To answer the question Jaun Williams brought up in that short video clip, labor unions do attack management and ownership to advocate collective possession of a property. In public schools, it is clear that the tax payers or management does not run the schools, it’s the labor unions. They literally run the asylum and that is the reason for the cost escalations that cause tax increases. The teacher unions preach against private property ownership, management control of their pay checks, their insurance premiums, and their behavior and they openly seek to liberalize their students with progressive philosophy. They are functioning socialist, and have been for a very long time.
But Wasserman Schultz should have been savvy enough to give a shit shot answer—but she couldn’t—that’s because until recently nobody even asked questions like that. To hide the socialist tendencies of the Democratic Party, they just called people like me, “hateful” “fringe” types and hoped that nobody would do any further investigations. Well, that method has worked OK for them until they came across one in their rank who had been calling themselves an “independent” on Capitol Hill—who was in fact an unabashed socialist preaching Scandinavian socialism as an answer to American economic policy.
Sanders has been doing well behind Hillary Clinton, even challenging her polling numbers, and largely the reason is that many of today’s youth were raised by socialists within the public education system and find in Bernie a familiar concept. Many millennials today would openly support socialism because it would give them more video game playing time, and more opportunities to play on their phones at the expense of the productive. Like members of a dysfunctional family, they don’t know the difference between a healthy relationship and a bad one, because their only experience has been negative. Without the opportunities for competition in their educations from private schools, or home school, their public educations have ruined their minds. They don’t know the good from the bad because free market options have been taken from them—which is a common socialist tactic of population control. If you talk to Democrats seriously about free market ideas, they despise them. That is because they are functionally socialists.
Many have asked me how education should be, and I have responded that they should be like the wonderful amusement parks in Florida, where within 5 to 10 miles of each other are the Universal Parks, the Sea World facilities, and of course the four Disney parks. All those developments are in competition with one another for validity. For instance Sea World had to up their game with roller coasters because they needed thrill rides to compete with Universal, just down the road. Disney needs to build a Star Wars land to compete with Universal’s Harry Potter displays, etc. The result of that activity floods over into the many restaurants and hotels that populate the area. Without that competition from those few parks, Orlando would be just another second-hand city toppling under socialist pressure from all their community obligations funded by the tax payer. But because of the thriving entertainment options in Orlando, because of the parks, the airport is wonderful, the roads are in good shape, the convention center is immaculate and there is plenty of tax revenue to sustain the city. That is the beauty of free market capitalism. The same mentality should be applied to education. There should be a school that strives to be better than all the others. Other schools should have to compete with the best schools for students and dollars. But that’s not the system we have. Public education is a monopoly completely dependent on tax dollars. The only competition they endorse are useless Friday night football games. There isn’t any intellectual competition between Lakota and Fairfield or Mason and Monroe. If a home is in those districts, then that’s where students go to school, and the unions love those lack of options, because they are functioning socialists.
Democrats have built their party as a wealth redistribution organization that trades votes in exchange for the results of confiscated wealth. They don’t believe in the free market, not even a little bit. They believe in state-run institutions funded by tax payer dollars and overpaid jobs given to unqualified people in exchange for a vote to keep politicians in power. That is socialism. That is why Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t answer the Chris Mathews question about what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist was. She didn’t know because there isn’t any—except in name.
The lesson here is that just because people call you names for pointing it out, it doesn’t mean that there is validity to their defense. When I called the local public school a socialist institution, I was applying the correct name to the behavior. It may not sound good in a country that has a history of fighting communism just because it’s the opposite of capitalism, so Democrats changed their name to hide philosophy of collectivism which is as the center of their party. But the terminology is historically accurate. Millennials may not remember the fights America had conducted against socialism and communism over the years, because they were purposely not taught those kinds of things in public school. Millennials thus support socialist efforts like those of Bernie Sanders for their own selfish reasons, they are products of socialist instruction, so they don’t think in ways that have expectations of productivity attached to their behavior. That is why Wasserman Schultz could not give a difference. Because there isn’t one. When you look at children grown today struggling to exhibit their individuality with nose rings and tattoos, thank a Democrat for putting poison in the mind of the youth in public education by teaching them to grow up loving socialism. The problems of our age can most be attributed to socialism and the Democrat’s need to hide it from the public with name changes. It has left an entire generation lost and confused, and without the tools of acknowledged capitalism to build a proper life with. Democrats are guilty of a grand deception, and guess what—I’m not going to let them forget it. They made this bed, and they can sleep in it all on their own. I never played along, and I’m not going to start now that they are obviously in trouble. I have no problem telling them that “I told them so.” Because they didn’t listen when they should have.
Even I am amazed at the political left’s extreme denial of the evils of Planned Parenthood. When I heard the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest deny watching the released videos from the Center for Medical Progress, I knew without question that we were not only dealing with a corrupt administration, but a vile, and evil political party. And that evil deserves a level of ruthlessness indicative of war. There is no way that Earnest—who is in the business of knowing everything related to the media did not see clips from the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. His desire to lie openly is a strategy commonly used within Obama’s administration, and the Clinton connections over the years, which were formulated around the basic concepts of progressivism. Those basic thoughts about the world were formulated by some founding members of the progressive view of the world of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger personally shaped. To progressives and the feminist outlook, Margaret Sanger is a hero. To people like me she is a vile villain that has destroyed human integrity and is steering humanity over a cliff of despair. To understand the extent of that evil read an article by The Blaze shown below interviewing David Daleiden, the project leader behind the Planned Parenthood videos. Then read the 13 things you probably didn’t know about Margaret Sanger—then you’ll understand what the typical progressive stands for and measure to what extent you’ll choose to listen to them in the future. At the end of the article is a brief history of Sanger who Hillary Clinton has described as her personal hero.
The head of the group responsible for releasing a recent series of videos which purport to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts discussed the most difficult parts of the investigation Tuesday.
Speaking to TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch, David Daleiden spoke after the Center for Medical Progress released its fifth undercover video earlier in the day.
“I would say definitely the hardest moment, the hardest moments were reviewing the footage of the body parts of the unborn children themselves. Especially the second trimester case that you see in the video released today,” Daleiden said on “Dana.”
