Monthly Archives: November 2016

The News About Washington Post Complains Trump’s Pledge Isn’t Legally Binding

You have to hand it to the Washington Post. The Jeff Bezos-owned legacy media outlet is consistent in its hypocrisy, casting doubts and aspersions on all who are not reliably in the corner of the Democratic Party as well as those who are not reliably in the corner of more and bigger government, which all too often today includes the leaders of the Republican Party.

You might have heard in recent days that billionaire real estate mogul and leading 2016 GOP presidential contender Donald Trump signed a “loyalty pledge” to the Republican Party, a non-legally binding document that ostensibly prevents Trump from making a third-party bid for the White House should he lose the Republican presidential nomination as the GOP leadership hopes.

It was bad enough having to crawl to Trump – he was visited in Trump Towers by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus – to get him to sign; the fact that he signed it was another signal that he is simply too smart for the current crop of GOP “strategists,” major candidates and party operatives.

Trump outfoxes everyone

In the weeks before this “historic” signing, the Republicans’ preferred candidate, Jeb Bush, complained that The Donald has been a Democrat longer than he’s been a Republican.

Trump’s signing of the document pledging that he’s a Republican and that he’ll support the eventual Republican nominee if it is not him makes him a bona fide Republican, and that destroys the claim by Bush and others that Trump is “not really a Republican.”

Check and mate for Trump.

It appears that someone at the Washington Post is upset that this pledge wasn’t some sort of court affidavit or other “legal” document. They claim the Trumpster can back out of it at any time.

The Post’s Chris Cillizza, who writes “The Fix” blog, laments:

GOP front-runner Donald Trump signed a formal pledge crafted by the Republican National Committee that he will not run for president as an independent if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination….

But there is absolutely no reason to think that simply by the act of signing this pledge, Trump will somehow be legally bound to not run as anything but a Republican in 2016. He won’t be.

This pledge is not…a legally binding document. It’s like the sort of pledge you get your kids to sign that they will do their homework, make their beds and eat their vegetables before they can play with your iPhone. It’s a statement of intention, but not a binding one.

Faux outrage

Were Cillizza and Co. at the Post equally concerned about Barack Obama violating about 700 promises regarding Obamacare? Did they lose sleep over his broken pledge regarding executive amnesty for illegal aliens? Did they call out his reversal on the traditional definition of marriage?

Obama promised that his Affordable Care Act would lower monthly insurance rates, but that hasn’t happened for most Americans.

He promised that if we liked our health insurance, we could keep it, knowing full well that Obamacare’s mandated coverage minimums meant that Americans could not keep the plans they had.

He repeatedly said – 22 times – that he did not have the authority to issue the executive amnesty that he ultimately issued after the 2014 elections.

When running for the presidency the first time, Obama was adamant he believed in traditional “Christian marriage” before changing his position after the 2012 election and ordering his Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionally passed Defense of Marriage Act.

The Washington Post and its incessant defense of Obama and fellow Democrats is par for the course, as is its faux outrage over a promise that Trump hasn’t even broken yet – and might never break.

Should Know About The Myth of A Limited Government Republican Party

I will be doing a series of articles exposing commonly held political myths that many Americans have come to accept as historic fact. These myths were intentionally created by those directly involved in government and by its admirers who benefit from the expansion of state power. Over time, these relatively small groups, compared to the general population, have learned that controlling the public perception of government is essential to achieve their agenda. History teaches that, when government grows in size and power, freedom is destroyed for those subject to its rule. Only a few elite enjoy its benefits at the expense of the majority. It’s vitally important that the focus needs to be on the supremacy of individual freedom. It must be considered the most precious possession that we have. The critical lesson of human history is how rarely individual freedom has been obtained, and how relatively easily it is for it to be taken away.

