their ultimate goal: The complete subjugation of any remaining philosophically American people, and the unrelenting demolition of the underlying idea that had been Americanism.

The war being conducted against Trump is spawned of the radical left’s stranglehold on the mass media(not merely the news media,) and the stranglehold they have on the bureaucracy that is the deep state.  They are coordinating to destroy him, as evidenced and typified by Comey’s leak to his friend, and by the official state as made plain by the unmasking of Michael Flynn and unknown (as yet) others in and around the Trump campaign and administration.  None of this is accidental, and it all has the same underlying purpose: De-legitimize Trump in preparation for removing him from office, legally if possible, forcefully if they can provoke it among one of their more violent lunatics, or by political destruction in 2020 if nothing else succeeds.  They have the whole of the mass media, the news, and the entire extended welfare state and security bureaucracy of the government at their immediate disposal, and while Trump clearly knows he’s under attack, I don’t think he’s quite yet grasped how thorough his challenges are, or how even to begin fighting for his own survival.

This sickening, depraved assault on the Trump presidency is really just an extension of the radical left’s war on us.  He’s actually a proxy for the obstacle we present the left in their war on America and Americanism.  What Trump must now do, and I hope someone close to him will prevail upon him to recognize it, is to defend himself and the country with all the power of the presidency, by every available means.  Trump could be creative and intelligent in this respect, but he must find the right sort of strategic and tactical thinkers to carry it out. The executive branch is gigantic, and most agencies and departments of the US Federal Government fall under the President’s direct control.  If Trump wishes to win this war, he must begin where his power is strongest under our constitutional system, and that means making an all-out war against the bureaucracy and its innumerable hangers-on.

Hiring freezes are nice, but that’s barely a pimple on the behemoth’s backside.  His watchwords should be: “Reorganize and restructure.” At present, the bureaucracy of the whole Federal Government is structured in a manner optimal to its growth and further aggregation of power.  It is staffed with people who are most frequently hostile to the idea that is America, and the people throughout the country who still cling stubbornly to those ideals.  More, Trump is in a position to use the bureaucracy’s own arguments to demolish it.  Trump can do something none have ever dared to do before, and sweep out so much of the Federal leviathan.  You might ask how Trump could accomplish this. Here are just a few ideas:

  • Move whole departments and their headquarters of the Federal Government out of Washington DC and its immediate surrounds, justifying it as an example of trying to get all the nation’s most critical eggs out of the same vulnerable basket
  • Eliminate whole sections and sub-departments of various agencies on the basis of a “green” movement, trying to make the federal government more environmentally friendly by reducing its size and carbon footprint.
  • Instruct the bureaucracy to release Obama era working papers, various and sundry studies, and all manner of leftist undertaking all in the name of open, honest, and transparent government.  Consider even a campaign of declassifying information where it has no further relevance to national security
  • Replace every bureaucrat above the rank of janitor, driving them off with new policies justified in various ways, and removing perquisites where they exist.  Take away government-issued vehicles and issue bicycles. Take away work-owned cellular phones from all but the absolutely most critical personnel as a cost-saving measure.
  • Similarly, eliminate Internet access as both a security measure and a cost-saving measure except for those whose jobs absolutely require it.

Obviously, this is far from an exhaustive list, but you can let your imagination run away a little bit with these sorts of approaches. There’s no end to the ways in which the bureaucracy can be brought to heel, but it’s time, finally, for Trump to begin that job in earnest, if not as a purely utilitarian approach to government reform, then at least as a matter of his(and our) defense.

Donald Trump needs to recognize that the radical left is at war with America every bit as zealously as are al-Qaeda and ISIS.  Even now, their more virulently maniacal members are being motivated to real attacks and real violence against Americans and Americanism.  For precisely the same reason they help to cover up militant Islamists’ attacks in the media, and with the same undeniable political agenda, their intention is to conceal this war against America and Americans as long as possible.  The time is coming when this war may enter a new and more dangerous phase, when the violence will become increasingly routine and more accepted in the mass media, and if you watch what is happening in Europe with militant Islam, you begin to grasp what is afoot for America, now under attack by radical leftists.  Trump is the only person in a position in our government to openly oppose all of this, and while he may be active on Twitter, it’s time for him to become more activist in his defense and defense of the Republic.  After eight long years of a president openly hostile to America and Americans, and a media all too willing to redefine even what those words mean on his behalf, it’s time for President Trump to live up to his “America First” proclamation.  He’ll need our support if he’s to succeed, but first, it’s time for him to strike back, and the power of the presidency is a very nearly unlimited weapon in the fight against the colossus that is the Federal bureaucracy.

One might ask how going after the bureaucracy will stanch the radical left’s war on America, but the truth is that initially, it will cause them to react somewhat more reflexively and perhaps violently to the change, but if they are permitted to fester longer, it strengthens them, and it offers them comfort. The Federal government is their “safe space,” and it’s time to pull that particular rug from beneath them. Every time the deep state launches an attack on Trump or his administration, and each time some mad-cap leftist carries out an attack against peaceful Republicans, the virulent left is heartened. To win this war, Trump is going to need to break their spirit, and hearten the actual Americans who remain among us.  Taking on the bureaucracy is entirely within his constitutional scope.  Delaying this a moment longer is merely to yield more ground to an unrelenting, irrational evil.   When Trump pointed out that the news media are effectively an enemy of the people, he was right, and perhaps much more so than simplistic evaluations of his more bombastic proclamations reveal, but also, I fear, more than he knew at the time.  It isn’t just the media, however.  Specifically, it’s the radical leftist media, a near hegemony that is in league with the deep state, and indeed, the entire Washington DC establishment.

President Trump doesn’t need to openly declare war against the left, at least initially.  What this war against America requires is a substantive response, and that response should come in the form of a complete demolition of the deep state bureaucracy, shamelessly and tirelessly using the full palette of presidential powers contemplated by our constitution as the chief executive presiding over the executive branch. He won’t need to declare it, because the leftists will scream at the tops of their shrill little voices, and the remnant of America will understand the source of the noise, and be heartened.  It’s a war, and we ought to have such lesser skirmishes while it’s still possible in order to preclude the many deeper tragedies the left will beget if unopposed.  There is still time to save America, and it’s time for President Trump to launch the counteroffensive, as only the President has the authority to do.  If the left is not stopped soon, the disasters that will be visited upon the shrinking remnant of America will be more thorough than those that either al-Qaeda or ISIS can begin to realize. The radical left is every bit as dangerous as the militant element of Islam, and it’s time to do something about it.




Congratulations to Donald Trump!

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

trump_wins_ftAnalysts will study this election for years to come.  Donald Trump overcame a media and political establishment that had dismissed him from the outset of his campaign.  There’s no doubt that they believed Trump would become a footnote in political history books, and that much like they were able to politically defame and largely demolish the Tea Party, they expected to put his supporters out of their minds and simply dismiss them in the same way.  IF you remember back in 2009, and 2010, Barack Obama was dismissive of the Tea Party movement that was just erupting, and he wouldn’t even acknowledge them, instead leaving DC when they arranged for their huge march.  The left thought they would apply the same tactics to Donald Trump and his supporters, and that would do the trick for them again. Marginalized, defamed, and categorized as “racist, sexist nut-jobs,” they expected to run right over the army of Trump supporters with equal indifference.  Donald Trump was of another mind, and that certainly played a remarkable role, but having examined the election returns, I’m prepared to say what I think made the difference.  Analysts will study and fret, trying to discover some secret key to what made them lose, or miss the analysis, but they’re all missing the point.  It’s really much simpler than all of the nuance and rationalization that’s been going on in the last twelve hours.  It really isn’t rocket science, and a cursory examination of the results will bear this out: Donald Trump won the election in 2016 because too many Americans have been desperate for change for much too long, and because the current president and his administration(but also much of the Congress) have been entirely indifferent to the suffering they’ve inflicted.

Leftists never consider the impact of their policies on individuals.  Their rationalizations are always constructed under the skewed microscope of the collectivized “good” as they conceive it.  If imposing a healthcare program on the entirety of the nation results in a driving-up of costs for average Americans, while only covering a small number of additional Americans, they don’t care.  If they evaluate their program at all, their conclusion will inevitably be that they must tax more and impose larger penalties for those who refuse to participate.  Never do they hesitate to consider that for most Americans, even those not formally a part of the Obama-care program, the net effect for most Americans of the mere existence of this law has been to drive up out-of-pocket costs for every person who is a net payer, and by some dramatic proportions in many instances.  The statists simply do not care about these impacts, and won’t even consider them in their political calculus.  It is this baked-in tone-deafness of the left that makes for the sort of shock they experienced in the wee hours of this morning when they realized Donald Trump would become president.

Leftists only talk to one another.  The entire media establishment is so thoroughly rife with leftists that they cannot see any point of view but their own.  Disagreement is not tolerated, and other points of view are summarily dismissed, mocked, and otherwise defamed.  Worst of all, perhaps, they seem to exist within a sort of echo-chamber that leads them to believe things that simply aren’t so, and this blinds them to reality, again, setting them up for the sort of massive failure they experienced on Election Day 2016.

In this election, what they failed to perceive is something rather simple, and it’s been right there before them since 2009, but they’ve stubbornly ignored it, as if by ignoring it, it would simply not exist.  This ostrich-like behavior meant they would not hear the desperation in the voices of average Americans, with whom they have very little contact, and who are, in their view, simply the insignificant people of “flyover country.”

This is where Donald Trump won, but let’s be more explicit about who it was that dragged him across the finish line to victory:  In the last week of the campaign, in horror over the looming possibility of a Clinton presidency, Republicans began to “come home” as Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence had implored, but with them, a broad range of people who are largely middle, middle-class, white, and of lower educational credentials.  Contrary to the beliefs of the fools in Washington DC, and in the media generally, credentials do not alone describe one’s intelligence or lack thereof.  Credentials make no difference whatsoever to people who are starving in sight of a bounty, denied access to it only by the aggression of government.

The knot-heads in colleges and universities who believe their credentials give them some special insight, and are of the sort who have attached too much importance to their own stations in life, and too little of the situations of their fellow Americans.  This is magnified by those in the media, and those in Washington DC, all of whom have seemed to believe they are the smartest people in any room, perpetually.  Donald Trump is to be credited for recognizing it.  The challenge for Donald Trump is to avoid “blowing it” by forgetting this lesson.  The people who elected Donald Trump are largely those who have been demolished by the giant regulatory and welfare state.  They’ve lost homes and businesses, or simply now work a ridiculous number of hours simply to keep the lights on, and they’ve seen their personal aspirations and their hopes for their children squandered by government that does not care for the dreams of individual people.  This is the lesson the left would learn, if they were not so tone-deaf, and if they did not wear blinders in the presence of “inconvenient truths.”  It’s also the lesson Donald Trump must not forget, lest he squander the very awesome opportunity he’s been granted by the American people, albeit with some significant skepticism.

