Category: Steve McCann

209023.png

Trump Voters and the Bitter Elites


Since the 9th of November 2016, I and 63 million other Americans have been collectively characterized as racists, misogynists, Nazi sympathizers and ignorant simpletons because we voted for Donald Trump.  Whether it is the media, the denizens of Democratic Party, the NeverTrumpers, the elitists or the elitist wannabes, this Greek chorus has been mindlessly spouting these blanket accusations in their revulsion over the unexpected Trump victory.  In their addled thought process this is the only plausible explanation for Hillary Clinton losing.   

I, along with the overwhelming majority of those of us who wear the scarlet letter of having voted for Trump, opted to ignore these ravings and simply get on with our lives while quietly seething over the rhetoric and accusations.   

However, I recently received an infuriating email which required a reply on behalf of my fellow Americans and Trump voters.

Over the years I bought spices on line from Penzeys, a firm located in Wisconsin with 69 stores throughout the country.  Almost immediately after the election, its president William T. Penzey, Jr., sent out a promotional email to their customer base which included an excoriation of Trump and his supporters.  I immediately stopped buying from them and requested my email address be deleted.   However, I continued to receive emails touting various products and promotions along with anti-Trump political commentary.   On the 8th of September I received another promotional email with the following lead-in as a letter to those of us who voted for Trump or any Republican:

I grew up in a Volkswagen bus.  My best friend grew up in his father’s navy coat.  He died a Marine from cancer maybe from a war he fought and was left to clean up after.  I respect you when you are right, and have no patience when you give up your values to unearned race-based praise.  Still, the cliff you are now dropping off of with this week’s events is too steep for anyone to face alone.  They fooled you, and shame on them for that.  But then you let them fool you again, and again, and again.  You and I know what that means.  But always remember, you are not alone.


The good news is that you were raised with the strength to take responsibility for your actions.  Now is the time to use that strength to put things right.  It won’t be easy.  It will be possible.  Now’s maybe the time to use your choice of search engine to type in “Ryan” “Trump” and “textbook” to see, maybe for the first time, that the racism that took over your party long ago was there well before you voted for this administration.  Now maybe this week for the first time you can see it.  I trust you to find your way to make amends and put your actions right.  It’s who you are.

Penzeys is a private entity and its president can say whatever he chooses.  But the condescension and the not so veiled intimation that Trump voters are mindless buffoons drips off the page and is typical of the mindset of the elitist cabal.   I and 63 million of my fellow Americans must make amends for our thoughtless action in voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton?  This is not just the rantings of a narcissistic buffoon but emblematic of far too many in the Ruling Establishment.

As he reveals in his missive, Mr. Penzey and his fellow travelers are obsessed with racism as that is the most common accusation hurled by this clique.  In their addled thought process racism is the sole province of Republicans and those repugnant Trump voters.  In reality, it is far more prevalent among the Left and the Democratic Party.

While Mr. Penzey was a toddler playing in his parents’ coffee and spice shop during the mid-1960’s, I was actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement.  Beyond the overt and venomous racist policies of the Democratic Party in the South, there was another notable phenomenon I noticed — the racism endemic among the self-righteous liberals.

The motivation of the overwhelming majority of white participants in the Civil Rights Movement fell into three categories.  The first, and the most active group, were the hard-core leftists who viewed the Black proletariat as potential foot soldiers as well as a gullible constituency to be recruited in overturning the government and establishing a socialist nirvana.  The second, and the largest faction, were the liberals who viewed African-Americans as a population to be pitied, patted on the head and made dependent mascots so these pompous narcissists could wallow in their self-righteousness.  The third, and by far the smallest group, motivated by Judeo-Christian teachings and respect for the humanity of their fellow citizens, became involved in order to permanently eradicate institutional racism throughout the country.

In order to sow animosity and discontentment in the Black community, the Left today fabricates and shouts incessantly about racism when there is none.  They promote social and economic policies that obliterate the Black family.  They tacitly endorse Eugenics through unfettered abortion access and active promotion of abortions in the inner cities so that Black women account for 36% of all abortions (when Blacks make up 12% of the population).  They manipulate what is taught in the schools, so ignorance prevails, and the Black citizenry can thus be easily stage-managed into a monolithic voting bloc for the Democratic Party. 

These actions are a manifestation of virulent and pernicious racism, for they can ultimately undermine and destroy a race.  This bigotry is solely the province of the Left.  Meanwhile, the cancer that is antisemitism is also rapidly metastasizing throughout the Left and the Democratic Party.  

The overt racism of a few thousand (at most) members of the Ku Klux Klan or a couple of hundred thousand White Supremacists out of a population of 320 million people in a nation the size of the continent of Europe is no more than a nuisance and politically impotent.  Yet the Left, the media and the elites portray these outcasts as mainstream conservatives and Republicans in order to paint 63 million Tump voters as racists.  The reality is that this left-wing cabal is not only guilty of racism, but through their tacit support of the violent Antifa movement and aggressive suppression of free speech, they are no more than authoritarian sympathizers.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 Vice Presidential debate: I know and have experienced first-hand the evils of racism and the malevolence of Nazism.  Neither Donald Trump nor virtually all who voted for him are racists or Nazi sympathizers. 

They are Americans who were uneasy and frightened of the cultural and economic transformation of the United States promulgated by the current iteration of the Ruling Class. They wanted a change and Hillary Clinton was the personification of the overwhelming majority of this self-styled oligarchy: self-dealing, mendacious, narcissistic, and disposed toward socialism and cultural Marxism.

Mr. Penzey, I and my fellow 63 million Americans do not have make amends for a damn thing.   Perhaps you and your fellow elitists should make amends for foisting Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and an unabashedly neo-socialist, racist and authoritarian Democratic Party on the nation.

Since the 9th of November 2016, I and 63 million other Americans have been collectively characterized as racists, misogynists, Nazi sympathizers and ignorant simpletons because we voted for Donald Trump.  Whether it is the media, the denizens of Democratic Party, the NeverTrumpers, the elitists or the elitist wannabes, this Greek chorus has been mindlessly spouting these blanket accusations in their revulsion over the unexpected Trump victory.  In their addled thought process this is the only plausible explanation for Hillary Clinton losing.   

I, along with the overwhelming majority of those of us who wear the scarlet letter of having voted for Trump, opted to ignore these ravings and simply get on with our lives while quietly seething over the rhetoric and accusations.   

Hillary’s 2016 Election Night “Victory Party” (screen grab VOA)

However, I recently received an infuriating email which required a reply on behalf of my fellow Americans and Trump voters.

Over the years I bought spices on line from Penzeys, a firm located in Wisconsin with 69 stores throughout the country.  Almost immediately after the election, its president William T. Penzey, Jr., sent out a promotional email to their customer base which included an excoriation of Trump and his supporters.  I immediately stopped buying from them and requested my email address be deleted.   However, I continued to receive emails touting various products and promotions along with anti-Trump political commentary.   On the 8th of September I received another promotional email with the following lead-in as a letter to those of us who voted for Trump or any Republican:

I grew up in a Volkswagen bus.  My best friend grew up in his father’s navy coat.  He died a Marine from cancer maybe from a war he fought and was left to clean up after.  I respect you when you are right, and have no patience when you give up your values to unearned race-based praise.  Still, the cliff you are now dropping off of with this week’s events is too steep for anyone to face alone.  They fooled you, and shame on them for that.  But then you let them fool you again, and again, and again.  You and I know what that means.  But always remember, you are not alone.


The good news is that you were raised with the strength to take responsibility for your actions.  Now is the time to use that strength to put things right.  It won’t be easy.  It will be possible.  Now’s maybe the time to use your choice of search engine to type in “Ryan” “Trump” and “textbook” to see, maybe for the first time, that the racism that took over your party long ago was there well before you voted for this administration.  Now maybe this week for the first time you can see it.  I trust you to find your way to make amends and put your actions right.  It’s who you are.

Penzeys is a private entity and its president can say whatever he chooses.  But the condescension and the not so veiled intimation that Trump voters are mindless buffoons drips off the page and is typical of the mindset of the elitist cabal.   I and 63 million of my fellow Americans must make amends for our thoughtless action in voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton?  This is not just the rantings of a narcissistic buffoon but emblematic of far too many in the Ruling Establishment.

As he reveals in his missive, Mr. Penzey and his fellow travelers are obsessed with racism as that is the most common accusation hurled by this clique.  In their addled thought process racism is the sole province of Republicans and those repugnant Trump voters.  In reality, it is far more prevalent among the Left and the Democratic Party.

While Mr. Penzey was a toddler playing in his parents’ coffee and spice shop during the mid-1960’s, I was actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement.  Beyond the overt and venomous racist policies of the Democratic Party in the South, there was another notable phenomenon I noticed — the racism endemic among the self-righteous liberals.

The motivation of the overwhelming majority of white participants in the Civil Rights Movement fell into three categories.  The first, and the most active group, were the hard-core leftists who viewed the Black proletariat as potential foot soldiers as well as a gullible constituency to be recruited in overturning the government and establishing a socialist nirvana.  The second, and the largest faction, were the liberals who viewed African-Americans as a population to be pitied, patted on the head and made dependent mascots so these pompous narcissists could wallow in their self-righteousness.  The third, and by far the smallest group, motivated by Judeo-Christian teachings and respect for the humanity of their fellow citizens, became involved in order to permanently eradicate institutional racism throughout the country.

In order to sow animosity and discontentment in the Black community, the Left today fabricates and shouts incessantly about racism when there is none.  They promote social and economic policies that obliterate the Black family.  They tacitly endorse Eugenics through unfettered abortion access and active promotion of abortions in the inner cities so that Black women account for 36% of all abortions (when Blacks make up 12% of the population).  They manipulate what is taught in the schools, so ignorance prevails, and the Black citizenry can thus be easily stage-managed into a monolithic voting bloc for the Democratic Party. 

These actions are a manifestation of virulent and pernicious racism, for they can ultimately undermine and destroy a race.  This bigotry is solely the province of the Left.  Meanwhile, the cancer that is antisemitism is also rapidly metastasizing throughout the Left and the Democratic Party.  

The overt racism of a few thousand (at most) members of the Ku Klux Klan or a couple of hundred thousand White Supremacists out of a population of 320 million people in a nation the size of the continent of Europe is no more than a nuisance and politically impotent.  Yet the Left, the media and the elites portray these outcasts as mainstream conservatives and Republicans in order to paint 63 million Tump voters as racists.  The reality is that this left-wing cabal is not only guilty of racism, but through their tacit support of the violent Antifa movement and aggressive suppression of free speech, they are no more than authoritarian sympathizers.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 Vice Presidential debate: I know and have experienced first-hand the evils of racism and the malevolence of Nazism.  Neither Donald Trump nor virtually all who voted for him are racists or Nazi sympathizers. 

They are Americans who were uneasy and frightened of the cultural and economic transformation of the United States promulgated by the current iteration of the Ruling Class. They wanted a change and Hillary Clinton was the personification of the overwhelming majority of this self-styled oligarchy: self-dealing, mendacious, narcissistic, and disposed toward socialism and cultural Marxism.

Mr. Penzey, I and my fellow 63 million Americans do not have make amends for a damn thing.   Perhaps you and your fellow elitists should make amends for foisting Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and an unabashedly neo-socialist, racist and authoritarian Democratic Party on the nation.



Source link

208883.jpg

Does Mueller Have an October Surprise?


The upcoming mid-term election is perhaps the most consequential since 1932 when the Democrats won 97 House and 12 Senate seats, setting in motion the big-government agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt as well as nearly 62 years of Democrat dominance of Congress.  Were the current iteration of the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress, the impeachment of Donald Trump would be inevitable.  Further, there would be a cessation, perhaps permanently, of any effort to undo the damage inflicted on the nation by Barack Obama and todays unabashedly socialist Democratic Party now steeped in cultural Marxism.

In 1992 a special prosecutor also investigating alleged collusion with a foreign nation by another presidential administration took it upon himself to deliberately impact an election in the last week of a campaign thus assuring the election of Bill Clinton.  

The so-called scandal was the Iran-Contra Affair and the President originally in the cross-hairs was Ronald Reagan.  The charge: the Reagan Administration colluded with Israel and Iran to sell arms to Iran in an effort to obtain the release of American hostages and divert the proceeds to fund an insurgency in communist Nicaragua in an alleged violation of an arcane amendment to a spending bill.  The unwritten objective in the investigation was to permanently damage Reagan’s popularity and legacy as well as undermine his potential Republican successor in the election of 1988.

Lawrence Walsh, appointed in 1986 as Independent Counsel, spent six years and $75 Million (adjusted for inflation) leaving no stone unturned in his attempt to ensnare Reagan but he failed to discover any evidence of criminality on the part of the White House.  Yet Walsh refused to end the investigation instead he pursued other administration officials during Reagan’s last two years in office and throughout the entire four years of the Bush administration.

Larence Walsh in 1960, as Deputy Attorney General  

Given six years and an unlimited budget, Walsh, in the manner of the monomaniacal Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, indicted six former Reagan officials on dubious and evergreen perjury and obstruction charges– none served any prison time and all were later pardoned.  Two others, Oliver North and John Poindexter, were convicted on a number of counts, but both had all convictions overturned on appeal.

There was never anything after six years of painstaking and dogged investigation linking the then Vice-President George H.W. Bush to the Iran-Contra Affair.

In June of 1992, a presidential election year, Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Reagan’s former Secretary of Defense, on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.  In September, the obstruction of justice count was dismissed for technical and jurisprudence reasons.  Yet, on October 30, 1992, four days before the election, Walsh filed a reindictment of Weinberger on one count of making a false statement.  