The primary reason why America is rapidly transforming into a totalitarian police state is that a majority of Americans are ignorant of history. This has led to a lack of interest in the political system. America has become a victim of it’s own success because modern generations don’t understand the sacrifices it took to develop the economy that has produced this great abundance we have known all our lives. This ignorance of the political system has allowed the government, by it’s nature a parasite, to grow so large that it threatens to kill its host. Governments do not create wealth; they profit from the work of others. To put that in simple modern terms, government is the ultimate welfare recipient.

Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” The Federal Government has long ago passed the point of being intolerable. It’s only relatively recently that a significant number of Americans have started to realize just how intolerable it has become.

The central government, created by the Constitution, has become the most powerful government in human history. It has amassed the greatest debt in human history. It’s on track to become the most dangerous government in human history. The Constitution that was intended to limit the Federal Government has become a dead letter. I believe Americans face a similar situation that the German people faced in the 1930s. They too were manipulated through government-created crisis and elected the Nazi Party out of desperation. In our case, we have two tyrannical political parties that are only superficially different from each other. The deception has to be sophisticated because of the American tradition of individual freedom.

Both political parties use the Fabian Socialist technique of incremental change using the political system. The Stalinist approach is to use brute force against its people to achieve their goals. Fabian Socialists only resort to violence in very limited ways. It’s heavily cloaked with legislation to give the appearance of legitimacy. They take over the political parties, education system and media in a coordinated effort to keep the general public ignorant of reality. Unfortunately, they have been extremely successful.

The purpose of this article is not to be an in-depth analysis of the entire political system but to reveal the truth behind the facade of the modern Republican Party. A party that has been in decline for years and appears to be on the path toward extinction. I don’t believe that it’s going disappear in the near future but, rather like the expansion of government, decline incrementally until it reaches the finally stages where the collapse accelerates.

The simplistic narrative that has developed over the years, and amazingly persists today, is that the Democratic Party is Liberal and the Republican Party is Conservative. Those who know the history behind the words Liberal and Conservative are aware that the meaning related to their political use has changed.

Since I’m analyzing the history of the Republican Party, I’ll start with conservatism’s definition. Traditional Conservatism — or as it’s also referred to as, Paleoconservatism or “Old Right” — believes in Laissez-faire capitalism, limited government and a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. To many, that might sound like a modern Libertarian. There are lots of similarities, but there seems to be a few important differences. Paleoconservatives tend to be devout Christians, usually Non-Zionist Christians. They are critical of the libertine attitude of many modern Libertarians. They tend to agree with Libertarians that government should not intervene in most of these social issues but will speak out in the court of public opinion against those values. The major dividing line is over abortion. A significant amount of Libertarians are pro-choice, while Paleoconservatives tend to be pro-life.

The history of Paleoeoconservatives is best summed up in the abstract of an article by Sheldon L. Richman, “New Deal Nemesis: The ‘Old Right’ Jeffersonians” published in The Independent Review: “The Old Right began as a diverse group of politicians, writers and activists awakened by a common threat: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his unprecedented accretion of executive power. The Old Right was not truly right-wing or conservative, drawing as it did from the ranks of “progressive” isolationists, Republican “conservative” isolationists, libertarian iconoclasts regarded as leftist radicals in the 1920s, conservative Democrats, social democratic historians, and free-market liberal economists and journalists.”

For a more in-depth look at Paleoconservatism, I recommend the book Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement by Justin Raimondo.

That’s the history of Conservatism and what it used to mean, but that’s not what modern mainstream conservatism represents now. The Democratic Party lost its Jeffersonian heritage with the infiltration of Progressives in the late 19th century. They were in reality Marxists who called themselves Progressives. This may be a shock to modern Republicans, but there was a time when Democrats, though not perfect, were the ones who were strong on state sovereignty, for low taxes and limited government. They weren’t the Marxist extremists that they have become.