In simplest terms, what won this election for Donald Trump is the absolute desperation of the American people.  What put him over the top is simply a desperate appeal to the fates by those who realized, even entering the polling places, that Hillary Clinton’s America would offer them no hope, and no chance at recovery, and perhaps worst of all, no sympathy even from those who imposed this decline.  It was a last, plaintive act of self-defense for a people who have watched their lives diminished, their very liberties under constant threat of summary debasement, and their hopes for their children and grandchildren’s future foreclosed.  These are the people who have funded the welfare state, under the ever more punishing blows of government’s whips, while they’ve gone without meals and fell behind on bills and been unable to fund their kids’ education while they’ve paid for the educations of others. These are the folk who eat Macaroni and Cheese or Ramen noodles three or four times weekly, while in line at the grocery store, they stand in fuming and  smoldering, in ever more indignant anger behind the throngs of EBT card users who enjoy surf-and-turf  paid for by the folk eating bare subsistence rations. These are the people who struggle to make mortgage payments, only to find the value of their homes in steep decline as the statists in Washington DC use public housing benefits to place entitled peoples into their formerly nice neighborhoods, new but unappreciative residents who frequently make a wreckage of the nice dwellings they’ve been provided.

Imagine the veteran, who has done his duty and wishes merely to make a living and enjoy his life, but finds his rights are under constant assault by the statists.  He might have a gun or two, and he might like to hunt, or simply shoot at paper targets, only to find that he’s been lumped-together with terrorists by the likes of Hillary Clinton, who live under a shield of heavily-armed security forces, but who do not trust law-abiding citizens who arm themselves for sport, for hunting, and for self-defense.  To know that at any moment, under the auspices of some arbitrary law, one may find his guns outlawed, and his rights turned into the claim of a criminal is to know the terror of too many Americans who have become too accustomed to being ruled by a President who boast of having “a pen and a phone.”

For too long, too many Americans have watched their standard of living in sharp decline, while working harder, and taking on more difficult but also more poorly-compensated jobs, knowing that the society around them is filled with people who don’t work at all, ever, but who also manage to live at least as well as the poor slobs who work sixty, seventy, and eighty hours per week.  These are people interested in justice, who want to see hard work rewarded, and slothfulness and incompetence punished, as nature would dictate.  These are people who follow the law, no matter how much it may be to their detriment, never willing to give an excuse to those who govern them to further deprive them of liberty.  They look around and see that the system of law and justice serves only the corrupt and the criminal, while they must live in perpetual fear of the next new law in violation of which they might act, in simple ignorance. It has been long-declared and well-established that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” except that there are now so many laws that none can possibly know all that apply to their lives and endeavors.  Government bureaucrats have no sympathy for that reality, and the statists care not for the plights of individual men and women.

It is the mother who works many hours, who may or may not have a husband to help pull that wagon, and who have finally discovered that their lives and labors and their love of their children is under unflagging attack.  They live in terror of the next electric bill, an inflated grocery bill, and they don’t understand why they must pay not only for themselves and their families but the families of others whose exertions are minimal.

It is a family who sees their values and moral standards under continuous attack.  They find that they must de-propagandize their children daily upon their arrival from the public schools, that teach no values except as collectivized notions, and who most often stand at odds with the interests of the family, its children, and its parents.

All of these people and many more like them are the reasons Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016.  They were desperate.  They need relief.  They need a respite from the never-ending assaults on their lives, liberties, and wallets.  They need somebody, somewhere, to finally understand that the grand ideas conceived in Washington DC most often result in disasters for the people who live in “flyover country.”  In a final desperate act of self-defense, they decided to take a chance on Donald Trump, knowing that Hillary Clinton offered only more of the same, and perhaps represented the final nail in their individual coffins.

Donald Trump has a fantastic opportunity, and I for one wish him well, and I sincerely hope he will not squander it.  Too many politicians make a mockery of the people who’ve elected them, forgetting their promises, or remembering them while conveniently finding ways to avoid carrying them out.  Donald Trump can win re-election easily in four years if he will only do the following:

  • Secure the nation, build the wall and enforce the nation’s existing immigration law. Mexico needn’t pay for it, but it must be built
  • Re-institute justice for all, including particularly the rich and powerful
  • Cut taxes on those who work for a living – and if he really wants the favor of the working stiff, make only the first forty hours of labor taxable
  • Repeal Obamacare (but don’t replace it with some other mandatory, equally tyrannical program)
  • Get control of the exploding welfare state, from the cost side, but also from the point of view of sheer extravagance and enticement to dependency
  • Make America a place great for business again, so that people can work and prosper by their own efforts
  • Rescind Obama’s lengthy list of Executive Orders
  • Take care of our veterans and make sparing use of a rebuilt and revitalized military relieve of silly but dangerous social engineering
  • Appoint judges who will follow the explicit mandates of the US Constitution
  • Never forget the individual aspirations and dreams of individual Americans in signing(or vetoing) laws and issuing executive orders

If Donald Trump will merely do these things, I suspect he will get a forty-state(or better) win for re-election in four years, if he wants it.  This is the truth of how Donald Trump won.  He won because for too many Americans, the situation has become far too dire.  I expect that he will have a short honeymoon period with the vast bulk of the American people.  If he can make strides to substantially carry out the important parts of the agenda he’s outlined, and can merely make a credible stab at fulfilling the short but difficult list above, he will succeed like no President since at least Ronald Reagan.  He has that chance.  He has every reason to do it.  The question now remains: Will he?

Like a large number of Americans who closed the gap and pushed him over the top, I have nothing but well-wishes and the best hopes for Donald Trump’s presidency. It was a last, desperate act of self-defense for so many Americans who determined that he was an imperfect vessel, but at least there’s a chance he won’t be nearly so foul and depraved as Hillary Clinton, whatever he may have done in the past.  We voted for Donald Trump because we knew Hillary would only worsen things, and at least with Donald Trump, there’s some inkling that he might drag the country in the correct direction for a change.  It’s become as desperate as that for too many Americans.  I hope he will recognize this, if he hasn’t already, and act accordingly to secure their continuing support. He has referred to them as the “forgotten Americans.”  In his remarks after Hillary Clinton’s concession phone call, he offered a glimmer that their  hope is justified.

Congratulations and good luck to Donald Trump and Mike Pence, along with all those who supported him from the beginning.  May their fortunes rise and fall in accordance with their fidelity to the people and to the Constitution of the United States.  Therein lies the cause of Hillary’s defeat and the repudiation of Obama’s legacy.






We Need More Gridlock!

Friday, March 18th, 2016

dc_gridlock2_ftI’ve watched most of the GOP debates, and I’ve watched a fair number of the Republican candidates’ press conferences and campaign events, and one of the things I hear Donald Trump saying is that “we need to end gridlock.” His general notion is apparently that in Washington DC, they don’t “get deals done,” or “they make terrible deals,” and the result is gridlock.  Let me be clear about my position on this, Trump’s notions notwithstanding: Our government spends more than $4 Trillion per year, and without such “gridlock” as we have, we would undoubtedly spend more.  Mr. Trump would do much better with conservatives if he finally recognized this and integrated it into his views.  Our problem isn’t gridlock, but a terrible lack of it.

For the last several years, it has been a cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, working in concert with the Presidents Bush and Obama, to expand the government and to bail out the various entities, and to print money at an unsustainable rate.  It’s easy enough to look at the mess in Washington DC, see that conservative policies never make it into the resulting legislation, and conclude the problem had been “gridlock.” There are many Trump supporters, along with Trump himself, who view this as a failure of conservatism.  In one respect, they’re right, but where they are wrong is in a belief that conservative principles are the problem, or that the relief from “gridlock” will cure the issue.

One can apply this to almost any particular topic, or subject of legislation.  Let us consider the conservative view of taxation.  We’ve certainly had some gridlock on that issue, if your particular preference is to cut taxes.  On the other hand, if you prefer increased taxation, you will note that in various forms, the total taxation by the Federal Government has increased markedly in the era of Obama.  If you’re for significant tax reform, for instance, a “flat tax,” you will believe there is gridlock on this issue.  On the overall issue of taxation, however, there’s been no gridlock: We’re being taxed to death.  This is the problem with the term “gridlock,” and this is the reason it’s such a poor term. It describes a generic sense of inaction in Washington DC, but one can scarcely conclude, looking solely at the expenditures by government, that “gridlock” may exist on issues dealing with reform, but it cannot actually exist when the printing press for government checks is concerned, or where the printing(or digitizing) of new money is under review.

To show the other side of the misuse of “gridlock” in rhetorical flourishes, there are those advocates of an “amnesty” of some sort for the tens of millions of illegal aliens in this country who will insist that we have had “gridlock” on “immigration reform.” Let me state emphatically that with respect to the laws, I will fight fervently to see to it that “gridlock” prevails on this issue, because until we begin to enforce the laws that already exist, and until the “gridlock” in the executive branch is alleviated through an effort at enforcement of existing laws, I’m all for “gridlock” in the matter of “immigration reform.”  The truth is that we do not so much need “immigration reform” as we need “immigration enforcement.”  Listen, however, to the legalization and amnesty crowd, and what you learn is that when they talk about “gridlock,” they mean that they haven’t yet succeeded in legalizing that which had been formerly(and currently) illegal.

These and many more examples like them make plain that “gridlock” is not a problem.  The real problem is that in specific policy terms, our government uses the term “gridlock” to represent inaction on concrete policies that they favor, but the American people do not.  People should be skeptical when politicians talk about a generic “gridlock” without defining the specifics of the stoppage about which they’re concerned.  Too often, politicians have seized upon general sentiments against “gridlock” as the means by which to advance agenda items their voters and supporters would not support.  A great example of that would be Marco Rubio, who ran for his current seat in the Senate, opposing Charlie Crist on the issue of “amnesty,” but who talked about “gridlock” on “immigration reform.”  In his first few years in office, he spent much of his time and energies on the issue of “immigration reform,” attempting to alleviate “gridlock” on the issue, but little had his supporters expected that his proposals would ultimately be tantamount to a full reversal on the issue that had in part propelled him into office.  Of course, Rubio claimed all along that he was working to overcome “gridlock” on the issue. What becomes obvious, however, is that “gridlock” is a matter of perspective, and where one stands regarding an issue dominates whether one will view it in a positive or negative light.

The question isn’t whether we have too much gridlock, but whether it exists in the consideration of the right policies.  When the Republicans, then in the minority in both houses, fought to stop the passage of Obama-care, this was “Gridlock” writ large on the legislative stage, and I don’t know a single person now supporting Trump who wished there hadn’t been more “gridlock” on that issue.  In point of fact, more often than not, most of the people of the United States would be better served by a form of “gridlock” that causes stoppages in the legislative and regulatory processes of our government than by letting them go on in an unrestricted fashion.  Think about all of the stupid laws and regulations streaming out of Washington DC, but imagine there had been sufficient gridlock to stop them. This is the secret that most politicians don’t want you to know about “gridlock:” The constitution is itself a device of gridlock. It’s intended that way, and precisely for all of the reasons I’ve outlined.  The framers had the wisdom to know that “gridlock” impedes sudden and ill-considered change.

Knowing that, I’m in favor of “gridlock” generally, because I know that politicians promoting precipitous change have led us into a quagmire from which we will not easily emerge.  When Washington DC is gridlocked, I know my liberties are still safe, but when the gridlock breaks, my liberties are generally at risk.  The electorate at large has been conditioned to see gridlock as an ill of Washington DC, but the people should learn that gridlock often serves to protect us from the ills of excessive, bloated government, contrary to the impressions that media outlets and DC politicians often create.  If we’re going to talk about alleviating the log-jam in DC, let us be careful to use enough specificity to focus our energies, because otherwise, opportunistic politicians will run with the theme of “gridlock as the enemy” in order to foist all sorts of infamy upon us.  That’s why I rejoice when I see gridlock in Washington DC.  May we have more of it, that we may enjoy its innumerable blessings.