“That was absolutely brutal. It is absolutely brutal,” he continued. “It’s truly a little slice of hell. That place, that was easily the hardest part of this entire investigation.”
13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger
Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.
On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.
Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”
In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.
Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.
1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”
“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.
According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.
She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.
“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.
9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18:The Goal
10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”
“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3:The Materials of the New Race
11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.
“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.
12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939
13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”
“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.
Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Though she has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics she remains a recognizable figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]
In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[3]
In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.
In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[18][note 2][19] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22][23] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[24]
Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[25][26][27]
This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.
Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[9]
On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[28] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[29] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[30] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[31] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[32] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[33] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[34] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[34] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[35] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[36]
Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[37] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[38]
While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[76] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[77] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[78] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[79] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[78]
However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[80][81] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[82] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[83] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[84] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[85] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[85]
There are many kinds of wealth, and in many ways I think I’m far better off than Donald Trump. I wouldn’t trade my life for his. But I find myself having an awful lot in common with the 2016 presidential candidate, as many do which is one of the reasons for his popularity. With that said it is obvious that Trump is learning how to be a political candidate and is refining his approach that is most evident to me in this Anderson Cooper interview which is long, but illustrates several very important sociological behavior patterns for which he’s personally destroying. Trump is able to give this kind of interview because he’s literally a free man. That freedom comes from his wealth, which I understand. I share with him some of that freedom, so I understand what makes him tick, and that is why I’m so enthusiastic for his candidacy. Watch carefully.
Most powerful to me in that interview was Trump’s revelations about lobbyists, when he declared he’s been on the other side of the ball most of his life as a businessman and understands how the system works. When he says that he could get a politician to jump off a ledge he’s serious and I believe him emphatically. Cooper tried to pin him down with guilt about his participation in the system by using lobbyists to control politicians as Trump chided back that as a businessman he had to play the game–because that’s how the game is played. Trump then stated more or less that he wants to run so he can change the rules of that game. As a president, he couldn’t be bought. As a president there is nothing the White House can give him that he doesn’t already have. As a 69-year-old man who has made $10 billion dollars of worth, I believe he wants to sincerely contribute his independence to the philosophic debate of preserving the United States.
When Trump says that there is no politician that can turn this country around, he is absolutely right. When a lobbyist can control politicians the way they do, the system is hopelessly beyond repair. Trump additionally stated to Cooper during the interview that if he were in the White House, he would never leave, and would work hard while there—so much so that he wouldn’t have time to comb his famous hair. And I believe him. Trump may be arrogant, he may love to see himself on television, he may be narcissistic, but without question he is the hardest working candidate running for president. I recognize within that arrogance some of myself. When you work harder than other people, and people don’t respect your hard work, you have to learn to do things for yourself—because you see what needs to be done while others do not. The world doesn’t thank you for things that are done for which they don’t understand the value—but only in hindsight. When a person is on the cutting edge, often only they understand the treasure of that position, so they act on behalf of themselves knowing that people will thank them later. In this respect I share a lot in common with Trump. I believe him when he says he’d be the hardest working president that the White House has ever seen. He’d work hard not so that people would reward him, but because he personally desires to do a good job judged off his measuring stick. That is a tremendous difference between him, and everyone else, not just in who is running, but in who has ever run.
Another place that Anderson Cooper effectively brought up an important part of the Trump candidacy was over the question regarding faith. Virtually all of human society believes that faith in a deity makes politicians malleable enough to serve as public representative in a democracy. This is the most idiotic notion of any social analysis. On matters of faith I answer questions in a similar way as Trump does. I do not owe my life to a god of any kind. I do not give credit to my good deeds to some un-named creature only interpreted for me by some insufficient minds who might have written the Bible or Koran hundreds of years ago and translated for me by churches. I trust what I can see and touch—and if something exists in the quantum realm of the very infinitely small, I use my own experience to guide my thoughts. I do not trust the interpretations of history. But I certainly wouldn’t call myself an atheist. I don’t pray to some god to help something to occur, I utilize myself to unleash my potential to help solve problems. In a lot of ways the power of positive thinking is like praying. At some point in the distant past human beings recognized that the act of praying could shape the events of history—perhaps in small ways, but enough so that the act was worth doing. But strong, independent people have learned more, which just praying doesn’t do it, but the power of positive thinking goes several steps further. Trump is that kind of religious person. He is such a free man that he doesn’t feel he needs to kneel before a god whom he has never met other than through interpretations of others—to surrender his logic to the supernatural.
To assume that god will listen to billions of desperate voices and shape world events to their liking is absurd. It is even worse to expect a leader of the human race to pray to a deity for guidance. Who knows really what might answer such a prayer—the gods of the Holy Bible, the god of the Maya, of the Muslim, or the Asian—nobody really knows. In my experience there are many tricksters who live in the spiritual realm, many soothsaying mind-watchmen who will gladly steer an undefended mind to their doom just as there are car salesmen who will take your money knowing full and well that you can’t afford what they are selling. There is no way to know unless you meet these deities with your own eyes and touch them with your hands what they are up to, so trusting them would be absolutely foolish. Now, honoring what’s good about spiritual revealers is a tremendous positive, and Trump stated as much with Cooper. He lives his life in a way that he feels he shouldn’t have to ask for any forgiveness from a god. That statement is a powerful one. Who wants a leader who will surrender the sanctity of the United States to the prayer of some unproven manic who lives in the 5th or even 11th dimension hoping to get a boost to their ego by destroying the minds of those limited four-dimensional beings on planet earth with misdirection. Cooper represents a status quo opinion of politicians that has created some really major problems over the years. If politicians can make voters believe they are connected in some way to the afterworld, then they are free to repeat history as just another corrupt emperor, ruthless dictator, pharaoh or Pope. For instance, the current Pope Francis from Argentina is a maniacal socialist. We are supposed to believe that he went from a nightclub bouncer to a religious leader because some smoke came out of church chimney. And this guy is going to lead the world spiritually into progressive concerns? Give me a break. He might be a nice man, but a leader of human society—absolutely not. Is he connected to god, even less likely? Giving such people a seat at the table of leadership is like asking a dog to not eat a plate of food placed before them when their owners leave the room. Politicians and religious leaders are all made of the same secondary stuff. They live through others, not of their own individuality, and are therefore ill-equipped to lead a nation of individuals driven by a pure capitalist economy. Trump’s answers to Cooper on religion were very interesting, and I understand Trump completely, maybe more than Trump actually does. He has nothing to feel guilty about—even though Cooper obviously didn’t understand the answer. More than anything, I think that religious presumption is what gets all republics into trouble. Keep god in the church on Sunday or in your hearts during study. Keep it out of the realm of leadership. Leadership is a task for mankind on planet earth in a four-dimensional lifestyle. Those are the rules of the game, and we have to live with them unless those rules can be changed from the other side.