In my opinion, based on historical facts, the Republican Party didn’t really have such an infiltration. They already were, for all practical purposes, “Progressives.” From its birth in 1854, the Republican Party didn’t respect state sovereignty and wanted an all-powerful central government. They were for high taxes. In the early days, that meant high tariffs. They promoted mercantilism, now referred to as “corporatism,” or often called “crony capitalism.” They wanted a national central banking system similar to the current Federal Reserve System, which is at the center of the destruction of the financial sector and threatens our entire economy with inflationary fiat dollars and all the distortions of the economy that it causes. Republicans created the first fiat dollar; in the United States, they were called “greenbacks” and were not backed by gold or silver. They enacted the first income tax in 1861, which was repealed in 1871. With deceptive tactics, they started an unconstitutional war of aggression against fellow Americans. I will talk about the war in more detail in part 2. I’ll explain why what we call the “Civil War” was unnecessary to end slavery and wasn’t even about ending slavery. The primary reasons involved tariffs and Southern independence.

Two concepts of government emerged after the American Revolution, or more accurately called the war of secession from the British Empire. There was Thomas Jefferson’s concept, summed up by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, author of Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution — and What It Means for America Today. As The Mises Review states:

“Thomas Jefferson supported the American Revolution in order to promote individual liberty. To secure this end, it was essential that the central government be strictly limited in its powers. America, in the Jeffersonian view, was an alliance of sovereign states, and the adoption of the Constitution, though it increased the power of the national government, did not fundamentally change this arrangement.”

Professor DiLorenzo describes Hamilton’s concept from his book Hamliton’s Curse: “Hamilton proposed a kind of “king” who would yield supreme power over all people, who in turn would have essentially no say in how their government was run. The states would be mere provinces whose governors would be appointed by and loyal to the “king.”Under such a regime, all political power in the nation would be exercised by the chief executive and his circle of advisors, which would undoubtedly have included Alexander Hamilton as perhaps the chief advisor.”

Professor DiLorenzo points out that Hamilton did not secure what he wanted at the Constitutional Convention and called the Constitution “a frail and worthless fabric.”

Hamilton’s economic concepts were just as troubling. Professor DiLorenzo, in his article “The Founding Father of Crony Capitalism,” describes his economic ideas: “It was Hamilton who coined the phrase ‘The American System’ to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day.”

Professor DiLorenzo shows the connection between Hamilton’s “American System” and the Whig Party of Henry Clay. The Whig Party base fractured, and eventually the party failed. It was replaced by the Republican Party. The name was changed, but the philosophy didn’t.

News About The Fall of Hillary Clinton And The Demise Of The DNC

After three decades of controversy and scandal, will Tuesday’s presidential election loss for Hillary Clinton finally close the book on one of the great American political crime families, as well as the party to which they belong?

She doesn’t think so and neither do Democratic Party bosses. Already they are plotting and scheming for the next election cycle, of that you can be certain. But it may not make much difference. That’s because for all of the pre-Nov. 8 obituaries written about the GOP by the Democrats and their sycophantic allies, the Republican Party is alive and well and stronger than ever.

In fact, interestingly enough, prior to the election, the establishment media was predicting that, with the ascension of Donald J. Trump to the top of the ticket, the Republican Party was on its last breath and would fully and completely self-destruct after the billionaire real estate mogul was soundly thrashed. But instead of that, Trump not only won the contest, House Speaker Paul Ryan credited him with a series of GOP victories that helped the party gain in state contests and hold onto tightly contested majorities in both the House and the Senate.

“We won more seats that anyone expected and much of that is thanks to Donald Trump,” Ryan said. “Donald Trump heard a voice out in this country that no one else heard.”

So, that is the current state of the GOP. What about the Democrats? What about the Clintons?

