A Fulminating Farewell to Fidel Castro

The good news is Fidel Castro is dead. He died, fittingly, on Black Friday (Nov. 25), Capitalist society’s biggest holiday of the year.  The bad news is that it took him 90 years to die.


Cuban-Americans celebrated in the street. Notwithstanding the fact that he successfully lived to the ripe old age of 90 and that his regime was never overthrown, anytime a Communist dictator dies is a good day.  Obama, the American Communist president, normalized relations with Cuba last year.  The first flight to Havana took off this morning, realizing Obama’s dream of connecting with the Communist world of dictatorships.


Cubans, at first, aligned themselves with the then-Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Cuban was under the even more dictatorial.  In 1952, former Cuban President Fulgencio Batista established a dictatorship.   As it grew increasingly harsh and corrupt, Fidel Castro led angry Cubans (including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael) in a rebellion in 1956.


Over two years, the fighting intensified. Batista fled Cuba on Jan. 1, 1959.  On Feb. 16, 1959, Fidel Castro became the Premier of Cuba.  But government-instituted economic and social changes failed to restore promised liberties.  Political opponents, businessmen, farmers, homeowners and bankers were executed, imprisoned, or fled Cuba for America.  Some 700,000 Cubans in total left the island.


By 1960, all banks and industrial companies had been nationalized, including over $1 billion in U.S.-owned properties, mostly without compensation. In 1961, some 1,400 Cubans, trained and by the Central Intelligence Agency, unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Castro’s regime.  The operation would become known as “The Bay of Pigs” invasion.

Brigade 2506 fronted the armed wing of the Democratic Revolutionary Front (DRF) and intended to overthrow Castro’s increasingly communist government. Launched from Guatemala and Nicaragua, the invading force was defeated within three days by the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces, under the direct command of Premier Fidel Castro.

The Presidential coup of 1952 led by General Fulgencio Batista, against President Carlos Prio, an ally of the United States, forced President Carlos Prio into exile to Miami, Fla. President Prio’s exile was the reason for the 26th July Movement led by Fidel Castro. The movement, which did not succeed until after the Cuban Revolution of Dec. 31, 1959, severed the country’s formerly strong links with the U.S. after nationalizing American economic assets (banks, oil refineries, sugar and coffee plantations, along with other American-owned businesses).

It was after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 that Fidel Castro forged strong economic links with the Soviet Union, with whom, at the time, the United States was engaged in the Cold War. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower was very concerned at the direction Castro’s government was taking, and in March 1960 he allocated $13.1 million to the CIA to plan Castro’s overthrow (though the plan to overthrow Castro was put off for Kennedy to decide). The CIA proceeded to organize the operation with the aid of various Cuban counter-revolutionary forces, training Brigade 2506 in Guatemala. Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy approved the final invasion plan on April 4, 1961.

Over 1,400 paramilitaries, divided into five infantry battalions and one paratrooper battalion, assembled in Guatemala before setting out for Cuba by boat on April 13, 1961. Two days later on April 15, eight CIA-supplied B-26 bombers attacked Cuban airfields and then returned to the U.S. On the night of April 16, the main invasion landed at a beach named Playa Giron in the Bay of Pigs.

Initially, the attack overwhelmed a local revolutionary militia. The Cuban Army’s counter-offensive was led by Jose Ramon Fernandez, before Castro decided to take personal control of the operation. As the U.S. involvement became apparent to the world, Kennedy decided against providing further air cover for the invasion.

As a result, the operation only had half the forces the CIA had deemed necessary. The original plan devised during Eisenhower’s presidency had required both air and naval support. April 20, 1961 the invaders surrendered after only three days, with the majority being publicly interrogated and put into Cuban prisons.

Cuba became the center of the Soviet Union’s efforts to take over Central and South America. Castro was a difficult puppet for the Soviet’s to control.  Stalin believed in centralized control, whereas Castro’s ideology was more Maoist – subverting the locals into overthrowing their own governments, as they did in Korea and Vietnam.


Cuba became a training ground for communist terrorists worldwide – from Sweden to Germany to the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Cuba became the new Emerald Isle for American Communists as well, attracting a host of celebrities including Barbra Streisand, Gina Lollabrigida, Ed Asner, Oliver Stone, Danny Glover, Jack Nicholson, Robert Redford, Kevin Costner, Harry Belafonte, Chevy Chase, Steven Spielberg, Woody Harrelson, Francis Ford Coppola, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Sean Penn.


Many more of Hollywood’s elite preceded these, laying a path for Marxist literature and drama that made possible the election of someone like Barack Obama. Legitimized by Leftists journalists, Leftists politicians like John Kerry led the way for communist rebellions in Central and South America.  Pres. Ronald Reagan was ruthlessly pilloried for supporting the Contras, those natives of Central America who opposed communist regimes that stole their land and property from them.


Hillary Rodham Clinton was notorious for her Marxist sympathies opposing the war in Vietnam and supporting social justice that would rewrite the rules for America, redistributing American wealth and property through the Legal Services Corporation. She met two “former” Communist Party members at Yale University during the Black Panthers murder trial:  Jessica Mitford, a British author and her husband, Treuhaft, a San Francisco Bay Area lawyer.  They came to New Haven, Conn., to lend legal and fundraising assistance to their associate Charles Garry in the trial.


According to David Brock’s book, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham (1996, Free Press/Simon & Schuster), in her senior thesis for Wellesley College, Hillary cited an article by Carle Oglesby (published in motive magazine, the house organ of the United Methodist Church):


“’What would be so obviously wrong about a VietNam run by Ho Chi Minh [or] a Cuba by Castro?’ The author maintained that the United States wanted only a certain kind of peace in which the ‘world will be safe for the American businessman to do his doings everywhere on terms always advantageous, in environments always protected by friendly or puppet oligarchies, by the old foreign grads of Fort Benning – or if push comes to shove, by the Marines themselves.  We want a world integrated in terms of the stability of labor, resources, production, and markets; and we want that integrated world to be managed by our own business people.  The United States, that is, is an imperialist power.’”


As for Treuhaft, Brock tells us that he had worked for the Communist Party as an attorney until 1958.  He fought to allow Communist Party members to hold office in labor unions and mounted a defense of the leadership of the California Communist Party in a 1951 subversion trial.