In the reindictment Walsh included, for the first time, notes from Weinberger’s diary that briefly mentioned George Bush’s attendance at a meeting that appeared to contradict something Bush had previously said, but not in a way that was meaningful or had any legal significance.   Further, the reindictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, as a judge later ruled, and should never have been filed or made public.

In late October 1992 the polls were tightening dramatically pointing to a Bush victory despite the presence of Ross Perot.   In a suspicious turn of events, on October 28th, Bill Clinton reversed his campaign tactics and began to aggressively accuse George Bush of being an inveterate liar and maliciously untrustworthy.  Not coincidentally, two days later the reindictment of Weinberger and the fleeting mention of Bush in his diary was made public.  

That same evening during a live appearance on Larry King’s show Bush was confronted with the Weinberger reindictment reference and his supposed prevarications as King had pre-arranged for George Stephanopoulos, Clinton’s communications director, to call into the show.  Thus, the story was national front-page news the next day.

As C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel to George H.W. Bush wrote (hat tip: American Conservative):

The media and the Clinton’s seized upon the indictment to bludgeon Bush.  The Associated Press claimed the indictment “contradicted President Bush’s claim he never knew that arms were being traded for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair or that two Cabinet members were opposed to the deal.”  In the New York Times, Anthony Lewis pummeled Bush, asking. “How does George Bush live with the knowledge of his disregard for the truth,” The indictment monopolized the news the weekend before Election day, and Bush’s upward trend in the polls came to an abrupt end.

Lawrence Walsh disingenuously feigned cluelessness in his memoirs attempting to convince others that he thought the Bush reference in Weinberger’s diary would not be newsworthy but that he, as independent counsel, was astonished how his inadvertence changed the course of history by affecting the outcome of an election. 

Fast forward to today.  Based on his insistence that Trump testify in what is obviously a perjury trap, the innumerable leaks emanating from Mueller’s office, the conviction of Paul Manafort on unrelated charges and the coerced guilty plea by Michael Cohen again on unrelated charges, Robert Mueller appears to have a much greater animus toward Donald Trump than Lawrence Walsh toward Ronald Reagan or George Bush. 

While Reagan was disliked by the Washington Establishment (Bush less so), Trump is loathed not only by the Washington Establishment but by almost the entirety of the media/entertainment complex.  During the Bush presidency the mainstream media leaned overwhelmingly Democratic, however, 40% of the coverage of George Bush was generally favorable as compared to just 10% with Donald Trump.

Therefore, Mueller has at his disposal a veritable army of like-minded foot soldiers prepared, on a strategically timed basis, to promote leaks, false stories and innuendos as well as the fine print in any indictment or plea bargain.  

Two week or less before November 6, 2018, Mueller can do what Walsh did and imbed an implication of wrongdoing by Trump in an indictment or, as has already happened, a plea bargain, such as the Michael Cohen coerced guilty plea vis-a-vis legal campaign contributions.  Which was done solely to implicate and embarrass Donald Trump.

Further, Mueller’s henchmen could, in collusion with the many willing accomplices in the Democratic Party and the media, plant a series of dubious leaks and incriminatory insinuations about Trump or his campaign.  There would not be enough time for the Trump administration to successfully refute the incessant media drumbeat of scandal as every Republican candidate for Congress would be forced to answer for the charges.  Thereby shifting the advantage to their Democrat opponents.

The fact that Mueller did not wrap up the investigation prior to Labor Day of 2016 and displays no intention of doing so in the near future insinuates the very real possibility that he or his dyed-in-the-wool Democratic prosecutors may well make a play in October to rid the nation of Donald Trump and the Republican Congress.  There is little doubt that this strategy has been thought of and is being contemplated by the diehard anti-Trump cabal within the Ruling Class.

Therefore, if the Mueller team has not issued a final report on alleged Russian collusion by the middle of September, Donald Trump, the individual Republican candidates as well as the Republican National Committee must go on an unbridled offensive relentlessly alerting the citizenry to the very real possibility of sabotage and collusion by pointing to history and the behavior to date of the Mueller inquisitors.

The investigation that was ostensibly initiated to ascertain if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to affect the 2016 election has been ongoing for twenty-seven months.  Seventeen months of which have been in the hands of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his Democrat phalanx of investigators and prosecutors spending in excess of $1.4 million a month.)  This prolonged inquisition has produced no evidence or indictments supporting the collusion allegation.  Yet the investigation marches on with no end in sight.  

But is there, in fact, an end game?  Is that end game waiting until late October to impact an election in order to switch control of Congress to the Democrats?  Is it to make certain Trump cannot run for re-election in 2020?  Or is it both? 

The upcoming mid-term election is perhaps the most consequential since 1932 when the Democrats won 97 House and 12 Senate seats, setting in motion the big-government agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt as well as nearly 62 years of Democrat dominance of Congress.  Were the current iteration of the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress, the impeachment of Donald Trump would be inevitable.  Further, there would be a cessation, perhaps permanently, of any effort to undo the damage inflicted on the nation by Barack Obama and todays unabashedly socialist Democratic Party now steeped in cultural Marxism.

In 1992 a special prosecutor also investigating alleged collusion with a foreign nation by another presidential administration took it upon himself to deliberately impact an election in the last week of a campaign thus assuring the election of Bill Clinton.  

The so-called scandal was the Iran-Contra Affair and the President originally in the cross-hairs was Ronald Reagan.  The charge: the Reagan Administration colluded with Israel and Iran to sell arms to Iran in an effort to obtain the release of American hostages and divert the proceeds to fund an insurgency in communist Nicaragua in an alleged violation of an arcane amendment to a spending bill.  The unwritten objective in the investigation was to permanently damage Reagan’s popularity and legacy as well as undermine his potential Republican successor in the election of 1988.

Lawrence Walsh, appointed in 1986 as Independent Counsel, spent six years and $75 Million (adjusted for inflation) leaving no stone unturned in his attempt to ensnare Reagan but he failed to discover any evidence of criminality on the part of the White House.  Yet Walsh refused to end the investigation instead he pursued other administration officials during Reagan’s last two years in office and throughout the entire four years of the Bush administration.

Larence Walsh in 1960, as Deputy Attorney General  

Given six years and an unlimited budget, Walsh, in the manner of the monomaniacal Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, indicted six former Reagan officials on dubious and evergreen perjury and obstruction charges– none served any prison time and all were later pardoned.  Two others, Oliver North and John Poindexter, were convicted on a number of counts, but both had all convictions overturned on appeal.

There was never anything after six years of painstaking and dogged investigation linking the then Vice-President George H.W. Bush to the Iran-Contra Affair.

In June of 1992, a presidential election year, Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Reagan’s former Secretary of Defense, on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.  In September, the obstruction of justice count was dismissed for technical and jurisprudence reasons.  Yet, on October 30, 1992, four days before the election, Walsh filed a reindictment of Weinberger on one count of making a false statement.  

In the reindictment Walsh included, for the first time, notes from Weinberger’s diary that briefly mentioned George Bush’s attendance at a meeting that appeared to contradict something Bush had previously said, but not in a way that was meaningful or had any legal significance.   Further, the reindictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, as a judge later ruled, and should never have been filed or made public.

In late October 1992 the polls were tightening dramatically pointing to a Bush victory despite the presence of Ross Perot.   In a suspicious turn of events, on October 28th, Bill Clinton reversed his campaign tactics and began to aggressively accuse George Bush of being an inveterate liar and maliciously untrustworthy.  Not coincidentally, two days later the reindictment of Weinberger and the fleeting mention of Bush in his diary was made public.  

That same evening during a live appearance on Larry King’s show Bush was confronted with the Weinberger reindictment reference and his supposed prevarications as King had pre-arranged for George Stephanopoulos, Clinton’s communications director, to call into the show.  Thus, the story was national front-page news the next day.

As C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel to George H.W. Bush wrote (hat tip: American Conservative):

The media and the Clinton’s seized upon the indictment to bludgeon Bush.  The Associated Press claimed the indictment “contradicted President Bush’s claim he never knew that arms were being traded for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair or that two Cabinet members were opposed to the deal.”  In the New York Times, Anthony Lewis pummeled Bush, asking. “How does George Bush live with the knowledge of his disregard for the truth,” The indictment monopolized the news the weekend before Election day, and Bush’s upward trend in the polls came to an abrupt end.

Lawrence Walsh disingenuously feigned cluelessness in his memoirs attempting to convince others that he thought the Bush reference in Weinberger’s diary would not be newsworthy but that he, as independent counsel, was astonished how his inadvertence changed the course of history by affecting the outcome of an election. 

Fast forward to today.  Based on his insistence that Trump testify in what is obviously a perjury trap, the innumerable leaks emanating from Mueller’s office, the conviction of Paul Manafort on unrelated charges and the coerced guilty plea by Michael Cohen again on unrelated charges, Robert Mueller appears to have a much greater animus toward Donald Trump than Lawrence Walsh toward Ronald Reagan or George Bush. 

While Reagan was disliked by the Washington Establishment (Bush less so), Trump is loathed not only by the Washington Establishment but by almost the entirety of the media/entertainment complex.  During the Bush presidency the mainstream media leaned overwhelmingly Democratic, however, 40% of the coverage of George Bush was generally favorable as compared to just 10% with Donald Trump.

Therefore, Mueller has at his disposal a veritable army of like-minded foot soldiers prepared, on a strategically timed basis, to promote leaks, false stories and innuendos as well as the fine print in any indictment or plea bargain.  

Two week or less before November 6, 2018, Mueller can do what Walsh did and imbed an implication of wrongdoing by Trump in an indictment or, as has already happened, a plea bargain, such as the Michael Cohen coerced guilty plea vis-a-vis legal campaign contributions.  Which was done solely to implicate and embarrass Donald Trump.

Further, Mueller’s henchmen could, in collusion with the many willing accomplices in the Democratic Party and the media, plant a series of dubious leaks and incriminatory insinuations about Trump or his campaign.  There would not be enough time for the Trump administration to successfully refute the incessant media drumbeat of scandal as every Republican candidate for Congress would be forced to answer for the charges.  Thereby shifting the advantage to their Democrat opponents.

The fact that Mueller did not wrap up the investigation prior to Labor Day of 2016 and displays no intention of doing so in the near future insinuates the very real possibility that he or his dyed-in-the-wool Democratic prosecutors may well make a play in October to rid the nation of Donald Trump and the Republican Congress.  There is little doubt that this strategy has been thought of and is being contemplated by the diehard anti-Trump cabal within the Ruling Class.

Therefore, if the Mueller team has not issued a final report on alleged Russian collusion by the middle of September, Donald Trump, the individual Republican candidates as well as the Republican National Committee must go on an unbridled offensive relentlessly alerting the citizenry to the very real possibility of sabotage and collusion by pointing to history and the behavior to date of the Mueller inquisitors.



Source link

208703.jpeg

Donald Trump and the Purveyors of Civility


With the election of Donald Trump as president, the words “civility” and “character” have become among the most overused terms in current political discourse.  According to his adversaries, Trump grotesquely lacks these attributes.  However, over the past 30 years, the necessity of possessing and living by these traits has been limited to the Republican Party or conservatives in general.  The Democrats and the American left are exempt from this requirement.  

If Donald Trump had run for president and won as the nominee of the Democratic Party, his lack of character and rampant incivility would not be an issue, and in fact, those mannerisms would be praised as revealing a tenacious and determined personality.

How did this absurd double standard evolve?  It began in 1988 with the election of George H.W. Bush.  He won not on his own merits, but almost solely because he was the beneficiary of being the vice president during the two terms of Ronald Reagan – in many ways the most successful and popular president of the twentieth century.

The Bush family dynasty exemplifies the patrician attitude of holding oneself above the fray after fulfilling one’s pre-ordained obligation to society.  This may have been fine in the halcyon days of the past, when America’s future seemed limitless and those answering to the call of duty and their political adversaries alike were for the most part honorable people. 

The 1992 presidential election campaign of George H.W. Bush, in keeping with his penchant for civility, ran a lackluster campaign against Bill Clinton, relying instead on his record and sterling character.  Bush and the Republican National Committee, upon his instructions, never went for the jugular with Clinton, who was saddled with innumerable scandals and falsehoods. 

Clinton, not shackled by the niceties of civility, aggressively attacked Bush as being a liar, someone in league with the rich and powerful, and an essentially untrustworthy con man who also was up to his eyeballs in the Iran Contra Affair.  This charge was seemingly coordinated with Lawrence Walsh, the special prosecutor for the Iran Contra Affair, as a mere two weeks before the election, he indicted Caspar Weinberger, Bush’s secretary of defense.  Clinton, with a smirk and straight face, implied that Bush, despite his denials and lack of evidence, was complicit in the scandal.  Four weeks later, a federal district judge threw out the indictment, but the damage was done, and Bill Clinton was president for the next eight years.

While George H.W. Bush opened the door to civility as applicable to Republicans only, his son George W. Bush, also a decent and honorable person, cemented that premise in the body politic.  In his inaugural address in 2000, George W. Bush stated the following as he committed himself to adhering to the ideal of political civility: “Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment.  It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos.”

These are fine and noble sentiments if all parties endeavor to follow them.  However, during his eight years in office, Bush was incessantly and falsely accused, by the Democrats, their allies in the media, and the left, of being the worst human being on Earth.  As he was a genocidal warmonger, one of the most racist presidents in history, and a prevaricator, as well as a misogynist and plutocrat, therefore he was someone who should be assassinated for the benefit of mankind.  But in keeping with his dedication to civility and reverence for the office, George W. Bush refused to respond or allow his subordinates to defend him in public against any of these charges, thereby allowing them to be cemented in the public psyche.  By the end of his term, his approval rating was the lowest ever recorded, and the Democrats as well as the left were emboldened with a new and highly successful tactic to destroy their opposition.