My Disgust with GOP Politicians

Sunday, March 13th, 2016

cruz_statementOn Friday evening, as the staged riot at the UIC Trump event was in full swing, Ted Cruz came out to make a statement, that was carried live in several media outlets.  That statement began by briefly blaming the protesters, but then shifted immediately into blaming Donald Trump for the violence, asserting that he had created an environment ripe for violence, by effectively inciting it. First, let’s listen to Senator Cruz’s statement Friday evening:

I can’t describe how disappointed I am at this “blame the victim” meme being advanced in this video by Ted Cruz.  Naturally, both Rubio and Kasich made similar remarks to media, and it frankly disgusts me that they reverted purely to opportunists seizing on a chance to attack Donald Trump.  While it is true that it would seem at least superficially factual that Trump may have encouraged some violence with the “punch him in the face” remark during one of his rallies, the truth is that the statement “punch him in the face” is being considered here out of context.  What do I mean by “out of context?”

Consider that you’re throwing a party, or hosting an event, and ne’er-do-wells invade your event with the express purpose of causing trouble, or of creating mayhem.  As they’re being escorted out, or frequently as they’re being apprehended, they become a whirligig of flailing fists to either combat their removal, or to slow their removal or otherwise cause harm to others.  In this sort of context, some of these people would deserve, and would have earned a “punch in the face.” It’s not an aggressive use of force that Trump seems to have been advocating, but something of a response or defense against some of these very nasty folk who are stirring up trouble, intentionally, and by design of their attendance at the event of a person they obviously do not support.

If I support a cause, for instance, the Tea Party, and I attend the rally of a Tea Party group, I’m there to honestly support the cause and otherwise participate honestly in an event.  If I go to a rally of Planned Parenthood supporters, knowing I truly detest everything for which Planned Parenthood stands, secreting myself by disguise of clothing or signage, but then interrupt the program, and become violent as I am forcibly removed from the premises, I’m not a “peaceful protester” nor am I anything but what Trump has termed “disrupters.” I have used deception to gain entrance, and then by force of my active presence and demonstration against the purpose of the rally, I have placed the other rally attendees, security teams, and the host(s) of the rally in the position of having to use physical force or its implicit threat to remove me in order to continue the event for which they have every right to carry out as scheduled.

The people actually creating the “atmosphere” or “environment” of violence are not, in such a scenario, the host(s) of the event, the security staff, nor even other attendees who may wish to confront me or assist in my removal.  In such a scenario, the sole responsibility for violence lies with the person who instigated the incident, in my example above.  This is not really a logical controversy, and Ted Cruz is a smart enough fellow to have known better.  So are Marco Rubio and John Kasich.  Instead, they leaped opportunistically into the situation without regard for the truth.  In Chicago, at the scheduled UIC Trump rally that was ultimately canceled on Friday night, the responsibility for all of it, every bit of any violence, the rampage, and the canceling of the event, every stitch of it, lies solely with those who organized and participated in the riot for the purposes of interrupting, interfering, or otherwise diminishing the event for all those who were attending in good faith.

Ted Cruz had the opportunity to say that.  He had the chance to step in front of the cameras and microphones and be a champion of free speech, and to absolutely castigate the parties who were involved in this mob-oriented treachery.  Instead, what Senator Cruz did was to attack the victim(s).  Instead, what Senator Cruz did was to lend cover and excuse culpability of all these ne’er-do-wells who intentionally attended the event, using disguise and deception, for the explicit purpose of stifling the free speech of Mr. Trump, along with any other speakers scheduled, and naturally the crowd that was gathering to listen to him.  It excuses the damage done to attendees’ vehicles by the rampaging hordes of ne’er-do-wells and provides them with an out for their actions.

This is extremely disappointing to me.  Senator Cruz is an attorney, a man who proclaims his thorough-going support of the US Constitution, and yet I am to believe that he does not see this distinction?  It’s not as though Trump supporters were or are parading through the streets of Chicago looking for a fight, or that Trump himself were leading such a parade, aggressively seeking out protesters to confront and attack as a matter of aggression.  These supposed “incitements” to violence that Ted Cruz and the others have been citing all occurred within the confines of venues reserved by the host of the event in question, and solely for the participation of the invited, sincere participants.

This is no different from the very nasty habit of current public schools and their widespread “zero-tolerance” policy on violence, in which they make no moral or logical distinction whatsoever between the attacker and the victim who defends his or her person from the attack.  Trump never said “go out in the streets, find those protesters, beat the hell out of them, and punch them in the face.”  That would be an actual incitement to violence.  That would be an aggressive appeal for an “atmosphere” or “environment” of violence, and that would be disclaimed by every sane and rational person. I am fairly certain that if Mr. Trump ever exhorted his crowds to such behavior, he would in short order find his crowds dwindling in size, but that’s not what he’s done, and Ted Cruz knows it, and so do all the other people who’ve been attacking him on this front over the last week or more.

Good and decent people know that they should not go into somebody’s birthday party, wedding reception, public meeting, church service, or any other sort of event and create disturbances of any sort.  They also know that if they would undertake to do such things, they risk making of themselves targets for a highly emotional and direct response that may become physical in the attempt to remove them. This is not rocket science.  This is common decency, and I think it speaks volumes about the character of candidates Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich, all who made similar statements on Friday evening, that the opportunity to attack their party’s front-runner “trumped” all other considerations in the formulation of their statements.  It’s utterly despicable, and I can’t support people who displace blame onto the victims while letting the perpetrators off the hook in any way. Period.

We Know Who Staged Chicago

Saturday, March 12th, 2016

lefty_thug_ftThe problem isn’t knowing who staged the “riot” at Trump’s UIC rally that was canceled.  That’s easy. The harder part would be to prove it.  What Americans need now to do is to put on their thinking caps.  It’s time to consider the real demons at work here, and what it is that they wished to accomplish with this debacle of Friday night.  Honestly, we all should have seen this coming.  Like seeing the foreshadowing in a movie or novel, but not quite recognizing it as a “tell,” we watched the whole week long as the media led us around by the nose, increasingly pushing the meme about Trump and the violence at his rallies.  We should have realized, in light of other inconvenient truths, that something big was coming.  When the GOP establishment cronies met at Sea Island last weekend to talk about how to stop Trump, we should have known it’s because they’ve become desperate.  Where did their desperation lead them?  What was the result?  Last night’s episode was a manufactured spectacle intended to push you, and you shouldn’t permit them to do this to you.  It’s your country, and you should be offended, and incensed, when the people running Washington DC try to manipulate you, your feelings, and your votes. We should ask, all of us, what Tammy Bruce asked in the wake of the events of last night, in a tweet:

Tammy has been a Cruz supporter throughout this campaign. For her to say this is not so odd, however, because she has experience as part of the leftist mobs.  She knows how these things work, because for a large part of her life, she was part of all of that. Later, she had an awakening, and it looks like she’s now recognized what so many of the rest of us have noticed: The GOP is behind this set-up, and there’s no way to un-notice it once you’ve seen it. Try this:

Re-play the last week of media coverage in your mind.  Looking back, wasn’t it obvious where this would go?  By the time we arrived at Thursday’s debate on CNN, with the moderators pushing the theme that Trump was inciting violence, shouldn’t we have known what to expect Friday evening?  The question remains: Who is behind this?  On the first level, it’s obvious as the day is long that this was a rent-a-mob cobbled together by the likes of and affiliated Occu-pests, Black Lives Matter, and all the other ugly little anarchistic groups of the rabid left, but that part is easy.  You don’t need to be a mystic to understand that much.  What’s more important is reading the signs of a coordinated attack that was contrived not by some organic left-wing movement, but one that was generated deep within the bowels of the DC UniParty, for a specific purpose.  What was the purpose?  I think I’ve covered that much, but if you’re not tracking just yet, think about how you were driven this week, “played” if you will, and coaxed and prodded in the direction of a singular impression: Trump incites violence.  Even if he says no word, his mere presence incites violence.  His simple existence promotes and provokes violence.  This is the seed they spent the whole week planting.  They wanted an impression created in your mind, a linkage if you prefer, that where Trump goes, trouble of the worst sort soon follows.

Who did this?  That’s easy too.  Look at the GOP establishment.  Admit what you’ve always known about the GOP establishment, when you’ve watched them coalesce with the Democrat establishment and the media organs that support one or the other, and frequently both.  They are a UniParty, and they’ve always been.  They’re the same globalist dirtbags, whether they happen to wear a “D” or an “R,” proudly displaying their Donkeys and Elephants for your deception. is closely tied to George Soros and Hillary Clinton, but you already knew that.  What you may not have realized is that Hillary and those in the Democrat establishment are kissing cousins with the Republican establishment.  Yes, go find the stories on Jeb Bush and his awarding Hillary Clinton, and go find all the dirt that ties these people together.  Remember how curious it was what fast friends George HW Bush and Bill Clinton had become?  These people aren’t two distinct groups.  They’re one.  They are the DC UniParty that rules over us, and commits crimes against we, the American people.  Neither is this a “conspiracy theory.” It’s right out in the open, and if you will merely look, you can see it. You can know.

We are so thoroughly conditioned to see a “left” and a “right” and to think of them as warring parties that we assume the Democrat and Republican establishments are at war too.  Are they?  They agree on every policy. They form “GangsOf” six or eight or whatever might be needed to get their legislative agenda pushed through.  They use exactly the same tactics, and they espouse the same putrid ideas.  One wears the mask of the donkey in public, to control the grass-roots of the Democrat party, while the other wears the mask of the elephant in the open, to control the conservative base of the Republican party.  Cast aside everything you thought you knew about American politics for a moment, and re-order it all under this structure in your thinking about political machinations, past and present, and the scale of it all becomes quite clear.  With that clarity, apply it now to what you’ve seen recently, and suddenly, there isn’t a doubt in your mind about who is the establishment, or who comprises the DC UniParty.

With that new view of things in mind, and mindful of the meeting about stopping Trump in Sea Island, and the Thursday meetings between Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich, you should realize the scale of the coordination of all you’ve seen since.  That’s right, folks, they’re all in on it. Did you notice in the coverage of last night’s events, that one right after the next, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich along with the UniParty’s media organs all said exactly the same thing?  They wanted you to know: If you choose Trump, this is what it’s going to be like, permanently.  They are driving you with your fear of chaos.  They’re using the chaos of last night in Chicago to drive you like bleating sheep, if only you will let them.

Every one of the three establishment candidates, and that’s what they are, if you hadn’t known it already, were in various ways trotted out before the viewers to express their sadness at the events in Chicago, but also to blame the victim, Donald Trump and his supporters, for creating an “atmosphere” or “environment” of violence.  If you can’t see this, please, please, if you’ve never considered seriously another thing I have written, realize that their manipulation of media was designed to create a singular impression, and that they may have at least temporarily succeeded with you.  Again, step back from what you think you have known, and look at it again in light of the idea of a DC UniParty with two heads but only one body.  Then consider again the events of Friday night, and know what it is you are facing.  Apply it.  Look at the events of even the last dozen years, things that had made no sense to you in the traditional left-right, Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative paradigm you had accepted, and look again.