“A pamphlet,” Brock writes, “by the House Un-American Affairs Committee, [run the Democrats and no, this had nothing to do with “Tailgunner Joe” – McCarthy was a senator, not a representative], “Communist Legal Subversion: The Role of the Communist Lawyer” listed Treuhaft as among the thirty-nine most “dangerously subversive” lawyers in the country, according to the Mitford Book [A Fine Old Conflict].  In sharp contrast to most of the New Left, Treuhaft and Mitford were die-hard supporters of Stalinism.  By the early 1970s, the sector of the American left that Treuhaft occupied was a scorned, almost underground minority.


“’This was not a group of socialists,’ said historian Stephen Schwartz. ‘This was a group of hard Communists who had been running the Communist Party of Northern California…It was a political organization whose loyalty to the Soviet Union was explicit, whose discipline was Stalinist, and whose intellectual attitudes were mainly Stalinist…Treuhaft is not like the Black Panthers.  Treuhaft is a man who dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.’


“In 1971, Hillary accepted a summer internship in Treuhaft’s Berkeley law office.”


The aforementioned Carl Oglesby was, according to Brock, “only one of the well-known Maoist or Marxist theoreticians who was interested in and had a theory about splitting and manipulating the ruling class.” Later, through organizer-cum-laude Saul Alinsky, Hillary was either directly or indirectly associated with such communist luminaries as Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple and radical labor organizer; socialist agitator Staughton Lynd, who traveled to Hanoi with Tom Haydon (the Port Huron Statement) to meet with Vietnam leaders; and San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros (who headed Housing and Urban Development under Bill Clinton).


Hillary’s work on the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, an alternative publication to the traditional (but still liberal-leaning) Yale Law Journal, Brock tells us, “brought Hillary into an influential circle. Robert Borosage, a leading student radical and another of the journal’s founders, would become an important operative behind the Institute for Policy Studies, the Washington think-tank founded in 1963 to help craft programs for the Great Society.  In the 1970s, the Institute promoted pro-Soviet movements in the Third World at the height of the renewed Cold War.  Another notable figure writing for the Yale Review during Hillary’s tenure on the board of editors was Duncan Kennedy, one of the founders of the Critical Legal Studies (or ‘Crits’) movement, which applied deconstructionist philosophy to the law.  Critical Legal Studies was a 1970s descendant of the legal realists’ view that the law could be used as an instrument of political power.”


“In Ohio, a legal services program sued U.S. Steel to either prevent plant closures or force a sale of steel mills to a worker-community group. The local LSC grantee employed Saul Alinsky disciple Staughnton Lynd to handle the case.  When it came to trial, Ramsey Clark joined him at the plaintiff’s table.”  Ramsey Clark was the 66th United States Attorney General under Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson.


“The legal concepts embedded in such litigation [as Brock cites in the book] received Hillary’s implicit support through a set of rules for grantees proposed by the LSC board and published in the Federal Register on March 23, 1981.  The rules required that LSC grantees not discriminate against homosexuals; hire a fixed percentage of bilingual employees in certain areas; adopt hiring quotas to guarantee employment of women and minorities at levels that reflect ‘parity with the relevant labor market’’; and include drug addicts and alcoholics under the definition of ‘handicapped,’ thus protecting them under anti-discrimination laws.  [The rules were not adopted at the time due to opposition in 1981 by the new Republican-controlled Senate.]


“While Hillary chaired the LSC, the organization forged close links with the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), which had been founded in 1937 with the assistance of the International Labor Defense, the American section of the International Class War Prisoners Aid Society, an agency of the Comintern [the Soviet KGB’s “International Public Relations” branch]. It remained an active affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), an international Communist front controlled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.


“The IADL was described in a CIA report on Soviet propaganda operations published by the House Intelligence Committee in 1978 as ‘one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party.’ The report noted that at its 1975 conference in Algiers, ‘the real and ideological interests of the IADLS were covered by the agenda…which considered law to be a function in the struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism and apartheid.  Under the banner of anti-imperialism, the IADL’s thrust…was to do battle with the large international companies as a way to gain adherents and backing in the developing world.


“Through the years, the National Lawyers Guild had associated itself with many radical causes, including the Critical Legal Studies movement. A significant number of NLG activists were members of the Weather Underground’s Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, a faction of Students for a Democratic Society that was committed to violent revolution.  During the trial of the leaders of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist gang in West Germany, NLG sent an observer team to express solidarity.  In 1975, the NLG executive board voted to ‘provide legal support and resources to aid the Palestine Liberation Organization.


“The Guild – which has claimed that the American system of justice ‘is used to hound, attack, imprison, and execute the oppressed minorities, workers and political activists’ – supplied legions of attorneys to local legal aid programs during Hillary’s tenure…By 1980, the NLG reported that an estimated one thousand of its members worked in the LSC system.”


The Red Army Faction (RAF – Rote Armee Fraktion), in its early stages commonly known as the Baader-Meinhof Group or Baader-Meinhof Gang, was a West German far-left militant group founded in 1970 by Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Horst Mahler, and Ulrike Meinhof. The West German government considered the Red Army Faction to be a terrorist organization.

The Red Army Faction engaged in a series of bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, bank robberies, and shoot-outs with police over the course of three decades. Their activity peaked in late 1977, which led to a national crisis that became known as the “German Autumn.” The RAF has been held responsible for 34 deaths, including many secondary targets, such as chauffeurs and bodyguards, as well as many injuries throughout its almost 30 of activity.

The Munich Massacre at the 1972 Olympics, in which 11 Israel athletes were murdered, was an attempt, in part, to secure the release of members of the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

There is no particular connection between Hillary and the late Fidel Castro (as far as anyone knows, at least). Hillary’s legacy is noted here as a reminder that Communism is far from dead.  Fidel Castro is dead only after a successful career of instituting communism, in all its totalitarian gore.  Cuba is not free.

Listen to the celebrities, the journalists, the politicians who will celebrate Castro’s “legacy” as though his lifetime was a legendary achievement to be honored and eulogized. His “monument” will be founded upon thousands, maybe millions of lives lost or destroyed in the name of communism, collectivism, and corruption.

Hillary’s career followed, more or less, the trajectory of Fidel Castro’s, although he, of course, was about 30 years older than Mrs. Clinton. She and her minions are made of the same tyrannical clay as Castro.  For sixty years, or more, they’ve attempted to replace our firm, Constitutional foundation with this malleable mixture of volcanic ash and marshy, marxist clay in which we will be forever mired should she and her followers succeed.

In bidding a finally final farewell to the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, we’ve nothing to celebrate, in actuality. We gained no victory over him.  Indeed, the door has been opened to young Castroites to come here amongst the true Cuban refugees and spread lies about life in Cuba.  Castro’s legacy will be a new –ism – Castroism.

