Tag: republican

Holy Voters, Christianity, and the Bible

There are many Christians out there that are espousing the view that voting for Donald Trump is not allowed by the Bible for the Christian. They contend that because Donald Trump does not hold the values, the lifestyle, or the character of a Christian, we cannot vote for him, no matter what. They are advocating that a third party, write-in, or no-show are the only viable options for the Christian in this presidential election. They are willing to sacrifice the election to the left-wing liberal candidate in order to stay true to their biblical principles. They contend that there exist nothing in the Word of God to justify a vote for Trump. From here on out, I will call them Holy Voters.

It must be said, that though this view sounds good, noble, and Christian on the outset, it is a very simplistic view of the matter at hand. It is dishonest, manipulative, and it is most definitely not Christian. There is Bible that is relevant in this matter. When tackling a matter like this, like tackling all Bible matters, one must always becareful to keep things in their context. All this is not as simple as Donald Bad, Hillary Bad, Me No Vote. We have to remember that all this has been a long process; and that there’s two phases to all this. First, we were in the nomination process, and second, the general election. We also have to remember, that these choices we have to deal with are within the constructs of a party system.

This is basically the way the party system works. People of like principles will enter into a pact where they coalesce their votes together in order to advance a platform that represents a consensus of the people’s principles. No one person’s principles dominate the platform. There has to be a consensus. Therefore, there has to be compromise. God forbid, right? These Holy Voters hear the word compromise and recoil, lament, and prophecy. No. Compromise is good in this context. Compromise is necessary. Husbands and wives compromise. Employers and employees compromise. Buyers and sellers compromise. There is nothing abnormal about compromise. So right off the bat, the Holy Voter’s concept of principles over party that they use to jusitfy themselves is simply deception. It’s called being a liar. It’s agreeing to coalesce their vote, agreeing to participate in the process, and then pulling out, breaking the deal, pact, understanding, word, etc.

#1 Revelation 21:8 …and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone…

[Disclaimer: Apparently a lot of Holy Voters don’t like me suggesting that they are liars and then quoting this verse. Before you blow a gasket, let me assure you that I am not condemning anybody to hell. That’s between you and God. I am only establishing how serious lying is to God.

I DO NOT believe that it’s my way or the highway. I DO respect other people’s Biblical viewpoints. This article is a reaction to the leaders of the #NeverTrump movement that are using the Bible to shame people into not voting for the Republican nominee. I am trying to demonstrate that their reasoning is flawed, they are not near as righteous, biblical, or credible as they think they are, and there is Bible to refute their claims. So before, you get all mad at me, please direct your anger to Deace, Beck, and Erickson for doing what you think I’m doing.

Please, I am well aware that Trump is a sinful man. I have never (I repeat) never defended Mr. Trump nor will I in this article. This is not a defense of Trump. It is a defense of the Bible. And don’t get so mad at the liar thing. Chill out. Remember the Bible says to let God be true and every man a liar.  Join the club.]

When one begins the process in a party, he is by definition putting party over principles. So at the end of it when the Holy Voter says, “Hey no we shouldn’t put party over our principles”, they are making themselves out to be liars, and going back on their word. They are disingenuous and fraudulent. You see, there are many commentators out there that boast that they are independents, and that they weigh the pros and cons of all sides and make a healthy choice. But in the process, they are commentating, complaining, and coercing in respect to the different party’s candidates. That’s a very dishonest place to put yourself. For example, one of the main reasons Trump is now the Republican nominee is because the GOP through the years have allowed democrats and independents to participate in our nomination process. This is the same folly as allowing these independent commentators in the process. These people have not entered into our agreement. These people have not pledged their vote and support. They don’t want to make the commitment, but they want to make the decision. These commentators have hypocritically participated in the entire nomination process, have discussed the candidates, vetted the candidates, and pushed their candidate, yet claim when it’s no longer convenient that the whole time that they’re registered independents and left the republican party years ago. The Holy Voter is just as deceptive and disingenuous. In their denunciation of Trump’s character to justify actions, they’ve exposed their own character. The Independent Holy Voter is a liar because he’s misrepresented himself the entire time. The Republican Holy Voter is a liar because he said he’d do one thing and did another. You might not think this a big deal. Just hold on.

The process of nominating a candidate eventually comes to the convention floor. Usually, at that point one candidate will have coalesced enough delegates to win the nomination outright. At that point, it is incumbent upon the losing candidates to endorse and throw their full support to the winner. It is also incumbent upon the supporting constituents to follow suite. That is the way a party is supposed to work. That is the advantage of parties. But when things get nasty, like they did in this 2016 cycle, the normal operation of a party becomes uncertain. Trump won, and many of the supporters of the other candidates, especially Cruz’s, held their support, and waited and contemplated exiting the party. This reaction was anticipated and condoned because of the debased manner in which Trump won, and he did nothing to span the bridge. However, in the end, a deals a deal. If Cruz would have won, he also would have needed all the supporters from the other candidates to get on board. Trump needs that today to win.

#2 Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Yes, it’s the golden rule. This is where the rubber meets the road. Nobody may even care how you vote. There may be absolutely no one on this green earth that gives one iota of a thought as to whether or not you stuck with your word. God does however. “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.” Pro 15:3 Be warned however, it may be tempting to cast these scriptures and applications aside, but God might not. Consider the sins of Saul and the sins of David. Saul, after God told him to kill everything, saved some of the best of the spoil to honour God with in sacrifice. He was still going to kill them! But God rent the whole kingdom from him. David however raped a woman and murdered her husband. That seems worst to most, but God did not rend the kingdom from David. Why? It’s because of what’s inside. God judges the inside. David repented and Saul made excuses. What is the Holy Voter’s response to breaking this little simple golden rule? The Independent Holy Voter that engaged in the entire Republican nomination process is just a liar. But the Republican Holy Voter is not only a liar, but has placed himself against “the law and the prophets” in breaking the golden rule.

Of course, in the Holy Voter’s mind, they are not the one breaking the rules. It is everybody else that is wrong and they are the ones that are right. Why is that? This deception is rooted in their simplistic view of the Bible which takes them to such extremes. They may know their Bible, but their interpretation and application of it lacks sound critical method. For example, the most frequently used passage is in Exodus:

#3 Exodus 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

The Holy Voter insists that this is the end-all law of God advising his people how to vote in an election. In typical literal interpretation of the bible, the interpreter must first understand the context of the passage. First acknowledge what is going on, who, what, where, why, etc. Then, if the context allows, we can derive a more spiritual application or meaning. Let me warn you, if you go any further in reading this and you are beholden to Deace and Erickson and Beck, what you hear will initially irk you. I beg you to please keep reading. You cannot afford to be wrong. If you are a seeker of truth, a rational human being, and respect the Word of God, I beg you to prayerfully consider these next few points.

  1. WHY? In this passage, Moses is overwhelmed by the work and needs relief. This advice is given to Moses in order for him to get relief, “so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.” So the primary reason the advice is given is to help a leader in his duties. So right off the bat, the Holy Voter has abandoned the primary reason for the advice in this passage. He is definitely not trying to help alleviate you. It almost as if they’re using this verse to put a yoke on you that you or themselves cannot bear.
  2. WHAT? The people of Israel did not have free elections like we do here in the United States. Moses was not voted into office. Moses was appointed (for lack of a better word) by the Lord God himself. The people of Israel had no choice in this matter. So, the passage is regarding appointments, not elections. This is an important distinction because this only deals with the judgement and heart of one man, particularly Moses who was hand-picked by God, not a massive body of people of many hearts and many minds. That is a totally different matter. The Holy Voter has ignored the primary matter of which the advice was given in this passage.
  3. TO WHO? This advice was given to Moses, not the people of Israel. A more direct application of this passage would possibly be to a President, not about a President. Or perhaps instruction on the form of a government. This advice is to a single person that appoints many people into leadership positions, not a body of people that elect a single person into a leadership position. The Holy Voter has got this backwards and cares not as to who this advice was primarily given in the passage.
  4. FROM WHO? This advice was not given to Moses directly from God. It was given to him by his father-in-law, Jethro. This was not written on tables of stone up on Mount Sinai by the finger of God, nor spoken from the fire and smoke as the mountain quaked. In fact, this advice was given to Moses before Moses went up the mount where God actually gave him the Law. In the passage, this was simply man’s advice (good advice), and soon Moses would ascend the mountain, and get God’s advice, the Law of Almighty God. Exodus 18:21 is the inspired Word of God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, but not the expressed moral Law of God. The Holy Voter cares nothing for this primary distinction.

So before the Holy Voter even opens his mouth, in his mind he has got why, who, and what all mixed up. These basic primary things must be recognized and established before we start trying to apply the verse and extract spiritual meaning from the passage. I’m not making this up. These are basic tenants of literal interpretation of the Bible. I’m no theologian, but I want to be an honest student of the bible in order to rightly divide the Word of truth. So the primary meaning of the text alone really takes the wind out of the Holy Voter’s viewpoint on this passage of scripture. I’ve really offered no interpretation to this point nor have I made application. I’ve simply addressed the  plain elements of the text as to who, why, and what. That alone is sufficient to prove that the Holy Voter is on shaky ground in his doctrine.

I am in no way, shape, or form saying that this verse is not applicable, or that we as Christians are not responsible to the clear implications of this passage. God forbid. I emphatically declare that every Christian must take heed to this verse, Exodus 18:21. Later on Jethro says, “If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.” (v23) And of course we know Moses did it, and there is no recording in the Bible of rebuke or dissatisfaction from God, or that it didn’t go well. So, what we can get out of this is the mind of God in these matters. Exodus 18:21 tells us primarily what God wants, what pleases God, which is for “…able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…” to be put in leadership positions. There’s other verses in the Bible that back that up. I’m sure the Holy Voters can quote a few.

Bring your attention, however, to the beginning of the passage. The bible says “Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all people able men…” First of all, it says thou shalt provide. Did you get that Holy Voter? It does not say thou shalt symbolize a potential for it. It says to provide it. What is the mechanism which is available to us in this country to do just that?

Remember, we cannot provide that outright as a single person. We do not have the authority like Moses did to do such a thing. Holy Voters are under the delusion that somehow we do. The mechanism in which God has seen fit for us in this day and age is an election, where not one but many people are tasked with determination of one single leader. And even then, these many people do not appoint anybody.  They nominate and then they vote. And the one person that wins the election (He does not win an appointment. Nobody wins and loses in an appointment), this person is now tasked with appointing THOUSANDS of leaders that will rule in this land. It is through this process that we as Christians can provide out of all people able men. You ought to praise God we even have a process.

So the question is: How through this mechanism, our vote, can we best provide out of all people able men to fill these THOUSANDS of leadership positions? How, through our vote, can we best please God? To play along with the Holy Voter and make this all about Trump is to ignore every word that you have just read. Take a good look at the following list of Presidential appointments and ask yourself this question. Ask this question because truly that is the question at hand concerning Exodus 18:21:

On November 8th, how will my vote affect the provision of all these appointments that will be made by the next President?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_filled_by_presidential_appointment_with_Senate_confirmation

I have more scriptures I’d like to deal with, but I don’t have all day for this. I’ll cover more later. Yes, there’s more. God bless you all for taking the time to read this. I truly appreciate it. I love you Holy Voters. I was one of you, but I smelled death in the camp. This blessed book has got all the answers. I love this old bible. It’s the thrill of my soul. It’s a light unto my path and lamp unto my feet.

 

 

What is a Christian to do?

I feel compelled once again to let my sentiments known regarding the recent turn of events. Apparently there’s a recording going around now about some pretty lewd stuff that Trump said over ten years ago. The media is all ablaze about it, and the #NeverTrumpers are told you soing. And the Trumpsters are deflecting and defending. I personally have not listened to this recording. One does not have to hear it to understand what was said. There’s enough in the comments and articles to piece together what was said. There are some things that trouble me through this; and it’s not Trump. This doesn’t change my views on Trump one iota. This does not make him a more crude, lewd, bad dude than he was forty-eight hours ago. Honestly, I’m not sure what everyone is up and arms about. None of this is a surprise. There was enough about the guy out there that most people know that this is how a person of his character normally conducts himself. So there is no new revelation here about Mr. Trump. There are a few things that do bother me.

#1 Here we go again, for nought

There was a point in the primaries that Ted Cruz could have won the nomination out right.  If he could have pulled off certain states, there was a possibility that he could have overtaken Trump in the delegate count before the convention, but he didn’t. I don’t remember when exactly, but it was clear at one point that he could not win this outright.

Then it was believed that it was possible that if we could just stop Trump from getting to the magic number, Cruz could take it at the convention on the 2nd or 3rd ballot.  Once Indiana rolled around. It was clear that Trump could not be stopped and this would never happen.

Then there was the free the delegates discussions and everybody got there hopes up again. Once the rules committee met at the convention, it was clear that none of anything was going to take place. On the floor, once again, nothing happened. It was 2012 all over again, drowned out and shut out.