Do you wonder why they’re in favor of immigration reform that permits amnesty and legalization of the millions of illegals?  The Donkey-face tells the leftists “Hey, this is new voters for us.”  The Elephant-face says to its uncertain folk: “Hey, this is cheap labor.” Both implore their followers: “We’re a nation of immigrants…”  On social issues, isn’t it curious how the Elephant-face sells out conservatism?  On almost any issue, the Donkey-face urges its followers to accept “incrementalism.” Hasn’t it bothered you that a party that claims to be on the side “of the little guy” is every bit as much in bed, and in some cases more, with the powerful interests of Wall Street and K Street?  Both are willing to use our military as a force for the good they advocate, but not for the good of our country.  Is it odd to you that the Establishment Republicans on Capitol Hill have seemed less than fully serious in getting to the bottom of Benghazi, or the IRS’ Tea Party abuses?  Does it seem strange to you that both McCain and Romney virtually handed their respective elections to Obama, both with acts of despicable self-sabotage?  The truth is that they weren’t opponents to Obama at all.  These people are all on the same team.  Once you see that, there’s no unseeing it.  You can’t ignore it.  Spend a week or a month viewing things through this adjusted lens, and you will never again look at the world in the same way.

In truth, that’s been part of my own struggle.  I fall easily into the comfortable, well-worn path of the false dichotomy between the Democrats and Republicans.  After all, for all of my life, that’s the impression they’ve built, and quite successfully.  I have to stop myself on occasion, because I find myself wishing it weren’t true.  I find myself longing for a political environment that was in some way genuine.  It’s not. You should know why.  Our Federal Government spends over $4 Trillion annually now, and that’s a motive for any sort of murder and mayhem you might wish to imagine.  If you think that the control of such spoils couldn’t possibly lead to the establishment of such a cabal, ask yourself how many thugs are only too happy to kill you for your wallet.  What happens when more “civilized” thugs are presented with the temptations of billions or trillions of dollars?  What more motivation is needed?  Do you really believe these people are involved for love of country?  Do you think Mitch McConnell gives a damn about you or your liberty?  Do you think Harry Reid is doing what he does out of an abundance of concern for the future of the country? Do you think any of that is true?

Don’t look away in terror.  Confront it.  Know it.  If ever we are going to take our country back, it is from the DC UniParty’s grip that we must wrest it.  Friday night’s events in Chicago had been their doing, and for once, we ought to recognize it and finally disclaim it.


The UniParty’s Trumped-up Riot

Friday, March 11th, 2016

thuglandOn Friday evening, Donald Trump was scheduled to appear at a rally in Chicago.  As the crowds gathered, so did the protesters, but there was an odd aspect to the protesters: There was no consistent aim of the protesters. It was more of an amalgam of mostly left-wing groups, from representatives of Black Lives Matter to various other ethnic groups, and anarchistic groups that look more or less like the Occu-pests of 2011-12 vintage.  La Raza and are involved, as are all of the other usual leftist suspects.  I’ve got news for you if you think this had been an “organic” incident, however, even as the Trump event was canceled.  Even now, Megyn Kelly is pontificating on the way Trump somehow incited, or invited it all.  Yes, there you have the proof that there’s more to this than just an organic bit of chaos.  The rent-a-mobs were ginned-up for a single purpose, and it wasn’t to confront Trump’s supporters, or even Trump himself. It was all to feed an impression that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency, and that if he’s elected, the American people can look forward to many iterations of this same sort of scenario.  They were leading with this line of attack in the CNN debate last night, and I knew it was coming.  Why? Because the DC UniParty comprised of the Democrat and Republican parties’ establishments are trying to leave a bad taste in peoples’ mouths, and fear too, about what Donald Trump’s nomination, candidacy, and potential presidency would mean.  They’re pushing fear.  This is a manipulation.  How do I know? The protestors have admitted in interviews that they weren’t really sure why they were protesting. When you observe mindless protests, you must know that somebody, somewhere is driving them.  If this was only the leftists, it wouldn’t happen until after Trump secured the nomination.  The fact that it’s happening now is the key.  The Democrats have no interest in stopping Trump unless they’re worried they can’t beat him.  The GOP, on the other hand, has been conducting a campaign to defeat him.

You’d better become accustomed to the idea that the DC UniParty doesn’t want anybody selecting an unapproved candidate, Donald Trump or otherwise.  The whole purpose of tonight’s “riot” was to generate as much negative media around the name “Trump” as possible.  Yes folks, this is a psychological operation(a “Psy-Op”,) intended to give the other GOP candidates a chance to espouse their indignant disgust, and to attach blame to Trump while not explicitly blaming him.  Statements like “Trump isn’t to blame, of course, but he has helped create an environment…”

If you can’t see through all of this, I don’t know what to tell you. We conservatives have had some terrible games played against us, but this is one of the worst in recent memory.

Now, all of the conversation will turn to the liability that Trump bears in this whole affair.  The problem is that the GOP establishment, now fully unified with the Democrat establishment, are interested only in stopping Trump.  Twice in thirty minutes, I’ve heard mention of the Michelle Fields incident, and it’s couched in terms of Breitbart as a “pro-Trump” media outlet.  The problem with that is this:  Breitbart is owned by Robert Mercer.  He’s one of the largest single contributors to… drum roll please… a Ted Cruz SuperPac.  Mercer gave at least $10 million dollars so far this cycle.  One must therefore wonder how “pro-Trump” Breitbart will ultimately be.

Never mind that, let me be blunt about all of this:  Anybody who provokes the GOP establishment to show its true colors to this extent may or may not get my vote, but will certainly have my support in making his or her opinions known.  I’ve made no secret of the fact that I don’t appreciate Trump’s vulgar language, and I don’t like some of his stunts and rhetoric, but this is a concerted effort to shut him down, to interfere with the political advocacy of Americans, and to run a Psy-Op against the American people.  The idea here is to defame Trump by association with this “riot,” and that’s all I need to know to understand that the DC UniParty, comprised of establishment Democrats and Republicans, set this whole thing in motion to provide a chance to attack him and to try to drive people away from him.  As conservatives, we should never accept this, and we should never let our silence serve as tacit support of this infamy.  Most of all, we should recognize that this is an attempt to drive us. Who benefits?  Who is doing the driving?  Real people were undoubtedly injured in some fashion tonight, but they are the eggs being broken to make the UniParty’s omelet.  What I believe we must reject is this attempt to interfere in the open political process.  I didn’t wear my country’s uniform to come home and submit to the extortion of these leftist mobs, funded by the globalists and their cabal of DC UniParty bosses who contrived all of this.  Enough is enough.  This sort of thing is terrorism of the mildest sort, but left unopposed, it generally results in worse.

A Moment of Pause Regarding Trump’s Supporters

Monday, March 7th, 2016

trump_crowd_ftOne of the things that’s become increasingly annoying to me throughout the course of this campaign, and a thing to which I may have inadvertently contributed on an occasion or two, is the meme that’s been spread like a virus through the DC Beltway echo-chamber: “Trump’s supporters are…angry…stupid…racist…thoughtless…mean…ignorant…Kool-Aid-drinkers…” After watching the race unfold on the battlegrounds of Twitter, Facebook, and in the media at large, and having watched their portrayal in the establishment media, I am prepared to state unequivocally that this is nonsense.  The vast majority of his supporters are no more than one of those things, but more, I’d urge conservatives to ignore these media portrayals for one very important reason they may not have considered: Until recently, it had been we conservatives who had been attacked with these same portrayals.  I want you to stop and think about all the election campaigns in which the media, and the GOP establishment portrayed conservatives and Tea Party folk in the very same light.  We conservatives have a responsibility first to the truth, and the truth is that whatever we may think about Donald Trump, his supporters are now being painted with the same broad brush of infamy, and in the same broad strokes, by exactly the same people.

I know a fair number of Trump supporters, both in my circle of friends and associates, and also in my extended on-line family.  None of them fit the meme described above, except in one dimension, but it is the same dimension that has aptly described conservatives for most of a generation: They, as we, are angry with Washington and the seeming one-party establishment that is comprised of an elite media, elite Democrats, and elite Republicans who all hold any opposition in complete contempt.  I think this explains another phenomenon that is genuine, though less visible due to the media’s one-sided coverage: There are a number of Bernie Sanders’ supporters whose second choice is not Hillary Clinton, but amazingly, Donald Trump.  Why would this be?  Most of us have become so jaded about the dirty tricks in campaigns these days that it would be easy to dismiss this as more Democrat trickery.  Oddly, I don’t believe that’s actually the case here.  I believe it represents something much more fundamental, and infinitely more organic: Those who support Bernie Sanders are being undercut by the same Washington DC establishment uni-party, and they see in Trump somebody who has joined the fight against a common enemy.  When I talk to the rare Sanders supporter in my broadened local circle, what I find is that Sanders’ supporter share every bit as much of the same contempt for Hillary as conservatives feel for Mitt Romney, for instance.  This common ground with Trump supporters is an interesting, but I believe wholly organic outgrowth of an overwhelming sense of disgust in the nation with Washington DC and the two parties that together rule over us.

We conservatives have been led to believe by popular media that Trump’s support is a wholly-contrived exposition of Democrat tinkering, but while I’ve seen some evidence that this has been the case in pockets, the truth is that most Trump supporters I’ve had the chance to meet are perfectly sane, rational people who have decided something more compelling than the argument that their conservative principles ought to drive their choice.  It is their general argument that Trump represents a true outsider movement, in terms of the DC Beltway uni-party establishment.  They are prepared to temporarily lay aside their deeper convictions about the particulars of various issues in order to oust the uni-party crowd.  Despite my attachment to conservative principles, I know they have a very powerful point, and in truth, we might consider it thoroughly before rejecting it outright.

Here, I think they make an argument that is difficult to contest: As long as the DC-beltway crowd remains in singular, oligopolistic control of the narrative, the law, and the whole of our national machinery of governance, we will never reverse the direction of the country, and no conservative principles will ever be adopted in the halls of power in our nation’s capital.  Their argument is that in an emergency, you might well temporarily suspend your strictest adherence to your long-held principles in order that your principles be preserved at all.  In essence, they’re applying the legal concept of the “rule of necessity” to popular politics and political philosophy. Their argument therefore rests on the plausibility of the claim that we are in some sort of national emergency.  The question we must ask is “Are we?”

Our country is now twenty trillion dollars in operating debt.  We have unfunded liabilities of two-hundred trillion dollars.  We have a monetary system that has been corrupted to fund big government and big money on Wall Street with a cheap-money bubble that cannot and will not be sustained much longer.  Our borders are porous and present no serious impediment to criminals, terrorists, or any illegal entrants.  Our national security infrastructure is in a severe state of disrepair and neglect.  Our political elites continue to enjoy fabulous wealth largely on the basis of cronyism.  Average Americans are out of work, underemployed, or simply destitute as the people who run the DC uni-party continue to enjoy record profits on the backs of the rest of the country.  The crisis is surely real, and it is clear that their position is justified.

If their position is justified, so is their inflexible support of Donald Trump.  Their basic argument is that nobody who has been a part of the Beltway Bubble ought to be trusted in this critical moment for the Republic.  You might point to Ted Cruz as an outsider, as I have done, but let’s be blunt: Ted Cruz was a part of the team that argued on behalf of George W. Bush in the 2000 election.  Ted Cruz was a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist. Ted Cruz may be disliked by parts or even the entire parcel of the uni-party establishment, but the case can certainly be made in earnest that he is one of them, or has long operated among them.  The argument of Trump supporters is that none who have been a part of the DC Bubble ought to be president now, and that it’s too great an emergency in terms of our national future to permit any chance that we will, at this late date, be betrayed once again.