The theme of the interview essentially came down to the fact that Trump knows how to play the game of both religion and lobbyists and that he is best equipped to change the rules if he’s on the other side of things. John Boehner might be the third most powerful person in the world, but if the Pope comes to America to give a speech, Boehner is likely to listen to the church leader’s comments about the poor and destitute hoping to get into heaven than Trump would—and that makes Trump a better potential leader. Boehner might say because the Pope whispered in his ear that it is good to help the poor with sacrifice and altruism. That would be because Boehner is a second-hander who lives through other people himself. He needs money too from people like Trump to stay in power, so he will regulate his thoughts to a deity to guide him through life’s mysteries. Whereas Trump will also help the poor, he’ll tell them to get a job—and if there isn’t a job, he’ll make one through capitalism. That is the main difference between Donald Trump and everyone else. He’s a truly free man who works harder than everyone else, and has earned the right to say what he wants. And America needs such a person right now—otherwise it may fail to exist for four more years. We really are at a pinnacle of existence, and it will take more than prayer or lobbyists to pull us from the brink.
I hope it doesn’t happen, but I support it if it does–if Donald Trump goes third-party, I will support him. I am likely much more conservative than Donald Trump. I’m probably more conservative than every Republican in the party. I’m probably more conservative than even the most Bible thumping conservative–anywhere. Yet I would in less than a heartbeat support Donald Trump for president if he leaves the Republicans for a third-party. I would do so because I support a business man over a politician almost every time, particularly one who is as independently wealthy as Trump is. I think economic understanding is the paramount issue of the 2016 election because without money, there is no value—no morality, no understanding of quality, no measurement of worth. Wealthy people are typically a measure of productivity. If they have money, their hands touch the creations of wealth in positive ways. Money has been so ridiculed by the political culture that they forget that it is the only way to really measure value in our society. That is the premier reason I support Donald Trump even if he leaves the Republican Party. Here is how he put it during an interview with The Hill:
“The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish. I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans. Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”
“I’m not in the gang. I’m not in the group where the group does whatever it’s supposed to do,” he said. “I want to do what’s right for the country — not what’s good for special interest groups that contribute, not what’s good for the lobbyists and the donors.”
Much of what Trump said in that little interview was exactly how I feel about machine politics. I don’t like it. For something I don’t like, I spend a lot of time thinking about it, but my thoughts are always on how to break it up, not in how to play along to get something. I despise that system, because it gets in the way of pure capitalism and find it repulsive. If Trump will take a stand against it, I’ll fight with him against that system.
I was at a golf course the other day with my favorite pair of jeans on. I’m not one who cares much for orthodox behavior, or the rules of society, but at golf courses there is an understanding of how one dresses and acts. Just like business meetings typically involve suits and ties. You don’t show up covered in tattoos and torn cloths and expect people to take you serious, because the dress is an expectation of quality. Once all parties meeting with that basic agreement of quality in place, then discussions about important topics can begin. Golf courses are all about quality. They are about nice greens, golf clubs, amenities, and nice casual cloths along with quality time with yourself, or friends. Golf is about the swing, shooting under par, and getting the most out of the various tools among the assortment of golf clubs. The distinct ping of a driver hitting a golf ball squarely and with greatly controlled force is a sound of extreme beauty. That is because there is quality in the action. So I was aware that I would get some sideways looks when I showed up in my favorite jeans that have the knees torn out completely with holes. They look really bad. But I love them; they are comfortable and represent my lifestyle. And after spending several straight days in business suits, I wanted to be in my favorite cloths as I stopped by this particular course on business. Not to play, but to do some other activity.
As I walked around the clubhouse many golfers looked at me with disdain, which I understood. I was clearly not dressed for a golf course, so I didn’t take any offense. The value system of the golf course dictated that people conduct themselves with proper attire. It doesn’t matter the sex or race—only that fellow golfers conduct themselves with a sense of “quality.” In addition to the holy pants, I had on a loose-fitting button-up shirt that wasn’t tucked in, which is normal for me around the house. At a golf course, it was frowned upon. And I understood and accepted that. Life on a golf course is supposed to be slightly luxurious and otherworldly. People go there to get away not just from the world for a bit, but to be around quality. If people show up expecting that culture of quality to change just because they want to wear holy pants, they are the one in the wrong. Now, I was in the mood to not care what people thought, so I dressed the way I wanted. But never did I expect them to change for my benefit.
Similarly, money is a measurement of quality. Those who have lots of money have usually done something in their life that reflects excessively productive output. The money is a measure of that productivity. People can be jealous of that productive output and hope that they might acquire a lot of money without the work of being productive, but usually they would be wasting wishes—unless they happen to win a lottery ticket or inherit a lot of money for someone else’s effort. But they do not have a right to demand that productive people refuse to put a cap on their efforts just to make others feel better about themselves.
The Republican Party as an organization doesn’t do much but consume resources. They solicit money from people like Trump to keep them funded and continuing to win elections which then provokes the question as to why they are even needed if they serve no other purpose but to appeal to people who have money so they can stick themselves between the productive and the needy to barter the relationship with their con-artist appeal. If they aren’t going to manage resources, then the politicians are useless, which is what Trump’s campaign is shaping up to illustrate. He doesn’t need them and neither do voters, which begs the question as to why we have such a ridiculous system to begin with.