Then Cruz told the convention to vote their conscience. And the true blue #NeverTrumpers said YEAH and dug in. Then it was maybe French, maybe Libertarian, maybe Sasse, maybe, maybe, maybe… Nothing happened. Then Cruz told the world what his conscience was, and some were okay with it, and some were not. The Deaces, Becks, and Ericksons threw their friend under the bus and doubled down on their NeverTrumpness.

Now, we must again play the fool. The media does exactly what most people knew they were going to do, and here we go again!  “Step down, Trump!” Mike Lee, Sasse, and others are now calling for him to step down. One month away from the election, and we’re gonna do this again. Blah Blah Blah and nothing is going to happen different. This is very tiring.

#2 Self fulfilling prophets

What we’re witnessing is exactly what was predicted by the #NeverTrumpers.  They said the media has got the soft gloves on. After the primary they’re going to take the gloves off and bring out the swords and they’re going to completely slice and dice Trump. So everybody knew this was going to happen. So now that it happens, what do the #NeverTrumpers do? They do exactly what they predicted the media would try to accomplish. They throw up their arms and say “Aaahhh man, listen to this guy! You see, he’s not fit for office! He’s a reprobate! He’s horrible! He ought to stand aside!” They are accomplishing what they predicted the media would try to accomplish. Way to go. They are fulfilling their own prophecies.

#3 Incessant Complaining

It’s amazing that someone that is not going to make a choice between the two can have so much to say and complain about.  I’ve heard it many times in my life, “If you’re not going to vote, then shut up!”  Those who have made it their duty to shame everybody that will make a choice obviously don’t see any difference between the two candidates. They’ve stated so. “Hillary or Hillary’s donor?” Their denial of the choice at hand, though it be littered with convictions, is truly no different that the clown at the water fountain that boasts, “I don’t ever vote! They’re all the same.” Those clowns, of course, a year later when they start complaining about the person that made it into office, they deserve that sharp rebuke, “Wait a second, you didn’t vote? Then shut up!” Oh, but not the #NeverTrumpers. They’re principled. They’re credible. They can not vote (or vote for nothing that can win) yet complain and complain and complain and complain.

#4 So-Called Christian Behavior

Since when has it been standard practice for Christians to rail on a sinner? Sure Trump is not a god-fearing moral man, that is clear. But there is something wrong when all you can do is bad mouth him all day long, bring up all his faults over and over, try as hard as you can to paint him in the worst possible light. There’s nothing Christian about that. And I’m not saying judge not. Use your discernment. Make a righteous judgment. But this constant vomiting of bitterness and loathing of this sinful man is not right. I’ve had my problems with Trump and still do, but I refuse to live in such a perverted state of reality that I would call out another man’s sins all day everyday and forget my desperate need of forgiveness; reveal other’s sins and forget that Jesus has covered mine. Shall I emulate Jesus and advocate the forgiveness of this man’s sin, or play the part of the Devil and accuse him before the Father? There is nothing Christian about this constant railing on this sinner.

Nor is there anything Christian about this constant railing on those that have decided to choose between these two candidates. It was the greatest thing in the world when Cruz said, “Vote your conscience!” Different things weigh differently on different people’s conscience. Letting Hillary in office weighs far heavier on some people’s conscience than allowing Trump in office may weigh on yours. Can we not respect that? Must someone who’s conscience bears different burdens than yours be a idol-worshipping religious whoremonger? Must we question their devotion to Christ because they want to vote; because they want to do what all Americans have done for 250 years. I’ve never heard such ridiculousness! Christian vote shaming? Please.

#5 Wrong All the Time

Why was it okay to participate in this process 18 months ago? But now, it’s not? People were not being shamed for voting Republican 18 months ago. If it wasn’t wrong back then, why is it wrong now? What changed? Trump was one of the first, if not the first, person to put his hat in the ring. It was okay to participate in the process then. I’ve given much thought to all this. I’ve been in. I’ve been out. There’s two words that I just can’t get around however I slice and dice this: SORE LOSER. Look, we lost. Cruz lost. He almost got it. It could have gone his way, but it just didn’t happen. You can explain it anyway you want. You can justify yourself anyway you’d like. You can quote scripture. You can invoke your Christianity. But you can’t change the fact that if you don’t vote for the Republican nominee after you actively participated in the process to determine one, you’re just a sore loser. You want to take your little football and go home. Is this how you would have wanted the Trumpers to treat you if Cruz had won, Mr. Christian? If you have so much integrity, and credibility, and honor, and Christianity, why don’t you stick to what you of your own volition chose to be a part of? If all are wrong to vote R on the presidential ballot on November 8th, then you are wrong to ever have participated, even 18 months ago. Where you not a Christian 18 months ago? It is disingenuous to start something and not finish. This bitter practice is bad precedent.

#6 Bible Thumping

I’ve brought up 2 Samuel 24 to demonstrate that yes, God may reguire of us a difficult choice. This is the passage where David is taken to task for numbering Israel. He is asked of God between 3 judgments by the the prophet Gad.

For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. (11-13)

Why would God have David choose the judgement? I’m sure some parents have tried this on their kids. No doubt the intention would be to cause the perpetrator to own his sin. I guess you can say it is a teachable moment. I only offer this to demonstrate that it is within the character of God to place before his people a difficult choice. Some have insisted that God would never want us to vote for such a man as Trump, and would have us choose someone of integrity, one that fears God. For far too many years, we’ve chosen wrong. God may be past that and now he places before us not a choice of who will lead our country, but rather how our country will be judged. Ironically, it seems like David was of the #NeverJudgement crowd:

And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. (14)

It seems like David refused to choose, but left it up to God. For a long time I thought David chose pestilence; but my son pointed out to me David didn’t choose. So I’m suprised I haven’t heard #NeverTrumpers declare “See, David didn’t choose!” They’d have a pretty good argument.  But to that I must say a few things:

  1. I offer this passage to only demonstrate the character and ways of God in time of judgement.
  2. Judgement still came regardless of the fact that David refused to choose.
  3. Maybe if David would have said what he said in verse 17 instead of shirking the choice or coming to the reality of it, God may have stayed his hand. “Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.”
  4. David was willing to let the judgement of his sin be shared with all of Israel. Famine, defeat in battle, and pestilence all affect others, not just him. In his refusal to choose, he did not come to terms with truly owning his sin.
  5. The irony of  his statement: Let us fall into the hand of the LORD, and let me not fall into the hand of man. Us? It wasn’t us that sinned. Me? He was more concerned of himself than those that would be judged for his sin.

If this passage teaches us anything. It speaks of our need to own our responsibility in this matter. We are not to lift ourselves above everybody as if we have no blame in the matter or no blood on our hands. Ezekiel the watchman, the one that would warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life said, “I came to them of the captivity of Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river Chebar, and I sat where they sat…”

I only bring this up to put to rest this arrogant notion that the Bible strictly forbids Christians to vote for Trump.  I leave you with this last thought:

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. Two men went up into the court house to vote; the one a Pharisee, and the other a repubican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, compromisers, sell-outs, unprincipled, or even as this republican. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the republican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much his eyes unto heaven, but pulled the lever, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

Some Things To Consider Regarding Cruz

cruztrumpMany have been very troubled and perplexed about this election. This day was imminent. Ted Cruz has finally come out publicly in support of Donald Trump. There is much disappointment circulating out there over this decision. Consider these few thoughts before throwing Ted Cruz under the proverbial bus.

Consider His Prayer

Throughout all this election cycle, Cruz has demonstrated himself to be the real deal, a Christian Constitutional Conservative, whatever that means to some people. Consider that the man talks to God on a regular basis and consults his counsel on all things. There is no one on earth that has prayed more about this decision than Ted. There is no one on earth that has struggled more with this decision than Ted. There is no one on earth that has wrestled with God, himself, his wife, and his mind and heart more than Ted, and has no doubt poured out his heart and wept. This was not an easy decision for Ted, his wife, his dad, or his entire family. In light of this, how should we, as Christians treat him? How would you treat a friend that has been struggling with God on such an important matter? It is disgusting to see the very same people that were so reviled by the incendiary comments of those who were against Cruz to now hurl insults, slander, and stones toward Ted in the same manner. Never criticize another Indian until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.

Consider His Christ

After studying the first part of the Sermon on the Mount a curious pattern has emerged; humility, affliction, exaltation. Christ being our perfect example. “…he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him…” (Phil 2:8,9) We may very well be seeing Cruz’s Christianity shining forth. I can’t think of a more humbling thing that Ted could do but to kiss the ring of the very one that has reviled him and has said all manner of evil against him falsely. He made this decision knowing that many of those that have claimed to have loved him, would forsake him and call him a sell out, just another compromising politician, and the worst of names. He made this decision knowing all the repulsive Trumptards would revel and celebrate in such a victory; would mock and laugh at all those that supported Ted, thinking that Ted would never do this. He made this decision knowing that he’s having to support the very one that hijacked and stole what was rightfully his. He made this decision knowing full well that this may be the end of his political career. It took much humility to concede his support as he’s done. And now, affliction and suffering, but soon he may have his time, and God will exalt him. “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time.”

Consider His Constitution

There are few in this country alive today that have known, studied, loved, and fought for the United States Constitution as Ted Cruz has. Just a quick glimpse at Cruz’s resume will reveal that Cruz’s life has been dedicated to the honor of contending for the survival of one of our most sacred documents.  One of the most valuable freedoms that our constitution upholds and guarantees is the right and privilege to vote. In the hearts of many people, the same reason we stand and pledge allegiance to the flag, is the same reason we trek the rain, wind, and snow and vote. Our brave founding father and our brave soldiers have shed their blood in order that we might exercise that right. It would be a disgrace and dishonour to the memory of these fine people to not vote. Therefore, under his obligation to and love of country, the patriot will vote. This is the spirit in which Cruz carries out his duty. No matter the choices, the consequences, or the critics, he will perform his duty to his country and constitution and vote. Consequently, he owes it to his supporters to be honest about his choice.

Consider His Choice

Donald Trump. We will not be so foolish as to think him as a Darius or Nebuchadnezzar. And we will not be so gullible and ridiculous as to think that God would want us to actively pursue a leader of this nature. No. Never. However, what we must do is trust in the Lord, and lean not unto our own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5) How is this all going to turn out? How will God ultimately use Donald Trump to shape the events of history? What will be the fate of this blessed country? As Ezekiel said, “Oh Lord God, thou knowest.” (37:3) He knows the beginning from the end. No matter what denomination, flavor, or creed, Christians are always talking about how God will lead us down a path that quite frankly doesn’t make sense. Well here you go Christian! That path is now before you. In our understanding, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone like Trump, or Hillary for that matter; that it will take our country down a road of damage that is irrecoverable, and we exclaim, “We will die!” Perhaps Darth Vader may help us with that when he said, “Nothing can stop that now.” Just kidding.

Seriously though, many people, including great conservative minds like Deace, Erickson, Beck, and others have sought the scriptures and concluded that God would never expect us to choose a leader of this character and nature. It’s possible we’ve personalized this just a bit much. We’ve sought desperately to defend our individual right to not choose this Donald Trump as our president. Perhaps, it’s not who God would have us choose, but rather that God would have us choose; as an individual indeed, but more importantly as a nation. Is this biblical? After David had sinned before the Lord in numbering all of Israel, Gad the prophet came to David and said, “Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.” (2 Sam 24:11) The bible says that David was in a great strait for he was to choose the manner in which judgement would be given. How is this different from the strait we now find ourselves. Will God not deal with the sins of our nation? God may very well require of us with our heads hung down in shame, with a heavy heart, and tears go down to our local precinct on the eighth day of November and execute our civic duty.

Consider This Conclusion

There are many more things to consider, but time does not allow. Ted Cruz has earned his position in our hearts. He has stood with the people of the United States through the thick and thin. Many times he has been the lone voice in Washington speaking our minds. He deserves our support and understanding, and even our consideration to his request. May God bless Ted Cruz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Populism and the Birth of the IRS

popirsSo the other night, some of us men were discussing the power of the IRS and how the government uses money as a tool to control the people, or the fear of losing money as a means of controlling the people.  We complained about it, wondered why it wasn’t the other way around, complained about it some more, but ultimately we did not hammer out a plan to save the country that night.  We came close.  But the answer always seems to evade us.  Consequently though, there was a really good question asked:  When was the IRS created?  And none of us were really sure.  So old Franko (my eldest son) did some investigation tonight.  Here’s what he found on wiki:

  1. There was little to no income tax pre-1900.  During the Civil War, in 1862, the government imposed emergency temporary income taxes to raise money for the war effort.  These expired in 1872.  The Income Tax of 1894 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
  2. “In 1906, with the election of President Theodore Roosevelt, and later his successor William Howard Taft, the United States saw a populist movement for tax reform. This movement culminated during then candidate Woodrow Wilson’s election of 1912 and in February 1913, the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:”  This, of course, granted to Congress the power to impose an income tax on the people.  This populist movement did not just advocate for tax reform, but they were notorious for protectionism and trade tariffs, the likes of which Trump, Sanders, and Clinton are all three now promoting.  The protectionism and tariffs of this populist movement eventually led to the Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which many believe were responsible for plunging us much deeper and longer into the Great Depression.
  3. So in 1913 the IRS gave us our first 1040 form.  And incidentally, here’s the kicker (emphasis added): “The IRS’s workload jumped by TEN-FOLD, triggering a MASSIVE restructuring. The IRS DOUBLED its staff, but was still processing 1917 returns in 1919.”