This past election, however, has shown that freedom has not been defeated here in the United States of America. Not yet, anyway – not as long as we do not sink into silent ignorance about the communist threat that did not recede with the “opening up of China”, the fall of the Berlin Wall, or Castro’s final demise.  Hillary Clinton is its de facto leader here in the United States.

Just remember – she lost.


Published in: on November 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm  Leave a Comment  

Mainstream Pablum

We have another guest blog post today from our good friend David on the subject of media malfeasance. Americans have been misguided in their notions of the Fourth Estate, as it sometimes called:  the “Media” are all (or nearly all) profit-oriented companies, publicly bought and sold on the stock market, but privately managed.  We have no reason to expect responsible reporting from them and they have not disappointed us anytime in the last 60 years or so.


Recently, our local newspaper, The Suburban Trends, was taken over by Gannett Newspapers, which bought the main umbrella group, North Jersey Media.  The major newspaper in the group is The Bergen Record.  The Trends and a number of smaller, community newspapers (for which I took photos) have been downsized.  Most of their staff have been either terminated or demoted, including my former supervisor.  Gannett’s lead paper is USA Today.  That should tell you something right there. USA Today is fast-food news.


The first official issue under the new style and format of the “new” Suburban Trends featured a long lecture from a reporter in Paramus with a story about a pro-illegal immigration pastor’s lecture to his congregation and beyond.


Pardon me, but what does a story in Paramus have to do with the residents of the Suburban Trends’ area (West Milford, Ringwood, Wanaque, Haskell, Pompton Lakes, Pompton Plains, Pequannock, Lincoln Park, Kinnelon, Butler and Bloomingdale – essentially, the Route 23 corridor)?  The Trends never bothered to publish the 2016 presidential election results, which showed that the majority of voters in all these towns voted for Donald Trump – in record numbers.


But on to David’s criticism of the Mainstream Media.

Mainstream media in the United States has certainly shown everyone how out of touch and irrelevant they really are. It’s now apparent to me that a large portion of the U.S., like myself, doesn’t pay any attention to mainstream media. I caught a youtube.com submission with a British journalist on a mainstream media show where she called CNN the “Clinton News Network.”

The Clinton News Network? Well that had to be embarrassing. I was in shock that that was aired. I personally don’t listen to any media in the US as I lost all respect for them years ago. They certainly showed their colors during this election. None gave any credence to Donald Trump’s candidacy. Even on election night they were in complete denial.

I think many of us can relate. In fact, the majority of Americans — all those who voted for Trump. For the majority, I think I can say that if CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS news teams were all fired or the news shows cancelled, few would miss them. I tune in BBC mostly. I’ve been waiting for an actual unbiased news program to come on the air. But I think the days of unbiased reporting are gone, though I hope they can be revived.

Do any outlets exist that we can look to for unbiased, accurate reporting? One news source I always found to be both accurate and unbiased, and with good coverage of important events, is the Christian Science Monitor. But I only really looked at them for coverage of foreign events, and I haven’t read them recently. I may try a subscription just to see if they are any better than the spin doctors and liberally-biased “reporting” (and non-reporting of anything that doesn’t further their liberal agenda) that is conventional outlets.

I am so disappointed in today’s journalists (I use the term very loosely). The schools teaching them are doing them and us no service. Liberal universities churning out liberal journalists that only know how to spin news to a liberal agenda. They need to get back to teaching what unbiased reporting is. We, the American people need and deserve unbiased reporting.  Not just what is reported, but also in the stories chosen to be aired. A number of times important news was “missed” by all major networks while they aired pablum. In a few cases, the ticker had more important news than what was being reported on by the anchors.

I expect over the next few years that the liberal media will continue to lie and spin all the good things Trump will do in an attempt to reverse course in 4 years. But if this election has shown me anything, mainstream America is not buying what the mainstream media is selling. U.S. mainstream media will become even more marginalized.  We can only hope someone steps up to fill the void with actual unbiased, balanced, truthful reporting.  I’ll watch that.  And I’ll be watching out for that.



Published in: on November 21, 2016 at 1:57 pm  Leave a Comment  

Hamilton: The New Hero of the Progressive Left

Hamilton, the Musical, opened on Broadway in August 2015, and by the spring, won the Tony Award for Best Musical. Hailed by all as a great musical, the cast was rather a curious mixture that had little to do with historical fact.


The musical became a particular hit with the Left. No fans of the Founding Fathers, they found their Founding Father in Alexander Hamilton, who advocated for a centralized government (for the sake of taxation; in the previous incarnation as the Articles of Confederation, the individual states refused to ante up to support the Colonial Army, leaving them in rags to starve) and believed in the redistribution of wealth:


“Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression.” The Federalist Papers, No. 36.


Hamilton recruited John Jay and James Madison to write a series of essays defending the proposed Constitution, now known as The Federalist Papers, and made the largest contribution to that effort, writing 51 of 85 essays published (Madison wrote 29, Jay only five).  Hamilton supervised the entire project, enlisted the participants, wrote the majority of the essays, and oversaw the publication.


During the project each person was responsible for their areas of expertise; Jay covered foreign relations, Madison covered the history of republics and confederacies, along with the anatomy of the new government and Hamilton covered the branches of government most pertinent to him: the executive and judicial branches, with some aspects of the Senate, as well as covering military matters and taxation.  The papers first appeared in The Independent Journal on October 27, 1787.


Hamilton wrote the first paper signed as “Publius,” and all of the subsequent papers were signed under the name. Jay wrote the next four papers to elaborate on the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and the need for unity against foreign aggression and against splitting into rival confederacies, and, except for Number 64, was not further involved.


Hamilton’s highlights included discussion that although republics have been culpable for disorders in the past, advances in the “science of politics” had fostered principles that ensured that those abuses could be prevented, such as the division of powers, legislative checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and legislators that were represented by electors (Numbers 7–9).


Hamilton also wrote an extensive defense of the constitution (No. 23–36), and discussed the Senate and executive and judicial branches in Numbers 65–85. Hamilton and Madison worked to describe the anarchic state of the confederation in numbers 15–22, and have been described as not being entirely different in thought during this time period in contrast to their stark opposition later in life. Subtle differences appeared with the two when discussing the necessity of standing armies.