That’s a highly patriotic position to take, among people who are quite diverse in an ideological sense, and many of them have adopted it as the basis of a movement’s justification for accepting a candidate who many of them will readily admit is an imperfect vessel for their particular views.  One of the things that Trump’s supporters fervently believe is something that is quite attractive to many voters, including this conservative: Donald Trump is the only candidate on the ballot who can explode the DC establishment. He’s the only person among all the candidates with a clear-cut motive to unmask the uni-party establishment, to expose their serial crimes, and to prosecute them.  I think this is where much of the pro-Trump fervor originates, and I also believe it is where the GOP establishment’s shrill denouncements of Trump originate.  They are terrified of him, not merely because he would wrest control from them, but that he would be in a position to unmask their deals and extensive profiteering from government operations, and then prosecute them.

That’s a powerful motivation I would concede makes a very strong argument in favor of their position.  We conservatives have known for many years that the GOP’s establishment operates in general coordination with establishment Democrats and the media, and they’ve used that coordination against us in a myriad of situations over the last three decades.  Rather than joining the DC uni-party in decrying Trump’s supporters, we might reconsider and try to see them as allies, even if we believe their chosen candidate is less than perfect as the platform for our ideas, because many of them come from among our own number, but have merely decided that defeating the DC establishment is the only way we can ever win.  On that basis, if I’ve been dismissive of Trump supporters, I’d offer an earnest apology. I had believed the general meme of the DC establishment about your character, but having come to know some of your number, or having discovered some of your number among my friends, I’ve come to understand your earnest motives.

The problem with 2016’s primary season is that it has threatened to splinter the GOP’s broadest coalition forevermore, but in truth, if I am asked whether I would prefer that conservatives keep company with Trump’s supporters or those who cleave to the GOP’s establishment in Washington DC, it’s really a no-brainer: I prefer the broad coalition of Trumpsters to the snooty, elitist Bill Kristols of the world, and I make no bones about my own enmity for the uni-party establishment in Washington DC.  The Trumpsters make a compelling argument about the importance of truly rooting out cronyism and corruption in both parties in Washington DC, long before we can ever actually implement our principled stance on any particular issue. It’s true. We conservatives should pay first respect to the truth, and we should note that the same people who have defamed conservatives in one election after the other, or masqueraded as conservatives in one election after another, are the people who are now defaming Trump’s supporters, and it should give us pause.

Donald Trump’s “Nuclear Option”

Friday, March 4th, 2016

trump_nuke_gop_ftI would warn the stupid, vile Republican Party establishment to be careful about fooling around with the convention in Cleveland this Summer as the means by which to substitute one of their own for Donald Trump, should he remain the front-runner, and should he fail to obtain 1237 delegates or the eight-state majority-delegate needed to win the nomination.  I cannot deny that whatever else I may think about this race or Mr. Trump’s candidacy, I am enjoying the fact that the Republican establishment is now trotting-out, in full-on panic mode, failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the desperate hope that they can derail Mr. Trump.  The GOP establishment ought to take care in trying to rig a “contested convention” that includes tricks and deceit that will not only wreck the GOP’s presidential aspirations, but also will leave Donald Trump in the motivated position to deploy his nuclear option.

What could Trump do?  I urge Republicans on Capitol Hill to be wary of playing games with the nomination process. All four-hundred-thirty-five House seats are up for re-election in November, as are one-third of the one-hundred Senate seats.  While Trump certainly couldn’t possibly deploy a field of opponents for all the Republicans, particularly at that late date, there is something he could easily accomplishment that would rapidly wreck the GOP establishment’s day.

Mr. Trump’s supporters are very loyal, and while they may not be quite large enough to gain him all 1237 delegates needed to secure the nomination outright, they are more than large enough to swing Congressional elections by fifteen or twenty percent.  His supporters are angry, and they are right to be, as are all who have become disgusted by the feckless GOP.  If the GOP establishment tampers or tinkers with this nomination process, his coalition of independents, conservative blue-collar Democrats, and not a few fed-up conservative-to-moderate Republicans may make a complete wreckage of the Fall’s Congressional elections, and will easily help defeat the Republican’s Presidential nominee.

The Republican Party would deserve  it.  Trump is playing by the rules, at least to date, and those elected/former officials in the GOP who have said they won’t support Trump if he’s nominated have already provoked that response.  If they try to manipulate the nomination process in Cleveland, dismissing a Trump nomination if he obtains more delegates than any other candidate, but not the whole 1237 needed, his supporters may rage against the GOP machine, but if Trump joined the campaign trail against the GOP in September, October, and November, the GOP stands a strong chance of losing both Houses of Congress along with the White House and the Supreme Court.

This is Trump’s “nuclear option.” If the party tries to cheat him, I think he might rightly attempt to blow the party to tiny pieces, and at that point, I must admit that my sense of justice would convince me to help him.  One way or another, the GOP establishment needs to die.  If they arm Trump with the righteous sword of a vengeful  justice, they will have earned it.

Unequivocal Decision Point – No Advice Needed or Solicited from GOP Establishment

Thursday, March 3rd, 2016

romney_ug_ftI recognize that for many, 2016 has been the most confusing, confounding primary season in memory.  One of the things that I’ve always and forever detested is the Republican Establishment. Long time readers will know this has been the case.  In my most recent previous post, Stupor Tuesday, I explained why this race is now down to two men.  Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are the only viable campaigns remaining in 2016.  I have often stated in various places, both here and on Facebook and Twitter, that I don’t feel entirely comfortable with either of these candidates.  Let me state this clearly, and let me make it clear to all my readers, because whatever my issue-wise sympathies, the moment either of these candidates links up with the GOP establishment, or I am able to discern that either has linked-up with the party bosses, I will immediately support the other candidate in a all-out way.  I said yesterday on Twitter, half jokingly, the following:

You know how we conservatives are always miffed at GOPe for expecting us to join them, while they never join us? How stubborn are they?

In truth, I hope they’re stubborn as Hell. I hope they stubbornly stick to their guns and completely and utterly destroy the GOP as we’ve known it.  Their decades of intransigence, selling out the country with horrible trade deals to increase their personal treasuries and to extend their political influence while simultaneously ruining the country by giving away our sovereign power and our right to national self-determination has been a process that is absolutely despicable to me, and ought to be anathema to all Americans.  I don’t hate much in this world, in the true sense of the word, but the GOP establishment is one entity on this planet that collectively deserves all the contempt I can muster.  The fact of the matter is that the GOP establishment with all its gamesmanship aimed at subverting genuine, conscientious, sincere conservative activists to their purposes is simply an abomination.  I am not willing to side with the GOP establishment for the sake of one more election, under any circumstance. I am not willing to have them join with me because I know that will simply be their key to the front door through which they will slowly smuggle their agenda.

Today, Mitt Romney presented his statement on this election.  Let me make this clear: I don’t care what Romney says. Romney was a loser, and he was no friend to conservatives, and honestly, I don’t think he was a friend to our country’s future.  Trump says “he choked,” but I think it was worse than that. I think the GOP establishment wanted Obama to stay in office for a second term, so they could blame Obama and the Democrats for all of the statism and cronyism they’ve been perpetrating against us these last four years. Truly.  I think the GOP establishment in Washington DC has been sand-bagging the last four years and doing Obama’s bidding because it is what they and their wealthy donors, like the US Chamber of [Crony]Commerce have demanded. They tried to put the GangOf8 “Screw America Amnesty Bill” over on us, and they used Democrats to anchor a voting majority, and factually did so in the Senate.  In the House, under Boehner and Ryan, the party bosses have used a voting bloc comprised of a majority of Democrats and the RINO contingent to pass continuing resolutions, and other legislation that simply perpetuates the problem, with McConnell backing that effort in the Senate with the same strategy.  It’s disgusting. The GOP establishment is reprehensible, but now they want to pervert and twist the 2016 primary season more than they’ve already done. To the degree this is now a two-man race comprised of two “outsider” candidates, it is wholly due to the mismanagement and sedition of the Republican Party bosses, and an intractable DC establishment that hates conservatives, generally governing with contempt for them.

Let me explain something to you, my loyal readers who have hung in there over the years, particularly the last couple, when you had every reason to suspect I might never return: I love my country, as do you. As a young man, I spent much of my youth manning the defense of Europe from the Soviet Bloc when the matter was still very much in doubt, and our national security was very much at risk. I returned home when George H.W. Bush was taking the reins and making massive cuts to our defense infrastructure as part of a supposed “peace dividend,” a policy continued by his successor, Bill Clinton. What I discovered upon my return was that in my half-decade absence from my country, while serving as its instrument abroad, Ronald Reagan’s hopeful, courageous America was being replaced by a shrinking, tepid, but allegedly “kinder and gentler” America, suffering in the aftermath of a recession brought about in part by a broken “read my lips” promise.

Conservatism had seemed to be on the ascendancy throughout Reagan’s time in office, and many of us assumed, wrongly, that George Bush the elder would merely continue Reagan’s programs and policies. It was not the case.  It was he who caused the loss to Clinton in 1992, and it was in the same way that his son’s mismanagement of the government early in this century led to Barack Obama. I view the era from January 1989 through present as one unbroken string of Bush governance. Neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney put up much of a fight, the difference between them being that John McCain at least had a running mate in the person of Sarah Palin who did not want to stand down, and who did not want to yield. That’s the truth.

Over the last seven years, since Obama’s first term commenced in 2009, when Republicans had the power to fight, they laid down. We sent them help in 2010. In 2011, they failed us, and if you go back to the older posts on this site, you will see detailed in those posts the budget battles of 2011, and how the Republicans in the House under the leadership of John Boehner repeatedly failed us.  In 2012, we sent more help. There were some efforts, but then there were also those we had sent who betrayed us, such as Marco Rubio, among lesser lights.  In 2014, again, we sent more help, and no longer could Boehner claim “one-half of one-third of the government” as his excuse. Instead, in vote after vote, they engineered Obama legislative victories using a few hands-full of safe Republican RINOs in combination with almost all of the Democrats to give Obama whatever in Hell’s name he demanded.

Betrayed! That’s where we’ve been, and with few exceptions, that’s where we are. Now we sit in 2016 in the middle of the primary season, and again, the GOP establishment is trying to rig things, but failing that, if they don’t get a nominee acceptable to them, they are going to spike this election. Bill Kristol of WeeklyStandard fame has said he’d consider Hillary rather than voting for Trump. He’s an establishment hack, and if he wants to support Hillary, so be it, let him, but then let him leave also the Republican party, never to return. If the Republican party establishment does anything other than to support the nominee of the party to its fullest capacity, the Republican party will be killed-off in the aftermath.  Millions upon millions of long-time Republicans, conservatives, and undoubtedly, others in the broader Republican coalition will see to it.  We’ve had it with the GOP establishment.  It’s not their party any longer, and if we need to pry it from their [politically]”cold dead hands,” we will. The time of the DC Democrat/Republican uni-party is at an end, one way or another, and if it means the GOP must die to be reborn, so be it. If we must kill the GOP to rid ourselves of the DC establishment virus that infects the body of the Republican party, I stand ready to assist. If this election is lost due to the DC establishment malingering or sabotage, woe will become their constant companion, because we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt where the lines are drawn, and who is screwing whom.

In media, FoxNews is in trouble, and they know it. Ailes is reportedly apoplectic at the disclosure of his secret meeting with Rubio and other GangOf8 shills. The network’s ratings are in full-scale collapse, because they’ve been so pro-establishment for so long that given their wholesale marketing of Rubio, their audience has had enough.  They’re turning off FoxNews.  They’re fleeing the establishment mouthpieces.  It had gotten so bad that it’s become a running joke on Twitter, Facebook, and in the blogosphere that “No matter where Rubio finishes, He won, HE WON!”  Even Hannity is being openly mocked on Twitter. It’s been brutal for the semi-conservatives who have been carrying Rubio’s water on-air on FoxNews.