Interestingly, listening to LevinTV tonight, Mark was comparing Reagan’s legacy of free-market, free-trade capitalism to Trump’s and Sander’s tariffs and protectionism.  He had this to say about where we’re heading if we don’t follow Reagan’s model:

“There’s another issue.  That’s the government.  When we have more free-market capitalism, we need less government.  Don’t we?  In fact, power moves from the central government to the individual.  Power moves from the public sector to the private sector.  It’s a good thing.  So it has consequences in terms of the civil society.  So apart from economics, which is not to be dismissed in any respect, this goes to the issue of the civil society in government.  How much government do we want?  I want you to think about this for a second.  Regardless of who’s elected, they keep talking about protectionism and tariffs.  What kind of bureaucracy would we have to create in order to control so many prices, in order to issue so many taxes?  The auditors that would have to be hired…  The investigators that would have to be hired…  THE STRENGH OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WOULD HAVE TO EXPAND.  The central government become more increasingly powerful…  You think I’m joking?

No Mark.  I don’t think you’re joking. I think you’re absolutely right.  While I was listening to his program, old Franko was reading all this stuff about the history of populism and the IRS.  Later on that night we shared with each other what we had learned and the information beautifully intersected on a point of enlightenment.  So what Levin is warning about has most certainly already happened in the past.  I think it’s a shame that history and common sense are not on the side of Trumpmania.

A Little Bit of Common Sense

thomaspaineI’ll admit, I’ve learned some things during this election cycle.  One thing that has come to my attention that I never really realized is this transfer of power from the legislative branch of our government to the executive branch of our government.  We know something is wrong in our country.  We see its effects.  We see our nation crumbling.  But why can’t we stop these things from happening?  I mean what is the plan to get this country back on track.  What track?  The constitution track.  People just don’t understand HOW we’ve strayed from our constitution.  Therefore, we don’t understand HOW to get us back on a constitutional track.  What is lacking must somehow be provided.  This is just one aspect of all this mess.  There must be a transfer of power BACK to the legislative branch of government.

Everybody is mad and everybody sees that something is wrong.  Something is missing.  Something is not working.  Something is broke.  People want to know how to fix it.  But they don’t know where the problem is.  That is why they vote for Trump.  They just don’t know.  They think that this one person is going to fix the problem.  But let me ask you this:  How is he going to transfer the power of the executive branch BACK to the legislative branch?  You see, it’s very common for people to see President Obama as a usurper of power when he hands down his bathroom edicts.  But I contend that the problem is not that he’s usurped power, but rather that power has been unconstitutionally conferred to him.  This is very similar to the all-powerful Supreme Court.  We complain that they legislate from the bench. But truly, the problem is not necessarily the justices, but rather the power they wield has been unconstitutionally conferred to them.  And thus the fallacy that the right person in that position will fix the problem.  A conservative justice will not fix the broken judicial system we have.  And neither will a single president be able to transfer his branch’s power BACK to the legislative branch of our government where it belongs (or to the states), especially if he hasn’t once mentioned on the campaign trail that this needs to be done.

There was a great interview with Senator Mike Lee by Mark Levin explaining this phenomena.  Mike Lee explained how the agencies and departments of the executive branch have given legislators relief of the responsibility of passing law.  They literally don’t have to legislate anymore because that power has been systematically relinquished to the executive branch.  They have given up their accountability.  They let the executive branch legislate away and wash their hands of any responsibility.  The beautiful balance of powers between the three branches that our founding fathers instituted is way out of balance.  Just the other day I was reading how the executive branch hands down 3500 to 4000 new regulations a year, whereas our legislative branch that is supposed to be making the law only pass 100-200 laws a year.  Our government is out of balance and there’s no way to check the power of the executive branch.  The only recourse we have are the courts.  The courts are packed by the executive branch with leftist judges that love big government.  So our system of checks and balances has run amok!

And that is one of our biggest problems.  The executive branch is getting bigger and bigger and bigger.  The EPA, the Department of Education, OSHA, and on and on.  They are the ones writing the law.  We the people have no representation.  We the people have no recourse.   The executive branch is effectually swallowing up the legislative branch.  I wanted to share something with you from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”.  He’s writing to the inhabitants of America on February 14th, in the year 1776..

“The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king.  It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England.”

So the converse of this is what is happening in our government.  The king, or the President and his executive branch, is taking up more and more business:  health, housing, education, and now bathrooms!  All that is none of their business.  And the more business the executive branch gets into, the further we regress from a republic.  So it is becoming more and more difficult to find a proper name for the government of the United States of America.  Were we not given a republic?  What do we call our government now?

“…in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France and Spain.”

Clearly, the power of our house of commons, our legislative branch, is getting swallowed up and any virtue that it once had is now eaten out.  I find it interesting that we’ve come full circle.  The very corruption that we declared our independence from is now at hand.

“For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons from out of their own body – and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues.  Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?”

This is the very reason, the power of England had to be shook off.  This is how we don’t have representation.  It’s not that we don’t have representatives. No, we’ve got plenty of those.  It’s that they have no real power. It’s that there truly is no accountability.  They’re not the ones making the law.  They have given away their power to make law.  They have refused to take back that which is rightfully theirs.  Simply put, our representative refuse to do their job.  There is only one solution to this.  That which is lacking must be provided.  The power must be wrested from those who unconstitutionally have it, and it must be given back not only to those who constitutionally should have it, but to those who can be trusted to keep it.    God help us.

 

Mark Levin vs Julia Hahn

TrumpifiedReagan300So the trade wars have begun.  Mark Levin says that Reagan was for free-trade.  Julia Hahn says that Reagan was actually a protectionist.  Who’s right?  I have to say that the latest article by Julia is very well written, very sophisticated, very well sourced out with quotes and references to back her up.  And when I first read it, I got to admit I was shaken up a bit and thought, “Maybe Levin isn’t quite right about what he’s been saying about trade?”  But I went outside and did some work and chewed on all this and read the article again.  It took me a while, but I see now that this article, though it’s convincing, is still nothing more than manipulative Trump propaganda.  With a little bit of brain power, a common man like me can see this for what it really is.  So I quoted the entire article and I added my notes in an italicized red font to explain what really is going on.  I know trade talk is boring and doesn’t really make ratings on the cable networks; but it is important.  So if you can endure it, please read on.  Here’s the entire article:

 

Hillary Pledges Open Borders, Levin Responds with Attack on Trump’s Tariffs

by Julia Hahn, 14 May 2016

First of all, the title of this states that Levin is responding to Hillary’s pledge to open borders with an attack on Trump’s Tariffs.  So right off the bat, Julia starts by lying.  Levin is not responding to Hillary pledge, but he’s responding to Trump’s pledge.  Julia is implying that open borders is an issue that Levin doesn’t care about, or perhaps Levin doesn’t see the horror of Hillary’s view on immigration.  Julia seems to think that because Levin is for free-trade, that somehow that makes him an open-border advocate, which most people who listen to Levin know that is absolutely absurd.  All that is simple deflection.  Julie is doing exactly what she’s accusing Levin of doing.  Julia is bringing attention to another subject to distract from the subject at hand due to a personal motive to smear Levin.

Last week, Donald Trump met with the family members of Sarah Root, a beautiful, beaming 21-year-old girl slaughtered by an illegal alien in Nebraska the day after graduating from college with 4.0 GPA. Later that day, Trump warned, “Crooked Hillary Clinton wants completely open borders.”

So Levin doesn’t care about Sarah Root or her family because he’s trying to shed some light on Trump’s trade plan or at least bring it to the forefront of people’s minds.  Of course illegal immigration is how Trump bursted on the scene; it’s his supposed strongest subject.  So, anytime anyone questions Mr. Trump they pound the immigration drum.  Anytime Mr. Trump was slipping in the polls, they pounded the immigration drum.  I remember on Breitbart, before every primary, they’d splash several illegal immigration stories across their website.  So this is par for the course.  Also, please note that Julia is politicizing the Sarah Root tragedy in order to smear Levin.  Deflection and politicization are tools of liberals.

Indeed, a review of Clinton’s campaign website reveals that her immigration plan is even more radical than that of Barack Obama, who completely suspended enforcement of America’s immigration law and printed hundreds of thousands of work permits for illegal aliens.

However, a much more pressing topic seems to have triggered the passions of radio host Mark Levin who, along with Jamie Weinstein, is one of the most vocal members of the #NeverTrump movement. In the course of two days, Levin penned two lengthy denunciations of Trump’s trade platform and Breitbart News’s coverage of it.

In a story featured on this website, Levin emotionally warns conservative Americans that Trump’s effort to boost American manufacturing represents a kind of existential threat to conservatism. It IS an existential threat to conservatism.  Tariffs is a government-handed solution to unfair trade.  Conservatives believe that government is not the solution, but rather government is the problem.  Levin is seemingly unconcerned with the prospect that his energetic Trump-bashing could help place Hillary Clinton in a position to add millions more Third World migrants to America, who almost certainly will not support Levin’s vision of smaller government conservatism nor tune in to his radio show where he espouses the same.  Just because someone disagrees with Trump does not mean that they are responsible for Hillary taking the White House.  Trumpsters are going to repeat this over and over and over.  I whole-heartedly disagree.  Those who vaulted him to the nomination bear the responsibility if he wins or loses.  Trumpsters were warned.  The RNC was warned.  All that should have been considered before the votes were cast.  Elections have consequences.  As Ted Cruz said, “You broke it, you bought it.”

“…Levin’s vision of smaller government conservatism…”  Huh?  This possibly exposes more about Julia than anything else.  I didn’t know there was another type of conservatism that wasn’t smaller government conservatism; as if you can have big government conservatism.  Do you see how they are attempting to redefine conservatism.  Do you remember that Trumpster women, Kayleigh McEnany, that Dana Loesch was bashing?  What did Kayleigh say that got Dana got so mad about?  She said that anybody that doesn’t support Trump is not truly a conservative.  They are actively trying to redefine conservatism.  Ironically, this is the very reason Savage advocated for a nationalist candidate.  Savage said that conservatism doesn’t mean anything anymore.  Well, now we got a nationalist candidate and his crowd is actively redefining conservatism, and demonizing true conservatives. Is that what you wanted, Savage?

One of the enduring mysteries of the #NeverTrump movement now that their preferred vessels— John Kasich and Ted Cruz— have exited the race is why they seem to believe that Trump’s “America First” platform represents a greater threat to conservatism than Clinton’s agenda of massive government, massive taxation, and massive Third World migration.  This is straw-man crud.  Nobody believes that Trump’s platform is a greater threat to conservatism than Clinton’s platform.  There may be a few (very few) people out there that believe that.  In fact, the only people that have even suggested this that I can recall are establishment elite’s like Boehner.  Conservatives don’t believe that and have never suggested that.  A threat to conservatism is a threat to conservatism; no matter what party it comes from.  This is just another ploy to somehow paint conservatives that don’t like Trump into some straw-man that supports Hillary and is really in league with the establishment.  There’s no such thing.

Trump is a “radical protectionist” whose trade policy would result in “economic misery” for nearly “everyone,” Levin warns conservatives:

The billionaire is a radical protectionist who has repeatedly declared his intention to impose massive tariffs aimed at the economies of other countries, such as Japan and Mexico, and a forty-five percent tariff on products from China. Such broad tariffs would most certainly result in retaliation by the targeted countries. This is a sure job-killer that would also drive up costs of everyday products to low- and middle-class Americans. The net result: economic misery, not just for those hard-working, tax-paying Americans who work in industries that rely on international commerce and trade, but mostly everyone.”

Levin lays out his economic theory, which leads him to his conclusion: namely, Trump’s expressed willingness to protect American industries against specific countries would result in higher prices for U.S. consumers and thus ensure economic hardship. Levin writes:

Remember, a tariff is really just a tax, the cost of which is imposed on the American people.  The higher the tariff, the higher the tax.  Imagine what a 45 percent increase in the price of goods made, say, in Japan would do to a middle class family shopping for a Toyota or Honda.   While Trump and his surrogates may have the money to pay the higher prices his policies would cause, many Americans – who are already having difficulty making ends meet – do not.

Levin makes no mention of the fact that if you raised the price of a Toyota by 45 percent, presumably Americans would not pay 45 percent more for a Toyota, but would instead buy a Ford, and that as Ford’s sales went up, the marginal cost of production would go down.