Hamilton was born out of wedlock to a married woman of French Huguenot (Catholic) and British Ancestry and a Scottish father, James A. Hamilton. as a child by his mother’s death and his father’s abandonment, he was taken in by an older cousin, and later by a prosperous merchant family which engaged in trade in the Caribbean. History does not indicate that he was Hispanic, although he was born in Charlestown on the island of Nevis, in what is now known as Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Leeward Islands.


He married Elizabeth Schuyler and purchased land in northwestern New Jersey, which he named “New Barbados.”   He fought in no less than eight battles during the Revolutionary War and was considered a great leader.


Although Hamilton and James Madison, along with John Jay, co-authored the Federalist Papers, they had many ideological differences. Hamilton favored building a national army to go to war with France, a war which George Washington opposed, while then-President John Adams eventually found a diplomatic solution to the conflict.


Hamilton helped defeat John Adams for re-election. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied for the presidency in the electoral college in 1801, and Hamilton helped to defeat Burr, whom he found unprincipled, and to elect Jefferson despite philosophical differences.


Hamilton continued his legal and business activities in New York City, but lost much of his national prominence within the Federalist Party. Vice President Burr ran for governor of New York State in 1804, and Hamilton crusaded against him as unworthy. Burr took offense at some of Hamilton’s comments and challenged him to a duel in 1804 in Weehawken, N.J. He mortally wounded Hamilton – a man who he had rescued during the Revolutionary War – (who, according to legend, fired into the air), who died the next day.


Burr was never tried for the illegal duel, and all charges against him were eventually dropped, but Hamilton’s death ended Burr’s political career.


During Hamilton’s tenure as Treasury Secretary, political factions began to emerge. A Congressional caucus, led by James Madison and William Branch Giles, began as an opposition group to Hamilton’s financial programs, and Thomas Jefferson joined this group when he returned from France. Hamilton and his allies began to call themselves “Federalists”. The opposition group, now called the Democratic-Republican Party by political scientists, was at the time known as Republicans.


Hamilton assembled a nationwide coalition to garner support for the Administration, including the expansive financial programs Hamilton had made Administration policy and especially the president’s policy of neutrality in the European war between Britain and France. Hamilton’s public relations campaign attacked the French minister Edmond-Charles Genêt (he called himself “Citizen Genêt”) who tried to appeal to voters directly, which Federalists denounced as foreign interference in American affairs.  If Hamilton’s administrative republic was to succeed, Americans had to see themselves as nation citizens, and experience an administration that proved firm and demonstrated the concepts found within the United States Constitution. The Federalists did impose some internal direct taxes but they departed from the most implications of the Hamilton administrative republic as risky.


The Jeffersonian Republicans opposed banks and cities, and favored France. They built their own national coalition to oppose the Federalists. Both sides gained the support of local political factions; each side developed its own partisan newspapers. Noah Webster, John Fenno, and William Cobbett were energetic editors for the Federalists; Benjamin Franklin Bache and Philip Freneau were fiery Republican editors. All the newspapers were characterized by intense personal attacks, major exaggerations and invented claims. In 1801, Hamilton established a daily newspaper, the New York Evening Post. It is still publishing today, as the New York Post.


The quarrel between Hamilton and Jefferson is the best known and historically the most important in American political history. Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s incompatibility was heightened by the unavowed wish of each to be George Washington’s principal and most trusted advisor.


Hamilton is the first major American politician known to have had a sex scandal. In 1791, Hamilton became involved in an affair with Maria Reynolds over a nine-month period that would be revealed to the public several years afterward [sound familiar?].  Reynolds appeared to Hamilton as a woman who had been abandoned by her husband, James, at New York and wished to return to there.  Hamilton did not have any money on his person, so he retrieved her address in order to deliver the funds in person.


After the brief dialogue in Reynolds’ bedroom [can anyone say “Paula Jones”?], he had frequent meetings with her. Hamilton then received two letters on December 15, 1791, one from both Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds. The first letter was Maria warning of her husband’s knowledge and of James attempting to blackmail Hamilton. By this point Hamilton contemplated ending the relationship, and briefly ceased to visit, but both apparently were involved in the blackmailing scheme as both sent letters, and at one point James Reynolds requested to “befriend” her. By May 1792, James Reynolds had requested for Hamilton to no longer see his wife, but not before receiving fifty and two hundred dollars out of over $1300 in blackmail.  Hamilton possibly was aware of both Reynolds’ being involved before the blackmailing incident.


In the 1800 election, Hamilton worked to defeat not only the rival Democratic-Republican candidates, but also his party’s own nominee, John Adams. In November 1799, the Alien and Sedition Acts had left one Democratic-Republican newspaper functioning in New York City; when the last, the New Daily Advertiser, reprinted an article saying that Hamilton had attempted to purchase the Philadelphia Aurora and close it down, Hamilton had the publisher prosecuted for seditious libel, and the prosecution compelled the owner to close the paper.


Aaron Burr had won New York for Jefferson in May; now Hamilton proposed a rerun of the election under different rules—with carefully drawn districts and each choosing an elector—such that the Federalists would split the electoral vote of New York. (John Jay, a Federalist who had given up the Supreme Court to be Governor of New York, wrote on the back of the letter the words, “Proposing a measure for party purposes which it would not become me to adopt,” and declined to reply/”).


Hamilton wrote a pamphlet called Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States that was highly critical of him, though it closed with a tepid endorsement.  He mailed this to two hundred leading Federalists; when a copy fell into the Democratic-Republicans’ hands, they printed it. This hurt Adams’s 1800 reelection campaign and split the Federalist Party, virtually assuring the victory of the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Jefferson, in the election of 1800; it destroyed Hamilton’s position among the Federalists.


Jefferson had beaten Adams, but both he and his running mate, Aaron Burr, had received 73 votes in the Electoral College (Adams finished in third place, Pinckney in fourth, and Jay received one vote). With Jefferson and Burr tied, the United States House of Representatives had to choose between the two men. Several Federalists who opposed Jefferson supported Burr, and for the first 35 ballots, Jefferson was denied a majority. Before the 36th ballot, Hamilton threw his weight behind Jefferson, supporting the arrangement reached by James A. Bayard of Delaware, in which five Federalist Representatives from Maryland and Vermont abstained from voting, allowing those states’ delegations to go for Jefferson, ending the impasse and electing Jefferson President rather than Burr.


Even though Hamilton did not like Jefferson and disagreed with him on many issues, he viewed Jefferson as the lesser of two evils. Hamilton spoke of Jefferson as being “by far not so a dangerous man,” and that Burr was a “mischievous enemy” to the principle measure of the past administration. There is some circumstantial evidence (much disputed), however, that what Hamilton really feared was Burr’s appeal to the members of the Federalist Party and loss of his control over them. Many Federalists, it is hypothesized, viewed Burr as a moderate who was willing to dialogue with them.  It was for that reason, along with the fact that Burr was a Northerner and not a Virginian, that many Federalist Representatives voted for him.