The political class is attempting to demonize Trump because he has money. Because he has money, he doesn’t have to appeal to any donors, so there is nobody to pull out the rug from under his campaign. The political class knows they can’t compete with that, so they have no other move but to castigate him from their circles of associations. They want him as a donor; they don’t want him as a contributor to the philosophy of Republicanism. That makes them leeches in need of sustenance. It also makes him the body they need to suck off of, and with all this name calling they have embarked on, they are trying to put him in his place with force—whether it’s John McCain calling Trump’s supports “crazies,” or Lindsey Graham calling Trump himself a “jackass.” They actually expected him to take the ridicule which is why politics is so screwed up in the first place. The emphasis among the political class is that the individual must subject themselves to the greater good of the group—those who are most served have the value over the least. But that assumes that everyone involved is of the same quality. And people are not all of the same quality. That is the lesson one learns at a golf course, or based on the size of one’s bank account. Some people do more and are worth more than others. In the world of politics, Trump has done a lot more than all the politicians on Capital Hill put together. Yet they expect Trump to fall in line to maintain their illusion of value behind a group consensus. They do the same to us all, which makes them completely worthless to the task at hand.
If Trump leaves the party behind, I will as well to help him accomplish his task. I’ve pulled for Republicans before; I still do with a hope that some of them aren’t a bunch of screwballs. After I was burnt by John Kasich personally as I was one of the Right to Work leaders in Ohio during a time when the governor wanted to attack those types of people using the party to try to eliminate them, I will never give anybody a chance to do that to me again. So I have no love for the party, they are too liberal for me. They can point to Trump and declare that he was a Democrat, and that he was friends with the Clintons, and that he isn’t a strong conservative. But he’s rich, and he has made a lot of money, and to me that means something. I’d put my bets on him over any politician, so if the party paints him out of the party, it will be their loss—yet again.
If El Chapo and his band of thugs came to my neighborhood ready to perform one of their famous hits, I’d gladly toss a piñata at those midgets to get them all gathered in one place and then introduce them to my Smith & Wesson. Then I’d call my friends at Second Call Defense to work out the details and scoop them up into a wagon headed for the local dump. I’ve had hits called out on me so I know what its like to live with that kind of thing, and it’s not nearly as scary as people might think. Scum bags like these drug dealers are accustomed to making people scared of them because they largely outgun the people they terrorize. But when you have guns too, it is easy to see that these kinds of people are just thugs seeking to terrorize people as bullies so that they can line their pockets with stolen money lifted off of cowards. It drives me crazy at how many people who have the rights of the Second Amendment at their disposal as American citizens allow themselves to be intimidated by these drug cartels. Fear empowers these scum bags and makes them much worse. This topic is in fact the plot of my Cliffhanger story, Sacrifice to Santa Maurta—heavily inspired by real life drug dealers and their worship of Santa Muerte—the goddess of death so popular in Mexican culture. I despise drugs of all kinds, and I despise the scum that deals in drugs, including most beer manufacturers. They make poison for the human mind—so the context of my hatred for drug dealers should be considered. Progressives will call such talk a hunger for the times of the Wild Wild West—where guns and shoot-outs are the measures of valor. I would call it a proper identification of the elements of our times. When people like this Guzman escapee who runs a major drug cartel are allowed to roam freely throughout the world, running his cartel from his prison all this time and the authorities of the world fail to contain him for his crimes, we are living in a world where the gun rules the day, and Americans better keep their Second Amendment rights as close to them as their purses and wallets because of it.
Drug cartels must have an environment of fear to function otherwise they cannot control their sales regions. Just like gangs must enforce their turf with terrorism, cartels are just larger examples of collectivist philosophy, where individuals are required to yield to an organized crime establishment with silence. To maintain that silence and the movement of illegal goods under the noses of the masses, fear must be utilized to prevent thoughtful contemplation of the evil involved. So when Donald Trump called out the corruption of the Mexican country and their alliance with these drug dealers, I cheered him on, because he was speaking the kind of things I want to hear other Americans say. My position as an American is not to yield to the fears of Mexican drug cartels, it is to fight back. I don’t want to accept their terrorism. I want to take the pain they are imposing on our country and send it back to Mexico—with love. But when Donald Trump brought up the issue of Guzman during a speech, either El Chapo himself, or one of worshiping thugs said this to Trump.
“If you keep pissing me off I’m going to make you eat your words you f****** blonde milks*******,” read the tweet from Guzman’s account, according to an online translation.
Trump then tweeted an answer saying that he’d kick Guzman’s “ass,” unlike other presidential contenders who are softer on immigration.
“Keep f–king around, and I’ll make you eat all of your godd–n words, f–king whitey f—-t @realDonaldTrump,” an account claiming to be Guzman’s official Twitter presence tweeted at Trump’s account in Spanish.
That kind of thuggish insult is completely beyond tolerance. Guzman’s thugs don’t have a right to make such comments directly implying a threat to a person running for president without some ramifications. Trump didn’t threaten to kill Guzman or even imply violence. He just said that authorities were stupid for letting Guzman go—which is obvious. Trump did nothing to provoke such a threat. And here’s the worst of it, Twitter knows who has what account and how to track that kind of activity. Trump smartly did call the FBI about the threat, which is the correct thing to do. Through the NSA and various other agencies, they know where the threats were made, what IP address posted the comment. So where is the arrest for such a threat? Even if it was someone pretending to be El Chapo, where are authorities in arresting such a character for making such a threat?
That’s why we have the Second Amendment. Scum bags like these drug cartels are used to buying off authorities with looted money and having immunity from prosecution. Even when they are in jail, they are allowed to live their lives in relative luxury. So they don’t fear anything, and they make their livings harassing people who do live good lives and play by the rules into fear so the thugs can control their actions. The threat allegedly by El Chapo was intended to shut Trump up from his highlight of the Mexican border issues. Guzman knows that if the border is tightened up, that it will be much more difficult to flow drugs across the border, so he threatened Trump—and that deserves action on behalf of the United States.
We live in an age where a satellite can watch a turtle cross a road in some remote region. Nobody can convince me that they don’t know where El Chapo is. We know who his wife is, we know his children, we know where his cartel hangs out, we know how to watch the traffic to and from his various compounds, and it really isn’t that hard to find him. If he can find Trump, or anybody else for that matter for the purpose of physical harassment and fearful instigation, then the same can be done to him. It is an outrage that just one day out of jail his supporters felt so cocky to actually put a Tweet out against Trump in an attempt to shut him up without having any fear of arrest for the behavior.