This sentence really is the only argument that Julia offers in defense of Trump’s trade theory, or as an answer to Mark Levin’s trade theory.  That’s it.  This is the only example or argument or attempt to disclaim Levin’s views on trade.  The rest of the article Julia concentrates on Ronald Reagan and attempts to cast Reagan as a protectionist.  But as far as inflation goes, higher prices, and such, this is it.  This simplistic example is really all she has.  I mean is this it?  This is all you got?

So first off, Toyota is already producing vehicles in the United States.  This is not even a good example.  But even if it was, what about all the local Toyota dealerships that would go out of business?  And it’s not just Toyota.  It’s Honda.  It’s Kia.  It’s Izuzu.  It’s Nissan.  All those dealerships and service companies would go belly up.  These are dealerships, family owned and operated by Americans that are the ones that will get hurt.  This will truly be another case of government elites picking winners and losers.

Secondly, what about the fact that a grand amount of the parts in the American made Ford are actually made in Japan or China.  Julia thinks everything under that hood is made in America.  Think again.  She thinks Ford won’t be affected by this?  Chevy?

Thirdly, Julia assumes that a marginal cost of production going down would actually be passed on to the consumer, or the employee.  Yeah right!  You just keep believing that.  I remember reading years ago that what happened more times than not is that…  Well, let me use a simple example.  Trump imposes tariff on Toyota.  Toyota’s price goes up.  Ford, instead of keeping their price the same, they raise their price to match the Toyota price.  Why?  Because they can.  So price goes up on Toyota 45%, but price goes up on Ford 44% and nothing changes but the price.  There’s examples of this in history; the steel industry for one.   

Fourth, she doesn’t address the topic of retaliation that Levin brings up:  Trade Wars.  They are very real, and Mark Levin does use history to back up what he’s saying.  He refers to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the Depression.  Smoot and Hawley promised to relieve or protect the farming industry by applying these across the board tariffs on imported agriculture.  Most historian seem to believe that these tariffs made the Depression worst.  There’s a few out there that believe that it wasn’t necessarily the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.  One thing can be agreed though:  The Smoot-Hawley tariffs DID NOT DELIVER WHAT WAS PROMISED.  Anyway, many countries imposed tariffs on us because of this maneuver and the whole world paid the price. 

Fifth, Levin has made it real clear that tariffs are hitting this problem from the wrong side.  This is a heavy-handed government solution to unfair trade.  Mexico is not killing American jobs.  Canada is not killing American jobs.  No.  America is killing American jobs.  With all the regulations, taxes, and liabilities associated with doing business, it’s near impossible to compete with other countries.  You don’t fix that by taxing the competition.  You free up the American businesses.  You deregulate them.  You quit taxing them.  You get out of the way and let Americans produce.  We’re over taxed.  And now you’re going to tax the competition and we’re supposed to pay for that too.  Henry Ford begged Hoover not to sign the law, and called the Smoot-Hawley tariffs “an economic stupidity!”.  Yeah, so Julia doesn’t address that.

Sixth, this is it.  This is really the only argument Julia poses for Trump tariffs.  She actually thinks it’s that simple.  The rest of the article, she systematically tries to discredit Mark Levin on the basis that Reagan was not a “free-trade purist”, therefore Levin doesn’t know what he’s talking about even though Levin never asserted such a thing.  Read for yourself.

Moreover, Levin’s example (denouncing a 45% tariff on Japanese vehicles, which he imagines could be implemented by a President Trump) is completely analogous to an action Ronald Reagan took during his Presidency. As President, Reagan implemented a 45% tariff on Japanese motorcycles in order to save the Harley-Davidson Motor Company. To use Levin’s words: “Imagine what a 45 percent increase in the price of goods made, say, in Japan would do to a middle class family shopping for a…” motorcycle. 

A motorcycle is not… nevermind.  I’ll let her finish her argument.

A 1984 report notes that the “average dealer net price of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle” was approximately $4,780—or “$890 more than the average dealer net price ($3,890) of Japanese-brand motorcycles in the 1000cc and over class, and $2,134 more than the average price ($2,546) of all Japanese- brand motorcycles in the 700 to 899cc class.”

Regardless, Levin attempts to defend Reagan’s actions and distinguish Reagan’s trade views from Trump’s, writing:

Reagan did not make wholesale protectionism and tariffs a central plank of his platform, as Trump does; nor did he support imposing high tariffs on every single product produced in a particular country.  Actually, Reagan emphasized the opposite.  Reagan’s tariffs were targeted, including on Japanese motorcycles and semiconductors, and usually in response to specific violations of trade deals.  Besides, Trump is a populist/nationalist/protectionist.  Reagan was a conservative.  There’s a difference.”

This has got to be the most disingenuous stupid arguments I’ve ever seen.   Julia will attempt to take down Levin assertion that Reagan was not a protectionist.  She’s trying to compare Reagan’s tariff on a particular industry to Trump’s across the board China or Japan tariffs.  No they are NOT COMPLETELY ANALOGOUS.  Comparing motorcycles to a whole nation of goods is stupid.  Please. I can’t believe I actually gave some credence to this article when I first read it.  I mean there’s really no point in going further because the rest is based on this fictitious COMPLETE ANALOGY.  But let’s go into it anyway.

However, Levin’s argument is self-contradictory in two ways.

First, Reagan’s actions are completely irreconcilable with the economic principles that Levin has established: specifically, Levin’s belief that an action which raises the price of imports is “a sure job-killer that would also drive up costs of everyday products to low and middle-class Americans. The net result: economic misery.”

 The economic theory Levin has laid out would prohibit action to raise the price of a foreign good to protect a domestic industry— exactly what Reagan did.

Yet trade rules, by definition, are protectionist. NO DUH GENIUS!  Any prohibition on an unfair subsidy is, at bottom, a prohibition on importing a good so cheaply that an American company has no chance of competing against it. However, by Levin’s zero-sum argument that cheaper is necessarily better, none of these trade rules should exist or be enforced at all because to levy a tariff is to raise prices, and— by Levin’s argument— damage the economy.

Moreover, Reagan grounded his decisions in what Levin might define as “protectionist” rhetoric.

“The health and vitality of the U.S. semiconductor industry are essential to America’s future competitiveness,” Reagan said in 1987 as he was implementing a 100% tariff on Japanese semiconductors. “We cannot allow it to be jeopardized by unfair trading practices.”

“I have determined that import relief in this case is consistent with our national economic interest. The domestic industry is threatened by serious injury because of increased imports,” Reagan said in 1983 as he was implementing his tariff on Japanese motorcycles. “I have maintained that I would enforce our trade laws where necessary and where such actions are consistent with our international obligations.”

Reagan explained that protecting American industry is in the economic interests of the United States, even if it precludes the option of buying cheaper foreign goods. Reagan believed it was worth imposing a tariff for the purpose of ensuring that the American industry is able to survive. In other words, instead of letting the global market decide, Reagan applied a mercantilist approach saying the American producers should survive for the simple reason that they’re American— not because it’s cheaper, and not because it’s necessarily better, though it may be, but because America is better off for having it made within our own borders.

 This sentiment is simply incompatible with Levin’s Cato-esque argument that the cheapest product should win the day.
All this junk that is written above is based on her COMPLETE ANALOGY.  Levin was comparing a SPECIFIC commodity or industry and the protection of a SPECIFIC American enterprise like Harley Davidson to ACROSS THE BOARD tariffs on countries like China and Japan, like Trump is proposing..  The reasoning or ideology behind both are the same: protectionism and nationalism.  Levin NEVER said that it wasn’t.  He was simply saying that Reagan targeted specific industries or products and always explained to the American people why he was doing it.  Levin explains well that tariffs was an exception with Reagan, not a rule like it is with Trump.  And Juila really doesn’t address that. She just assumes that you agree with her complete analogy and hopes that you don’t figure out that it’s not complete.  In fact, I think it’s one heck of a stretch.  Secondly, notice another straw-man she starts pounding:  cheapest product should win the day straw-man.  Mark Levin never said that the price was the end-all bottom line.  Conservatives don’t believe that.  I would venture to say that most conservatives of my flavor and Levin’s flavor would gladly pay a little more for an American made product when given the chance.  I don’t know where she’s getting this stuff from.

The second reason Levin’s logic is self-contradictory is that Levin’s attempted exit-hatch— that Reagan was simply enforcing rules in response to specific violations of trade deals— would more than justify Trump’s proposed actions.

Trump has clearly said that if China devalues its currency, he will impose a tariff on China equivalent to the amount by which they are devaluing their currency— essentially negating the value of the illicit practice so that they stop doing it.

As Trump told the New York Times:

I would do a tax. And let me tell you what the tax should be? The tax should be 45 percent. That would be a tax that would be an equivalent to some of the kind of devaluations that they’ve done. They cannot believe that we haven’t done this yet. [Emphasis added]

Interestingly, Levin criticizes Breitbart for not including this quote in a Breitbart News report last week. However, when Levin provides the quote to his reader, for some reason, he leaves out the one sentence (underlined above) necessary for the reader to understand that Trump’s tariff is in direct response to illicit currency manipulation.

RedState—a blog that is certainly no friend to Trump—points out that members of corporate media are promoting a false characterization of Trump’s statement. RedState writes:

It seems pretty clear… that Trump is not calling for a 45% tariff specifically, he’s saying that this is basically what he figures that it would take to even out the playing field in terms of China’s devaluation of their currency… In other words, while Trump did utter the 45% figure, he seemed to be clearly using it as an example of how he would respond to a given value of Chinese currency devaluation. He did not claim it as an ironclad rule that should be used against China per se.

Okay so…  Same thing.  I don’t care what the tariff is in response to, the point is that he’s proposing ACROSS THE BOARD tariffs as opposed to Reagan’s SPECIFIC tariffs.  So in that respect, Levin is yet to contradict himself.  Julia thinks that China’s devaluation of currency is analogous to a motorcycle.  I’m just not seeing it.  Another point that Levin makes is that ALL countries manipulate their currency, including ours.  Now, I’ll admit: I don’t know too much about currency manipulation.  But I know enough to know that MOST people don’t know much about currency manipulation.  So to me, for Trump to use that as his argument and justification for across the board tariffs on China, is probably an exploitation of the masses’ ignorance, especially because he, and Julia, don’t address the points that Levin is bringing up.  Speaking about currency manipulation, what about the currency manipulation that our government has been doing; all this quantitative easing?  I don’t know much about it, put typically conservatives frown upon it yet Trump is silent on it.  

Look, there are major major major problems with the heavy-handed, iron-fisted, regulatory, bureaucracy that is killing American industry.  To think that tariffs on imports is going to somehow save us, is to completely ignore the real problems in this country:  YUGE GOVERNMENT!  So the conservative looks at it from this end, looking for a way to get the government out this.  While the liberal looks at it from the other end, looking for a way to get the government into this, which is tariffs.  Also, has anybody asked Trump what he’s going to do with all this revenue that essentially comes out of the consumer’s pocket?

Reagan took a similar position in 1985 when his administration pushed the Plaza Accord, which made products from Japan more expensive by raising the value of Japan’s currency.

However, Reagan was dealing with a world in which America had a much different economic threat matrix than it does today. While economic nationalists may find fault with Reagan for not acting strongly enough to protect enough threatened industries, the scope and reach of the threats that he faced were small in comparison to today. Reagan operated before NAFTA and before China’s entrance into the WTO. Plus, for all the tensions that existed between Japan and the U.S. during Reagan’s day, Japan was never a geostrategic threat to the United States’ position in the world in the same way that China is today.

In the specific case of China, Levin complains that Trump suggested imposing a tariff across the board rather than on selected goods: “Forty-five percent [tariff] on what?  Not a single product or some products. But on all products coming from China and other unspecified tariffs aimed at Japan and Mexico,” Levin writes.

Although one hardly gets the impression that Levin would drop his criticism of Trump’s proposal if Trump provided a list of the specific foreign goods he wished to subject to import duties, what Levin apparently fails to appreciate is that China’s currency manipulation would affect the price of all of their exports—not just some exports.

In other words, the only way to halt currency manipulation would be to impose a countervailing duty on all Chinese goods, which necessarily benefit from the devaluation. Trump was specific in saying that the size of his tariff would be proportional to China’s devaluation.

Though the media, as RedState points out, and Trump’s critics—including Weinstein—are perhaps willfully ignorant of this fact, Trump was explicit in saying that the 45% tariff would be a counterbalance to a 45% currency devaluation, in effect removing any incentive for China to cheat in the first place.

Trump’s tariff on currency cheating is, therefore, no more guilty of raising the price of a particular product than is NYPD raising the price of a Fossil watch when they prohibit the sale of an illegal knockoff in Times Square.

Levin’s logic is thus twisted into a pretzel. He offers a muted defense of Reagan by saying that Reagan was simply applying the rules, while at the same time, advancing an economic argument that would prohibit anyone from enforcing any trade rule at any time since such action would deny Americans access to a cheaper subsidized foreign good.