Hamilton wrote an exceeding number of letters to friends in Congress to convince the members to see otherwise.  However, the Federalists rejected Hamilton’s diatribe as reasons to not vote for Burr.  Nevertheless, Burr would become Vice President of the United States. When it became clear that Jefferson had developed his own concerns about Burr and would not support his return to the Vice Presidency, Burr sought the New York governorship in 1804 with Federalist support, against the Jeffersonian Morgan Lewis, but was defeated by forces including Hamilton.


Soon after the 1804 gubernatorial election in New York, the Albany Register published Charles D. Cooper’s letters, citing Hamilton’s opposition to Burr and alleging that Hamilton had expressed “a still more despicable opinion” of the Vice President at an upstate New York dinner party.  Cooper claimed that the letter was intercepted after relaying the information, but stated he was “unusually cautious” in recollecting the information from the dinner. Burr, sensing an attack on his honor, and recovering from his defeat, demanded an apology in letter form. Hamilton wrote a letter in response and ultimately refused because he could not recall the instance of insulting Burr; also, Hamilton would have been accused of recanting Cooper’s letter out of cowardice. After a series of attempts to reconcile were to no avail, the duel was accepted through liaisons on June 27, 1804.


The night before the duel, Hamilton wrote a defense of his decision to duel. Hamilton viewed his roles of being a father and husband, putting his creditors at risk, placing his family’s welfare in jeopardy and his moral and religious stances as reasons not to duel, but he felt it impossible to avoid due to having made attacks on Burr which he was unable to recant, and because of Burr’s behavior prior to the duel. He attempted to reconcile his moral and religious reasons and the codes of honor and politics. He intended to accept the duel and throw his fire [not shoot at Burr] in order to satisfy his morals and political codes, respectively. His desire to be available for future political matters also played a factor.


So what earned Aaron Burr the wrath of Alexander Hamilton? According to Wikipedia (note:  W is not well-known for its accuracy), it went something like this:


After Burr left the Vice-Presidency at the end of his term in 1805, he journeyed into what was then the Western frontier, areas west of the Allegheny Mountains and down the Ohio River Valley eventually reaching the lands acquired in the Louisiana Purchase (from Napoleon). Burr had leased 40,000 acres (16,000 ha) of land—known as the Bastrop Tract—along the Ouachita River, in what is now Louisiana, from the Spanish government. Starting in Pittsburgh and then proceeding to Beaver, Pa., and Wheeling, Va., and onward he drummed up support for his plans.


His most important contact was Gen. James Wilkinson, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army at New Orleans and Governor of the Louisiana Territory. Others included Harman Blennerhassett, who offered the use of his private island for training and outfitting Burr’s expedition. Wilkinson was later proved to be a bad choice.


Burr saw war with Spain as a distinct possibility. In case of a war declaration, Andrew Jackson0 stood ready to help Burr, who would be in position to immediately join in. Burr’s expedition of about eighty men carried modest arms for hunting, and no war materiel was ever revealed, even when Blennerhassett Island was seized by the Ohio militia.  His “conspiracy,” he always avowed, was that if he settled there with a large group of (armed) “farmers” and war broke out, he would have an army with which to fight and claim land for himself, thus recouping his fortunes.  However, the 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty secured Florida for the United States without a fight, and war in Texas did not occur until 1836, the year Burr died.


After a near-incident with Spanish forces at Natchitoches, Wilkinson decided he could best serve his conflicting interests by betraying Burr’s plans to President Jefferson and to his Spanish paymasters. Jefferson issued an order for Burr’s arrest, declaring him a traitor before any indictment.  Burr read this in a newspaper in the Territory of Orleans on Jan. 10, 1807. Jefferson’s warrant put Federal agents on his trail. Burr twice turned himself in to the Federal authorities. Two judges found his actions legal and released him.


Jefferson’s warrant, however, followed Burr, who fled to Spanish Florida. He was intercepted at Wakefield, in Mississippi Territory (now in the state of Alabama), on Feb. 19, 1807. He was confined to For Stoddert after being arrested on charges of treason.


Burr’s secret correspondence with Anthony Merry and the Marquis of Casa Yrujo, the British and Spanish ministers at Washington, was eventually revealed. He had tried to secure money and to conceal his true designs, which was to help Mexico overthrow Spanish power in the Southwest. Burr intended to found a dynasty in what would have become former Mexican territory.  This was a misdemeanor, based on the Neutrality Act of 1794, which Congress passed to block filibuster expeditions against U.S. neighbors, such as those of George Rogers Clark and William Blount.  Jefferson, however, sought the highest charges against Burr.


In 1807, Burr was brought to trial on a charge of treason before the United States Circuit Court at Richmond, Va. Burr had been arraigned four times for treason before a grand jury indicted him. The only physical evidence presented to the Grand Jury was Wilkinson’s so-called letter from Burr, which proposed the idea of stealing land in the Louisiana Purchase.  During the jury’s examination, the court discovered that the letter was written in Wilkinson’s own handwriting. He said he had made a copy because he had lost the original. The grand jury threw the letter out as evidence, and the news made a laughingstock of the general for the rest of the proceedings.


Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall presided over the trial. Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution requires that treason either be admitted in open court, or proved by an overt act witnessed by two people. Since no two witnesses came forward, Burr was acquitted, in spite of the full force of the Jefferson administration’s political influence thrown against him. Burr was immediately tried on a misdemeanor charge and was again acquitted.


Given that Jefferson was using his influence as president in an effort to obtain a conviction, the trial was a major test of the Constitution and the concept of separation of power. Jefferson challenged the authority of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice John Marshall, an Adams appointee who clashed with Jefferson over John Adams’s last-minute judicial appointments. Jefferson believed that Burr’s treason was obvious. Burr sent a letter to Jefferson in which he stated that he could do Jefferson much harm. The case as tried was decided on whether Aaron Burr was present at certain events at certain times and in certain capacities. Thomas Jefferson used all of his influence to get Marshall to convict, but Marshall was not swayed.


Historians Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein write that Burr:


…was not guilty of treason, nor was he ever convicted, because there was no evidence, not one credible piece of testimony, and the star witness for the prosecution had to admit that he had doctored a letter implicating Burr.