Based on all we now know, let me offer some advice to the two remaining viable candidates:

To both men, run from Mitt Romney. He’s a plague. Defeat is his constant companion, because his base of support is a uni-party establishment that many of the people in the Republican party have grown to hate. Run away from entanglements with the DC establishment. Such associations label a candidate as a doomed loser and a probable sell-out.  Flee like Lott, and don’t look back, lest you turn to a pillar of salt. We, the sane and patriotic people in the Republican party wish only to burn the establishment down. Don’t get caught in the flames. Others will.

To Donald Trump: Expand on the manner in which you presented yourself on the evening of your Super Tuesday wins. You will earn more credibility in the eyes of voters if you remain calm, cool, and Presidential. Stop scaring people with your rhetoric that seems even mildly threatening, specifically with respect to Americans(criminals notwithstanding.) Don’t threaten our constitutional protections, and please do more to explain the details of your programs and proposals. You terrify conservatives in many respects, because we don’t see many signs that you’re rooted in principle. The rank-and-file conservatives in the Republican party try very hard to live by principles as the guiding lights for their mortal lives. If you want to gain our support, particularly if you win the nomination, and wish not to have us sit out this election, you’ve got to begin engaging the issues from a principled position more frequently.  The whole discussion of healthcare is a good example of how you’ve horrified conservatives, many of whom believe you are in favor of something akin to single-payer healthcare.  That’s a euphemism for socialized medicine, and it’s a terrible failure providing rationing of even diagnostic and preventative care that leads to greater mortality rates for diseases that have much higher survival rates here in the US. I use this as an example, but the point is clear: Principles move conservatives; vague banter and platitudes will not. Take the US Constitution to heart, and conservatives may listen. Your press conference Tuesday was a good start in the right direction. Expand on that.

To Ted Cruz: You must run, in fact, flee in great haste, from all things establishment, and all things globalist in intent or origin.  Many conservatives fear that your history provides evidence of a too-close coziness with the Bush family, and while we understand that nobody in Republican politics in Texas over the last four decades can go far without knowing and relating in some manner to the Bush family, your connections to them could easily serve as an albatross around your neck in this election. Jealously guard American sovereignty, and prevent its usurpation by foreign powers and interests who do not hold the interests of the American people at heart. You have taken the position of reversing yourself on the TPP, but you must extend that opposition. The truth is that their can be no such thing as “free trade” with a people who are virtually enslaved.  We did not trade with the Soviet Union. We refused them, as we were right to do because we should never give the moral sanction of the veil of “free trade” to their human rights abuses.  China is no different, as their tanks in Tiananmen Square demonstrated, and their program of compulsory abortions proves.  Mexico is a cesspool run by an oligarchy that keeps its people in destitution. The American people are quite beyond tired of having a government represent interests other than those of the whole body of the American people in these deals, and no longer have confidence in our elected officials to do right by the American people. We need your unambiguous statement that you will pursue the interests of the American people, as the American people see them, but not as the establishment in DC decides they must be.

To both men, you must be faithful to your pledge to support the nominee of the Republican Party, and you must avoid entanglements with the GOP establishment at all costs. You must be and remain your own men, subservient to no hidden interests.  This, the American people can trust.  This, the American people will appreciate and respect.  If you do these things, the American people will be able to decide between you in earnest, without excessive rancor or discontent.  Unifying the party at the conclusion of this contest will be infinitely easier if the two of you set this example for those who are your supporters.  The Republican Party establishment will undoubtedly undertake tricks. Trotting out Mitt Romney is their desperate appeal for relevance and control.  They may even line up to endorse one or the other of you.  You must avoid connection with the party establishment at all cost.  We, the broad base of conservatism, view the establishment as the source of so many of our laments, losses, and general discontent over these last three decades, starting with the amnesty deal of 1986.

May the best man win, and win without the assistance, cooperation or coordination of the GOP establishment.



Stupor Tuesday

Tuesday, March 1st, 2016

cruz_v_trump_ftHere we are on another Super Tuesday election, and once again, there’s no clear answer to our troubles. Some things, however, do seem clear and unambiguous to me. Marco Rubio is unacceptable by any measure. His support of amnesty with the “GangOf8” immigration reform bill disqualifies in my view. There is no circumstance under which I could support Rubio.  Dr. Carson is finished, no matter how long he remains in the race. From here to the convention, I don’t think there’s any chance for his numbers to improve, and I don’t believe he’s a serious candidate.  Governor Kasich is running a pointless candidacy also, perhaps in some ways worse than Carson’s. Kasich should run for the exit, but he’s stubbornly remaining in the race so that he can be beaten in his home state of Ohio, perhaps slightly less thoroughly than Rubio will be flogged in his home state of Florida.  This leaves us with two remaining, plausible candidates.  At this point, considering any of the others is an exercise in futility.  I guess it comes down to what you believe, who you believe, and what it is that you think the election of 2016 will actually mean for the country.  This is where conservatives must wear their thinking caps and consider the whole of the race, and not just the immediate gratification of the primary vote.  It’s enough to make one consider intoxication as a potential antidote.  Myself, I’m in a bit of a stupor over it all.

Ted Cruz appears to be the most solidly conservative in the field.  He is not, however, without problems.  His support for increasing H1-B visas is very troubling to me, as is his support for fast-track authority(TPA) for the TPP for whomever may be sitting in the Oval Office.  There is no doubt that the TPP is a terrible deal for the American people, transferring wealth and sovereignty out of the country and essentially locking the US into a perpetual disadvantageous trade contract that imposes severe restrictions on our own economic independence.  I oppose the TPP for this and many more reasons, and I don’t understand why Senator Cruz, a self-professed “constitutional conservative,” would go along with such a deal.   I also don’t believe he’s been entirely honest with us about his role on the spiking of the “GangOf8” legislation.  It’s clear from video available that he wanted to do something (other than deportation) with the eleven or twelve million illegals(and I suspect many more) who “live in the shadows.”  All of these things are bothersome and worrisome to me.

Donald Trump has ever been a liberal, and in many respects, this makes him worse.  He’s also made a career of marketing himself like a carnival barker.  His failures over the course of his whole career are legion, but that in and of itself isn’t necessarily damning: At least he was willing to take risks.  The problem is that in so many of these cases, he took risks with other peoples’ money, and squandered it.  One might argue that this is the nature of business, just as one might argue that paying off politicians is just a part of doing business, but I don’t see how we’re any better off having the briber rather than the bribed running the country.  His position on social and moral issues certainly seems less than solid too.  His continued support for Planned Parenthood is quite troubling to me.  I also find his mouth to be a volcano of bilge, with cursing o’plenty, although it seems in the last week or so that he’s cleaned some of this up, perhaps in recognition that it hurts him. That makes me wonder if a victorious Trump would return to form soon after.  He has a long history of saying things that are despicable in any context in which I’d care to be included.  His talk about his sex-life and his descriptions of women, and all the rest of his endless, lifelong debauchery seems to me a disqualifying problem.  The New York Times, certainly not the most reliable source, implies that it has in its possession “off-the-record” taped conversations with Trump that may indicate that he’s a good deal more flexible on immigration than his campaign rhetoric indicates. As he explained to Hannity on Monday night, “everything is negotiable.” Many of his larger problems won’t be revealed, conveniently, until the Republican Party is saddled with him as their nominee, by which time he may be embroiled in court over a lawsuit against him and “Trump University.” Mostly, the problem with Donald Trump is that he hasn’t done or said anything to relieve me of the fear that he’s completely untrustworthy, not just on social issues, but primarily with respect to his signature issues on which he has provided little specific detail.

Let us conservatives accept from the outset that there are no perfect candidates.  Still, we should be able to discern who is more perfect.  We should be able to rely on their records. Others rely to some extent on the character of those who have endorsed these candidates, although I think in many cases, this has led to a wholly unsatisfactory outcome in many instances.  I can think of a dozen or more candidates the Tea Partys have been urged to support who upon election, turned out to be more of the same, and often pro-amnesty jerks.  Marco Rubio is a grand example of the type, but he is hardly the only one.  The truth is that conservatives have been betrayed in one form or fashion in election after election, to the extent that many of us feel shell-shocked by it.  On the one hand, we have a Republican establishment that is clearly a syndicate of global elitists, who will side with their cohorts in the Democrat Party to ruin and wreck conservatives any time we can manage to get a leg up, but on the other hand, we have a situation in which it seems that the mathematics give us just two plausible outcomes.

If Rubio, Kasich, and Carson remain in this race, it helps Trump. If they get out, it helps Cruz.  Rubio cannot and will not be the nominee. The math in no way supports him.  This leads one to question: “Why are these guys staying in, when none of the three have won a state, or even seriously threatened to win a state?” Now we get to the nub of the issue.  We have had it told to us all through this primary season debacle that Cruz and Trump(along with Carson) are the outsiders.  Is this really the case?  We’re told that Rubio is an establishment stooge, and it makes plenty of sense, right until you ask: “Why is Rubio still in this race?” No Republican who hasn’t won Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina(first three contests) has ever gone on to win the nomination. History isn’t lying, so why is Rubio staying in?  It must be for another purpose, and I think we can take a reasonable guess at it.  Who is hurt by Rubio enduring in this race, and who is helped?  Based on the available polling data, there is a strong dislike of Trump in the Rubio camp. Cruz would likely capture something on the order of ninety percent or more of Rubio’s support, depending upon whose numbers you believe. In the Cruz camp, Rubio enjoys no such advantage. If Cruz were to exit, roughly half of his support would go to Trump and half to Rubio, with a few here and there for Kasich or Carson. What this means, in fact, is that the only two people presently having any chance at the Republican nomination are Trump, and Cruz.  This means that with every passing day in which Rubio, Kasich and Carson stay in this race, Trump becomes all the more inevitable.

With all of this in mind, we must ask reasonably once more: “Why is Rubio staying in?” It is the presumption of many that he is the “establishment track” candidate, but the GOP establishment isn’t going to back a guy they know has no chance of winning unless they’re using him to split the vote on behalf of a candidate they believe can win. Who would that be?  Cruz? Kasich? Carson? Or Trump?  Even if his financial backing flees, I suspect Rubio will stay around in order to secure a VP slot on somebody’s ticket.  I wonder who that might be.

Let’s look at that again: Trump has a long and storied history of supporting liberal Republicans and a whole host of Democrats.  If Rubio’s candidacy was genuinely anti-Trump, as he now pretends is the case, why would he stay in? In a head-to-head in Florida, Rubio loses to Trump, and Trump walks away with all ninety-nine delegates because it’s a winner-take-all state. Cruz, by contrast, could actually beat Trump in a head-to-head absent Rubio. That would give Cruz all the Florida delegates, and place him on the fast-track to the nomination.  What you can learn from all of this is that the people who are still bank-rolling Rubio via the SuperPACs aren’t doing so because they think Marco can win, but because they actually want Trump, and will use Rubio’s continuing presence to split up the vote that would otherwise go almost entirely to Cruz.