Rather than address the internal inconsistencies of his own logic, Levin’s piece primarily responds by inundating the reader with various Ronald Reagan pro-free trade quotes.

However, the thesis of a 1988 Cato analysis highlighted in Breitbart’s original report—which Levin offhandedly dismisses without explanation—seems to rebut nearly all of Levin’s op-ed. The analysis entitled “The Reagan Record on Trade: Rhetoric Vs. Reality” argues that “words are not deeds,” and an examination of Reagan’s “record leads to the question: With free traders like this, who needs protectionists?”

Yeah so there it is.  Yes, imposing tariffs is protectionist in nature, but that doesn’t make Reagan a protectionist.   Reagan was at the core a free-market capitalist, and yes he did impose SOME tariffs. But it’s disingenuous to call him a protectionist because he imposed a few tariffs, none of which were across the board.  This may be simplistic, but I do some welding from time to time.  Does that make me a welder?  I hate birthday parties and Christmas shopping.  Does that make me a Jehovah’s Witness?  That’s the kind of stupid reasoning that these people are making.  And the only reason they’re doing this is to Trumpify Reagan for their own gain.

“Although he has made some free-trade statements, he has nearly always contradicted them with other statements and then acted like a protectionist,” Some? Reagan spent years running around this country giving speeches defending conservatism, free-trade, free-market enterprise, and capitalism when he worked for GE.  Imposing two or three specific tariffs is nowhere near being an across the board tariff Trumpeteer.  Trump is RUNNING on tariffs.  That’s the comparison that Levin is making.   wrote Cato’s Sheldon Richman, as he proceeded to level the same criticism against President Reagan for raisings the cost of goods for U.S. consumers that Levin now levels against Trump: “The Reagan policy has harmed the United States in several ways… Consumers pay more for products when quotas make imports artificially scarce and when tariffs make them artificially expensive,” Richman said.

The “free traders’” frustrations over the disparity between Reagan’s rhetoric as a trade purist and his actual trade record was echoed by others at Cato during that time.

There’s that word purist again.  That is straw-man poop.  Reagan never called himself a trade purist.  It’s his opponents that called him a purist.  People always do that to disparage someone.  It’s got a double effect.  They derogatorily call you a purist because you have some principles, then call you a hypocrite when you don’t live up to their standards as a purist.  They hit you coming and they hit you going.  That’s exactly what they do today.  “Oh!  Ted Cruz is a purist!  We can’t put him in office!”  And the next day they say, “Ted Cruz is a hypocrite because of blah blah blah!”  Listen to Michael Savage and Hannity, and they use this purist bologna all the time.  They claim that #NeverTrumpers are purists.  No they have principles.  There’s no such thing as purist.  The closest to purist are probably Libertarians.  And Cato Institute, who Julia seems to love so much, is thought to be a libertarian institute. 

Julia says that “Levin’s logic is thus twisted into a pretzel.”  My goodness!  Julia is the one with the twisted pretzel logic.  She on one hand gives undo credence to the Cato libertarians in saying Reagan was a protectionist, but then completely ignores them in their viewpoint of protectionism in supporting the Trump tariffs.  She only believes half of what they’re saying; and of course it’s the half that helps her discredit Levin. 

“Despite President Ronald Reagan’s free-trade speeches, the portion of U.S. trade subject to U.S. nontariff barriers is estimated to have increased more than 50 percent since 1980,” wrote Cato’s Jim Powell in 1990.

Note:  “nontariff barriers”  You see how Julia does this?  Most people read this real fast and get the impression that Reagan upped import tariffs 50%.  But that’s not what it says.  It says nontariff.  Nontariff.

“Reagan’s instinctive or at least rhetorical commitment to economic freedom was once again overridden, apparently for political reasons,” wrote Cato’s Daniel Klein in 1984, referring to the motorcycle tariff. “President Reagan chose to sacrifice free trade and economic prosperity to short-term political goals. Consumers may well view the higher price of motorcycles as just another form of public financing of presidential campaigns.”

Once again, it’s clear we’re talking MOTORCYCLES, not Smoot-Hawley type tariffs.  As to the criticism at the time of Reagan, I think his free-market, limited government record speaks for itself.  Prices may have gone up, but so did wages, so did wealth, so did freedom, so did individualism, so did nationalism.  I think some of our prominent radio host got it backwards.  They think that this rise of nationalism will bring conservatism.  Reagan’s conservatism brought nationalism.  My question is what brings today’s nationalism?  What is fueling today’s rise of nationalism?  it’s not conservatism.  It’s Trumpism.  Trumpism is simply populism.  If Trumpsters are bashing Levin, and Cruz, and Sasse, and good conservatives that have fought the good fight, there’s something wrong. 

Reagan’s “administration has imposed more new restraints on trade than any administration since [President] Hoover,” said William Niskanen, a former Reagan aide who later went on to work at Cato.

Richman echoed this sentiment: “Ronald Reagan by his actions has become the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover.”

Interestingly, this again is the same criticism Levin says about Trump. While Reagan’s “free trade” contemporaries accused him of subscribing to Hooverism, Levin writes that Trump’s trade position “is not Reaganism but Herbert Hooverism.”

Levin dismisses the 1988 report by writing simply: “Hahn cites a CATO Institute piece condemning the Reagan trade record. Well, here’s a link to a CATO Institute piece praising it. So what?”

I think Levin has got right perspective on Cato Institute.  So what?  Levin is the one saying that Cato’s claims are irrelevant.  Julia is the one that seems to be placing all the weight on what they have to say.  Niskanen seems to be the purist.  It you wiki him and read a little bit about him.  He seems to be a contentious, libertarian, free-trade purist like the kind that Julia imagines exist.  I suppose they do exist after all.  Well of course they’re going to criticize Reagan.  If you read his short bio on Niskanen, you’ll see he criticizes everybody. 

There’s a distinction that is not made in all these Cato comments.  And I’m not a professional on this, but Niskanen supposedly had a real problem with Reagan’s “restraints on trade”.  (That apostrophe is on the inside of the period on purpose)  Well, Reagan also used quotas and other things as a restraint on trade.  Quotas and tariffs are not the same.  So a simple explanation would be that instead of slapping a 45% tax on Toyota imports, there would be a limit as to how many would come in.  I would think that this would be somewhat a safer approach being that it gently affects economics natural equilibrium of supply and demand.   Price may come up somewhat, but it will be dictated by demand, not the heavy hand of government.  It may not come up at all.  Something to learn more about I guess.

But my point is that just because one dude is complaining about Reagan’s “restraints on trade”, that doesn’t make Reagan a tariff happy protectionist.  Tariffs are just one thing that Reagan used to affect trade, and he used it little compared to the other things he used.  Julia even provides a list of eight different things he did, but strangely only one of the list is a tariff.  Like I said, Niskanen was libertarian and so is Cato Institute.  No president will satisfy these type of libertarian ideologues on free-trade. 

Yet the Cato piece Levin highlights—which was written in 2004 after Reagan had passed away—reads like an effort to rehabilitate Reagan’s trade record in the eyes of Libertarians in service of appropriating his name and popularity to promote their agenda—much the same way liberals use Reagan’s amnesty to suggest that Reagan would have supported Barack Obama’s amnesty. Indeed, the article, entitled “Reagan Embraced Free Trade and Immigration,” tries to argue that Reagan would have held an entirely different view on immigration than Levin does. The article even seems to take swipes at professional Reagan conservatives like Levin, writing:

Reagan’s vision of an America open to commerce and peaceful, hardworking immigrants contradicts the anti-trade and anti-immigration views espoused by [those]… who claim to speak for the conservative causes Reagan largely defined… Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work… Compare Reagan’s hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

I don’t know what this lady is saying.  Levin is not anti-trade.  He’s free-trade.  Trump and tariffs are anti-trade.  Levin is not anti-immigration.  He’s, like most Americans, anti-illegal immigration and anti-mass immigration.  So I really don’t know what Julia is getting at.

Groups like Cato, who at once praise Reagan’s free market philosophy whilst cheering mass migration, operate under the assumption that Reagan’s success had nothing to do with the success of the people he governed. In other words, that Reagan’s administration would have been equally successful had he been chosen president of Bangladesh.

The Cato article delineates another inconsistency in Levin’s position on trade. Specifically, Levin’s espoused economic theory dictating his trade policy seems at odds with his stated position on labor policy. Levin has previously claimed to oppose open borders, in part, because a large excess of low-skilled labor that is willing to work at a reduced salary unfairly undercuts the jobs and wages of American workers. Similarly, a large, uninhibited flow of low-priced imports manufactured by countries whose governments unfairly subsidize those goods, will undercut American manufacturing—and, subsequently, the jobs and wages of Americans who fill those jobs.

The only difference is that imports, unlike people, do not bring with them other elements such as healthcare needs, crime, different values and voting habits, welfare, education costs, and so forth. But the same economic principle applies.

Okay, on the onset Julia sounds smart and I’m sure she is.  But take a second and think about this.  Remember, the intention of this article is not to learn more about free-trade.  The intention is to smear Mark Levin.  Notice she is using the same tactics as left wing liberals to this.  She is equating illegal immigration with legal immigration in order to smear their opponents.  She’s also mixing in that purist/hypocrite poop.  This is Julia’s logic:  Since Levin is a ridiculous free-trade PURIST, then in order for him to be consistent, he must support open-borders, illegal immigration, and murderers.  Levin has never been for open-borders.  So somehow in Julia’s head, or what she’s trying to put in your head is that Levin’s position on tariffs signifies that he’s actually FOR Hillary and therefore un-American.  I’m sorry, but that is just plain… I don’t know how to explain that.

This is Rule #5 in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” This an attempt to ridicule Levin, to make his positions seem ridiculous.

This is Rule #13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”  Julia spends one sentence defending and explaining tariffs and spends the rest of the article trying to disparage Levin’s credibility and trying to link him to an illegal-alien murderer or worst, Hillary!

Levin’s previously professed desire to curb visa dispensations seems directly at odds with his espoused economic theory that cheaper is better.

I can’t find where Levin’s political positions are “cheaper is better”.  I never heard him say that on radio nor have I read it or seen it on his TV show.

Lastly, in his op-ed, Levin takes a random swipe at famed Reagan advisor Pat Buchanan. The timing of Levin’s jab seems peculiar given that history—and this election in particular—has proven Buchanan prescient on three of the most fundamental issues concerning American voters: migration, trade, and foreign policy.  In the case of the former, this is an issue conservatives could lose forever if Hillary Clinton is put in a position of power from which she can permanently dissolve America’s borders.

All this talk about trade by Julia is truly an effort to Trumpify Reagan.  They are desperately trying to redefine Reagan in order for Trump to carry his mantle.  I think it’s funny that the only way they can Reaganify Trump is to bring Reagan down and criticize him and redefine him.  Reagan, conservative’s champion of free-market capitalism is now a tariff happy protectionist cowboy, just like Trump.  Please.

Dear Rush… Let me take a shot at this…

RushAgainDear Rush,

I’ve been listening to your program for probably 16 years now.  I believe I’ve agreed with most everything you say.  But this election cycle, I’m just not connecting with you.  And I’m not the only one.  And you know it.  You lament two or three times a day about how often you’ve explained Trumpism and anti-Trumpism.  You’re tired of explaining it over and over ’til you’re blue in the face.  Here’s an example of your frustration from Friday:

RUSH:  See, I think I have gotten hoarse explaining anti-Trumpism.  Who have I not explained why they’re anti-Trump sufficiently to you?

Well Rush, “Who” is me.  I don’t believe that you’ve explained it all, at least not very well.  I’m not being contentious; rather I’m agreeing with you.  You’ve said you blame yourself when your audience doesn’t understand you.  That’s why people keep calling asking you to explain these things.  I myself have listened to you and read and read, and everytime you say you’re going to explain this all to everybody, you lose me.  I keep waiting for that explanation and it just never seems to come.  So the caller says this:

CALLER:  …when it comes to the people that don’t want to vote for Trump — and I don’t mean the establishment. I don’t mean the elites that are afraid of losing their jobs, everything you explained. I mean, the common man… The common man. Not the elites, not the party establishments, the common-man people that do not want to vote for Trump even though they do not want Hillary Clinton, either…  Non-famous, everyday people you meet in the grocery store or work or whatever you do.

And it’s hard to put your finger on this, but I think this caller hits the nail on the head.  What he’s identified is that you fail to distinguish the common man in your explanations.  Let me attempt to explain.  In another place in the program, another caller asks a similar question.  We see your frustration again in the beginning of your answer.  But please go through this with me as I explain.

RUSH: …I have answered this question over and over again time and time and time again.  I’m not could you give you of not listening. I’m just prefacing this.  I’ve answered it all last fall starting in August after the first debate, right through February-March.