David O. Stewart, on the other hand, insists that while Burr was not explicitly guilty of treason according to Marshall’s definition, evidence exists that links him to treasonous crimes. For example, Bollman admitted to Jefferson during an interrogation that Burr planned to raise an army and invade Mexico. He said that Burr believed that he should be Mexico’s monarch, as a republican government was not right for the Mexican people. Many historians believe the extent of Burr’s involvement may never be known.


But before Leftist Progressives begin crying “racist,” they should know this;


In 1784 as a New York state assemblyman, Burr unsuccessfully sought to abolish slavery immediately following the American Revolutionary War. The legislature in 1799 finally abolished slavery in New York.  John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary when Burr died:  “Burr’s life, take it all together, was such as in any country of sound morals his friends would be desirous of burying in quiet oblivion.”  Adams’s father, President John Adams, had frequently defended Burr during his life. At an earlier time, he wrote, Burr “had served in the army, and came out of it with the character of a knight without fear and an able officer.”


Gordon S. Wood, a leading scholar of the revolutionary period, holds that it was Burr’s character (he had a tendency to solicit prostitutes and may have suffered from syphilis) that put him at odds with the rest of the “Founding fathers,” especially Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton. He believed that this led to his personal and political defeats and, ultimately, to his place outside the golden circle of revered revolutionary figures.


Because of Burr’s habit of placing self-interest above the good of the whole, those men thought that Burr represented a serious threat to the ideals for which they had fought the revolution. Their ideal, as particularly embodied in Washington and Jefferson, was that of “disinterested politics,” a government led by educated gentlemen who would fulfill their duties in a spirit of public virtue and without regard to personal interests or pursuits. This was the core of an Enlightenment gentleman, and Burr’s political enemies thought that he lacked that essential core. Hamilton thought that Burr’s self-serving nature made him unfit to hold office— especially the presidency.


Although Hamilton considered Jefferson a political enemy, he believed him a man of public virtue. Hamilton conducted an unrelenting campaign in the House of Representatives to prevent Burr’s election to the presidency and gain election of his erstwhile enemy, Jefferson. Hamilton characterized Burr as greatly immoral, “unprincipled … voluptuary,” and deemed his political quest as one for “permanent power.”  He predicted that if Burr gained power, his leadership would be for personal gain, but that Jefferson was committed to preserving the Constitution.


Young Progressive Marxists, it appears, know very little of the history of their hero, Hamilton, and his great adversary, Burr. Burr wanted to take over Mexico by force; Obama wants the Mexicans, and other illegal immigrants, to take over California by force of numbers and have them agitate through violence for the overthrow of the Electoral College.  Hamilton, indeed, like Obama, was an advocate of redistributing the wealth.


James Madison writes the most fully about the naturalization of citizens and protection of the borders. But even Hamilton defends the Electoral College, which so frustrates Democrat voters, especially the illegal ones.  ‘It’s so unfair!’ college students whine.


We’ve covered Federalist Paper No. 68 once already, but it bears repeating, in light of the Hamiltonians, regarding the Electoral College:


The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure or which has received the slight mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.  I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.  It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages the union of which was to be desired.


It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular juncture.


But to answer to the specific insult to the Vice President-Elect of the United States, Mike Pence, at last evening’s performance of Hamilton, the Musical, it seems ironic that the cast would chide the impeccable Pence for choosing to run alongside the controversial, but relatively unscathed Donald Trump when the same cast embraced the seriously ethically-challenged Hillary Clinton (and her philandering husband, former President Clinton, impeached by the House of Representatives).


Would Hamilton, who was also not unscathed by scandal, on about the same scale as Trump – maybe even more so – be honored to find the actor playing him scolding an honorable Vice President-Elect of the United States, whose running mate and boss defeated another presidential candidate so enmeshed in scandal?


Hamilton permitted himself to be fatally shot rather than apologize to someone he considered to be so morally corrupt. We don’t expect Vice President-Elect Pence to travel over to Weehawken to duke it out with a ridiculous, Liberal actor.


The producers obviously wanted to “cast” Donald Trump in the role of an Aaron Burr, demanding an apology for such a slight, in absentia via his lieutenant, to his character.


They should take a long walk off the Port Imperial pier.











Published in: on November 19, 2016 at 2:29 pm  Leave a Comment  

Trump Mixes Red and Purple

Oh my god! It’s been a week since the 2016 election and President-Elect Donald Trump still hasn’t selected his entire cabinet and filled the other 4,000 or so bureaucratic positions in his White House?  We’re doomed!


Maybe his moving crew has to wait until they can crow-bar out the old Obama staffers, remove some walls from the densely-crowded Executive Mansion, restore the rare China-silk wallpaper Hillary Clinton had removed back in the 1990s.


But the press is panicking that the transition isn’t proceeding smoothly. Why did Trump demote Chris Christie to a secondary advisory position?  Who’s going to be Secretary of State?!  Who’s going to be Secretary of the Treasury?!  We’ve got to know – RIGHT NOW!!


Or the editors will eat the reporters alive. They want raw meat.  Blood and guts.  Panic.  Hysteria.  Chaos.  Who could this newcomer be thinking of appointing to the cabinet posts?  This is very serious business.


A couple of Trump’s first appointments – Keith “Bad Boy” Bannon and Reince “The Purple RINO” Preibus – couldn’t have been a funnier pairing. When Trump tells you he’s going to bring people together, he’s not kidding.   Trump has named Preibus his White House Chief of Staff and Bannon as his senior counselor/chief communications strategist.


Trump loves a good fight and also believes in hedging his bets. They remind me of my older brother’s best friends, the class valedictorian and the captain of the football team.  They hated each other.  But they had to behave themselves and when my mother would drive all of us somewhere, my brother would sit between them.  The class valedictorian was okay with it.  The football star was highly incensed at being jammed into a car with the class egghead (who went on to join the U.S. Army).


We can depend upon the fact that President-Elect Trump will brook no mutinies in his White House, which probably explains why Christie has been demoted. Christie is not known for playing well with others.  He would make a natural attorney general, all the same.  Or perhaps head of Homeland Security.


Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has stated that he has absolutely no interest in becoming the Attorney General. The A.G. is a job for a younger man (or woman).  He says he wants the job of Secretary of State.  He’s certainly earned whatever position he wants, campaigning faithfully for Trump.  At first glance, he seems to be a peculiar choice for that position.  But Trump needs a tough negotiator, not a Washington dandy, to represent the United States in foreign policy matters.