Do you see the point here? Given the nature of Donald Trump’s support from the endorser-class, one might have concluded he was the only genuine outsider, but the question we must now ask, as Rubio is being used as a lever to depress Cruz is: “Who is spoofing whom?”  I believe the real establishment candidate is he who benefits from the continued presence of somebody other than himself in the race. Who is that? Does Cruz benefit from Rubio, Kasich, or Carson remaining?  No.  Does Rubio benefit from Cruz, Carson, or Kasich remaining? No. Does Trump benefit from Cruz remaining in? No.  Does Trump benefit from Rubio, Kasich and Carson’s remaining in, so long as Cruz is an active candidate? YES!

There are only two viable candidates remaining in this race. I will not tell you how you ought to vote.  You’re all grown folk, and you hardly need me to offer you advice.  What I will tell you is that what I see implicit in the numbers is that Rubio, Kasich, and Carson are remaining solely to be spoilers.  The question must be only: “For whom?” Only Trump and Cruz have a shot at winning this race.  The question before you is whether you will a.)support Cruz, b.)support Trump, or c.)support one of the spoilers who gives/helps give it to Trump. Of course, you can also sit home. As I said, this has been a disturbing primary season, and any conservative would probably be somewhat justified if they wanted to just drink their frustrations away, but escape into an inebriated stupor won’t solve the problem.  Conservatives must now think, and think carefully, in order to choose.  Wait until the day after the general election in November to imbibe. By then, we may all need a drink.


Editor: This column was supposed to auto-post at 7am this morning, but for some reason failed. My apologies to readers. I usually vote on the way in to work, didn’t this morning, after work, my precinct ran out of ballots while in line, still waited 20 minutes after polls closed, fairly certain my precinct was strongly pro-Cruz.

Donald Trump Lied About Conservatism

Friday, February 12th, 2016

trump_bsa_ftWatching the 2016 election season unfold, I’ve become a bit tired of two things in particular about the media, and Donald Trump.  In the first instance, Trump is wholly unwilling to discuss details of his plans, and the media dutifully accepts his empty rhetoric in an unquestioning manner almost as thorough as some of his supporters.  In the second instance, Mr. Trump is lying, and it’s a big lie that we conservatives must debunk.  It could be that Trump is just ignorant, so that when he spews his lie, he’s simply the parroting of talking points emanating from the rabid left and the DC establishment. Either way, a lie is a lie, whether it originated from Trump’s own mind, or he’s merely passing it along unthinkingly.  So what’s this big lie? On Thursday, Trump tweeted that conservatives are to blame and that conservatives have failed the country.  This couldn’t be further from the truth, but once again, debunking it requires the examination of a few salient details.  His throngs of supporters won’t be moved by this, just as they won’t be moved by any other rational argument. By and large, they’re proving immune to facts, reason, and details.  It should come as no surprise to conservatives that in one respect, I think there’s a nugget of truth that makes Trump’s lie seem superficially plausible, but it’s just a nugget.  It’s time to deconstruct Trump’s lie.


The first thing one must consider in answer to Trump’s assertion is: “Who are the conservatives?”  The truth in answer to this question is that actual, thinking, breathing, ideological conservatives constitute a minority of the Republican party.  The truth is that there are almost no actual conservatives in Washington DC, and to have been the party to blame for the state of the country, that is where one would have needed to be, not simply in a geographical sense, but in the sense of political efficacy.   Actual conservatives haven’t had any power to speak of in Washington DC for nearly two generations.  From the time of the middle of Reagan’s second term, there has been little one could properly label as “conservative” in our nation’s capital.  Where one can find any justification of Trump’s lie, despite the reality, is that for too long, we conservatives have let people who had no real attachment to conservatism pose as our representatives.

George H.W. Bush was no conservative.  Bob Dole was no conservative.  George W. Bush was no conservative. John McCain is no conservative.  Mitt Romney is no conservative.  I can extend this list to include current candidates like Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio to an extent, and any number of other conventional Republican politicians.  Paul Ryan is certainly no conservative, but neither were his immediate predecessors, John Boehner and Dennis Hastert.  Mitch McConnell and his caucus of establishment Republican cronies aren’t conservatives either, but the problem is that we have permitted them to claim conservatism, and we’ve allowed them to thereby define conservatism by the association with us.  Most Americans simply don’t pay much attention to politics, and in their barely-informed state of political ignorance, they’ve accepted the following basic formula: Republican = Conservative.  They may have accepted also: Democrat = Liberal.  Both of these are tragically wrong, and I will suggest to my conservative brethren that we are at least somewhat collectively guilty for letting this stick.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we’ve permitted this to happen.  We’ve been so busy trying to expand the “big tent” of conservatism that we’ve permitted the party-crashers of the establishment to redefine what conservatism is, at least in the popular culture, by their constant association with us.  It’s been going on since Teddy Roosevelt, who was a progressive in Republican clothing.  For my part, here on this website, I’ve always endeavored to make clear the distinctions.  One cannot go through the columns of these pages and make any mistake about the fact that the form of conservatism advocated and advanced here has no relation whatsoever to the Republican party, never mind its establishment.

Of course, the truth is far removed from Trump’s nonsensical allegation.  Most actual conservatives, I’d nearly assert all, do not support the actions of the establishment, moderate, “center-right” wing of the Republican party.  Most conservatives actually detest those people, and would replace them with actual conservatives if it was in their power to do.  Every time conservatives have gone along with the GOP establishment in order to try to move things in the right direction, two things have been true almost without exception:  The GOP establishment betrays us, and we wind up moving backward.  A case in point is immigration: Those who call themselves “conservative” but are aligning themselves with Rubio in this election cycle have a very “YUGE” problem: Their guy is an amnesty-monger, having proposed the most exasperatingly un-conservative bill proposed by a Republican in quite a long time.  The so-called “Gang-of-8” bill was a nation-destroying monstrosity, and it would never have attained launch, much less threatened passage, without the efforts of people who claim to be “conservative.”

This is the problem exposed by Trump’s lie: It’s only plausible because we conservatives permit others to define what is conservatism.  We permit the misapplication of the term to people who may on occasion, for their own political expedience(and too frequently, ours) to associate with us and our body of political philosophy.  Since the greatest number of Americans don’t really pay that much attention, and use generic labels in order to short-cut thinking, we have a responsibility as conservatives to define what that means, and to take great pains to differentiate conservatives from anything else.

The facts supporting Trump’s assertion dissolve the moment one asks: “What is a conservative?” The laundry list of non-conservatives mentioned above is just a sample, but it should serve as a decent basis for understanding the problem in its proper context.  When Donald Trump talks about “the conservatives failed,” what he’s actually saying is that “Republicans have failed.”  That’s demonstrably true.  The problem is that conservatives haven’t failed, largely since they’ve never really held power in Washington, except for the briefest few years immediately after the ’94 “revolution” in the House of Representatives.  Even its leader, Newt Gingrich, isn’t really a conservative, but some of the people around him were, and a few of the people who led early efforts in those environs were, but they were short-lived as was the influence of conservatism.  To find substantial, muscular conservatism, one must return to the first term of Reagan’s presidency, which is why conservatives so thoroughly long for a Reagan-like leader.  It’s also why the fakers, the so-called moderates in the GOP, can’t wait to bury Ronald Reagan in long-forgotten history of the Republic.

We conservatives must separate ourselves from the GOP establishment in a political and cultural sense.  We must create clear separation from the party’s moderates because by failing to do so, we permit the broadest brush to be used in defining our cause, our philosophy, and our values.  It won’t be easy to do, but I believe it must be done.  The most promising of the current crop of GOP candidates, who may be able to draw this distinction, is probably Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX,) simply because on so many issues near and dear to the hearts and minds of conservatives, he bucked the political trends in Washington DC, abandoning even his own party at times, apparently on the basis of principle.  It may be that for him to fully set conservatism apart from the muck of establishment GOP politics, he will find himself required to loudly and forcefully make the distinction clear, not merely in his words, but in the clear-thinking actions of his office, so long as he may be in it.  Otherwise, Trump will succeed in painting him, and conservatism, as just more representative of the whole of the Republican party, and with such a faulty attribution of blame, conservatism label will continue to be the generic container into which the wider voting public will file all Republicans.  I suspect Trump knows all of this, but his campaign isn’t one of nuance or detail.  Quite to the contrary, his campaign is one of generic sloganeering, with thinly-veiled emotional appeals substituted in place of syllogisms.

It’s because I do believe that Trump knows the difference that I consider this attack on conservatism to be a lie on his part.  There is some small chance that he is so thoroughly ignorant that he doesn’t understand the distinction, but I suspect that’s not the problem.  I believe that Trump is gambling on and playing to the electorate in a disingenuous fashion, knowing that his prospective voters don’t understand the distinctions anyway, and won’t be motivated to discover them.  Thus far, he’s been largely correct in this assumption, although it remains to be seen whether it will hold up through the entire campaign season.

The problem for conservatives is “Yuge” because they’re stuck in the same sort of problem, in almost exactly the same fashion, as is the basic reputation of “capitalism.”  This is not coincidental.  Capitalism continues to be blamed for all the evils of statism, in its various manifestations, because few are interested in learning the distinctions between what America’s actual economic system is, and why capitalism bears no actual resemblance. In much the same fashion that we haven’t even had approximately conservative governance in more than a generation, so too is it the case that capitalism was vanquished in America by the enactment of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Act is wholly antithetical to capitalism, and whatever economic system we may have had since, it is not and cannot be labeled as “capitalism.”  Of course, once again, the propagandists for statism have managed to re-cast the meaning of the term in precisely the same way that “conservatism” has been redefined so as to include all “Republicans.” It’s nonsense, of course, but that fact does not stop them from doing it. One must be attentive to details, in a disciplined way.  It’s an article of faith among those same propagandists that our system of government be referred to as “democracy,” but that bears little resemblance to the actual form of government our Constitution’s framers designed and ratified. The United States is, by definition of its organizing document, a “constitutional representative republic,” but too often, as a matter of ease and propaganda, folks drop that longer, much narrower description, and it is to the detriment of the body politic, unless you happen to be a propagandist or advocate for statism.

The truth Trump won’t tell you is that had conservatives had their way over the last three decades, we would never have approached the state of desperate gloom under which we now suffer.  What he won’t tell you is that statism is the responsible political philosophy, in large measure because he has been among its practitioners and advocates.  When he proposes solving the “student loan problem” with another government program, he’s advancing statism. When he proposes replacing Obamacare with what seems to be a Canadian or British-styled single-payer healthcare system, he’s proposing more statism.  He’s doubling down.  When he states that eminent domain is an important tool in private initiatives, he is declaring statism in big, broad terms, while he is defiling the good name of capitalism to do it.  Donald Trump isn’t a capitalist, but instead a cronyist.  He has greased palms and bought favors with campaign contributions as much as any person who has ever sought the office of President, and maybe more.  His well-documented use of government officials and offices in the name of his private concerns is evidence neither of capitalism, nor conservatism, and that to date, he has gotten away with this mislabeling and slander is at least in part the fault of we conservatives.

After all, it’s the same thing: Jeb Bush calls himself a “conservative” and most of us won’t bother to debunk his claim.  His brother called himself a “compassionate conservative,” but too few of us challenged his claim though it was obvious in most notable respects that his presidency was rife with the growth of statism, and the advancement of anti-capitalist measures.

Yes, Donald Trump is probably going to succeed in blaming conservatism for the sins of GOP establishment, moderate actions.  His lie will stand mostly unchallenged because most of us will not even stand for our claimed political philosophy.  While I can’t do a thing about that, I can and will continue to speak out about the lies of Trump in this regard: Conservatism is not to blame for the ills of this country, any more than one can blame capitalism, and for the same exact reason: We haven’t practiced either in so long that the terms have lost their true meaning.  Trump knows this, and he’s gambling that his supporters won’t discover it either.  It’s our job, the job of actual conservatives, to educate the electorate on the differences.