See, in your mind, you’ve done a great job explaining Trumpism and anti-Trumpism.  You just can’t believe that you’ve got to keep explaining this.  Now you’re going to define the question that you believe you are answering:

RUSH …Your question: Why do these various groups on the right — this conservative or that conservative, conservative movement here or the Republican Party, individual Republicans.  Why do they not just line up behind Trump and focus on Hillary as the as the enemy and be done with it?  And let me see if there’s a brief way of rehashing what I have explained over and over again.

Do you see how you identify the subject as “this conservative”,  “that conservative”,  “conservative movement”, and “individual Republicans”?  Okay, most of us Rush fans have learned about conservatism from YOU.  We’ve all been attending the Limbaugh Institute for Conservative Studies.  Some may have graduated.  So when you say “this conservative, that conservative, conservative movement”, to us (the common man) that has been listening and learning for so long, have identified ourselves as such.  WE are this conservative and that conservative.  We ARE the conservative movement!  We are the subject that you’ve identified.  The subject is YOUR audience.  So then you go on to try to answer the question:

RUSH:  … I think what we’re witnessing: actually things I predicted last fall.  Because this degree of panic, fright, fear, anger is so deep, it almost seems like the effect on these people is personal.  And the reason they’re not lining up behind Trump is because Trump is blowing up the existing order. His victory — well, his assumed victory as the nominee — is blowing up the existing order.

Okay, so the mind of the common man hears this and says,  “Panic, fright, fear?  I’m not panicked, frightful, or fearful.  I’m really not sure who he’s talking about now.  Anger? Well okay.  Yes, everybody is angry at the establishment. I’m listening…  Blowing up the existing order?  Huh?”  I’m this conservative.  I’m that conservative.  I’m the conservative movement.  Rush, this is where you really start to lose me.  I want the existing order blown up.  Conservatives want the existing order blown up.  I want the power hold that the elites have on the government broken.  I want these career politicians taken out.  I’m a conservative.  Why would blowing up the existing order give your audience a degree of panic, or fright and fear?  I’m a long-time listener; a believer.  I love my country.  I love the constitution.  I love liberty.  I learned it from you, Rush.   Why would you think that blowing up the existing order would make me angry?  Your question is why do they not just line up behind Trump;  “they” being “this conservative or that conservative, conservative movement here“?  Now look where you go:

RUSH:  And if he became president, it would blow it up even more, in these people’s minds.  One example.  I’ve mentioned it a couple of times, if not more.  In the establishment, it’s basically a network. It’s a closed club.

And there it is!  In these people’s minds?  So far, Rush, according to what you’ve said, I’m “these people” and I thought you were too.  This conservative or that conservative, conservative movement here.  And you keep doing this over and over and over these past six months.  Listen to what you’re saying. “One example…. In the establishment…”  How on God’s green earth do you say that an example of this conservative or that conservative, conservative movement here IS the establishment?    You keep doing this.  I don’t know if you’re doing it intentionally or unintentionally, but you keep doing it.  I am not the establishment.  In fact, I’m not sure much of any of the electorate (common man) is the establishment.  You are inadvertently grouping Cruz supporters, conservatives, YOUR audience with the establishment elites.  And you’ve been doing this throughout the campaign.  As soon as you hit the subject of anti-Trump, you make a B-line to the establishment.  I understand that the establishment is anti-Trump like they’re anti-Cruz.  But the electorate, the common man that is anti-Trump, is NOT the establishment.  Is it that you just can’t admit that the conservative electorate and the establishment elite actually have a common enemy?  Who’s the purist?  That’s why people keep calling you, asking the same question and you keep hitting a brick wall.  And if that’s not enough, sometimes you’ll also do the same thing with the Black Lives Matter and the Code Pink crowd.  It’s like we don’t exist in your head.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why you do this.  The example I just gave has been repeated over and over and over on your program for months.  Almost everyday I listen to you, you group the common man conservative with the establishment in your “anti-Trump” comments.  Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that you don’t know you’re doing this.  I understand you have to stay above the fray, and stay in a position where you can do whatever it is you do.  But my God, this is not El Salvador and San Salvador.  This is Israel and Iran.  Would you be so nonchalant about Trump if he was running as a Democrat like he said he was years ago?  Just because he’s got the ‘R’ now, he’s off limits?  I just really don’t understand.  If you knew a year ago that these two clowns were the choices we’d be left with in the end, would you do things the same?

Rush Limbaugh, the champion of conservatism, everyday of the year, year after year, BUT the unbiased, fair and balanced, journalist during the nomination process.  Since when was this a news show?  And I don’t know Rush, maybe your answer to the common man caller explains why you keep doing this. This is how you answered:

RUSH:  Well, I have limited contact with people in the grocery store,

Maybe you need to go to the grocery store.  I’m just saying maybe, you’re getting a little out of touch.  I love your program.  I’m not someone from the outside that just tuned in.  I’m not the enemy trying to give you a scathing review.  I’ve been listening to it for 16 years.  I remember when my firstborn went from crawling to dancing to the EIB Music.  Pump Pump Pununump Tadump Tadump Tadudanump!  I’ve bought your tea.  I’ve bought your books.  So this might be difficult to hear this, but here’s the rest of your answer to the common man caller.  And I’m going to list them::

RUSH:  …but I could tell certain things that…

  1. His “coarseness.”
  2. He tweeted out that picture of Ted Cruz’ wife.  But it was… That bothered them.
  3. His comment about Megyn Kelly and blood coming out of her…
  4. They don’t think he knows anything,
  5. He’s faking it
  6. He’s too off the wall
  7. Too unpredictable
  8. Dangerous
  9. He may not be really qualified to have that much power in his hands as president of the United States.
  10. Some just don’t like his personality.
  11. Some are jealous of him. (Common man is not jealous)

I mean, it runs the gamut.  It’d be hard to say that there’s a dominate reason why.

First of all, I want to compare this to something you said in another segment of your show:  When you read this, ask yourself this question, who are you talking about?

RUSH:  By the way, there’s one more answer to the question, “Why don’t people line up behind Trump?”  And it’s this.  There are some people who are true-blue, red, white, and blue, top-to-bottom, front-to-back, wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor conservatives.  It’s the essence of their existence, and they are appalled by Trump.  They don’t think he is. They are scared. They have devoted their lives to conservatism and promoting it, and they are in utter panic that somebody like Trump can come along and simply… Well, however they perceive whatever’s happened to happen.

Wipe it out, dominate it, trounce it, what have you.  I mean, my point is that there’s some true believers in there, too, that really feel hurt and scared because they’ve poured everything they’ve got into it, and they’re scared to death. And it’s apparently so fragile that, in their minds, a carnival barker can come around and talk people out of what they have believed for ten years, 15, 20 years, whatever.  And so it frightens them for the future of the movement that they so love, and it frightens them for the future of the country.  I mean, you’ve got countless number of reasons to explain why people on the Republican side will not line up with Trump.

Look, I don’t know who you’re talking about.  But if you’re talking about the common man, you’ve got a lot wrong.  It’s not some people. It’s a lot of people.  And they’re not scared.  They are disgusted and repulsed by the vile character of Trump and the manner in which he’s (almost) won this nomination.  Character matters and morality matters.  We’re not in a panic.  We’re in anger.  Conservatism is not fragile in our minds, but the nation is and our freedoms are.  And it’s not fright for our future, but it’s of the desire to fight for our future that we oppose this man.

And if not the common man, then who?  Your brother?  Mark Levin?  Thomas Sowell?  Ted Cruz?  Are they the only ones who are true-blue, red, white, and blue, top-to-bottom, front-to-back, wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor conservatives?  Can not the common man be that?  Look at your list for the common man, Rush!  You didn’t mention one thing about true-blue conservatism.  You didn’t mention one thing about principles and the love of country, our constitution, our liberties.  Oh no!  The common man I guess is too shallow.  He’s jealous of Trump!  Do you see how you inadvertently belittle the 58% of the Republican electorate that does not want this man as our President?  No doubt you’d say you don’t, but nevertheless, you do.

Secondly, your answer to the common man is crystal clear.  Let me sum up what you’re really saying to your audience:  “I really don’t know.”  Yet you tell us over and over and over that you do know.  And you tell us over and over that you’re explaining it when you’re not.  “Anti-Trumpers are scared and insecure.  They have problems dealing with people’s personalities, so shallow that insults affect them so much.  They won’t vote for Trump because he’s rude.”  Oh, but the pro-Trump movement, you call it a PHENOMENON!  You say that Trump’s campaign is BRILLIANT!  You even said one time “TRUMP IS ME!”  Whatever.  You need to go to H.E.B.  Or better yet, take a stroll at the Piggly Wiggly.  These are YOUR explanations; and quite frankly, much of your audience does not agree.  That is reality.  And I think the mayor of Realityville is having a problem understanding this.

Lastly, what worries me the most are the implications of what I’ve described.  I can understand you doing this unknowingly or inadvertently.  Hey, we all make mistakes.  But what is yet to be determined is if this is intentional.  It seems to me like you’re going down and promoting the path of the Savage Nation.  In his book, Government Zero, in the chapter Saving a Nation with Nationalism, he states the following:

It’s time to abandon conservatism as the defining principle of our movement.  It has become meaningless.  Conservative has come to mean anything anyone who joins the Republican party says it means…”

I have no choice but to believe that IF you are purposely doing what I’ve previously stated, you are in fact watering down and distancing yourself from the term conservative.  If this Trump movement is truly a Nationalist, Populist movement, you seem to be enamored with it.  You say yourself that it FASCINATES you.  I’d be okay with all that if at the core of the Trump/Nationalist movement was in fact the underlying principles of the conservative; that at the core was the same substance found at the core of our founding fathers and the revolutionaries.  But it’s not.  No.  At the core of this movement is ignorance to the principles of liberty, lies and smears of good, conservative, God-fearing people, misdirected anger, and confusion of a most dangerous kind.  It seems that at the core is Alinksy himself.  Your audience knows that change is needed and change is most desired; but you’ve admonished us for years that when it came to the liberal’s intentions that the ends don’t justify the means.  That doesn’t change with Trump and that doesn’t change for the conservative.

I am in no way saying you are abandoning conservatism.  It just seems to me like you’re tired of being on the losing side.  I am too.  I understand that.  I may be wrong, but it seems to me that your hope, if we can endure it, is that conservatives can ride this tidal Trump-wave to power and influence.   I think it’s your way of dealing with the grim reality that the silent majority is now so ignorant, amoral, and unprincipled that it may never come around to conservatism and the principles of our constitution; that nationalism (regardless of what it’s founded upon) is somehow necessary vehicle to change this country.  I think it’s folly.  It’s putting the cart before the horse.

I hope that I’ve put to words what many are thinking.  I appreciate your time in reading this.

Sincerely,

 

the common man

 

Battle of the Five Armies

5armyTotal-article

Smaug is Dead

April 14, 2016

For many years the Dragon has been king under the Lonely Mountain. News has traveled across Middle Earth that the Dragon is dead.  Many have set their sights on the gold in the heart of the mountain.  The armies from Middle Earth will converge for battle in Cleveland, Ohio at the Republican National Convention.

It’s not gold they will battle for, but for THE RULES.  It’s possible that the blood bath won’t necessarily be on the convention floor, but rather in the Convention Rules Committee that meets one week before the convention.  All eyes should be there and on the subsequent vote that will ratify these rules.  The Standing Rules Committee has been meeting since 2012 and have the power to change the rules.  The RNC leaders still must have their say.  The Convention Rules Committee, with all the newly elected delegates, will also have their say.  Then finally these rules will be brought before the entire delegation of 2473 patriotic warriors that will cast their vote on THE RULES.  Nobody really can say what will happen on the convention floor until these rules are locked down.  If the dreaded Rule 40 stands, then there will only be two candidates on the ballot.  If Rule 40 is changed, there may be 3, 4, 5, or 6 people on the ballot, depending on how much it is changes.  In a contested convention, it’s hard to make a determination until the rules are finalized.

Consider this:  Most of these brave delegate are bound to vote specifically for a certain candidate during the nomination process.  However, how will they vote when it’s time to vote on the rules?  Nobody really knows.  It depends, first of all, on who their personal preference is.  Some may vote on the rules according to how much they want their personal choice to be the nominee.  In other words, they only vote in a manner that will help their candidate’s chances of winning; and they will not vote in a manner that will hurt their candidate’s chances.  Or, it may depend on their personal philosophy regarding party rules.  There are some delegates who will weigh their vote against principles of government.  Do the rules support the model of a republic or a democracy?.  Or some may be more loyal to their political party and unity over any candidate.  Some may say, “Inny minny miney moe!”  We really don’t know.  And we won’t know until the day of battle.

5armyTrump-articleDonald the Defiler

The front-runner, Donald Trump, chose NOT to run a grassroots, state by state, multi-level, traditional campaign.  He chose to run a national, drive-by, in-your-face, reality show.  And it’s been the greatest show on earth.  The only way Trump is going to win this now is to reach the 1237 delegate majority is to get it on the first ballot.  If he doesn’t, he’s going into a contested convention, where he is going to get his hair handed to him.