Not having learned their lesson from the George W. Bush experience – that the Democrats their allies in the media and the left would never campaign on issues, but instead primarily focus on personal destruction and incivility – the Republican Party in 2008 nominated the next man in line, John McCain – another candidate of character and integrity as well as a disciple of the Bush concept of civility and someone it was assumed the media liked.  He thus ran his presidential campaign as the model of civility and decorum against the neo-socialist Barack Obama.  The opposition, as expected, went scorched earth.

During the campaign, Democrats, using the playbook established to tear down George W. Bush, smeared John McCain, an American military hero, as a warmonger, an unapologetic racist, of having an affair with a lobbyist, of being a phony POW in Vietnam, and too old and scarred by his POW experience to be president.  Like Bush, McCain refused to aggressively fight back and take the offensive.  Unsurprisingly, he was soundly defeated by Barack Obama, thus opening the door for the extreme left to take over the Democratic Party and many of the levers of power in Washington, D.C.

In 2012, not to be outdone by nominating John McCain in 2008, the Republican Party chose to back another genuine, decent man of character.  The decision was made to back someone who was the personification of an Eagle Scout.  Surely, Mitt Romney, as he had no skeletons in his closet, could weather and avoid the character assassination tactics of the media and the Democrats while pursuing a civil discourse during the campaign.  Romney, being who he is, engaged in the same bland and civil campaign tactics of his predecessors: the two Georges Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain.

However, it took little time for the left-wing forces arrayed against Romney to fire their volleys.  A new accusation was hurled as Romney and the Republicans were publicly compared to the Nazis by the Democrats.  Romney was also portrayed as a right-wing extremist, a congenital liar, and a corporate elitist whose only interest is protecting the wealthy.  Further, he was a sexist bordering on misogyny.  The always reliable charge of racism was naturally leveled at Romney.  And he was portrayed as not only a draft-dodger, but a wild-eyed warmonger.  By the end of the campaign, Romney, as George W. Bush and John McCain before him, was portrayed as being among the most reprehensible men on Earth.

Yet these gentlemen accepted this caricature with civility and grace while the country inexorably fell into the hands of the neo-socialists and radicals in the Democratic Party. 

The Tea Party movement was a direct response to the efforts of Obama and his henchmen culturally and economically transforming America.  More importantly, it was a gut reaction to the hierarchy of the Republican Party and its presidential candidates continuously surrendering on the battlefield, all the while waving the flag of civility – particularly as the other side was free to wage a scorched earth campaign without compunction, consequence, or push-back.

Rank-and-file Republicans and conservatives instinctively knew that 2016 was a watershed election.  The future of the nation as founded was hanging precariously by a thread.  When Donald Trump declared his intention to run for president, he immediately vaulted to the top of the Republican field because he made it clear he would not follow in the footsteps of all the recent nominees.  It is significant that the two most iconoclastic candidates in a crowded 14-candidate Republican field, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, garnered 70% of the vote and 81% of the delegates during the primary season.

Now we are being told by the professional conservative class that Donald Trump has destroyed civility, and, as he is lacking in good character, he must, therefore, be cast out of the Oval Office.  On the contrary, Donald Trump is in the Oval Office because of the one-sided game of civility that the conservative intellectuals and the Republican Party hierarchy over the years have acquiesced to, because it was to their financial and narcissistic benefit to do so.  They are the primary reason Donald Trump is president.  The time for civility is over until the opposition either is defeated on the field of ideas and the ballot box or begins to behave as a civilized entity.

With the election of Donald Trump as president, the words “civility” and “character” have become among the most overused terms in current political discourse.  According to his adversaries, Trump grotesquely lacks these attributes.  However, over the past 30 years, the necessity of possessing and living by these traits has been limited to the Republican Party or conservatives in general.  The Democrats and the American left are exempt from this requirement.  

If Donald Trump had run for president and won as the nominee of the Democratic Party, his lack of character and rampant incivility would not be an issue, and in fact, those mannerisms would be praised as revealing a tenacious and determined personality.

How did this absurd double standard evolve?  It began in 1988 with the election of George H.W. Bush.  He won not on his own merits, but almost solely because he was the beneficiary of being the vice president during the two terms of Ronald Reagan – in many ways the most successful and popular president of the twentieth century.

The Bush family dynasty exemplifies the patrician attitude of holding oneself above the fray after fulfilling one’s pre-ordained obligation to society.  This may have been fine in the halcyon days of the past, when America’s future seemed limitless and those answering to the call of duty and their political adversaries alike were for the most part honorable people. 

The 1992 presidential election campaign of George H.W. Bush, in keeping with his penchant for civility, ran a lackluster campaign against Bill Clinton, relying instead on his record and sterling character.  Bush and the Republican National Committee, upon his instructions, never went for the jugular with Clinton, who was saddled with innumerable scandals and falsehoods. 

Clinton, not shackled by the niceties of civility, aggressively attacked Bush as being a liar, someone in league with the rich and powerful, and an essentially untrustworthy con man who also was up to his eyeballs in the Iran Contra Affair.  This charge was seemingly coordinated with Lawrence Walsh, the special prosecutor for the Iran Contra Affair, as a mere two weeks before the election, he indicted Caspar Weinberger, Bush’s secretary of defense.  Clinton, with a smirk and straight face, implied that Bush, despite his denials and lack of evidence, was complicit in the scandal.  Four weeks later, a federal district judge threw out the indictment, but the damage was done, and Bill Clinton was president for the next eight years.

While George H.W. Bush opened the door to civility as applicable to Republicans only, his son George W. Bush, also a decent and honorable person, cemented that premise in the body politic.  In his inaugural address in 2000, George W. Bush stated the following as he committed himself to adhering to the ideal of political civility: “Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment.  It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos.”

These are fine and noble sentiments if all parties endeavor to follow them.  However, during his eight years in office, Bush was incessantly and falsely accused, by the Democrats, their allies in the media, and the left, of being the worst human being on Earth.  As he was a genocidal warmonger, one of the most racist presidents in history, and a prevaricator, as well as a misogynist and plutocrat, therefore he was someone who should be assassinated for the benefit of mankind.  But in keeping with his dedication to civility and reverence for the office, George W. Bush refused to respond or allow his subordinates to defend him in public against any of these charges, thereby allowing them to be cemented in the public psyche.  By the end of his term, his approval rating was the lowest ever recorded, and the Democrats as well as the left were emboldened with a new and highly successful tactic to destroy their opposition.

Not having learned their lesson from the George W. Bush experience – that the Democrats their allies in the media and the left would never campaign on issues, but instead primarily focus on personal destruction and incivility – the Republican Party in 2008 nominated the next man in line, John McCain – another candidate of character and integrity as well as a disciple of the Bush concept of civility and someone it was assumed the media liked.  He thus ran his presidential campaign as the model of civility and decorum against the neo-socialist Barack Obama.  The opposition, as expected, went scorched earth.

During the campaign, Democrats, using the playbook established to tear down George W. Bush, smeared John McCain, an American military hero, as a warmonger, an unapologetic racist, of having an affair with a lobbyist, of being a phony POW in Vietnam, and too old and scarred by his POW experience to be president.  Like Bush, McCain refused to aggressively fight back and take the offensive.  Unsurprisingly, he was soundly defeated by Barack Obama, thus opening the door for the extreme left to take over the Democratic Party and many of the levers of power in Washington, D.C.

In 2012, not to be outdone by nominating John McCain in 2008, the Republican Party chose to back another genuine, decent man of character.  The decision was made to back someone who was the personification of an Eagle Scout.  Surely, Mitt Romney, as he had no skeletons in his closet, could weather and avoid the character assassination tactics of the media and the Democrats while pursuing a civil discourse during the campaign.  Romney, being who he is, engaged in the same bland and civil campaign tactics of his predecessors: the two Georges Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain.

However, it took little time for the left-wing forces arrayed against Romney to fire their volleys.  A new accusation was hurled as Romney and the Republicans were publicly compared to the Nazis by the Democrats.  Romney was also portrayed as a right-wing extremist, a congenital liar, and a corporate elitist whose only interest is protecting the wealthy.  Further, he was a sexist bordering on misogyny.  The always reliable charge of racism was naturally leveled at Romney.  And he was portrayed as not only a draft-dodger, but a wild-eyed warmonger.  By the end of the campaign, Romney, as George W. Bush and John McCain before him, was portrayed as being among the most reprehensible men on Earth.

Yet these gentlemen accepted this caricature with civility and grace while the country inexorably fell into the hands of the neo-socialists and radicals in the Democratic Party. 

The Tea Party movement was a direct response to the efforts of Obama and his henchmen culturally and economically transforming America.  More importantly, it was a gut reaction to the hierarchy of the Republican Party and its presidential candidates continuously surrendering on the battlefield, all the while waving the flag of civility – particularly as the other side was free to wage a scorched earth campaign without compunction, consequence, or push-back.

Rank-and-file Republicans and conservatives instinctively knew that 2016 was a watershed election.  The future of the nation as founded was hanging precariously by a thread.  When Donald Trump declared his intention to run for president, he immediately vaulted to the top of the Republican field because he made it clear he would not follow in the footsteps of all the recent nominees.  It is significant that the two most iconoclastic candidates in a crowded 14-candidate Republican field, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, garnered 70% of the vote and 81% of the delegates during the primary season.

Now we are being told by the professional conservative class that Donald Trump has destroyed civility, and, as he is lacking in good character, he must, therefore, be cast out of the Oval Office.  On the contrary, Donald Trump is in the Oval Office because of the one-sided game of civility that the conservative intellectuals and the Republican Party hierarchy over the years have acquiesced to, because it was to their financial and narcissistic benefit to do so.  They are the primary reason Donald Trump is president.  The time for civility is over until the opposition either is defeated on the field of ideas and the ballot box or begins to behave as a civilized entity.



Source link

The Left's Objective in Its War on the NRA


The litany of major American companies severing their ties to the NRA continues to expand.  They are succumbing to the drumbeat of false accusations and hysteria ginned up by the left and its political arm, the Democratic Party, as well as the left’s cohorts in the media.  The NRA has been in leftists’ crosshairs for the past two decades.  However, the actual purpose of this targeting is far deeper than what the left proclaims to be its objective: the passage of “commonsense” gun laws and restrictions on gun ownership as an antidote to gun violence.

Beginning in the first part of the twentieth century, the disciples of Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, and later Alinsky (the American left) understood that in order to establish their version of a uniquely American socialist state, virtually all traditions, history, and societal underpinnings would have to be fully undermined and replaced.  This process, while time-consuming, would eventuate in a new American society subservient to the central government.

The major tenets of their long-term strategy of ultimately controlling a potentially all-powerful central government in perpetuity are: 

  1. The subtle but persistent annexation of the education establishment, thus creating succeeding generations of indoctrinated and ill educated voters.
  2. The stealth placement of true believers throughout the entertainment complex, transforming it into an instrument of socialist and anti-American propaganda.  
  3. As a byproduct of transforming the education and entertainment establishments, the reshaping of the so-called mainstream media into another subsidiary of the left’s propaganda leviathan.
  4. The takeover of one of the two major political parties.
  5. Undermining the religious foundation of the country and its cultural institutions by proclaiming a new panoply of rights as granted by the government.  Any opposition is to be ridiculed, intimidated, and if necessary threatened.
  6. The measured elimination, utilizing coercion and harassment, of all political opposition, particularly grassroots organizations representing a vast number of citizens that potentially stand in the way of the ultimate objective.

The NRA is perhaps the most powerful grassroots organization in the nation still dedicated to preserving the rights as enumerated in the Constitution.  Because of its over 5 million members, it has influence not only in Washington, but in the state capitals as well.  Through its offices and media activity, it can influence and mobilize exponentially far more than just its dues-paying membership. 

Therefore, the left-wing cabal must mobilize and utilize all tactics possible in order to marginalize the NRA.  The fact that the primary purpose of the NRA is the defense of the 2nd Amendment plays into the left’s hands, as leftists have a cudgel – gun violence –  to use whenever mass shootings occur.  With a compliant media (see C above), a woefully ill educated populace (see A above), and an entertainment complex to do their bidding (see B above), the forces arrayed against the NRA or any other similar organization dedicated to preserving the tenets of this nation’s founding are formidable

Leftists know they cannot confiscate all the guns in the nation and have no intention of attempting to do so.  But by eliminating the influence of the NRA they can by legislation, taxation, and regulation incrementally make gun ownership increasingly problematic and progressively more expensive, as there will be no organized and powerful voice to defend the unfettered right to bear arms or promote the tenets and spirit of the Constitution.

The left is hoping everyone will not see the forest for the trees.  While it has virtually the entire country focused on gun control, the American left is beginning to realize the very real possibility of success in its original objective.  If the NRA collapses or is marginalized, no other conservative grassroots organization will be able to survive.  The left will have achieved another and perhaps the most important of its major goals.

The election of Donald Trump was a major setback to the ongoing machinations of the left.  However, they are more determined and devious than ever as they endeavor to get their “revolution” back on course.  Whether it is gun control, immigration, spending, or a myriad of societal and cultural issues, there can be no good-faith compromising with such a Machiavellian and callous group that would exploit a tragedy purely for political gain in order to destroy one of its most outspoken nemeses: the NRA.

I have owned firearms for over 60 years, yet I had never joined NRA.  However, in light of what is happening now, I have joined.  So should all Americans who value liberty, whether they own a gun or not.  The stakes are far greater than many realize.