Meanwhile, the press his harping about Trump’s “lack of transparency” because he hasn’t snapped his fingers and magically made the cabinet nominees appear. He and his transition team must read through piles of resumes and determine who is best suited for which position.  One nominee may have served on the Armed Services Committee.  Another might have been on the Committee for Foreign Relations.  Maybe one candidate actually served in the armed forces and that may or may not put him one notch above the others.  Those are the factors the transition team must take into consideration.


The nominees, unlike in the Clinton Administration, must be able to pass national security background checks.  Trump isn’t going to just let anyone waltz into the secure portions of the White House, where they can eyeball sensitive information on desks or computer screens.


The press also need not worry that some behind-the-scenes faction is making the actual decisions on who goes where. Trump brings mega-credentials to the White House as a Chief Executive Officer.  When he started out in Atlantic City, he had a team of incredibly whip-smart executives helping him to run his businesses.


He’s learned his lesson, there: he’s not going to permit all of his most talented people to fly together in one helicopter or airplane ever again.


The press needs to back off while Trump puts his team together. Pestering them is rather like asking construction workers trying to lift a steel beam into place whether the beam will be part of a conference room, a customer service center, or an executive suite.  They want to see the blue prints while still dangling from the scaffolding.


Here’s a newsflash for the media: Trump isn’t a television celebrity anymore – he’s President-Elect of the United States and he’s busy.  He’s trying to revamp an extremely damaged building whose previous occupant pretty well trashed the place, with a divided construction crew.


Yes, he’s in charge. Absolutely.  So get a grip, already.






Published in: on November 16, 2016 at 2:08 pm  Leave a Comment  

President-Elect Trump and the Illegal Immigrants

Only a week after his election, President-Elect Trump has apparently already backed off on or backed away from some of his campaign promises. As I recall, he promised he would do so, making me wonder, at the time, whether he was the candidate to vote for.


But then, a month away from the election, he began speaking like a true American, someone upon whom we could depend. Was he the candidate average Americans had been waiting for, the one who would send the illegal immigrants – all of them – packing, bring back our jobs, and repeal Obamacare?


The media has made great hay over what seems like his walk-back on Obamacare. However, the supposed “walk-back” involves something none of us were happy about – the pre-existing conditions clause in our health insurance policies that excluded those with pre-existing conditions (which is just about everyone over 40) from being covered.


Obama, yes, to his credit, was responsible for that. Shame-faced Republicans admitted that they backed such a clause on behalf of their clients in the insurance industry, not their individual constituents.  Trump gave him credit for it, although not much else concerning health care insurance.


So much for his walking back Obamacare. Thank goodness.


Praising Obama and Hillary as “good people” was not so good. While it’s understandable that Mr. T wants to appear magnanimous, there’s a difference between gracious civility and patting demonstrably bad politicians on the back.


Does Mr. Trump recognize that his election was a repudiation of Obama and of Hillary Clinton? Reluctance to thrash an already well-beaten opponent is commendable.  Hillary lost.  The loss was marginal; that is to say, it was a close race.  But beaten she is, truly and if not soundly, at least obviously.  Her life’s dream was to become President of the United States.  That dream is gone, as are the means of support for the Clinton Foundation.  No power, no donors.


The American people who voted for Trump are calling for him to name a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary’s e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation, and Benghazi. He hasn’t even named his entire cabinet yet.  He has also yet to name over 4,000 bureaucrats to their offices.  What happened to “draining the swamp”?  Corruption – and huge national debt – develop from an oversized, out-of-control, unaccountable bureaucracy.


These are the regulators who make doing business in the United States prohibitively costly and make life in the United States moribund. President-Elect Trump needs to downsize the federal government, beginning with either the elimination or severe downsizing of the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environment Protection Agency.  That’s just for starters.


Then, he needs to deport the illegal immigrants. All of them; not just the criminals, the drug-dealers, and the rapists.  The illegal immigrants present a serious dangerous to the electorate of the United States.  They’re the people who can and will vote into office politicians who absolutely do not share the American dream.  Illegal immigrants drive down wages and earning power.  They dramatically raise the cost of social services.  And they refuse to assimilate into the existing American culture.  LaRaza declared war on America years ago.  Their goal is to take over California and the southern states of Arizona, New Mexico, and even Texas.


The results of this presidential election are a potent reason for deporting them, no matter how innocent they may seem: millions of illegal votes were cast in favor of Hillary Clinton in California, and probably Chicago.


Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and CIA operatives Glen Doherty and Tyrone Smith (both former Navy SEALS) were “good men.” Customs Enforcement Agent Brian Terry was a “good man.”  So was federal agent Jaime Zapata.


According to the FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform):


Tessa Tranchant was an innocent “good person” who was killed when an intoxicated illegal immigrant rear-ended her car at a stoplight. Drew Rosenberg was a second-year law student who was riding his motorcycle when an illegal immigrant for Honduras ran him over three times.  Grant Ronnebeck was shot to death in Mesa, Ariz., by an illegal immigrant over a pack of cigarettes.


Sarah Root, 21, from Omaha, Neb., met a similar fate to Tessa Tranchant when she was rear-ended by another illegal immigrant from Honduras who was street-racing. Sarah had just graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0 GPA. Omaha is in Douglas County, Nebraska, which has sanctuary policies that impede local law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with ICE officers.  The illegal was charged with motor vehicular homicide but posted bond to get out of jail and was released.  He is still on the run.


Eleven illegal alien members of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang have been convicted of a series of crimes including murder. Jorge Enrique Moreno-Aguilar, Juan Alberto Ortiz-Orellana and Minor Perez, all from Maryland were convicted in mid-May of murder and conspiracy in a racketeering enterprise. (MRC-TV May 24, 2016) New Jersey gang members Santos Reyes-Villatoro, Mario Oliva, Roberto Contreras, Julian Moz-Aguilar, Hugo Palencia, Jose Garcia, Cruz Flores, and Esau Ramirez were convicted in late May in New Jersey of various murder, racketeering and firearms crimes.


Illegal aliens, Reinol Vergara and Edson Benitez, pled guilty to second degree murder for the death of a 90 year-old Minnesota man they beat and tied up while they stole from his home, leaving him to bleed to death. (Breibart News May 11, 2016)


Then there was the British illegal alien who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump himself at a campaign Rally in Nevada.


These victims were all “good people”. Can President-Elect Trump distinguish between the “good” people were killed illegal and the not-so-good people who implemented this incursion of freedom-hating criminals.  Does he put Hillary Rodham Clinton in the same category as Sean Smith, or even her “friend” Christopher Stevens, whose pleas for help she ignored?  Does he put Barack Hussein Obama in the same “good” category as ICE Agent Brian Terry?