Donald Trump has enjoyed every possible advantage in this presidential race thus far.  When this thing began, Trump had 1000X more name recognition that any of these candidates.  For decades, people have known about Donald Trump.  He has been given an extraordinary amount of free television and radio time.  If he’s not on the show himself, they’re constantly talking about him, or they have someone on their show talking about him.  Nine out of ten articles on any given news sight, for or against, has got his name on it.  He didn’t have to raise money like everybody else had to do.  Winner-take-all primaries and caucuses have given him 22% more delegates than he actually got in votes.  He’s gotten a pass by his supporters on every stupid, raunchy, fowl-mouthed, mud-slinging insult that has come out of his big mouth.

Yet in the end, despite ALL these advantages, it’s looking more and more like he is just not able to secure this nomination.  It looks like he’s going to choke!  Why?  It’s simple.  Among people who care about our country and are informed, engaged, and principled, Trump is the most repulsive character to ever appear on a ballot; and they just don’t want to see him as the next President.  So in the grassroots, on the ground, where it counts, the people are simply not choosing Trump.  Trump is winning a popularity contest; but it’s not enough to win a nomination.

So what does this mean for Trump at the Rules Committee?  Some people have said four out of five of Trump’s bound delegates, once unbound, will drop Trump like a bad habit.  Trump needs to win this on the first ballot, or he’s going home.  Leaving Rule 40 the same, may actually help Trump.  If Rule 40 stands, only Trump and Cruz are on the ballot.  The 1st vote is where Trump will have the most bound delegates.  If he’s 50 short, then all he’ll need is 50 of the unbound delegates to get this done. On the 2nd ballot, he’ll will drop a lot of bound delegates and he’ll never get them back.

However, if the Rule 40 stands, there’s a lot of uncertainty as what happens to the delegates that were bound to candidates that didn’t make it on the 1st ballot.  Do they become suddenly unbound?  In 2012, any votes for Ron Paul were not counted.   According to the Rules, they were bound to a candidate whose votes were going to be counted.  Yes, they were mad.  So if that happens again, then leaving Rule 40 the same doesn’t really help Trump unless they tweak it to unbound the bound.  They may do that. There is just reason to do so.  Why should delegates be bound to a candidate that has dropped out of the race, especially if their candidate isn’t even going to have his votes counted?

Now changing Rule 40 to let everybody in may help Trump if he’s already made a backroom deal.  This would require that on the 1st ballot, nobody wins, and on the 2nd ballot Trump must woo enough delegates to him to make up for the 2nd ballot losses plus more to get to the majority.  A backroom deal would have to manifest itself in the Establishment candidates trying hold sway over their delegates.  For example, Kasich delegates will stay with Kasich wherever he tells them to go.  However, there’s just not enough numbers for this.

An educated guess would be that Trump would want to keep the threshold in Rule 40 but change it in such a way that the disenfranchised bound will be unbound, and as a thanks, he’ll hopefully win a few more to take him over the top on the first ballot.

5armyBlackwell-article

Blackwell the Red

Morton Blackwell may play one of the biggest roles in this battle at the Rules Committee.  Who’s Morton Blackwell?  He’s been a delegate involved with the rules since 1972.  There isn’t a more knowledgeable person in the country on this matter.  Also, he’s been very instrumental in trying to fix the rule changes from 2012 that were so destructive to the party.  As of March 31st, he is still very engaged and very much ready to fix the problems in the rules.

Blackwell is a Cruz supporter.  One would have thought that he’d want to keep the rules the same to keep everybody off the ballot except Cruz and Trump and let the best man win.  Well, that’s not how it works.  His life long ambition has been to de-centralize the power in the Republican Party.  This guy is an amazing Patriot that has fought all his life to keep the power out of the hands of the elite.  It would be hypocritical of him to change course on this just because his guy is on top.  Principles and the safety of the republic are more important.  If Blackwell gets the 2012 rules rolled back he deserves much praise.

Blackwell’s article, Rules at the 2016 Republican National Convention, is a bit difficult to understand if you don’t concentrate.  So below is a quick summary:

No matter how tempting it is to cut Kasich out of this thing, it is in the best interests of the grassroots, and the Republican Party that the Romney Rules be rescinded.  Here’s a direct quote from the article:

Our Party adopted the “threshold” rule to prevent delay of our national conventions by nominating speeches and floor demonstrations, without any thought or intent to deprive legitimate Delegates of the right to vote for candidates they support or for whom they were bound by their state party primaries.

In the article, Blackwell outlined what happened in the latest Standing Rules Committee meeting back in January 2016.  In Summary, he moved to change the rules to ensure that all votes be counted, whether they are for someone that qualifies or not.  It almost passed, but in the end it was reconsidered and tabled.  The Spring meeting is at the end of April.  Morton will no doubt try again.

5armyCruz-articleEdwardruil Cruz

Cruz has a tremendous advantage here.  The momentum is already going in the direction of a rule change.  Kasich being so confident may signify that the Establishment is aiming for a rule change.  Morton Blackwell and those that trust him are also pushing for a rule change.  The grassroots is so ticked off at what Romney did four years ago, they want the rules changed.  All Cruz has to do is lead it up.

He obviously has enough delegates that prefer him, bound or unbound.  So it is possible for him to win this if he plays his cards right.  He must be careful of getting outflanked in the Convention Rules Committee.  Cruz’s best place to win is at the second ballot, so he must get there.  So it’s in Cruz’s best interest to change the rules back to the way it was before the 2012 Convention.  There are some awesome positives to this:

What about the negatives?  Well, no doubt, Trump is going to do what he did in Colorado: squeal like a stuck pig!  “Look!  There it is again!  They’re changing the rules!  Cruz and the Establishment is in league!  He’s a corrupt politician!”   The mob outside the convention is going to have a fit.  There might be blood.  Delegates are going to be intimidated.  Trump will cuss.  Everything he’s done so far, he will do tenfold.  At this point, who cares?  What if he goes third party?  Good Riddance.  Will he hurt Cruz’s chances in the general?  Who knows?

5armyKasich-articleKasich, the Dwarf

Kasich is by far the smallest one in the race.  If Kasich really wants to win the Presidency…  That’s debatable; but IF he really wants to win, he’s going to have to get on that ballot first.  There’s only one way for him to do that.  Change the rules.   He’s got to get that threshold lowered down. Any other position on this would confirm that he’s a low-down conniving rat in league with Donald the Defiler.  And that would expose the Establishment as the wicked back-room deal-makers that they are.  This would reveal him to be more of a Nikabrik than a Balin, which of course is all together another story.

Here’s an interesting article: Karl Rove-backed PAC warms to Trump:  The strategist publicly questions Trump’s electability, but privately his PAC tells donors Trump can win.  Also, Don’t forget how Trump and Kasich box Cruz out in Michigan for the two Rules Committee positions.  Hmmm?  Go figure.

On the first ballot, if the threshold is left in a manner that only Cruz and Trump are eligible, Trump should have the easiest time getting to the 1237.  Cruz probably can’t.  Trump can.  If the threshold is lowered, mathematically Trump’s chances really don’t change.  The only way to benefit, is for the Trump campaign not just to fight to keep the rules the same, but they must lobby to unbind the disenfranchised bound delegates in the interest of being fair.

Can that be done?  Maybe.  But it may be offered as a so-called “fix” to the Romney Rule.  “Your candidate is still not eligible, but we promise we’ll count your vote, like we always have.  Right Morton?”  It’s possible that Trump might try it.  If Kasich is on board, you’ll know where the Establishment has been hanging out, and you’re about to graduate from Trump University.  It still seems unlikely, being that Kasich just doesn’t have a lot of delegates to pull this off.  He’d need some very influential entrenched Establishment delegates to do this; and maybe some Cruz delegates that aren’t up to snuff to what he’s trying to do.

Also, remember that of the 10 contested conventions that the Republicans have had, in six of them the nomination was given to an underdog.  Five of them went on to win the Presidency.  Abraham Lincoln was one of them and had 22% of the delegates.  All the others had less that what Kasich has now (12%).

5armyRyan-articleRyan the Dragon-Slayer

Sorry, not this time, Bard!  You notice in the movie Bard and the men and women of Lake Town really didn’t have much of an impact on the war.  They had no armor.  They were weak and frail.  They were few in number.  They just really didn’t accomplish much in the battle.  Well, neither is Paul Ryan.

There’s no way on this green earth that the 2016 delegates are going to allow a non-candidate to just waltz in and take the Presidency.  It’s never happened in the history of the Republican Party and it never will.  They’re never going to give this Paul Ryan fantasy up.  They may give up on Ryan and just stick another name in there.  It’s still a bluff, conceived and perpetuated by Trump and the Establishment, just to create confusion to get people’s eyes off the real battle of the Rules.

In The Great Bluff, and subsequent articles, it was believed that Trump would want the rule changed and Cruz would not want the rule change.  This is partly because at one point Cruz did say that he didn’t think a rule change was good.  And it was assumed that Rubio delegates were Establishment.  However, Marco Rubio told Mark Levin the other night that he wanted his delegates to stay bound to him on the first ballot.  This may not mean anything.  But it may signify where the contention lies.  Why would he be worried about someone unbinding his delegates unless someone was threatening to unbind his delegates?  So the thesis is modified.  In the battle, Cruz will want the rules changed.  Trump will probably not want the threshold changed, just manipulated a bit to loose up some delegates.  Confused?  Good.

More Developments

More Smoke

April 11, 2016

There’s more propagation of The Great Bluff in the news, some of it coming from very credible people.  Let me explain how this works.  The people that want this information to gain credence will hint at it and maybe suggest it.  These people would be Trumpsters and Establishment type.  That’s all they have to do.  They are in league and want this information to come out even though it’s not true.  And truly this is probably just PART of an overall plan of chaos and accusations that they’re running.  The rest is taken care of the ones that fear that most, real grassroots conservatives.

For example, here’s Michelle Malkin from Conservative Review: Watch: Slickster Paul Ryan Wants to Choose GOP Nominee:

Now it looks like he wants to sashay and brown nose his way into the GOP presidential nomination without having to lift a finger to earn it.  GOP party bosses like loser John Boehner and Utah Big Government Republican Sen. Orrin Hack, I mean, Hatch, are talking up Ryan as the only one who can unite the party at a brokered convention.

No it doesn’t look like he wants to do that.  It’s understandable that the Establishment should absolutely not be trusted.  The Establishment is not just the GOP.  It’s not just what the Establishment Republicans want.  It’s what the whole Democratic AND Republican Establishment wants.  No, we don’t want Paul Ryan in there, but what needs to be discovered is what deals Trump, the deal-maker, has already made; particularly with the Establishment.

American Thinker has an all-out Paul Ryan Plan article:  An improbable white knight for the GOP:

All Republicans under the “big tent” need to begin to wrap their minds around the idea that the eventual nominee may be someone (and I would argue should be) who has not before been a candidate.

No we don’t NEED to wrap our mind around this load of putrescence.  Notice the “and I would argue should be” part he sticks in there.  So obviously, this article is about the writer’s fantasies and not reality.  Once again, like all the people who push this, there’s is no explanation as to HOW this going to be done.  How is this going to be done when you have to get a majority of the 2472 delegates to agree to this, when 80% of them are raging mad anti-Establishment delegates?  Good luck.  Kasich getting on that ballot is the goal.  Don’t forget that.

Now even Mark Levin is repeating this stuff.  Mark Levin is the best.  But here it is:  The Establishments Man is Paul Ryan.  However, Mark is absolutely right in his characterization of the Establishment.  They can’t be trusted.  They’ll do anything to keep power, even throw the election.  Take Cruz out at the convention, and take Trump out in the general.

Breitbart, the Trump propaganda machine, passes on an article by the New York times and entitles it:  New York Times: Paul Ryan Wages Parallel Campaign.   This is proof that Breitbart is twisting information out there and intentionally perpetuating this RUMOR that Paul Ryan is running for President.  Breitbart’s is missing half of the REAL title:  “a Mirage Candidate.”  The full title reads from the New York Times:  Ryan, a Mirage Candidate, Wages a Parallel Campaign.  Breitbart title insinuates that the article is about how Paul Ryan is running for President.  But if you actually read the article, you’ll find the article is about how Paul Ryan is NOT running for President:

Mr. Ryan is indeed at the center of a national campaign — one he calls “Confident America” — but it is NOT NECESSARILY for president… Mr. Ryan is creating a personality and policy alternative to run alongside the presidential effort — one that provides a foundation to rebuild if Republicans splinter and lose in the fall.

Details.  Details.  Details.  Think about this:  If you wanted to inform people that Paul Ryan is indeed NOT running for President, why do you put a stupid title like that on your article?  It doesn’t take a genius to see how that title is going to be misconstrued.  This is how you report factual information, yet direct public opinion the opposite direction.  It’s intentional.