The litany of major American companies severing their ties to the NRA continues to expand.  They are succumbing to the drumbeat of false accusations and hysteria ginned up by the left and its political arm, the Democratic Party, as well as the left’s cohorts in the media.  The NRA has been in leftists’ crosshairs for the past two decades.  However, the actual purpose of this targeting is far deeper than what the left proclaims to be its objective: the passage of “commonsense” gun laws and restrictions on gun ownership as an antidote to gun violence.

Beginning in the first part of the twentieth century, the disciples of Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, and later Alinsky (the American left) understood that in order to establish their version of a uniquely American socialist state, virtually all traditions, history, and societal underpinnings would have to be fully undermined and replaced.  This process, while time-consuming, would eventuate in a new American society subservient to the central government.

The major tenets of their long-term strategy of ultimately controlling a potentially all-powerful central government in perpetuity are: 

  1. The subtle but persistent annexation of the education establishment, thus creating succeeding generations of indoctrinated and ill educated voters.
  2. The stealth placement of true believers throughout the entertainment complex, transforming it into an instrument of socialist and anti-American propaganda.  
  3. As a byproduct of transforming the education and entertainment establishments, the reshaping of the so-called mainstream media into another subsidiary of the left’s propaganda leviathan.
  4. The takeover of one of the two major political parties.
  5. Undermining the religious foundation of the country and its cultural institutions by proclaiming a new panoply of rights as granted by the government.  Any opposition is to be ridiculed, intimidated, and if necessary threatened.
  6. The measured elimination, utilizing coercion and harassment, of all political opposition, particularly grassroots organizations representing a vast number of citizens that potentially stand in the way of the ultimate objective.

The NRA is perhaps the most powerful grassroots organization in the nation still dedicated to preserving the rights as enumerated in the Constitution.  Because of its over 5 million members, it has influence not only in Washington, but in the state capitals as well.  Through its offices and media activity, it can influence and mobilize exponentially far more than just its dues-paying membership. 

Therefore, the left-wing cabal must mobilize and utilize all tactics possible in order to marginalize the NRA.  The fact that the primary purpose of the NRA is the defense of the 2nd Amendment plays into the left’s hands, as leftists have a cudgel – gun violence –  to use whenever mass shootings occur.  With a compliant media (see C above), a woefully ill educated populace (see A above), and an entertainment complex to do their bidding (see B above), the forces arrayed against the NRA or any other similar organization dedicated to preserving the tenets of this nation’s founding are formidable

Leftists know they cannot confiscate all the guns in the nation and have no intention of attempting to do so.  But by eliminating the influence of the NRA they can by legislation, taxation, and regulation incrementally make gun ownership increasingly problematic and progressively more expensive, as there will be no organized and powerful voice to defend the unfettered right to bear arms or promote the tenets and spirit of the Constitution.

The left is hoping everyone will not see the forest for the trees.  While it has virtually the entire country focused on gun control, the American left is beginning to realize the very real possibility of success in its original objective.  If the NRA collapses or is marginalized, no other conservative grassroots organization will be able to survive.  The left will have achieved another and perhaps the most important of its major goals.

The election of Donald Trump was a major setback to the ongoing machinations of the left.  However, they are more determined and devious than ever as they endeavor to get their “revolution” back on course.  Whether it is gun control, immigration, spending, or a myriad of societal and cultural issues, there can be no good-faith compromising with such a Machiavellian and callous group that would exploit a tragedy purely for political gain in order to destroy one of its most outspoken nemeses: the NRA.

I have owned firearms for over 60 years, yet I had never joined NRA.  However, in light of what is happening now, I have joined.  So should all Americans who value liberty, whether they own a gun or not.  The stakes are far greater than many realize.



Source link

The Contemptible American Left


The American left, whose enthusiasts traffic constantly in victimhood and noble intentions, are once again exploiting and manipulating a tragedy.  They are now shamelessly claiming not only that teenagers who have been victims of or witnesses to a shooting must be the recipients of the nation’s sympathy, but that whatever they say – however inane or uninformed, as long as it conforms with the left’s anti-gun orthodoxy – cannot be questioned.  Their unfortunate experience gives rise to their newly minted status as unassailable spokespersons in any debate regarding gun control.  Therefore, anyone who has the temerity to question or criticize these newly anointed voices of reason is an insensitive brute who favors continued and unabated gun violence.

I am a victim of gun violence, as I was shot as a young boy by a man whose unambiguous intention was to kill me.  I own handguns today because of the experience of coming face to face with the evil that permeates some men’s souls.  However, what I, and others of similar backgrounds, have to say will be ignored by the left and the media, as their agenda is not to solve the underlying factors inherent in mass shootings or gun violence, but rather to gut the Second Amendment – to make it meaningless in the inexorable march toward their ultimate goal, controlling the federal government in perpetuity.

When I was shot and left for dead, there was no organized police presence, and all law-abiding citizens were disarmed.  The death of another homeless, displaced, and orphaned boy, buried in an unmarked mass grave, would have been just another easily ignored casualty of postwar Europe.  But I am supposed to accept the absurd notion that somehow it was the inanimate object the man was holding, and not he, that was responsible for the attempt on my life.  And I am supposed to ignore the fact that his mindset was such that he would have used any weapon available, including his hands, to accomplish the same goal.

I have been unwavering in my determination to never again face a similar circumstance.  I have had firearms in my possession for the past 60 years, as I am fortunate to live in the one nation on Earth that has embedded in its founding documents the right to bear arms.

Today, I am, along with a majority of my fellow citizens, being made a scapegoat for the failed policies of the so-called Progressives.  Escaping blame from the Progressives is the ongoing and calamitous inability of society to deal with extreme psychopaths or the severely mentally deranged (because the leftists insist that they are entitled to the same rights as other citizens).  So, too, the never-ending attempt to rehabilitate violent criminals incapable of rehabilitation is held blameless.  And we are supposed to ignore their refusal to recognize the security threat of unconstrained illegal immigration.  

My life’s experience has reinforced the concept that the right to bear arms is the foundational basis of preserving and protecting freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and private property.  The socialist oligarchy the left is determined to establish in America requires that that fundamental right to be dramatically eroded and under the thumb of a central authority.

I immigrated to the United States from a continent that had nearly destroyed itself in World War II.  The war was the end product of the ascension to power of various egomaniacs, steeped in socialist-Marxist ideology, determined to amass all political power within their countries.  Once elected to office, these despots began to centralize their authority and eliminate all individual freedoms and democratic institutions.  As they lived in nations that historically did not allow unfettered gun ownership, the people were incapable of stopping the inexorable seizure of power, and many paid the price as nearly 40 million were killed and untold millions displaced during the war.

Many on the left will say I am trafficking in hyperbole, that nothing similar could ever happen in the United States.  Perhaps not a massive and physically destructive war, but the destruction of the nation as founded is well on its way.

Those who self-identify as Progressives, leftists, socialists, or Marxists have one overwhelming trait in common: they are narcissists who believe they are pre-ordained to rule the masses too ignorant to govern themselves.  In order to achieve that end, no tactic is beneath consideration, and no crisis can be allowed to go to waste as they make certain that an ever-increasing percentage of the population becomes permanently indentured to the government they intend on controlling in perpetuity.

Over the 242-year history of the United States, this nation has encountered many crises as well as unethical and unscrupulous political factions.  However, the left and the Democratic Party of today are the most dangerous, unprincipled, and deceitful cabal in this nation’s history.  They are capable of permanently tearing this nation asunder.  They callously exploit the anger and emotion of the truly grieved, irresponsibly promise Nirvana, manipulate various ethnic blocs as sacrificial pawns, and consciously pit citizen against citizen.  They deliberately undermine individual freedom in order to achieve their devious ends, and so they are essentially not at all different from those ultimately responsible for the carnage extant in the mid-20th century. 

And I, along with the rest of the country, am supposed to trust and believe these so-called Progressives when they claim that they do not want to overturn the 2nd Amendment, that they want just to pass “commonsense gun laws.” 

It is for that reason, as well as my life’s experience, that those determined to take away or limit my right to own a firearm, as part of transforming the greatest nation in the history of mankind, will not succeed.  I, and many millions throughout the length and breadth of America, will not be cowed into silence or acquiescence.

The American left, whose enthusiasts traffic constantly in victimhood and noble intentions, are once again exploiting and manipulating a tragedy.  They are now shamelessly claiming not only that teenagers who have been victims of or witnesses to a shooting must be the recipients of the nation’s sympathy, but that whatever they say – however inane or uninformed, as long as it conforms with the left’s anti-gun orthodoxy – cannot be questioned.  Their unfortunate experience gives rise to their newly minted status as unassailable spokespersons in any debate regarding gun control.  Therefore, anyone who has the temerity to question or criticize these newly anointed voices of reason is an insensitive brute who favors continued and unabated gun violence.

I am a victim of gun violence, as I was shot as a young boy by a man whose unambiguous intention was to kill me.  I own handguns today because of the experience of coming face to face with the evil that permeates some men’s souls.  However, what I, and others of similar backgrounds, have to say will be ignored by the left and the media, as their agenda is not to solve the underlying factors inherent in mass shootings or gun violence, but rather to gut the Second Amendment – to make it meaningless in the inexorable march toward their ultimate goal, controlling the federal government in perpetuity.

When I was shot and left for dead, there was no organized police presence, and all law-abiding citizens were disarmed.  The death of another homeless, displaced, and orphaned boy, buried in an unmarked mass grave, would have been just another easily ignored casualty of postwar Europe.  But I am supposed to accept the absurd notion that somehow it was the inanimate object the man was holding, and not he, that was responsible for the attempt on my life.  And I am supposed to ignore the fact that his mindset was such that he would have used any weapon available, including his hands, to accomplish the same goal.

I have been unwavering in my determination to never again face a similar circumstance.  I have had firearms in my possession for the past 60 years, as I am fortunate to live in the one nation on Earth that has embedded in its founding documents the right to bear arms.

Today, I am, along with a majority of my fellow citizens, being made a scapegoat for the failed policies of the so-called Progressives.  Escaping blame from the Progressives is the ongoing and calamitous inability of society to deal with extreme psychopaths or the severely mentally deranged (because the leftists insist that they are entitled to the same rights as other citizens).  So, too, the never-ending attempt to rehabilitate violent criminals incapable of rehabilitation is held blameless.  And we are supposed to ignore their refusal to recognize the security threat of unconstrained illegal immigration.  

My life’s experience has reinforced the concept that the right to bear arms is the foundational basis of preserving and protecting freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and private property.  The socialist oligarchy the left is determined to establish in America requires that that fundamental right to be dramatically eroded and under the thumb of a central authority.

I immigrated to the United States from a continent that had nearly destroyed itself in World War II.  The war was the end product of the ascension to power of various egomaniacs, steeped in socialist-Marxist ideology, determined to amass all political power within their countries.  Once elected to office, these despots began to centralize their authority and eliminate all individual freedoms and democratic institutions.  As they lived in nations that historically did not allow unfettered gun ownership, the people were incapable of stopping the inexorable seizure of power, and many paid the price as nearly 40 million were killed and untold millions displaced during the war.

Many on the left will say I am trafficking in hyperbole, that nothing similar could ever happen in the United States.  Perhaps not a massive and physically destructive war, but the destruction of the nation as founded is well on its way.

Those who self-identify as Progressives, leftists, socialists, or Marxists have one overwhelming trait in common: they are narcissists who believe they are pre-ordained to rule the masses too ignorant to govern themselves.  In order to achieve that end, no tactic is beneath consideration, and no crisis can be allowed to go to waste as they make certain that an ever-increasing percentage of the population becomes permanently indentured to the government they intend on controlling in perpetuity.

Over the 242-year history of the United States, this nation has encountered many crises as well as unethical and unscrupulous political factions.  However, the left and the Democratic Party of today are the most dangerous, unprincipled, and deceitful cabal in this nation’s history.  They are capable of permanently tearing this nation asunder.  They callously exploit the anger and emotion of the truly grieved, irresponsibly promise Nirvana, manipulate various ethnic blocs as sacrificial pawns, and consciously pit citizen against citizen.  They deliberately undermine individual freedom in order to achieve their devious ends, and so they are essentially not at all different from those ultimately responsible for the carnage extant in the mid-20th century. 

And I, along with the rest of the country, am supposed to trust and believe these so-called Progressives when they claim that they do not want to overturn the 2nd Amendment, that they want just to pass “commonsense gun laws.” 

It is for that reason, as well as my life’s experience, that those determined to take away or limit my right to own a firearm, as part of transforming the greatest nation in the history of mankind, will not succeed.  I, and many millions throughout the length and breadth of America, will not be cowed into silence or acquiescence.



Source link

The Awful Future that Looms for a Majority of Today’s Americans


When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.”   Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion).  That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder.   As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.   

Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road.  In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem.  The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79.  That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.

And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence?  Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.)  Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.

  1. Federal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP.   As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. 
  2. The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world.  The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.
  3. Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP.  By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today.  Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation.  Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt.  In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.
  4. Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters.   The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.
  5. The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.”  If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.

The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues. 

The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint.  The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017).  Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.

The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power.  Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.

Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care.  He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth — 6.7% — in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II).  President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.

Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class.  Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes.  Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.

I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048.   I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era.   The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.

When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.”   Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion).  That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder.   As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.   

Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road.  In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem.  The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79.  That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.

And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence?  Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.)  Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.

  1. Federal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP.   As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. 
  2. The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world.  The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.
  3. Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP.  By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today.  Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation.  Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt.  In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.
  4. Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters.   The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.
  5. The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.”  If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.

The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues. 

The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint.  The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017).  Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.

The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power.  Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.

Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care.  He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth — 6.7% — in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II).  President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.

Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class.  Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes.  Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.

I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048.   I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era.   The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.



Source link

199517_5_.jpg

Trump and Big-Government Paternalism


The spirit of rugged individualism that marked the American psyche since 1776 is dying, as a clear majority of Americans look to the shepherd that is the Government to be their protector.  There is little doubt that the Ruling Class, which encompasses both political parties, views the populace as sheep to be manipulated and protected in order to insure their, the Establishment’s, elite status.  Now that paternalistic despotism has fully arrived on America’s shores, is Donald Trump a consequence and continuation of, or a reaction to this ruinous process?

After a 9-month journey throughout the United States in 1831, French philosopher and diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville theorized on what form of tyranny or despotism would come to America, in the second volume of Democracy in America (1840).  He discussed the importance of agitation and crisis in creating the precondition for the expansion of state power; that in a democratic America the state will ultimately create a new form of tyranny, being part despotism and part paternalism of the people; that various forms of liberty and the nation’s cultural foundation will remain but the sheer number of “uniform rules” will reduce the people to a timid and sheep-like status with the state acting like the national shepherd.

De Tocqueville, after detailing the circumstances of how those with a despotic nature can dominate others, illustrates how such a government in America controlled by these men would function:

It [the government] works willingly for their [the citizenry’s] happiness; but wants to be the unique agent for it and the sole arbiter; it attends to their security, provides for their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principle affairs, directs their industry, settles their estates, divides their inheritances; how can it not remove entirely from them the trouble to think and the difficulty of living?

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces actions, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

The political arm of the Ruling Class, the Democratic and Republican Parties, has, for the past 85 years, actively promoted the concept of a paternal government.  The differences between the Parties has been a matter of degree and determination.  When in power a committed Democratic Party made great headway towards this goal by exploiting crises (e.g. the Great Depression) and agitation (e.g. civil unrest in the 1960’s).   When the Republicans, duplicitously wearing the mantle of the opposition party, assumed the reins of government they, captive to their obsession with civility, marginally modified, but essentially, codified the policies of their supposed adversary.

In 1960 less than four percent of all Americans were dependent on government programs, today that number is approaching 60%.  (The Code of Federal Regulations has expanded from 12,000 pages in 1950 to over 180,000 today (1,400%). costing the economy over $2 Trillion per year (the annual GDP of India) and intruding into every aspect of the day-to-day lives of all Americans.  Further, nearly 90% academics are liberal or left-wing statists, as dependence on government education largess and programs also approaches 90% of all education expenditures. Eventuating in an ill-educated and indoctrinated populace supportive of not only government paternalism but, in the case of far too many, authoritarian socialism.

A by-product of this success is the eight years of the Obama Administration and the subsequent coming out of the closet by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, in effect declaring themselves militantly socialist as well as unabashedly determined to attack and radically transform the cultural foundations of this nation.  As they now have a virtual army of sheep at their beck and call to demonstrate, obfuscate, intimidate and denigrate anyone who is in opposition to transforming the nation into a full blown secular socialist democracy.

As its Establishment ally has taken massive turn to the left, the Republican Party has, by default, been exposed as the sole party of de Tocqueville’s paternalism and the cultural status quo, as demonstrated by their current inability or desire to:  

  • repeal Obamacare,
  • reform the tax code,
  • tackle bankrupt entitlement programs,
  • abolish imperious and unnecessary government agencies, and
  • jettison a meaningful number of onerous regulations.  

Yet, contradictory as it may seem, the Party remains as the only current option for constitutional conservatives or those opposed to a paternalistic state, as this nation can only function politically with two political parties.

The 2016 election corroborated this dichotomy.  Whether by happenstance or strategy, Donald Trump, despite a woeful 40% personal approval rating, was elected by appealing to those steeped in the paternalism of big government but put off by the radicalism of the Democratic Party and by those conservatives and libertarians who were enamored with  a) Trump’s belligerent persona and willingness to cast “civility” to the wind in his rhetoric opposing not only the Democrats but in particular their surrogates — the mainstream media and  b) by his pre-election stance on illegal immigration, the judiciary, abortion and religious freedom.

Donald Trump, a life-long proponent of a paternalistic central government, campaigned on a platform that included:

  • protectionism,
  • expanded welfare (paid maternity leave),
  • leaving the near-insolvent entitlement programs intact,
  • universal health insurance coverage,
  • $1 Trillion in infrastructure spending, and
  • overt intimidation of large American corporations. 

These proposals appealed to not only many who voted Democratic prior to that party’s despotic lurch toward egregious societal and cultural transformation, but to many big-government independents and Republicans as well.

Donald Trump is the president, not because of this nation’s march towards de Tocqueville’s despotic paternal state, but solely because of the Democratic Party’s dramatic collectivist metamorphosis and determination to alter American culture (as exemplified by the inept campaign of a soulless Hillary Clinton) coupled with resentment over the Republican Party’s ongoing timidity as well as their obsession with civility and compromise in dealing with the Democrats.  Thus, his election is a consequence of and not a reaction to the pitfalls of repressive paternalism.

With the election of Donald Trump, the American paternal state is, as it was prior to his election, permanent and immutable.  (The only remaining viable option to reverse this actuality is the very difficult process of convening an Constitution Article V Convention of the States to address out of control government as detailed by Mark Levin in his treatise: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic)

Those that voted for Trump and the Republicans in Congress must accept the reality that the most that might be accomplished by the triumvirate of Trump in the White House and a Republican House and Senate are:  

1) very minor rollbacks in parts of the regulatory state;  

2) minimal and cosmetic tax reform;  

3) superficial health care insurance restructuring which will, in essence, codify Obamacare and include a significant expansion of Medicare and Medicaid;  

4) a meaningful, albeit temporary, decline in illegal immigration but little progress on building a wall or reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S.;  

5) a slowing down, but not a reversal, in the ongoing degradation of the culture;  

6) unending and sizable deficit spending, and,  

7) marginal inroads in altering all levels of the Federal Judiciary. 

However, even this modest level of success is at significant risk as Trump apparently is incapable of donning the mantle of a serious as well as a determined leader of his fractious party, focusing instead on providing fodder for the ongoing post-election war between him and the media wing of the Establishment.  A conflict which is not over policy or philosophical differences (except on the margins), but one in which Trump is an accomplice in their portrayal of him as the loutish and pompous Al Czervik (played by Rodney Dangerfield) in the movie Caddyshack, who, by any means possible, must be prevented from joining the exclusive Bushwood Country Club.  Or in Trump’s case being even a marginally successful President.  

This war, if not curtailed, will lay the groundwork for the return to power of the statist Democrats and their determination to go beyond de Tocqueville’s paternalism to a socialist/Marxist utopia.

While Trump’s displeasure with the media and the Democrats is understandable and a consistent and persistent level of response is justified (unlike the timorous Bush years), the chaos, from a lack of leadership, engulfing both the White House and Congress is not.  Tens of millions of Americans placed their unfettered faith and trust in Donald Trump and the Republican Party.  However, after first six months and a few initial successes (e.g. the Gorsuch nomination), it appears that both the President and the Republican Congress are incapable of even the most modest of modifications to the American paternal state.

The spirit of rugged individualism that marked the American psyche since 1776 is dying, as a clear majority of Americans look to the shepherd that is the Government to be their protector.  There is little doubt that the Ruling Class, which encompasses both political parties, views the populace as sheep to be manipulated and protected in order to insure their, the Establishment’s, elite status.  Now that paternalistic despotism has fully arrived on America’s shores, is Donald Trump a consequence and continuation of, or a reaction to this ruinous process?

After a 9-month journey throughout the United States in 1831, French philosopher and diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville theorized on what form of tyranny or despotism would come to America, in the second volume of Democracy in America (1840).  He discussed the importance of agitation and crisis in creating the precondition for the expansion of state power; that in a democratic America the state will ultimately create a new form of tyranny, being part despotism and part paternalism of the people; that various forms of liberty and the nation’s cultural foundation will remain but the sheer number of “uniform rules” will reduce the people to a timid and sheep-like status with the state acting like the national shepherd.

De Tocqueville, after detailing the circumstances of how those with a despotic nature can dominate others, illustrates how such a government in America controlled by these men would function:

It [the government] works willingly for their [the citizenry’s] happiness; but wants to be the unique agent for it and the sole arbiter; it attends to their security, provides for their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principle affairs, directs their industry, settles their estates, divides their inheritances; how can it not remove entirely from them the trouble to think and the difficulty of living?

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces actions, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

The political arm of the Ruling Class, the Democratic and Republican Parties, has, for the past 85 years, actively promoted the concept of a paternal government.  The differences between the Parties has been a matter of degree and determination.  When in power a committed Democratic Party made great headway towards this goal by exploiting crises (e.g. the Great Depression) and agitation (e.g. civil unrest in the 1960’s).   When the Republicans, duplicitously wearing the mantle of the opposition party, assumed the reins of government they, captive to their obsession with civility, marginally modified, but essentially, codified the policies of their supposed adversary.

In 1960 less than four percent of all Americans were dependent on government programs, today that number is approaching 60%.  (The Code of Federal Regulations has expanded from 12,000 pages in 1950 to over 180,000 today (1,400%). costing the economy over $2 Trillion per year (the annual GDP of India) and intruding into every aspect of the day-to-day lives of all Americans.  Further, nearly 90% academics are liberal or left-wing statists, as dependence on government education largess and programs also approaches 90% of all education expenditures. Eventuating in an ill-educated and indoctrinated populace supportive of not only government paternalism but, in the case of far too many, authoritarian socialism.

A by-product of this success is the eight years of the Obama Administration and the subsequent coming out of the closet by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, in effect declaring themselves militantly socialist as well as unabashedly determined to attack and radically transform the cultural foundations of this nation.  As they now have a virtual army of sheep at their beck and call to demonstrate, obfuscate, intimidate and denigrate anyone who is in opposition to transforming the nation into a full blown secular socialist democracy.

As its Establishment ally has taken massive turn to the left, the Republican Party has, by default, been exposed as the sole party of de Tocqueville’s paternalism and the cultural status quo, as demonstrated by their current inability or desire to:  

  • repeal Obamacare,
  • reform the tax code,
  • tackle bankrupt entitlement programs,
  • abolish imperious and unnecessary government agencies, and
  • jettison a meaningful number of onerous regulations.  

Yet, contradictory as it may seem, the Party remains as the only current option for constitutional conservatives or those opposed to a paternalistic state, as this nation can only function politically with two political parties.

The 2016 election corroborated this dichotomy.  Whether by happenstance or strategy, Donald Trump, despite a woeful 40% personal approval rating, was elected by appealing to those steeped in the paternalism of big government but put off by the radicalism of the Democratic Party and by those conservatives and libertarians who were enamored with  a) Trump’s belligerent persona and willingness to cast “civility” to the wind in his rhetoric opposing not only the Democrats but in particular their surrogates — the mainstream media and  b) by his pre-election stance on illegal immigration, the judiciary, abortion and religious freedom.

Donald Trump, a life-long proponent of a paternalistic central government, campaigned on a platform that included:

  • protectionism,
  • expanded welfare (paid maternity leave),
  • leaving the near-insolvent entitlement programs intact,
  • universal health insurance coverage,
  • $1 Trillion in infrastructure spending, and
  • overt intimidation of large American corporations. 

These proposals appealed to not only many who voted Democratic prior to that party’s despotic lurch toward egregious societal and cultural transformation, but to many big-government independents and Republicans as well.

Donald Trump is the president, not because of this nation’s march towards de Tocqueville’s despotic paternal state, but solely because of the Democratic Party’s dramatic collectivist metamorphosis and determination to alter American culture (as exemplified by the inept campaign of a soulless Hillary Clinton) coupled with resentment over the Republican Party’s ongoing timidity as well as their obsession with civility and compromise in dealing with the Democrats.  Thus, his election is a consequence of and not a reaction to the pitfalls of repressive paternalism.

With the election of Donald Trump, the American paternal state is, as it was prior to his election, permanent and immutable.  (The only remaining viable option to reverse this actuality is the very difficult process of convening an Constitution Article V Convention of the States to address out of control government as detailed by Mark Levin in his treatise: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic)

Those that voted for Trump and the Republicans in Congress must accept the reality that the most that might be accomplished by the triumvirate of Trump in the White House and a Republican House and Senate are:  

1) very minor rollbacks in parts of the regulatory state;  

2) minimal and cosmetic tax reform;  

3) superficial health care insurance restructuring which will, in essence, codify Obamacare and include a significant expansion of Medicare and Medicaid;  

4) a meaningful, albeit temporary, decline in illegal immigration but little progress on building a wall or reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S.;  

5) a slowing down, but not a reversal, in the ongoing degradation of the culture;  

6) unending and sizable deficit spending, and,  

7) marginal inroads in altering all levels of the Federal Judiciary. 

However, even this modest level of success is at significant risk as Trump apparently is incapable of donning the mantle of a serious as well as a determined leader of his fractious party, focusing instead on providing fodder for the ongoing post-election war between him and the media wing of the Establishment.  A conflict which is not over policy or philosophical differences (except on the margins), but one in which Trump is an accomplice in their portrayal of him as the loutish and pompous Al Czervik (played by Rodney Dangerfield) in the movie Caddyshack, who, by any means possible, must be prevented from joining the exclusive Bushwood Country Club.  Or in Trump’s case being even a marginally successful President.  

This war, if not curtailed, will lay the groundwork for the return to power of the statist Democrats and their determination to go beyond de Tocqueville’s paternalism to a socialist/Marxist utopia.