When Trump said that he’d kick El Chapo’s ass, it was precisely the kind of language I wanted out of a presidential frontrunner. I want a guy who isn’t afraid of drug cartels. Heck, if you’re president, people will threaten to kill you every day, so candidates might as well get used to it. Even better than body guards is a candidate who uses the pronoun I when declaring violent action when threatened. When that candidate is armed with their own guns to take care of the matter, you have a guy who can be president of the United States in this volatile climate. We need a guy who won’t back down when challenged to a fight, because when you are dealing with thugs, that is the only language they understand.
The main issue is to understand why people like El Chapo even think that such threats are effective. What they are advocating is non-thinking compliance to a collective order, and force is the way they crush individual opinion. They are essentially stating, cast an opinion about what we are doing, and we will hurt you, or worse yet, end your life. So go along with us if you don’t want to get hurt. Well, that is not acceptable. I certainly don’t live that way. And I am sooooooooo very happy to see that Donald Trump—isn’t that way either. What a refreshing change in the political landscape!
Melania Trump is a top pick female and she knows that she has the ability to pair herself up with only the top males of our society. She tries to help other women not so gifted become more beautiful through sign stimuli (jewelry) which is a great service. But in a photo shoot with nothing on but a bikini—no make-up, no painted fingernails and standing in the hard sun on a summer afternoon, Melania Trump is a beautiful woman, and she knows it. As a first lady, she would bring something to the White House that it has never had, the glamour of a top-tier actress, and fashion model with the psychological implication that she is attached to a top alpha male from American society. After eight years of the butt-ugly antics of Hillary Clinton—fat ankles and all complete with that square ass and saggy facial skin, then eight more years of the Amazonian Michelle Obama who looks like she ought to be a bouncer at a nightclub instead of a symbol of American Excepetionalism—our current White House needs to repair its image to the world. Instead of projecting rainbows upon it to reflect the transvestite leanings of the current occupants to the world who naturally know that Barack Obama is not an alpha male—because of his tendency to attach himself to other human beings who are clearly beta types, Melania Trump would be a welcome change. Her White House would likely look like the fantasy pages of a Victoria Secret catalog—and that would provoke more males within American society to step into alpha roles while growing up, and would tell the world that an alpha male is in the White House. That is a huge psychological advantage when it comes time to negotiate over something, whether its border security or Iranian nuclear weapons. If the negotiator on behalf of America is not an alpha male, then the negotiations will be lost. Having Melania in a string bikini posing for a picture on the White House lawn with the Washington Monument in the background would do more for America’s public image and quests for global peace than billions of dollars in aid and wasted Secretary of State visits pandering to other beta males. Melania would be much more effective because the world would know that the White House has an alpha male in it, and they would know to find their place in the world behind him.
Women as beautiful as Melania don’t hang out with anything but alpha males. They may be compassionate to those who don’t have the same level of physical beauty. In Melania’s case, she appears to be beautiful on the inside too, which is double trouble for progressives who want to promote same-sex relationships among females who don’t have the hope of attracting other alpha males, and are not satisfied with their selection of beta males. And other alpha males don’t look at Melania and desire to attempt to rob her away from her alpha mate, because if they too are alphas, they have their own attractive woman. When a man attempts to seduce away another man’s woman in a way to leave his sexual mark upon her—to stigmatize her publicly, he is a beta attempting to dethrone an alpha without having direct conflict with the alpha. It is a method taught these days through progressivism to equalize everyone so that not even alpha males can have top pick of the top females, because the lot of seductresses would be tainted early on in their childhood development. For instance, most young women taught today in the public school system are losing their virginity very early under the guidance of loose policies expressed through their teachers. This taints them in the eyes of future alpha males and gives them little hope of attracting someone like Donald Trump to their bed. Damaged goods are not attractive to alpha males. Beta males don’t mind, because they are getting the table scraps of the alpha society. They don’t mind sloppy seconds and pornographic infiltration. But alpha males don’t associate or relish surrendering their stature to beta males—and this modern strategy of tainting the females to starve all the alpha males into mating among the betas is an attack on nature itself—and the American way of life that was born from that nature.
Melania Trump, as a first lady, would inform the world that capitalism works, that if alpha males around the world live up to their true potential that they might be able to have someone in their bed like Melania. Progressive elements of society would consider that flamboyance to be catastrophic to their political ambitions, which is all the reason to shatter their dreams at the earliest possible moment. For a change it would be an honor to have a woman of such beauty in America’s White House projecting to the world the hopes and dreams that can come from capitalism, because through capitalism, the alpha males get to unleash their talents for the benefit of everyone. And that is a lot better than a White House that says to the world through rainbow colors and LGBT parties that the ambitions of the American President are to be as good as the very bad movie—The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Melania Trump would put the White House back to a level it belongs for what I think would be the first time. Because American presidents are more than just figureheads of politics, they have to sell to the world the power of capitalism and benefits of Americanism. And one look at Melania in a dress on the arm of her husband tells everyone that there is an alpha in charge in America, and that image alone would curb the violence seen in many of the far-flung corners of the globe—and save lives. That is the power of an alpha male, and you can always tell who they are by the quality of their wives. Did you ever see Michael Moore’s ex-wife? Now you know what I’m talking about dear reader. It may not be nice, but it’s how people think at their most primal essence—which cannot be changed through progressive politics no more than we can change people’s desires to eat food.
Donald Trump in a normal America would not be my ideal person for the White House. Morally he’s not my kind of guy—he’s been married several times, he’s arrogant, he’s too much of a salesman for me. I probably wouldn’t desire to go to a Nathan’s hot dog stand with him to grab a bite to eat for anything but professional discussion. But, in the current political climate, I think his run for president is necessary in the United States. He is a businessman who knows how to straight talk, and he’s a real job creator. He understands capitalism, and it is the lack of capitalism that ails the world. So to fix the world, it needs someone at a high level of politics who can unlock its potential without the usual fear that is invoked from the communist left.