More Truth

Steave Deace, from Conservative Review, has an excellent article:  5 Election Questions You’ve Been Asking (And the Answers).  Now remember Steve Deace is the guy who called the Iowa primary almost to a T; and that’s when there were 17 candidates in the race.  He’s very insightful and trustworthy.

3) Won’t the RNC just change the rules at the convention to put an establishment guy in?

Any rules changes at the convention must be approved by a MAJORITY vote in Cleveland. It’s looking pretty obvious a majority of the delegates there will be Cruz’s, and they’re obviously not going to vote for rules changes that hurt their candidate. Most of this is paranoia driven by two groups: establishment hacks trying to be relevant again, and Trump hacks who are trying to stall Cruz’s delegate momentum by spreading this around. Ignore it. We’re winning. We just need to finish the game

Need more be said?  Steave calls it paranoia.  “Paranoia driven by two groups: establishment… and Trump hacks…”  Is that not we’ve been saying all along.  Here’s another article backing us up by  Andrew C. McCarthy, PJMedia;  Trump, Mr. ‘Win, Win, Win!’, Doesn’t Know How to Play – Even When the Game Goes His Way

The rules for 2016 state contests have not been changed in midstream; they have been known from the start. How each campaign applies them tells us a great deal that we need to know about the candidates. That is why it is a fantasy to believe the GOP establishment can get away with rigging the convention process to insert a white knight candidate who has not been campaigning. The only way to run for president is to run for president.

Even More Tuth

So if Paul Ryan is not really who the Establishment wants in there, then what are they up to.  Trump’s ONLY hope at this point in the game is to make a deal with the Establishment. Why not?  Hasn’t he bragged about how he’s been doing that all his life?  The deal is already made.  The rules will be changed one way or another in the coming months.  Trump will lobby for Kasich and Rubio delegates in order to secure the nomination.  If the rules change and Kasich and Rubio are on the ballot, it’s possible they may sway their delegates to Trump in exchange for…  something.  What?  Power.  Position.  Influence.  Who knows?   Vice-President?  The Establishment’s gain will be Trump’s loss in the general election. Here’s something on the Trump/Kasich deal from RedState:  Time for John Kasich to Get his Very Own Scarlet “T”

But more to the point, John Kasich has now actively helped Donald Trump secure delegates. This is more even than Corey Lewandowksi, Trump’s own campaign manager has done. John Kasich is now an active ally of Donald Trump. And for that, he gets to wear a scarlet “T” for the rest of his life.

The deal will have already been made, and the Kasich and Rubio would have to throw their weight before the convention begins to get themselves on the ballot.  They’d have to join forces with Trump to get the rules changed.   Cruz’s position will probably be that the rules are set and shouldn’t be changed at this point.  In this article by Breitbart, Dave Bossie: Trump ‘Wanted to Run a Different Kind of Campaign’ and ‘That’s Going to Come Back to Haunt Him’, Dave Bossie says the following:

“The only way for the rules to change is for the full convention to vote on them,” Bossie argued.  “The delegates — the Cruz delegates, the Trump delegates — have to vote to approve that.  And even if, like I was saying earlier, some of those delegates are truly not Trump or Cruz delegates, there has to be a majority willing to change the rules in order to do it.  And if that does not happen, then either Trump or Cruz will be the nominee.  That’s the ball we all have to keep our eye on.”

In order for the Establishment to pull this off, SOME of Trump delegates, SOME of Kasich and Rubio delegates, along with SOME of Morton Blackwell’s Crusaders must be strong enough to lower the threshold to get Kasich’s and Rubio’s delegates on the ballot.  Once they’re in, it’s Bye Bye Cruz.  UNLESS, Cruz has amassed enough delegates to block a rule change before or after the important vote on the Convention floor to ratify the rules.  He might not have enough delegates to keep the rules the same.  But he might have enough to win on the second ballot.  Oooo Scarwey!

 

 

 

 

 

The Rules Are Fixing to Change

rulesThe Standing Rules Committee

April 10, 2016

Remember, the first way the rules can change will be at the standing rules committee which has been meeting since the 2012 Convention.  Morton Blackwell, who’s been part of the Rules Committee since 1856 (kidding), has actively been trying to change the rules back to the way they were before the 2012 Convention.  In fact, his March 8th article, Rules at the 2016 Republican National Convention, explains very clearly that he was ALMOST successful in getting the rules changed in the RNC Winter Meeting.  Of course, back in January, we wanted those rules changed.  Now, we really don’t.  At first, leaving them the same sounded good because it would cut Kasich out of the race.  However, Morton is trying to change them for the good of the country.  He’s trying to de-centralize the party, and help the grassroots.  Helping the grassroots, however, in this race helps Johnny Boy, because right now he’s stuck in the grass.

Also, if you listen to Mark Levin’s March 31st interview with Morton Blackwell, you’ll see that there’s no indication in that interview that Morton is going to change course or stand down: Mark Levin interviews Morton Blackwell about the RNC rules,  In the article by Matthew Hurtt, from RedState in 2013, Undoing the ‘Ginsberg’ rules at the Spring RNC meeting, Morton has every intention of changing those rules; to open them up more for grassroots candidates.  Hint: Let Kasich on the ballot.  Is Morton FOR Kasich?  No, he’s a Cruz supporter.  See:  Please join me in supporting Ted Cruz.

Here’s another article regarding the rules change: GOP panelists eager to scrap rule that helps Trump. There’s a misconception in this article that the current rules help Trump.  The current eight state majority rule does NOT help Trump.  It would help him if he was way in front and Cruz was not so close on his heels.  As of this weekend, Cruz is on the ballot; he has a majority in eight states.  Because of Trump’s lack of national campaign infrastructure and Cruz’s amazing ground game and ability to secure 2nd and 3rd ballot delegates, the current rules actually hurt Trump.  So he NEEDS them changed.  Luckily for him, there’s enough delegates, and a Morton Blackwell, out there that are so mad at the Romney campaign, they don’t realize that they may likely shoot themselves in the foot by scrapping these rules.  Yuck.

When is the next Standing Rule Committee Meeting?

In Spring.  Sorry, that’s all that’s out there.  There’s a Spring Meeting.  In Morton’s March 8th article (mentioned above) he states that it’s at the end of the month of April.  However, Hurtt’s article (mentioned above) states that it’s April 10th – 13th.  That’s today!  It’s supposed to be in Los Angeles, California, according to the article.  (Sorry that was a 2013 article)  Also found was an article at the DailyCaller, RNC Rules Member: Expect ‘Tweaks’ To Rules At Upcoming Florida Meeting,  that says that it’s 2 weeks from this past Thursday (4/7/16) in Hollywood, Florida.  The Establishment doesn’t really want anything reported on this anyway.  They’re going to want to shape the public perception of the outcome.

Kasich’s Hand is Showing

This Friday, in Michigan, something interesting happened that suggest a foreshadowing of things to come.  Apparently, Trump and Kasich joined forced in Michigan to keep Cruz delegates from getting important Convention positions.  According to the CNN article, Trump, Kasich box out Cruz in Michigan delegation:

The Michigan delegation picked one Trump supporter, Matt Hall, and one Kasich supporter, Judi Schwalbach, for the two seats on the powerful rules committee. The Cruz campaign lost votes for both seats.

Oh what do you know?  How convenient: Trump and Kasich delegates working together to have power over the rules.  Newsmax includes a quote from the Cruz side of things, Cruz Campaign: Trump, Kasich Plotting Against Us, Wendy Day, a Cruz delegate:

The Kasich and Trump teams actually cut a deal and took all those slots.  We couldn’t get any of them. That’s fine, it’s politics, but it was interesting to see those two campaigns team up.

This fella at RedState explains exactly what the plan is in his article, More Proof Kasich Stays in only to do Trump’s Bidding:

It looks more and more like the double-crossing Spoiling Kasich is campaigning to be the Donald’s running mate.

So others are seeing the inevitable union of Trump and Kasich.  Do they need to unite to change the rules?  Not if Morton Blackwell has anything to do with it.  It’s very confusing.  People pushing to keep them the same will probably be the ones that were angry that they were changed.  And people wanting them changed will be the ones who changed them and will unite with ones that were angry that they were changed.  Make sense?  Yes, It’s going to be chaos.

What’s underhanded about it, is Trump is claiming that he’s anti-Establishment, and Kasich is out there saying that he’s going to be the next President;  when both of them are lying through their teeth. The deal is already made.  Think about this.  Cruz already this week clenched his eighth state with the majority of delegates and he’s bound to win a few more.  He DOES NOT NEED a rule change to get on the ballot.  Kasich does.  He’s acting like he’s going to be on the ballot, because he’s made the deal already to get on the ballot; he obviously has expectations.  Trump is the one losing delegates and everybody and their mother knows he will lose at the contested convention, unless he comes up with some delegates.  Kasich and Rubio have delegates for sale.  Trump needs some.

So it’s a trap.  Tea Party, grassroots, conservative people have long wanted the rules of the convention changed to get more power coming from the bottom.  And any other time, they would say, “Yes, change the rules!”  But old Johnny Boy is at the bottom right now.  And he’s Establishment.  He only wants in to take out Cruz.  Very slippery slope.  Now, it’s unclear how many of Kasich delegates will stay loyal to him and do his bidding at the second and third ballot and go to Trump; but it sure smells like a rat.

The Bluff is Still On

Anyhow, the bluff is still going strong.  Check out this headline from Trump surrogate, Breitbart:  ‘The Immaculate Nomination’.  And of course, there’s a picture of Paul Ryan waiting to be anointed the Republican nominee.  Apparently this name has been coined by the Obama administration.  This is simply Establishment propaganda.   There’s no truth to it.

Meanwhile, we still have Rush pushing the false narrative:  Anti-Trumpsters Buoyed by Trump’s Decision to Cancel Trips, Stay in NY

Paul Ryan continues to say, “No way, no way,” but is producing an ad now. I told you yesterday, if you want to find out what’s really going on, keep a sharp eye on the media. You’ll start seeing stories, personality profiles on Ryan. “What a great guy Ryan is!” Stuff on the family, how hard he’s worked, Speaker of the House. We’re not electing speakers of the House. If you start seeing things like that, it could be an indication that they are making a move or planning on a move at a contested convention.

Paul Ryan is never going to be on the ballot.  His brother, David Limbaugh, does get it though and does an excellent job explaining the ramifications of this bluff.  He was interview by Hannity regarding this impossibility:  Trump campaign capitalizes on ‘New York values’ comments; Mike Huckabee: John Kasich should not drop out of the race.  Hannity puts the bluff out there:

HANNITY:  Let me — let me go to an issue that I think you guys are actually going to agree on.  You know, if you look at John Boehner’s comments, talking about a contested convention and he brings up, Oh, anybody can be — anybody’s name can be nominated on the convention floor, and Karl Rove saying, Well, We need somebody who’s battle tested, strong conservative principles, a fresh face — he’s not — he’s talking specifically about somebody that hasn’t run….

HANNITY:  Do you think that there’s a possibility the establishment will try to disenfranchise voters of Trump and Cruz?

Well, some do agree:

GUILFOYLE:  Yes, I think there’s a real, distinct possibility that could happen…

COHEN:  … I agree with her 100 percent…

But David does NOT agree and says the truth about THE BLUFF:

LIMBAUGH:  There are certain people in the Republican Party who fantasize about that, who hate both Trump and Cruz.  But I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility.  As Newt says, when those two, Trump and Cruz, have received some 80 percent of the delegates and 80 percent of the votes, it’s not realistic.

Reince Priebus is talking about it not being realistic.  There’s no monolithic force in the GOP establishment that has set out to do that.  I think they know better than to do that.  It would be the end of the Republican Party.

He goes on to explain the purpose of the bluff.  You see, he’s nailed it and doesn’t really know that he’s nailed it.  Look at that expression he uses:  “…it obscures the fact…”  That, my friend is the definition of a bluff.  Read on.

I think the problem with talking about this so much — and people can talk all they want about it — is that it obscures the fact that there can be a genuine fight in the convention if nobody ends up with 1,237 going in, and I want there to be a fair fight.

Cruz and Trump can fight after the first ballot, after the second ballot in a fair way, a legitimate way, in a way that regards process and the law and the rules.  And whoever wins is legitimate as long as there’s no shenanigans pulled.

And I don’t want it to be perceived if Ted Cruz ends up winning… because he pays attention to details… that he was part of the establishment.

But guess what?  That’s exactly how they’re going to try to paint it.  Cruz is trying to pull shenanigans!  Cruz is trying to steal the election!  Look at this article that came out already:  Trump Convention Manager: Cruz Using ‘Gestapo Tactics’ to Win Over Delegates.  Trump is already threatening riot and chaos if he doesn’t get his way at the convention: Trump’s Convention Strategy: “The Fix Is In”  He’ll try his best to delegitimize Cruz and obscure the fact that Cruz has emerged the strongest candidate, the most honest, and what the American people really want.