While Trump’s displeasure with the media and the Democrats is understandable and a consistent and persistent level of response is justified (unlike the timorous Bush years), the chaos, from a lack of leadership, engulfing both the White House and Congress is not.  Tens of millions of Americans placed their unfettered faith and trust in Donald Trump and the Republican Party.  However, after first six months and a few initial successes (e.g. the Gorsuch nomination), it appears that both the President and the Republican Congress are incapable of even the most modest of modifications to the American paternal state.



Source link

The Rise and Fall of James Comey


The New York Public Theatre’s Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar has once again thrust the works of William Shakespeare into the headlines.  The current iteration features a Donald Trump look-a-like in the title role of a modern-day Julius Caesar who is brutally assassinated in the opening scene of Act III.  The overt political message is not subtle.   Other than being a head of state there is little or no similarity between Shakespeare’s depiction of the last days of Julius Caesar and the life and career of Donald Trump.  However, there is another player on the national scene whose career does appear to perhaps mirror a number of Shakespearean characters who rose and ultimately fell as a result of their overriding ambition.  That person is James Comey.

Shakespeare was influenced by the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, whose seminal work, The Prince (1532), laid out his ideas on how the prince of a country could achieve power and, more importantly, retain it, utilizing devious and at times evil means if necessary.   These underlying principles would apply not just to princes but to political schemers out to solidify their own positions within a ruling hierarchy.

While not directly comparing James Comey with any of English literature’s most notorious villains, there appears to be some very striking similarities insofar as a single-minded pursuit of power and influence. 

Early in his career James Comey was never shy in prosecuting high profile cases in order to burnish his reputation.  His determination to achieve a conviction, however specious, and at any cost would have made Javert of Les Miserables proud.   Mollie Hemingway at the The Federalist has an excellent analysis of some of these cases.

Among them is that of Frank Quattrone a well-known and successful investment banker.  In 2003, Comey, as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was unable to find sufficient evidence to press criminal bank fraud charges; instead he pursued supposed obstruction of justice based on one specious email.  During the investigation and indictment process Comey made false statements about Quattrone and the intent of the email.  While winning a conviction at trial, the verdict was soon overturned on appeal.

In 2003, in another case that made national headlines and thrust Comey further into the spotlight, he pursued insider trading charges against Martha Stewart.  That charge could not be proven.  Undaunted Comey then claimed that Stewart’s public protestations of innocence were designed solely to prop up the stock price of her own company.  Further he claimed that she obstructed justice by making false statements to a federal official.  As Alan Reynolds of the Cato institute stated, “Stewart was prosecuted for having misled people by denying having committed a crime with which she was not charged.”  Even the New York Times described the entire process as “petty and vindictive.”  Perhaps so, but it served Comey well.

On January 2004, Comey was promoted to United States Deputy Attorney General, the second highest position in the U. S. Justice Department.  Once in Washington D.C. Comey wasted no time in solidifying his power. 

In the supposed leak of Valarie Plame’s name as a CIA agent, Comey convinced then Attorney General John Ashcroft to recuse himself based on a dubious potential conflict of interest rationale.  He then appointed his close personal family friend Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel even though it was known by all that it was Richard Armitage in the State Department and not someone in the White House responsible for the fictitious leak.  Nonetheless, the nearly two-year investigation completely hamstrung the Bush administration, as many members of the administration, including Vice President Cheney, were under a dark and public cloud of possible indictments.  In the end, Scooter Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff, was convicted of a very dubious perjury and obstruction of justice charge, but the damage to the second term of the administration was insurmountable.  “Honest Jim Comey” became a champion of truth and justice to the Left and the mainstream media. 

During this same period of time (2004) Comey attempted to intimidate President Bush in an Oval Office meeting by threatening to resign over the reauthorization of the Bush era surveillance activity.  It turns out that Comey created a memo of that day in language strikingly similar to that of his declared memo regarding his meeting with Trump relative to Mike Flynn in February of 2017.  Yet he testified on June 8, 2017 that the one meeting with Trump was the only occasion when he authored a memo of any presidential meeting.

In 2013, Barack Obama decided to nominate James Comey as the FBI Director to replace Comey’s close friend, Robert Mueller.  The mainstream media was effusive in their comments and support of Comey.  However, the Wall Street Journal in an opposition editorial entitled The Political Mr. Comey stated:

Any potential FBI director deserves scrutiny, since the position has so much power and is susceptible to ruinous misjudgments and abuse.  That goes double with Mr. Comey, a nominee who seems to think the job of the federal bureaucracy is to oversee elected officials, not the other way around, and who had his own hand in some of the worst prosecutorial excesses of the past decade.

In less than two years after assuming the position of FBI Director, the Hillary Clinton email scandal became center stage and an FBI investigation was initiated.   Nonetheless, the hierarchy of the Democratic Party was determined to nominate Hillary as their presidential candidate.  Therefore, James Comey essentially became the most powerful person in American politics as he could easily derail her nomination considering the overwhelming evidence of her wrongdoing. 

During this period Hillary maintained a commanding lead in the polls in any head-to-head match-up with the Republican front runner, Donald Trump.  Virtually all the cognoscenti in Washington were convinced she would win the presidency.  Apparently so did James Comey.

For someone whose career was made on the dogged pursuit of convictions at any cost using, if necessary, the bludgeon of obstruction of justice, he was extraordinarily passive.  Particularly considering there were innumerable examples of pre-meditated destruction of evidence.  He also severely limited the FBI data searches on Clinton staff members computers then ordered them destroyed.  A technician who erased evidence and lied to the FBI even after receiving immunity was given a pass by Comey.   Hillary was formally interviewed by the FBI on July 2, 2016.   The  notes of the interview released by the FBI on the 2nd of September (the interview was strangely not recorded) revealed that Hillary made statements contradicting her earlier remarks or that were flat out lies.  Comey chose to ignore this obvious potential obstruction of justice.

However, in order to assume full control of the outcome of the investigation, Comey needed a pretext in order to circumvent the legal requirement that Attorney General Lynch make the final determination as to any prosecution or exoneration.

In the spring of 2016 the FBI had in their possession emails purportedly revealing that Loretta Lynch had been compromised in the Clinton investigation.  The emails overtly stated that Lynch would make the FBI investigation go away.  However, the FBI knew these emails were fake, as they were created by Russian intelligence.   Nonetheless, Comey decided to use this incident as part of his justification to bypass the Justice Department, stating that he feared if these emails became public it would undermine the veracity and impartiality of the investigation.  However, they would only become public if the FBI leaked them without explanation.

The second ruse was the meeting Lynch had with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix.  Comey later claimed that incident destroyed any semblance of impartiality by the Justice Department and he would be required to take over the entire process of determining whether to prosecute Hillary.  Shortly after the incident in Phoenix, Lynch agreed to essentially step down and accept the determination and findings of the FBI who were investigating Hillary.  

Either this was a solo power play by Comey, or he and Attorney General Lynch colluded in not only exonerating Hillary but in turning over the process to Comey.  However, his recent revelation at a hearing on June 8th of this year that Lynch had instructed him to use the term “matter” and not “investigation” regarding Hillary, combined with other similar testimony in a closed session, could well be his way of reminding her that he in fact has the goods on her.

On July 5, 2016, in a most bizarre news conference Comey essentially read a bill of indictment for felony violations of federal law regarding gross negligence in the handling of classified material.   Nonetheless he recommended against prosecuting Hillary on the specious grounds that there was no intent to harm the United States.  He essentially rewrote the statute, inserting a provision that Congress did not require.

James Comey was now in the position, if he so chose, of demanding any cabinet position in a new Hillary Clinton Administration or remaining FBI Director with a cudgel over her head reminiscent of the days of J. Edgar Hoover and his ability to intimidate all of Washington D.C.  Comey could potentially be the most powerful person in that city.

In late October 2016, it was still a certainty among the Ruling Class that Hillary would win the election.  On October 26th Comey sent a letter to Congress stating he was reopening the email probe based on emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer.  It was a bizarre move so close to the election on November 8th.   If Comey, as did so many others, assumed she was going to win was this:  a) Comey’s shot across the bow to remind Hillary that he still had her fate in his hands? or b) was it simply a ploy to get back into the political spotlight? or c) was it a gambit to reburnish his image as an honest broker after the July exoneration?  Regardless, within a week he again declared Hillary fully absolved of any wrongdoing.

On November 8th, the political world was turned upside down as Trump unexpectedly won the Presidency.  All the best laid plans of so many, including Comey, were now lying in ruins.  However, Comey, having begun in July of 2016 an investigation of Russian interference in the election process and having a totally fabricated dossier on Trump in his possession, decided to cast his lot with much of the media and the Democrats, in expanding the probe into so-called collusion between the Trump transition team and the Russians in an effort to either force Trump to resign or to permanently hobble his administration.,  

This allegation is totally specious but coupled with incessant leaks (some of which will eventually be traced to Comey) and endless innuendo this false flag operation took on a life of its own.  Eventually Trump, tired of all the machinations, fired Comey for not only his intransigence in the Russia probe but the Machiavellian manner in which he usurped the role of the Justice Department in the Hillary email investigation.  In the aftermath of the firing and admission that the collusion charge was bogus, Comey and his allies have one again turned to the old tried and true cudgel of the past–pushing specious obstruction of justice allegations.

The nation is now witnessing the last act in the rise and fall of James Comey.  He is attempting to exact his revenge and assuage his battered ego with the help of much of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, who will abandon him when he is no longer useful.   While the New York Public Theatre revels in its nightly assassination of Donald Trump another Shakespearean drama is reaching its denouement.

The New York Public Theatre’s Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar has once again thrust the works of William Shakespeare into the headlines.  The current iteration features a Donald Trump look-a-like in the title role of a modern-day Julius Caesar who is brutally assassinated in the opening scene of Act III.  The overt political message is not subtle.   Other than being a head of state there is little or no similarity between Shakespeare’s depiction of the last days of Julius Caesar and the life and career of Donald Trump.  However, there is another player on the national scene whose career does appear to perhaps mirror a number of Shakespearean characters who rose and ultimately fell as a result of their overriding ambition.  That person is James Comey.

Shakespeare was influenced by the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, whose seminal work, The Prince (1532), laid out his ideas on how the prince of a country could achieve power and, more importantly, retain it, utilizing devious and at times evil means if necessary.   These underlying principles would apply not just to princes but to political schemers out to solidify their own positions within a ruling hierarchy.

While not directly comparing James Comey with any of English literature’s most notorious villains, there appears to be some very striking similarities insofar as a single-minded pursuit of power and influence. 

Early in his career James Comey was never shy in prosecuting high profile cases in order to burnish his reputation.  His determination to achieve a conviction, however specious, and at any cost would have made Javert of Les Miserables proud.   Mollie Hemingway at the The Federalist has an excellent analysis of some of these cases.

Among them is that of Frank Quattrone a well-known and successful investment banker.  In 2003, Comey, as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was unable to find sufficient evidence to press criminal bank fraud charges; instead he pursued supposed obstruction of justice based on one specious email.  During the investigation and indictment process Comey made false statements about Quattrone and the intent of the email.  While winning a conviction at trial, the verdict was soon overturned on appeal.

In 2003, in another case that made national headlines and thrust Comey further into the spotlight, he pursued insider trading charges against Martha Stewart.  That charge could not be proven.  Undaunted Comey then claimed that Stewart’s public protestations of innocence were designed solely to prop up the stock price of her own company.  Further he claimed that she obstructed justice by making false statements to a federal official.  As Alan Reynolds of the Cato institute stated, “Stewart was prosecuted for having misled people by denying having committed a crime with which she was not charged.”  Even the New York Times described the entire process as “petty and vindictive.”  Perhaps so, but it served Comey well.

On January 2004, Comey was promoted to United States Deputy Attorney General, the second highest position in the U. S. Justice Department.  Once in Washington D.C. Comey wasted no time in solidifying his power. 

In the supposed leak of Valarie Plame’s name as a CIA agent, Comey convinced then Attorney General John Ashcroft to recuse himself based on a dubious potential conflict of interest rationale.  He then appointed his close personal family friend Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel even though it was known by all that it was Richard Armitage in the State Department and not someone in the White House responsible for the fictitious leak.  Nonetheless, the nearly two-year investigation completely hamstrung the Bush administration, as many members of the administration, including Vice President Cheney, were under a dark and public cloud of possible indictments.  In the end, Scooter Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff, was convicted of a very dubious perjury and obstruction of justice charge, but the damage to the second term of the administration was insurmountable.  “Honest Jim Comey” became a champion of truth and justice to the Left and the mainstream media. 

During this same period of time (2004) Comey attempted to intimidate President Bush in an Oval Office meeting by threatening to resign over the reauthorization of the Bush era surveillance activity.  It turns out that Comey created a memo of that day in language strikingly similar to that of his declared memo regarding his meeting with Trump relative to Mike Flynn in February of 2017.  Yet he testified on June 8, 2017 that the one meeting with Trump was the only occasion when he authored a memo of any presidential meeting.

In 2013, Barack Obama decided to nominate James Comey as the FBI Director to replace Comey’s close friend, Robert Mueller.  The mainstream media was effusive in their comments and support of Comey.  However, the Wall Street Journal in an opposition editorial entitled The Political Mr. Comey stated:

Any potential FBI director deserves scrutiny, since the position has so much power and is susceptible to ruinous misjudgments and abuse.  That goes double with Mr. Comey, a nominee who seems to think the job of the federal bureaucracy is to oversee elected officials, not the other way around, and who had his own hand in some of the worst prosecutorial excesses of the past decade.