If you follow social media and you have a somewhat darker sense of humor, you might have seen memes and other posts pointing out that it’s probable a lot of the big money donors – including several foreign countries – who donated to the Clinton’s “charity,” the Clinton Foundation, and were expecting several pay-for-play favors in return for their largess are now extremely unhappy they won’t be seeing a return on their ‘investment.’ That means very likely that such donations will now dry up, given that Bill Clinton as an ex-president doesn’t have anything substantial to offer, and Hillary Clinton is no longer secretary of state and did not win the presidency, rendering her politically useless.

That leaves Chelsea Clinton, their daughter, who could at some point resurrect the Clinton “brand” if she were to enter politics. But considering she and Trump’s daughter Ivanka are close friends, it’s not likely she will make such a move anytime soon. And honestly, after seeing her parents embroiled in scandal after scandal (of their own making) for three decades, it could just be that the last thing Chelsea Clinton wants is a career in politics.

Clintons weren’t being paid millions for their dynamic personalities

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Hillary’s concessions speech to Trump not only marked the end of her campaign(s) for president – having lost twice now – but very likely the end of her political career. It was especially painful, given that her campaign had a better “ground” game, more money, sounder organization and more endorsements, as well as a party unified behind her. But after serving as first lady, then a U.S. senator and finally secretary of state, there does not appear to be, at age 69, any future path for her in public life.

There is always the charity, of course, but now – without anything of value to offer since the Clinton Foundation was always more of a political operation than a charity – it’s not a certainty that the foundation will survive.

Let’s face it: Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t get paid kings’ ransoms because they are such dynamic, powerful and insightful speakers. They were being bought and paid for by parties who were interested in the access the two of them could provide. It made no sense for her, as a presidential candidate, to claim she was a ‘champion of gays and women,’ for instance, while accepting tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments that purposefully target and persecute gays and women.

When Clinton was on Obama’s Cabinet, for example, more than $165 billion in arms deals were made to Clinton Foundation donors. As reported by International Business Times:

In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.?The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire…

Tracking the decline of Democrats

When these issues were raised during the campaign, the Democratic Party and its propaganda wing – the establishment media – lectured anyone making the case this represented classic “pay-for-play” that no, those donations were not tied to those arms deals and anyone making the accusation was unfairly piling on Clinton because she was a woman or some such nonsense.

Turns out, more Americans believed those who were shining a light on these dirty deeds than the Democratic spin machine.

Now, what is the future looking like for the Democratic Party? Based on recent history, it isn’t good.

Consider that beginning in 1994 – two years into Bill Clinton’s presidency – the Democratic Party lost control of the House, for the first time in four decades. Since then there has only been a four-year period – 2006-2010 – where the party has recaptured Congress; it held the Senate majority until 2014. Each time the party held the presidency, and that president surged to the far political left (with Clinton it was gun control, higher taxes and his wife’s attempt to pass Obamacare-style health reform legislation; with Obama it’s been Obamacare, unlimited immigration and a liberal social agenda), the Democratic Party has lost control of Congress, either partially or completely.

Is the demise of the Clintons coinciding with the demise of their party?

And now, with the election of Trump, the country has once again repudiated the leftist-socialism of the Democratic Party. But instead of “learning a lesson,” the party’s elders will continue to double down on a political domestic agenda that shuns traditional American values, our constitutional order, separation of powers and the uniquely American culture, in favor of political correct policies that are really little more than soft tyranny.

The Democratic Party has become one giant hypocrisy. It claims to be inclusive, but it divides the American people by gender, race and sexual preference. It claims to be tolerant, but is impatient and hostile to anyone who has an opposing point of view. Rather than encourage dialogue to settle differences, Democrats shout down, humiliate and belittle political opponents. Instead of being champions of the Middle Class, they pursue and implement big government policies that hurt and destroy the Middle Class. And instead of embracing all of the Constitution, Democrats adhere to, or ignore, our founding document based on their own political objectives at the time.

There’s no question that the political ‘dynasty’ of Bill and Hillary Clinton is over following her defeat. The fact is, it’s very possible, too, that she and Obama have taken their party down with her.