This news about jobs isn’t new; it’s been around for quite a long time. Feel free to look it up on your own. The next time a communist advocate or socialist politician points toward the wealthy and suggests that those people are the ones who need to be stolen from, demonized, and thrown into a pot for everyone to consume, you should metaphorically punch them in the mouth—because they’re idiots. They are a good reason why there are so few jobs in the world because job creation is a creative enterprise. More regulation hurts creativity, less accelerates it. People like Donald Trump are arrogant because he is a real job creator and wealth builder—and he’s a mean asshole because you get that way after dealing with idiots for twenty to thirty years straight with no reprieve. Pretty soon, you stop caring what idiots think, and you let your tongue loose to tell them just how stupid they are. Socialists and their various political forms are the cause of the limited number of jobs available in the world. It’s their fault for not embracing capitalism. Trump on the other hand proudly advocates on behalf of capitalism and would as President of the United States sell it as the most viable option to the rest of the world. He may piss off that world, but they would be better for it.
I have been involved in controversies similar to Trump, and I explained to local politicians in my area that aggressive tactics are best for dealing with the extreme left. The left is at war with the political right; they don’t want to compromise or live a life in harmony with them. They want conservatives dead and buried and they will utilize any method to perform their objective. So playing patty cake with the left will not lead to wins. I explained this in an article about an interview I did with Scott Sloan on WLW radio called The Magic 100. CLICK HERE to review. The left uses Saul Alinsky tactics to paint conservatives into a corner of guilt, and they expect us to follow the rules of Christianity and turn the other cheek and allow them to socially molest us. But when you inform them that you’d gladly make a flag out of the hide of their backs, they get a little scared, because that isn’t the reaction they expect from the Saul Alinsky playbook. But sometimes that’s what needs to be said and sometimes done—because that is the game they are playing, and if you don’t return the favor, your way of life will be destroyed.
The puss bellied Republicans who have chastised Trump for his comments are part of the problem. They want to play a game that is firmly in control of the political left—the communist lovers who want to fundamentally transform our nation from a capitalism one, into socialist. Under progressive/socialist leadership those 1.2 billion jobs will drop down to less than that because America is not just the land of the free, but it’s also the land of jobs. There are jobs in the United States because people are free—still to create jobs and spend money on those jobs. Other places where socialism has taken full hold, people wait for jobs to come along, they don’t make them. And that is what we are fighting for—people to make jobs in spite of those who want to limit job creation through regulation. The foolish logic of the socialist and progressive is that government confiscates wealth, and controls industry therefore becoming the job creator. But what they destroy are the incentives to create more jobs and the byproduct of their activity is intellectual stagnation—because they have taken the profit motive from the creative process.
Trump is smart to show off his excesses in this political climate—his billions of dollars in favor of capitalism. The true American terrorists of our day are the people who pull the strings behind the scenes anyway, people like Bill Gates support of Common Core which then moves the mouth of Jeb Bush, and people like George Soros who is behind many of the organizations attacking Donald Trump when he brings up important points they are trying to conceal. Jeb is a paid for politician. He’s not going to rattle any cages against the insurgents; he’s going to make peace with them. That plan hasn’t worked up to this point, what makes anybody think it will be profitable going into the future? Nobody in their right mind! Or Chris Christie selling out his friend Mitt Romney to suck up to Barack Obama in the final days of a presidential election weakened after a tragic hurricane to seek federal dollars in disaster relief. Someone like Donald Trump would have been in a position to just write a check himself—and make money back on the interest at a lower rate than the incursion of the federal debt. We don’t need another politician in Washington, another sell-out know nothing. We need a businessman who understands money, capitalism and job creation because it is there that most human problems will be solved in the future.
We are no longer at a place where we can afford to play nice, and so far only Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have shown a heart to play the game at the level required for the 2016 election. Everyone else is simply too soft, and Americans know instinctively what’s on the line. Just twenty years ago if a person wanted a job, there were plenty of help wanted signs in America. Now, not so much—and there haven’t been for quite a long time—and the risk is that going into the future, there will be even less. The cause is a lack of priority and understanding in capitalism among global markets. Trump is a representation of the best that America can produce regarding capitalism and he has a mouth big enough to teach it to others. I think of his presidential run as more than a stunt, he doesn’t need the attention. He doesn’t need the success. He’s a self-made man, and the world needs to know what one looks like without the usual apologies that most extreme wealthy exhibit through philanthropy to make leftists like him. Trump knows what some of us have the true understanding of, that people will like you if you give them a job. Even the most diabolical communist is prone to needing a job, and the grim reality is that they need people like Donald Trump more than he needs them. And they hate him for it. Just as the world needs America for the same reasons. They may hate us, but they need us—and we need a president who understands that relationship without pandering to their potential equality.
If you’ve ever worked for a complete idiot who believes that people follow titles instead of leadership, then you already know that defiance is sometimes needed in order to do a good job as defined by a sustainably good work ethic. Government officials are by their very nature prone to incompetence and the belief that it is their titles that people will follow—that if only a majority of the people who elect them can be convinced to cast a vote—that they represent the majority opinion and are thus insulated from competent assessment. The moment they get a nameplate on their desk they believe that they are so entitled to lead in any direction they wish without having any other qualification. The military is full of these types of people as is almost every position in government. However in the private sector where the best and brightest are encouraged to thrive, and to rise up to challenge management through healthy competition it is there where all things truly good emerge. Very little good can come from a system where incompetent people rule over the good, or that the good are prevented from making things better through their natural inclination by tyrannical power-hungry supervision. That is why in the United States we celebrate the 4th of July. It is a holiday of defiance and a reminder that sometimes idiots in charge have to be removed so not to ruin the lives of the good.
Leadership is all about respect, when good people know a better person is in a position to guide them to prosperity. For instance, people followed George Patton to the ends of the earth because they believed in the man as he was everything he advertised. Hitler would not have been defeated without Patton in a command position in Europe. A million pin-headed bureaucrats throughout the world gathered together in a thousand circle-jerk meetings about how to defeat the rising dictator and could not stop him with all the troops around the globe at their disposal. They had to have Patton to perform the task and break up the Nazi encampments all the way to Berlin. Patton was effective because people believed in him. People don’t lay down their lives for titles; they do it for people they respect. Without that respect, strategic objectives are impossible—except for the occasional shit-shot that just happens to work by happenstance, like a winning lottery ticket.