In less than two years after assuming the position of FBI Director, the Hillary Clinton email scandal became center stage and an FBI investigation was initiated.   Nonetheless, the hierarchy of the Democratic Party was determined to nominate Hillary as their presidential candidate.  Therefore, James Comey essentially became the most powerful person in American politics as he could easily derail her nomination considering the overwhelming evidence of her wrongdoing. 

During this period Hillary maintained a commanding lead in the polls in any head-to-head match-up with the Republican front runner, Donald Trump.  Virtually all the cognoscenti in Washington were convinced she would win the presidency.  Apparently so did James Comey.

For someone whose career was made on the dogged pursuit of convictions at any cost using, if necessary, the bludgeon of obstruction of justice, he was extraordinarily passive.  Particularly considering there were innumerable examples of pre-meditated destruction of evidence.  He also severely limited the FBI data searches on Clinton staff members computers then ordered them destroyed.  A technician who erased evidence and lied to the FBI even after receiving immunity was given a pass by Comey.   Hillary was formally interviewed by the FBI on July 2, 2016.   The  notes of the interview released by the FBI on the 2nd of September (the interview was strangely not recorded) revealed that Hillary made statements contradicting her earlier remarks or that were flat out lies.  Comey chose to ignore this obvious potential obstruction of justice.

However, in order to assume full control of the outcome of the investigation, Comey needed a pretext in order to circumvent the legal requirement that Attorney General Lynch make the final determination as to any prosecution or exoneration.

In the spring of 2016 the FBI had in their possession emails purportedly revealing that Loretta Lynch had been compromised in the Clinton investigation.  The emails overtly stated that Lynch would make the FBI investigation go away.  However, the FBI knew these emails were fake, as they were created by Russian intelligence.   Nonetheless, Comey decided to use this incident as part of his justification to bypass the Justice Department, stating that he feared if these emails became public it would undermine the veracity and impartiality of the investigation.  However, they would only become public if the FBI leaked them without explanation.

The second ruse was the meeting Lynch had with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix.  Comey later claimed that incident destroyed any semblance of impartiality by the Justice Department and he would be required to take over the entire process of determining whether to prosecute Hillary.  Shortly after the incident in Phoenix, Lynch agreed to essentially step down and accept the determination and findings of the FBI who were investigating Hillary.  

Either this was a solo power play by Comey, or he and Attorney General Lynch colluded in not only exonerating Hillary but in turning over the process to Comey.  However, his recent revelation at a hearing on June 8th of this year that Lynch had instructed him to use the term “matter” and not “investigation” regarding Hillary, combined with other similar testimony in a closed session, could well be his way of reminding her that he in fact has the goods on her.

On July 5, 2016, in a most bizarre news conference Comey essentially read a bill of indictment for felony violations of federal law regarding gross negligence in the handling of classified material.   Nonetheless he recommended against prosecuting Hillary on the specious grounds that there was no intent to harm the United States.  He essentially rewrote the statute, inserting a provision that Congress did not require.

James Comey was now in the position, if he so chose, of demanding any cabinet position in a new Hillary Clinton Administration or remaining FBI Director with a cudgel over her head reminiscent of the days of J. Edgar Hoover and his ability to intimidate all of Washington D.C.  Comey could potentially be the most powerful person in that city.

In late October 2016, it was still a certainty among the Ruling Class that Hillary would win the election.  On October 26th Comey sent a letter to Congress stating he was reopening the email probe based on emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer.  It was a bizarre move so close to the election on November 8th.   If Comey, as did so many others, assumed she was going to win was this:  a) Comey’s shot across the bow to remind Hillary that he still had her fate in his hands? or b) was it simply a ploy to get back into the political spotlight? or c) was it a gambit to reburnish his image as an honest broker after the July exoneration?  Regardless, within a week he again declared Hillary fully absolved of any wrongdoing.

On November 8th, the political world was turned upside down as Trump unexpectedly won the Presidency.  All the best laid plans of so many, including Comey, were now lying in ruins.  However, Comey, having begun in July of 2016 an investigation of Russian interference in the election process and having a totally fabricated dossier on Trump in his possession, decided to cast his lot with much of the media and the Democrats, in expanding the probe into so-called collusion between the Trump transition team and the Russians in an effort to either force Trump to resign or to permanently hobble his administration.,  

This allegation is totally specious but coupled with incessant leaks (some of which will eventually be traced to Comey) and endless innuendo this false flag operation took on a life of its own.  Eventually Trump, tired of all the machinations, fired Comey for not only his intransigence in the Russia probe but the Machiavellian manner in which he usurped the role of the Justice Department in the Hillary email investigation.  In the aftermath of the firing and admission that the collusion charge was bogus, Comey and his allies have one again turned to the old tried and true cudgel of the past–pushing specious obstruction of justice allegations.

The nation is now witnessing the last act in the rise and fall of James Comey.  He is attempting to exact his revenge and assuage his battered ego with the help of much of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, who will abandon him when he is no longer useful.   While the New York Public Theatre revels in its nightly assassination of Donald Trump another Shakespearean drama is reaching its denouement.



Source link

Trump and National Heath Care


There is no doubt that the entirety of the Democratic Party wants single payer or socialized medicine.  There is now little doubt that far too many in the Republican Party, while not overtly in favor of national health care, would do little to overturn Obamacare — which is greatly accelerating the inexorable march toward that goal.   The debacle that was the drafting and promotion of the American Health Care Act by the Republican leadership in the House confirmed the existence of that mindset among many Republicans.  Among them is President Donald Trump.

The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare with a free market alternative was partly due to the indifference of the President as to the actual language of the Bill and his sole desire to say that Obamacare had been replaced irrespective of the reality.   That he is now blaming everyone else for its failure as well as stating his desire to work with the Democrats to craft a new bill is a window into his true mindset on the subject of health care.    

I have been roundly vilified over the past 18 months for claiming that Trump is not a conservative and has a long history of favoring liberal causes, chiefly nationalized health care, which will be an unmitigated disaster for the American people.

I highlighted and was troubled about this issue as Donald Trump has not been shy regarding his views on the subject.   There have been numerous occasions since 1999 through January of 2017 when he has touted socialized medicine.  

In 1999 when Trump was contemplating a run for President under the banner of the Reform Party, he told Larry King:

If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s over…I believe in universal healthcare.

Also in 1999 on NBC’s Dateline he said:

            Liberal on healthcare, we have to take care of people…I love universal.

In 2000 he told The Advocate:

I would put forward a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes.

Also in 2000 Trump published a book The America We Deserve wherein he praised universal healthcare systems:

We must have universal healthcare…I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one.  We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.


We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single payer plan, as many individual states are doing.

There are many who would dismiss these quotes as being ancient history and claim that Trump has evolved and changed his views.  However, he has not.  On 60 Minutes in September of 2015 in an interview with Scott Pelley:

Trump: “Everybody’s got to be covered.  This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But-“


Pelley: “Universal health care.”


Trump: “I am going to take care of everybody.  I don’t care if it costs me votes or not.  Everybody’s going to be taken care of now.”


Pelley: “Make a deal? Who’s going to pay for it?


Trump: “The Government is going to pay for it”

Appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman in January of 2015 Trump told a story about a friend who visited Scotland which revealed his true mindet about healthcare:

A friend of mine was in Scotland recently.  He got very, very sick.  They took him by ambulance and he was there four days.  He was really in trouble, and when they released him and he said, ‘Where do I pay?’  And they said. ‘There’s no charge.’  Not only that, he said it was like great doctors, great care.  I mean we could have a great system like that in this country.”

Most recently, on January 15, 2017 in an interview with the Washington Post Trump stated:

We’re going to have insurance for everyone.


There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it.  That’s not going to happen with us.  People can expect to have great health care.

After the failure to pass the AHCA, Trump says he now wants to work the members of a left-wing political party whose lifelong dream has been nationalized health care.  Is this a fit of pique and seeking revenge on those he perceives to have stabbed him in the back because they did not march in lockstep to pass a bill that slightly amended Obamacare?  Or does he not care if Obamacare is fully repealed?   As that will, in due course, eventuate in the American people clamoring for a single payer system that he has long touted.

The Left has known that instituting national health care would not be an easy task in a nation with a long history of individual freedom.  Therefore, their overriding strategy in passing Obamacare was to so disrupt the private insurance market and significantly alter the delivery of health service that there would eventually be an extraordinary level of dissatisfaction for the citizenry.  At that stage, the people would clamor for a solution which would be socialized medicine as any return to a free market based system would be essentially impossible.

Donald Trump and the Republican leadership are apparently in agreement that any return to a free market based system is now impossible as they seemingly have no desire or determination to even attempt to do so.   If that is the case, then the next few stops on this health care journey with Trump at the controls will bring the nation ever closer to the ultimate destination: national health care.

There is no doubt that the entirety of the Democratic Party wants single payer or socialized medicine.  There is now little doubt that far too many in the Republican Party, while not overtly in favor of national health care, would do little to overturn Obamacare — which is greatly accelerating the inexorable march toward that goal.   The debacle that was the drafting and promotion of the American Health Care Act by the Republican leadership in the House confirmed the existence of that mindset among many Republicans.  Among them is President Donald Trump.

The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare with a free market alternative was partly due to the indifference of the President as to the actual language of the Bill and his sole desire to say that Obamacare had been replaced irrespective of the reality.   That he is now blaming everyone else for its failure as well as stating his desire to work with the Democrats to craft a new bill is a window into his true mindset on the subject of health care.    

I have been roundly vilified over the past 18 months for claiming that Trump is not a conservative and has a long history of favoring liberal causes, chiefly nationalized health care, which will be an unmitigated disaster for the American people.

I highlighted and was troubled about this issue as Donald Trump has not been shy regarding his views on the subject.   There have been numerous occasions since 1999 through January of 2017 when he has touted socialized medicine.  

In 1999 when Trump was contemplating a run for President under the banner of the Reform Party, he told Larry King:

If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s over…I believe in universal healthcare.

Also in 1999 on NBC’s Dateline he said:

            Liberal on healthcare, we have to take care of people…I love universal.

In 2000 he told The Advocate:

I would put forward a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes.

Also in 2000 Trump published a book The America We Deserve wherein he praised universal healthcare systems:

We must have universal healthcare…I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one.  We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.


We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single payer plan, as many individual states are doing.

There are many who would dismiss these quotes as being ancient history and claim that Trump has evolved and changed his views.  However, he has not.  On 60 Minutes in September of 2015 in an interview with Scott Pelley:

Trump: “Everybody’s got to be covered.  This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But-“


Pelley: “Universal health care.”


Trump: “I am going to take care of everybody.  I don’t care if it costs me votes or not.  Everybody’s going to be taken care of now.”


Pelley: “Make a deal? Who’s going to pay for it?


Trump: “The Government is going to pay for it”

Appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman in January of 2015 Trump told a story about a friend who visited Scotland which revealed his true mindet about healthcare:

A friend of mine was in Scotland recently.  He got very, very sick.  They took him by ambulance and he was there four days.  He was really in trouble, and when they released him and he said, ‘Where do I pay?’  And they said. ‘There’s no charge.’  Not only that, he said it was like great doctors, great care.  I mean we could have a great system like that in this country.”

Most recently, on January 15, 2017 in an interview with the Washington Post Trump stated:

We’re going to have insurance for everyone.


There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it.  That’s not going to happen with us.  People can expect to have great health care.

After the failure to pass the AHCA, Trump says he now wants to work the members of a left-wing political party whose lifelong dream has been nationalized health care.  Is this a fit of pique and seeking revenge on those he perceives to have stabbed him in the back because they did not march in lockstep to pass a bill that slightly amended Obamacare?  Or does he not care if Obamacare is fully repealed?   As that will, in due course, eventuate in the American people clamoring for a single payer system that he has long touted.

The Left has known that instituting national health care would not be an easy task in a nation with a long history of individual freedom.  Therefore, their overriding strategy in passing Obamacare was to so disrupt the private insurance market and significantly alter the delivery of health service that there would eventually be an extraordinary level of dissatisfaction for the citizenry.  At that stage, the people would clamor for a solution which would be socialized medicine as any return to a free market based system would be essentially impossible.

Donald Trump and the Republican leadership are apparently in agreement that any return to a free market based system is now impossible as they seemingly have no desire or determination to even attempt to do so.   If that is the case, then the next few stops on this health care journey with Trump at the controls will bring the nation ever closer to the ultimate destination: national health care.



Source link

The National Health Care Nightmare Ahead


There is a growing consensus that if the American Health Care Act as proposed by the Republicans in the House and wholeheartedly endorsed by President Trump becomes law, the prospect of a single payer government run health care system will be virtually unavoidable.  By refusing to fully repeal Obamacare and institute a viable free market alternative, the inevitable failure of the mélange of Obamacare and Trumpcare will create a clamor for an alternative, which will be national health care.  The high probability of this eventuality is reinforced as many left-wing and progressive groups are giddy over the prospect of their fondest wish coming true.

The overriding strategy of Obama and the Left in passing Obamacare was to so disrupt the private health care insurance market and alter the delivery of health service that there would eventually be an extraordinary level of dissatisfaction by the citizenry.  At that stage, the people would clamor for a solution which would be the Left’s century old dream of domination and control of the populace — national health care — as any possible return to a free market based system would be essentially impossible. 

The ascendancy of Donald Trump to the presidency was not only a cataclysmic and traumatic event for the Left but one that could have derailed their well laid plans for national health care.   However, the establishment Republicans have confirmed, through their unwillingness to even attempt to repeal Obamacare and begin reconstituting a free market system, that the Left has succeeded more quickly than they had anticipated and, as an added bonus, they now have an unwitting ally to assume culpability for the failure of both Obamacare and Trumpcare.