Editor’s Note: The Tweet image was added again after the fact because either I didn’t save the article with that image in it, or it dropped it, or something or other. Anyway, that is what I am referencing. Conservatives didn’t HELP the GOP betray its voters.



Trump Hammers Cruz as “Maniac” But Looks The Part Himself

Tuesday, December 15th, 2015
Angry or Manic?

Angry or Manic?

Donald Trump had one heck of a weekend. First, he questioned Ted Cruz’s “evangelical” credentials, and went to great lengths to attack him on ethanol subsidies, pandering to Iowa voters.  As if this wasn’t enough, he actually asserted that Cruz was a maniac in the Senate, firmly ceding his own “outsider” credentials. Is this attack by Trump going to succeed, or is it, as Mark Levin said on the air Monday evening, a foolish move?  FoxNews is eating it up, because they hate both men.  To them, Trump is a maniac, but so is Ted Cruz.  They are considered “maniacs” by the FoxNews establishment crowd for different specific reasons, and I think it’s instructive to understand why this difference matters.  He even went on to join in a leftist attack on Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the few justices fighting to uphold the constitution.

When Trump goes to great lengths to say “Cuba isn’t known for its evangelicals,” he’s taking a rather bigoted view of Cuba. Many Cuban exiles resumed their faith in full fervor after successfully leaving Cuba, and in fact, it was their faith, at least in part, that caused them to flee.  More, Trump has never been a friend to evangelicals, so what’s with the petty attack on Cruz on this basis?  Score one for Trump’s religious and ethnic bigotry.  Not only did he make [faulty] assumptions about Cubans and evangelicals, but he also made an assumption that this would play to Iowans.

Trump went on to point out to Iowans that Cruz opposed the ethanol subsidy.  I have news for you: Virtually everybody outside the corn-growing states oppose the ethanol subsidies, because frankly, it’s driving up the cost of food and fuel, as well as making a wreck of gasoline-burning power equipment, from automobiles to lawn-mowers to outboard motors. Even many within corn-growing states oppose the subsidies, because they have to pour this diluted gasoline in their cars and shop at grocery stores where every item that has corn as an input, from corn chips to corn-fed beef is inflating in price due to the use of corn in the production of ethanol.  This was a purely cynical attack intended to take advantage of Iowans by pandering to something peculiarly interesting to them.

What’s most disconcerting about Trump’s little rampage this past weekend is that the attacks he launched on Cruz were launched squarely from a leftward point of view.  I even observed Brit Hume, a notorious establishment shill, going on to attack Cruz on this basis, intimating that Iowans have a short time to discover the reason so many in the Senate don’t like Ted Cruz.  I don’t need Brit Hume to tell me, because I already know. It’s the same reason I supported Cruz in his Senate run against Texas RINO David Dewhurst, and also why people like Senators Lindsey Graham(R-NC) and John McCain(R-AZ) can’t stand Cruz: He’s willing to fight. They’re not.

The odd thing is that this may well backfire on Donald Trump, because up until now, he’s been running as an “outsider.” This series of attacks plays directly into the hands of the GOP establishment. Cruz has been no friend to the GOP establishment, and Iowans know it.  I’m not sure that Trump hasn’t sabotaged himself here, because his attacks on Cruz sound suspiciously similar to the attacks launch against Cruz by the DC insiders.  In so doing, Trump is eating into one of his few distinct virtues: He’s been the quintessential outsider,  at least until now, but with the latest series of attacks on Cruz from the left, he may be unintentionally ceding that ground to Cruz.  If so, Trump may come to lament this last weekend.  His attack on Antonin Scalia is perhaps the worst outlier of the weekend, because while one might rationalize his attacks on Cruz as just part of the political fight, but the attack on Scalia by going along with Jake Tapper was pure folly.  Scalia has been a leading light for constitutional conservatives for years, and this scurrilous attack on him by Trump is perhaps a bridge too far.  This speaks more to Trump’s own maniacal nature than to anything one might say about either Antonin Scalia or Ted Cruz.

As a purely political matter, Cruz ought to avoid being drawn into a knock-down, drag-out with Trump, because that’s where Trump excels.  Cruz is best in well-reasoned, well-controlled discourses when the tempo of the exchange supports close examination.  If Trump has any inkling of the misstep he may have taken over the weekend, he’ll reverse course on some of this as quick as he can.  Discerning conservatives and independents will notice that Trump really yielded some of his claim to being an outsider this weekend, and this may well cost Trump mightily.  If one considers that among the ‘outsiders,’ (Trump, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina) constitute nearly seventy percent of the support from Republican primary voters, Trump ought to think and think hard about yielding his position as outsider so easily.   The notion that Cruz is looked upon in a negative light by most of his Senate colleagues is not a bad thing, particularly in the vast expanse of the electorate between the coasts.  From the point of view of most Americans, most of the Senate is comprised of detestable Washington DC insiders who hold the American people in contempt.

The Republican candidates are scheduled to debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas.  It will be interesting to see whether Trump squanders his lead by continuing this line of attack, or whether he thinks better of it and resorts to more rational arguments that might appeal to conservatives.  To date, his one peculiar virtue had been his take-no-prisoners style of assault on the GOP establishment, but if he isn’t careful, he may well blow it.  The GOP establishment is only too happy to see Trump going after Cruz, and this could well be his undoing with the Republican base.




Why I Like Donald Trump

Saturday, December 12th, 2015
Hamming it up

Hamming it up

I like the mockery Donald Trump has been making of a goodly portion of the establishment of the Republican Party.  They deserve it.  I love the fact that he’s driving the media berserk.  After ten minutes of watching almost any news network on TV, one is left with the impression that Donald Trump is somewhere between evil genius and outright loon.  Trump is a shrewd media manipulator, but I still don’t know anything concrete about what he believes.  I can’t identify a consistent ideology much beyond “what will get me the most press right now.”  Still, despite all his philosophical and ideological shortcomings, one can’t help but love to watch the way he drives the Washington DC, insider cartel absolutely crazy. Despite the gnashing of teeth from within the Beltway, the American people are eating it up, with each episode gaining him ground.  I understand it.  America is looking for a leader like George C. Scott’s portrayal of General George S. Patton: No nonsense, a bit of bravado, and an unambiguous statement of the goal, without worrying about who may be offended.  How many times have conservatives lamented the lack of bluntness?  Still, this cannot be the sole criteria by which we choose our president, any more than a sunny disposition can be the sole criteria for choosing one’s doctor.  We need much more.

Trump’s entire campaign seems to hang on the catch-phrase “making America great again.” That’s all well and good, and I very much enjoy that process, like most conservatives, but I’m not sure I understand what Donald Trump thinks made America great in the first place.  Listening to him, there’s no evidence that he’s for any reduction in the size and cost of government, yet I believe part of what made America great was economic freedom, and it has been only in the progressive, statist era that America’s true greatness reached its apogee and began again to wane.   I’m not sure Mr. Trump sees it quite that way.  The problem is that by reducing everything to a slogan about “making America great again,” I’ve not heard too many specific details, and the few I’ve heard thus far are less than inspiring.  For instance, Mr. Trump is for a single-payer healthcare system!  If there is anything that has helped America to begin losing its standing and financial stability in the world, it is the increasing socialization of our medical care and insurance schemes since the late 1960s.  More the dependency-creating welfare-state of which a single-payer system would be an integral part is part of what is destroying America’s greatness, so I don’t understand Trump’s logical [in]consistency.

In point of fact, Trump is not conservative, but then most Republicans claiming that label don’t really deserve to wear it.  Jeb Bush said famously “I used to be a conservative,” but Rubio, Christie, Kasich and a lengthy list of the others are not conservatives either.  In fact, I think the closest things to genuine conservatives we have in this race for the nomination are senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.  Huckaby and Santorum might make legitimate claims to a fair piece of social conservatism, but in terms of economics and finance, I don’t believe either of them is overwhelmingly conservative by accounting of their actual political records.  Dr. Ben Carson is a brilliant, amiable man, who I like very much, but who also probably isn’t ready to be President of the United States.  The point is that we can’t throw out Trump for his lack of conservatism unless we’re also willing to discard Rubio, Christie, Kasich, Huckaby, Santorum, Lindsey Graham(who I would not support for dog catcher in Tumbleweed, Arizona,)  or Carly Fiorina, none of whom are particularly conservative, or worse, are simply establishment hacks. For my part, I’m willing to discard them, and indeed, I’m will also to discard Trump because what I’ve discovered is that Mr. Trump simply hasn’t formulated what I would consider to be a self-consistent plan that exhibits any detailed understanding of how to “make America great again.”  Of course, that doesn’t make him any worse than the laundry-list of folks noted above, but it should give pause to those who are rushing off to support him.

I like Trump’s energy.  I wish it were more focused.  I like his general notion about “making America great again,” because I believe it’s something that could be accomplished, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he has a plan to accomplish it in any plausible manner.  I like that he comes up with short-run, topical slogans, because that’s always easy for voters to digest and understand, but I detest the fact that he seems to stop at the slogan-formulation stage, and never brings any substantive plans along by which these slogans are to be realized.  In short, he’s a lot of huff and puff, but no stuff.  There’s no there there.

On the other hand, Trump has staked out a number of positions I consider to be abominable.  The single-payer healthcare business he supported through the 90s is among them, but I’ve also noted with chagrin that Trump supports the Supreme Court decision in Kelo, in which eminent domain was used to condemn homes and property for use in commercial developments.  His general disrespect for private property rights and his use of government to take what he wants ought to serve as a cautionary note to anyone who considers supporting him for President. Remember this:

These are just two highlights among a lengthy list of deficiencies.  Still, it is entertaining to watch the Republican establishment and its slate of candidates from Jeb to Marco lose their minds over Trump.  Trump may entertain me, and I truly enjoy watching the likes of Jeb Bush lose his cool, and to watch the entire Democrat Party membership go crazy, calling him “Hitler” and so on.  Perhaps they should call him “FDR” instead. Franklin Roosevelt interred Japanese for the duration of the war, most of them US citizens!  Watching the media, especially FoxNews, obsessing over Trump makes me laugh.  Megyn Kelly’s semi-pseudo-exasperation over the media’s obsession(and eye-rolling, on-air confessions of the same at her own network) tickle me pink.  Her assault on Trump:

Megyn asks Donald about his Republican credentials:

The GOP establishment’s media harpy is hilarious when she loses her mind over Trump.  Trump apparently agrees:

Of course, FoxNews acts as a megaphone for the establishment wing of the GOP:

My point, lost in the haze of Donald Trump’s bombast, is that while he is highly entertaining to watch, and while I heartily enjoy seeing the DC beltway cartel lose their minds over his politically-incorrect remarks and comments, I don’t believe he has the philosophical consistency for which I’m looking in a President, and I also don’t believe his overall record on areas of significance are in any way in accord with conservative thought. His views on eminent domain are in accord with the Supreme Court, but in the current context, that means they’re anathema to traditional Americans principles and values.

Still, a conservative must take a certain amount of pleasure in the GOP establishment having been driven to plotting over measures to stave off a Trump nomination by setting aside any Trump electoral success through the use of a brokered convention.  That anybody drives the party “blue-bloods” to this level of terror is absolutely a fascinating occasion I wholly endorse…but I still can’t vote for him.