As my son-in-law and I were buying fireworks for our family 4th of July party I couldn’t help but notice the nature and body language of the people lining up out the door in the middle of a mid-week afternoon in Lawrenceburg, Indiana to buy fireworks. There was defiance in their presence as they were very conscious that they were illegally buying fireworks to take back across state lines to fire off at their homes while law enforcement stood down over the holiday weekend. Americans won their independence from England with defiance, and the 4th celebrates that defiance. It is the heart of the entire holiday. It is a holiday that celebrates rebellion from incompetent over-reaching leadership in the form of a blood inherited throne. The king of England expected people in the American colonies to remain loyal to his title, and that was simply not the case—it’s not how human beings work.
The settlements involved in westward expansion were about defiance. The boldest and most ingenious of the new American nation headed west to be free to function from the increasingly bureaucratic east. Along the way there were conflicts with Indian tribes, all of whom had acquired their land through similar battles with rival tribes who were meeting similar rebels seeking opportunity, and the Americans won by sheer will and cantankerous perseverance. The new nation flooded with ambitious people fleeing the titles of Europe for at least the opportunity to be their own people—to rule their own lives. The Indians could not stop that human desire to be rid of incompetent rule—that was the cause of westward expansion—to have the opportunity and freedom to live their own lives, and it built the greatest nation on earth—until America ran out of land and was forced once again to reconcile under the rule of people with titles, who sit behind desks bureaucratically running the lives of people from behind a nameplate bringing the same kind of ineffective stewardship to America as what we fled from in Europe.
Today’s Barack Obama, or Mitch McConnell types could not lead troops in the way that George Patton did, or even Sam Houston in Texas against Santa Anna. They are not respected and are incapable of real leadership. They are figureheads of administration and when they overstep their boundaries, they should be removed through elections. If they work the system in such a way—as they have—to stay in power regardless of public opinion then the Bill of Rights provides ways of preserving the American Constitution by forcible removal which sometimes is an unfortunate option. That is why we have the Second Amendment—it’s not to hunt rabbits, it’s to remove tyrannical governments from hiding behind nameplates and destroying our freedoms. The First Amendment is there to warn those knuckle-draggers of the danger to them if they continue to proceed—out of fairness.
Personally I think the American Constitution is way too Hamiltonian—too Federalist for my liking. My sentiments reside in The Anti-Federalist papers which I always have near me chronicling the Constitutional Convention Debates of 1787-1788. It is because of those Anti-Federalist Papers that we have a Bill of Rights—and thus the Second Amendment. It is clearly the plight of the Federalist types who are today’s soft bellied conservatives, progressives, libertarians, and blind patriots who accept with a shade of incompetency an adherence to The Federalist Papers and perhaps some Supreme Court case-law as a means of revision in a “living” document evolving over time by more desk sitting bureaucrats. Case in point, Justice John Roberts of the present court—I was thinking about him as I watched people buy fireworks at the store my son-in-law and I was at. The store itself was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week all the way up to the 4th. Proudly people were spending $300 to $1000 on explosives in large shopping carts to fill their cars with defiance and they had a swagger in their step that they don’t have otherwise. It was in the notion of defiance that they were most proud and it is there that the 4th of July holiday is best defined. It was reassuring to them to know that they were defying the law on the 4th, that just because someone like John Roberts stacked the court against the American Constitution recently with damaging case-law that future lawyers would use to make lots of money and further encumber individual freedom in favor of collectivist sentiment—that they had a means of rebellion against incompetency. I know that the Constitution is only part of the debate. The Anti-Federalist Papers represent still a large sector of the country that will always insist on defiance and freedom. All they lack is a leader who will unite them against a tyrannical government. I happen to know a few of those types of people, and right now we are using the First Amendment to help those name plate bureaucrats know their place. But at some point, the Second Amendment may be needed to remove the corruption and scum from the K-Street brothels, and Sodom and Gomorra scandals of the Beltway. Because they don’t know what they are doing, and are not equipped to lead us to a prosperous tomorrow.
The debates in The Anti-Federalist Papers tell the story of a nation reluctant to give control of the nation over to a central authority—because of the tendency of the weak to seek power and refuge behind a nameplate only to become everything that America fought from England only to become again was too tempting. There comes a time where the people of America must show defiance not just on the 4th of July, but the 5th, and 6th and onward to throw off the poor leadership of the nameplate types and free themelves to the best and brightest among them. Not the slickest talker or the most manipulative Shakespearian back-stabber. But the best that their society can produce, the Pattons, the Chennaults, and the Hustons to take the nation back toward The Anti-Federalist Papers arguments thus preserving the American Constitution with a swagger that is distinctly born of a free people. When you hear the fireworks from millions of American homes, it is The Anti-Federalist Papers that they unconsciously celebrate, and is the heart of what truly keeps us free.
This is what happens when you attach yourself to the weakest links, whether its business or global markets—what is happening in Greece right now is the result. Now don’t say you haven’t heard it before dear reader. Don’t tell me you didn’t hear the show on WLW years ago with Darryl Parks that I put on this very site showing that the financial game was crumbling—that we are all effectively broke even if the bills haven’t quite caught up to us in the United States yet. Because I’ve been giving the warnings for some time—socialism does not work, strong leadership is absolutely necessary for capitalist endeavors to succeed, and group consensus in either business or politics is worthless—because it weakens leadership instead of strengthening it. But when all those warnings are ignored and an insistence on socialist/collectivist behavior is promoted—you get Greece. The United States is not far behind. Already most of the money paid in taxes goes exclusively to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid leaving money for nearly nothing else. The United States is the only country on earth with opportunities for economic growth so lenders are still willing to provide low-interest loans, which are consumed daily. But at some time very soon, that will dry up, interest rates will raise, and at that point billions become trillions and there will be no way out—just like what Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is facing now in Greece, either complete relief of the austerity measures—or Greece will have to leave the European Union. In essence, Greece must be relieved of its financial burdens otherwise a major block of the Eurozone will be lost with Great Britain soon to follow. The European Union like all unions is rooted in socialism and allows the bad to hide behind the good and the more bricks that fall out of that union—the fewer places there are for the bad to hide. Bad in this case is economies too rooted in socialism to make themselves buoyant.