Further, the Progressives’ success with the public in a comparatively short timeframe has been remarkable.  In a poll taken in May of 2016, 58% of Americans now favor a single payer government run health care system, while nearly the same percentage want a repeal of Obamacare.  Surprisingly, in the same poll 41% of Republicans favor a single payer plan.

That mindset is apparently also shared by Donald Trump who as recently as the 16th of January 2017 stated that he wanted guaranteed health insurance for everyone paid for by the government, if necessary.  Thus his unquestioned support for the legislation on the table is not a surprise. 

What is the future of the American people under a single payer system?   One need only look across the ocean to the United Kingdom.  Over the past 25 years I have had, until recently, an office in the London area and have observed firsthand the National Health Service in a nation that has 18% of the population and 2.5% of the land area of the United States.  I have watched over the years the never-ending budget crises and incessant degradation of care.

When the government controls the financial purse strings and thus determines policy, and when it pre-ordains salary levels and establishes limitations on care, there is no profit motive.   Accordingly, there is less incentive to enter the field of medicine, resulting a rapidly dwindling supply of doctors and nurses.  Therefore, as demand from an ever growing and aging patient population increases, shortages and rationing are inevitable.

A recent report by the British Medical Association stated that the NHS has reached its breaking point and that “Pressure on all services is rising and care is increasingly being rationed.”  There is a rapidly dwindling supply of nurses and doctors as demand from patients increases.  According to this report, the number of district nurses has declined 60% between 2000 and 2016.  There is a shortage of doctors throughout the system but it is particularly acute in the Accidents and Emergencies departments of the hospitals as they are 3,000 doctors short in this one area alone.  As a result, the NHS is looking at the possibility of conscripting hundreds of doctors from India and Pakistan. 

A report from the Patients Association found tens of thousands seeking routine surgeries had to wait on the average nearly 5 months and those requiring more major surgery, such as hip replacements, had an average wait time of nearly 4 months.  Another study concluded that around 750 patients a month, one in 28, pass away due to inadequate care such as doctors making the wrong diagnosis, being prescribed the wrong medication or mistaken monitoring of a patient’s condition.

According to an article in Forbes:

Terminally ill patients are incorrectly classified as “close to death” so as to allow the      withdrawal of expensive life support.


NHS doctors routinely conceal from patients information about innovative new therapies that NHS doesn’t pay for, so as not to distress, upset or confuse them.


A quarter of those diagnosed with cancer are barred from receiving the latest drugs proven to extend life; if those people choose to seek those drugs on their own they are banned from any further treatment by the NHS.


Britons’ survival rates for those diagnosed with cancer or heart attacks are little better than those of the former East European Communist countries.

A recent study conducted by the University College London and Columbia University revealed that nearly ten percent of British patients died in the hospital as compared to 2.5% in the United States.  This disparity is due in great part to post-operative neglect and inadequate care issues.

From a personal standpoint, I have often passed by the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, considered among the best NHS facilities in the UK, and seen ambulances lined up waiting for the emergency room.  On another occasion, when a business acquaintance fell and broke his arm, he was taken to the Accidents and Emergency room where he waited for over five hours before being seen by a doctor.  And another four hours went by before his arm was x-rayed and placed in a cast.  It was obvious the staff was overworked and the facility understaffed.  Other experiences relayed to me by those I met throughout the United Kingdom over the years were similarly and uniformly appalling.

On the other hand, just four miles from Chelsea and Westminster is the London Bridge Hospital, a private for profit facility wherein there are excellent doctors, numerous staff as well as first-rate private rooms and medical facilities.  This is the two-tier system in the UK.  One for the wealthy and Ruling Class and the other for everyone else.  It would be no different in the United States when it adopts a single payer socialized medicine model.  Regardless of ideology the American elites will take care of themselves.

The degradation of care has already begun in the United States.  After the passage of Obamacare what was a shortage of doctors rapidly evolved into a potential crisis.  Today there is an estimated 30,000 doctor shortage; however, within seven years that shortfall will expand to nearly 100,000.  The adoption of socialized medicine will further exacerbate this crisis.

Funding and cost is another critical factor to consider in any single payer government run system.   Presently 55 million Americans are covered under Medicare at an annual cost of $721 Billion.  Another 71 million are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program).  The cost to the Federal Government is $521Billion and another $309 Billion picked up by the states for a total annual expenditure of $830 Billion.

 

Thus, nearly 200 million Americans are not enrolled in either government plan at present.  With socialized medicine, they would be.  Assuming the current per person expenditures of Medicaid and CHIP, it would cost over $2.3 Trillion per year (assuming the Federal Government picks up all the cost rather than splitting it with the States) to cover these 200 million citizens. 

Therefore, the potential cost to the Federal Government of universal single payer health care in a nation the geographic size and population of the United States would be: $3.8 Trillion per year (while the States save $309 Billion).  The dedicated advocates of socialized medicine claim there would be savings in reduced paperwork and other efficiencies.  However, no government entitlement program in the history of this nation has ever functioned efficiently and with lower than projected costs.  Medicare, which serves less than 17% of the U.S. population, is essentially a single payer program beset with fraud, waste and abuse.  And, as everyone knows, the government run Veterans Administration is a health care debacle.

When looking at entitlement spending, Social Security (the current annual expenditures are $1.1 Trillion) has to be taken into consideration.  Therefore, all the entitlement programs would cost $4.9 Trillion per year.  In 2016 the total revenue to the US Treasury was $3.6 Trillion.  Therefore, the cost of government run health care plus Social Security would create a deficit of $1.3 Trillion before interest, Defense or any other expenditures are taken into consideration (another $1.5 Trillion).   Revenue (taxes) would have to be increased by 90% to cover all the spending.

In a nation the size of the continent of Europe with 325 million people, there is no viable way that single payer government run health care will function without massive expenditures, overwhelming dislocation and mandated rationing.  The United Kingdom, the size of the state of Wyoming with a population of 60 million, constantly careens from crisis to crisis while the vast majority of its citizens unduly suffer.

Single payer health care is not the shiny object in the distance that will magically solve the nation’s health care issues regardless of the glib assurances and portrayals by the Left.   It will be an unmitigated disaster for the nation and its citizens.   The election of Donald Trump and a Republican Congress was not a mandate to accelerate this headlong plunge into oblivion and travail.

There is a growing consensus that if the American Health Care Act as proposed by the Republicans in the House and wholeheartedly endorsed by President Trump becomes law, the prospect of a single payer government run health care system will be virtually unavoidable.  By refusing to fully repeal Obamacare and institute a viable free market alternative, the inevitable failure of the mélange of Obamacare and Trumpcare will create a clamor for an alternative, which will be national health care.  The high probability of this eventuality is reinforced as many left-wing and progressive groups are giddy over the prospect of their fondest wish coming true.

The overriding strategy of Obama and the Left in passing Obamacare was to so disrupt the private health care insurance market and alter the delivery of health service that there would eventually be an extraordinary level of dissatisfaction by the citizenry.  At that stage, the people would clamor for a solution which would be the Left’s century old dream of domination and control of the populace — national health care — as any possible return to a free market based system would be essentially impossible. 

The ascendancy of Donald Trump to the presidency was not only a cataclysmic and traumatic event for the Left but one that could have derailed their well laid plans for national health care.   However, the establishment Republicans have confirmed, through their unwillingness to even attempt to repeal Obamacare and begin reconstituting a free market system, that the Left has succeeded more quickly than they had anticipated and, as an added bonus, they now have an unwitting ally to assume culpability for the failure of both Obamacare and Trumpcare.

Further, the Progressives’ success with the public in a comparatively short timeframe has been remarkable.  In a poll taken in May of 2016, 58% of Americans now favor a single payer government run health care system, while nearly the same percentage want a repeal of Obamacare.  Surprisingly, in the same poll 41% of Republicans favor a single payer plan.

That mindset is apparently also shared by Donald Trump who as recently as the 16th of January 2017 stated that he wanted guaranteed health insurance for everyone paid for by the government, if necessary.  Thus his unquestioned support for the legislation on the table is not a surprise. 

What is the future of the American people under a single payer system?   One need only look across the ocean to the United Kingdom.  Over the past 25 years I have had, until recently, an office in the London area and have observed firsthand the National Health Service in a nation that has 18% of the population and 2.5% of the land area of the United States.  I have watched over the years the never-ending budget crises and incessant degradation of care.

When the government controls the financial purse strings and thus determines policy, and when it pre-ordains salary levels and establishes limitations on care, there is no profit motive.   Accordingly, there is less incentive to enter the field of medicine, resulting a rapidly dwindling supply of doctors and nurses.  Therefore, as demand from an ever growing and aging patient population increases, shortages and rationing are inevitable.

A recent report by the British Medical Association stated that the NHS has reached its breaking point and that “Pressure on all services is rising and care is increasingly being rationed.”  There is a rapidly dwindling supply of nurses and doctors as demand from patients increases.  According to this report, the number of district nurses has declined 60% between 2000 and 2016.  There is a shortage of doctors throughout the system but it is particularly acute in the Accidents and Emergencies departments of the hospitals as they are 3,000 doctors short in this one area alone.  As a result, the NHS is looking at the possibility of conscripting hundreds of doctors from India and Pakistan. 

A report from the Patients Association found tens of thousands seeking routine surgeries had to wait on the average nearly 5 months and those requiring more major surgery, such as hip replacements, had an average wait time of nearly 4 months.  Another study concluded that around 750 patients a month, one in 28, pass away due to inadequate care such as doctors making the wrong diagnosis, being prescribed the wrong medication or mistaken monitoring of a patient’s condition.

According to an article in Forbes:

Terminally ill patients are incorrectly classified as “close to death” so as to allow the      withdrawal of expensive life support.


NHS doctors routinely conceal from patients information about innovative new therapies that NHS doesn’t pay for, so as not to distress, upset or confuse them.


A quarter of those diagnosed with cancer are barred from receiving the latest drugs proven to extend life; if those people choose to seek those drugs on their own they are banned from any further treatment by the NHS.


Britons’ survival rates for those diagnosed with cancer or heart attacks are little better than those of the former East European Communist countries.

A recent study conducted by the University College London and Columbia University revealed that nearly ten percent of British patients died in the hospital as compared to 2.5% in the United States.  This disparity is due in great part to post-operative neglect and inadequate care issues.

From a personal standpoint, I have often passed by the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, considered among the best NHS facilities in the UK, and seen ambulances lined up waiting for the emergency room.  On another occasion, when a business acquaintance fell and broke his arm, he was taken to the Accidents and Emergency room where he waited for over five hours before being seen by a doctor.  And another four hours went by before his arm was x-rayed and placed in a cast.  It was obvious the staff was overworked and the facility understaffed.  Other experiences relayed to me by those I met throughout the United Kingdom over the years were similarly and uniformly appalling.

On the other hand, just four miles from Chelsea and Westminster is the London Bridge Hospital, a private for profit facility wherein there are excellent doctors, numerous staff as well as first-rate private rooms and medical facilities.  This is the two-tier system in the UK.  One for the wealthy and Ruling Class and the other for everyone else.  It would be no different in the United States when it adopts a single payer socialized medicine model.  Regardless of ideology the American elites will take care of themselves.

The degradation of care has already begun in the United States.  After the passage of Obamacare what was a shortage of doctors rapidly evolved into a potential crisis.  Today there is an estimated 30,000 doctor shortage; however, within seven years that shortfall will expand to nearly 100,000.  The adoption of socialized medicine will further exacerbate this crisis.

Funding and cost is another critical factor to consider in any single payer government run system.   Presently 55 million Americans are covered under Medicare at an annual cost of $721 Billion.  Another 71 million are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program).  The cost to the Federal Government is $521Billion and another $309 Billion picked up by the states for a total annual expenditure of $830 Billion.

 

Thus, nearly 200 million Americans are not enrolled in either government plan at present.  With socialized medicine, they would be.  Assuming the current per person expenditures of Medicaid and CHIP, it would cost over $2.3 Trillion per year (assuming the Federal Government picks up all the cost rather than splitting it with the States) to cover these 200 million citizens. 

Therefore, the potential cost to the Federal Government of universal single payer health care in a nation the geographic size and population of the United States would be: $3.8 Trillion per year (while the States save $309 Billion).  The dedicated advocates of socialized medicine claim there would be savings in reduced paperwork and other efficiencies.  However, no government entitlement program in the history of this nation has ever functioned efficiently and with lower than projected costs.  Medicare, which serves less than 17% of the U.S. population, is essentially a single payer program beset with fraud, waste and abuse.  And, as everyone knows, the government run Veterans Administration is a health care debacle.

When looking at entitlement spending, Social Security (the current annual expenditures are $1.1 Trillion) has to be taken into consideration.  Therefore, all the entitlement programs would cost $4.9 Trillion per year.  In 2016 the total revenue to the US Treasury was $3.6 Trillion.  Therefore, the cost of government run health care plus Social Security would create a deficit of $1.3 Trillion before interest, Defense or any other expenditures are taken into consideration (another $1.5 Trillion).   Revenue (taxes) would have to be increased by 90% to cover all the spending.

In a nation the size of the continent of Europe with 325 million people, there is no viable way that single payer government run health care will function without massive expenditures, overwhelming dislocation and mandated rationing.  The United Kingdom, the size of the state of Wyoming with a population of 60 million, constantly careens from crisis to crisis while the vast majority of its citizens unduly suffer.

Single payer health care is not the shiny object in the distance that will magically solve the nation’s health care issues regardless of the glib assurances and portrayals by the Left.   It will be an unmitigated disaster for the nation and its citizens.   The election of Donald Trump and a Republican Congress was not a mandate to accelerate this headlong plunge into oblivion and travail.



Source link