These are the types of people we were told in the United States we needed to be more like. Obama lectured Americans about the moral veracity of Europe early in his presidency even as Cyprus was the first to visibly fail economically. Behind that small island in the Mediterranean was of course Greece, which few wanted to acknowledge around the world as a real crisis. They even had an election where the socialist Alexis Tsipras won power promising no austerity to the Greek people, so they could continue to live under the safety of socialism—the protection of other people’s money. Now they have capital controls of 60 Euros per day. There are lines at Greek banks for people to get small amounts of cash that is supposed to belong to them. But because there is no money, everyone has to sacrifice their monetary levity and take what is available. Tsipras proposed that Greece have a July 5th referendum on how to deal with the financial crises making many very happy at the prospect of Greece defaulting on its debts. Since 2009 higher taxes and steep government cuts in exchange for bailouts have caused austerity measures that have unemployment at more than 25% on average and 60% among its youth—guess how they vote in elections…………………socialism because they have no opportunity otherwise which was always part of the plan.
Meanwhile in the United States as the nation continues to borrow around $100,000 every second leaving a current public debt of over $18 trillion Obama’s EPA is standing in the way of any further capitalists endeavors—most alarmingly the Pebble Mine in southwestern Alaska. The EPA with Obama has done everything it can to deny a mining permit because of the largest sockeye salmon run in the world which traverses the area. The mine is thought to potentially produce $120 billion dollars in new gold, but in just the time it takes the average person to pay their house payment from month to month, all the potential wealth that mine could have created would have been spent on the national debt. So it’s just a drop in the buckets, yet when even a drop would help, the Obama administration is more committed to the religion of global environmentalism. The dreadful cost of socialism has far-reaching impacts. For instance the cause of the current California water shortage as explained by Shannon Grove, Republican assemblywoman in Kern County is the EPA that created regulations that is literally dumping water into the sea to save a three-inch fish which resides in the area. The crisis is completely artificial because the environmentalists have used the EPA as a kind of inquisition where nonbelievers are tortured if they do not believe in the deity of Mother Earth. But behind the green hate for capitalism are roots that extend into various communist groups that have infiltrated our government for the purpose of halting capitalist activity—all the while increasing spending so that the economy will topple.
Yet nobody has heard much about this California drought, other than they need rain. It was a completely manufactured crises created by an intrusive EPA without proper priorities dedicated to human innovation. Capitalism likes the little three-inch fish from California, and the salmon in Alaska—and if left to their own devices will find solutions to have both, the wealth and the food supply, but there is more at work, a hatred of capitalism driven by rooted communism that is using sympathy for earth’s creatures to sabotage the American economy. The strategy will run dry sooner or later and when that happens America will be faced with the same options as Greece is now, regulated resources, lines to get gas, food, water and most of all—money. Confiscated assets will be the new word of tomorrow as tax increases and high interest rates will soon follow. All this will have been caused by excessively reckless spending and intentional sabotage of American assets and potential productive enterprise—all in the name of saving a few fish.
Look hard at Greece—I told you it was coming, and it’s on its way to America. It will have been caused by progressives for reasons that extend well behind a veil of conservation—directly into the foundations of communism which this country has fought many wars to prevent. Yet it’s in the United States in our schools, our government, and especially in our EPA. And it’s crippling our economy one regulation at a time. Greece didn’t have a choice; their economy was basically some ancient ruins and the sales of gyros to cruise ship tourists. America’s economic collapse is self-imposed, but intended by the same strategy as the radical Alexis Tsipras—to default on the debt and force social changes under a reset clock. Those behind the communist push want America at the same level as Greece and the other countries in the Eurozone who will also eventually fall under economic collapse as well. The restrictions on the economy are strategic to advance progressive political objectives. In the mean time, Americans will have to do something they are not used to, which they are just beginning to feel in California—restrictions to services to train them how to comply with central authority. The economic collapses are self-imposed both in the European Union and in the United States and those with their foot on the brakes are those who want global power for the sake of control. And that is something that nobody on the nightly news is willing to admit to anybody—especially since they have played their part in the debacle. But I can tell you this—people like me will remember how all his happened and I will be there to remind people what occurred and who was really at fault. That I will promise.
The communist oriented Democrats have been “community organizing” vigorously on the heels of the infamous June 2015 Supreme Court rulings going for what they think is the conservative jugular in the final year of Obama’s flamboyant rule as a socialist dictator. Over the weekend I received several emails from them advocating fundraising and liberal activism. Below is one such example from the Obama camp specifically targeting guns. Here’s what it said.
Friend —
We’ve had to come together as a nation too many times to mourn after horrific acts of gun violence. And right now, it’s not good enough simply to show sympathy.
We need to acknowledge that there’s more work to do — that these tragedies have become far too commonplace. This is a conversation that folks need to have, and organizers like you are the ones who will move it forward.
People across the country are stepping up, and OFA supporters and volunteers are working to prevent gun violence state by state and city by city — join their fight today.
As we take the time to heal in the shadow of this most recent tragedy, we have to ask ourselves what more we can do as individuals and communities to prevent guns from getting into the hands of dangerous individuals.
The lack of movement in Congress on this issue is incredibly frustrating. But their refusal to act won’t stop progress. Because of organizers like you, states like Washington and Oregon have introduced successful restrictions on gun purchases, like common-sense background checks.
No single reform will eliminate violence. But we can’t give up, or act like this is some kind of new normal. We have to make progress where we can, and OFA and other groups have a real path forward.
There’s much more to do — so join OFA in working for it:
I’m not giving up, and I hope you won’t either. Every voice is important.
Thank you,
Barack Obama
Remember, progress to a progressive is elimination one by one of the Bill of Rights, and the gun is highest on their priority list. So defend the gun by sending a nice message to OFA and let them know how you feel. Communists want a disarmed America for obvious reasons. It’s your job dear reader to make sure they don’t get their way. Send this article to everyone you know and make sure to take action and defend your rights—or you will lose them.