President-Elect shouldn’t be afraid to “disturb the peace” by backing away from his salubrious praise of Obama and Hillary Clinton. The nation will not plunge into a bloodbath of chaos if he tells the truth about them, as he did all along during his campaign.  The prospect of assigning a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton will, in fact, help restore American’s faith in the true justice system and in those we elect to high office.


Let President-Elect Trump try out a few sentences like these:


“President Obama and Brian Terry are (and were) good people.”


“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Drew Rosenberg were good people who had a lot in common – a love of the law.”


“Hillary Clinton and Sean Smith served their country equally well.”


Or President-Elect Trump could just find a chalkboard and scrape his fingers down the slate.





Published in: on November 15, 2016 at 1:08 pm  Leave a Comment  

Young Dems Assume Fetal Position After Trump Win

Young Democrats and Hillary supporters, devastated after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on Tuesday, are suffering from massive mass depression after the election.


So overwrought are they that they tried to convince their schools to cancel mid-term exams (nice try). The schools have offered them “safe spaces” in which to vent their rage or cry their hearts out.  Service dogs and puppies have been brought in to comfort them and therapists are available to help them cope with their loss.  There is no participation trophy or consolation award to give them.


This is what happens when you raise a generation in a Nanny State. Now the big, bad man is going to make them go to work.  They’ll have to get real jobs.  They’ll have to be responsible citizens.  They’ll have to get used to reality – that adults rule the world.


These are all echoes of the Sixties, which Bill and Hillary Clinton represented. Accommodating these sore losers hearkens back to the days when Yale University provided a trampoline for students to bounce upon.  Hillary Clinton led the fight to replace normal grades with pass-fail grades.


Meanwhile, the more violent types, particularly those illegal immigrants and drug-dealers who will be swiftly deported, are on the march in cities across America, from New York City to San Francisco and Portland, where violence (just as we predicted) would break out if Trump won the election.


Some say it’s cynical to claim that we are a hopelessly divided nation. But we are polarized between Americans who love freedom and those who prefer collectivism.  The latter are adherents of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and even Stalin.  Central and South America, including Mexico, are overrun with collectivists who toe the Marxist line.  Even the most sincerely Conservative students entering college as freshman can be turned, through a mixture of classroom politics, peer pressure, and drugs, into useful idiots.


The creatures we saw protesting in New York City, crawling up Fifth Avenue (I believe) reminded me of the black beetles in the 1999 film The Mummy that consumed their victims in a swarm.


These are people who have sworn their allegiance to drug lords and gangster leaders. They’ve seduced several generations of young people into buying their “product” turning them into more-or-less permanent customers whose judgement is now crippled, almost beyond repair.


Converting them would require a major intervention. Cutting off their supply is a good start.  But a number of states have already legalized recreational marijuana and the federal government will be hard to it to interfere.  The only way to stop it is one that makes most Constitutionalists c cringe – through a Supreme Court intervention.


Perhaps the spectacle of their older brothers and sisters curling up in the fetal position over will make high school students reconsider their college choices, if they haven’t already been brainwashed by the New Establishment school system. Or maybe the American people will reconsider the voting age and insist it be raised to age 21 again through a repeal of the 26th Amendment.


While it’s true that if a citizen is old enough to be drafted into the military, then they’re old enough to vote, adult American has the right to question whether an 18 year-old is mature enough to vote. The post-election behavior of the current young generation is a prime example.  They’re no longer considered old enough to drink.  They can’t handle the vote, either, it appears.


One of the issues they protest is the Electoral College. Students and Millennial voters believe the Electoral College should be abolished.  Their reaction to the election is precisely why the Founding Fathers established it in the first place.


Explaining the creation and purpose of the U.S. Constitution in The Federalist Papers, as series of essays written by  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, they address the necessity of an electoral college, by which the U.S. Senate (before the 17th Amendment) and the Presidency would be determined by a proportionally-elected set of state representatives.


In paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:


The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.  I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.  It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages of the union of which was to be desired.


It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chose by the people for the special purpose, and at that particular juncture.


It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by the men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.


It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.   But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration promise an effectual security against this mischief.  The choice of several to form an intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.  And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.


Nothing was more to be desired that that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.  But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort with the most provident and judicious attention.  They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.  And they have excluded from the eligibility to this trust all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.  No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States can be the number of the electors.


Thus, without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.  The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.  Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives which, thought they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.


Another and no less important desideratum was that the executive should be independent in his office on all but the people themselves.   He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.  This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making this important choice.


All these advantages will be happily combined in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.


Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to center on one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall elect out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.


Hamilton goes on to cite the moral virtues requisite of a man to be placed in such a high office and the dangers in men of low intrigue (such as candidates who force open sealed files to expose another candidate’s personal life) and the little arts of popularity (calling upon friends in the media to populate their publications with artfully slanted pictures of the candidate and family), “may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish in the establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”


The Sixties made a hash of morality and integrity in the United States. Chain immigration introduced into the country a flood of immigrants more interested in the largesse of a bureaucratic government than the opportunities a free, capitalist economy offered.  Yet another president seeded the White House with anarchistic nihilists who openly sought the downfall of the United States from within.  The final blow to morality and integrity came with an avowedly Marxist president whose campaign was based on the redistribution of wealth, a marked hatred of the middle class suburbs, and a decidedly un-American disdain for the U.S. Constitution itself.


The election of Donald Trump is a repudiation of those seeking to “change” the United States from a representative republic to an open-society democracy where law and order are obliviated, justice is turned on its head to serve social engineering rather than democracy, and morality is vanquished.


No wonder those who voted for Hillary Clinton are in a near-catatonic state. They held out some hope when, in his meeting with President Obama, President-Elect Trump declared that he agreed with some of Obama’s ideas.  Those ideas, it turned out, pertained to the elements of Obamacare that protect those with pre-existing conditions and early college graduates who may be having difficulty, in this economy, getting a job.


Trump’s supporters can now breathe a sigh of relief, in that not only have they not been betrayed, but their champion supports the same changed element of New Age healthcare whose previous incarnation had frustrated them for decades, the same element Republicans had supported and which they belatedly admitted they were wrong in upholding.


Thomas Jefferson said that only an educated populace could sustain a democratic form of government. The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful protest.  Where great throngs gather, tough, the danger increases that violence will break out.


All violence needs is the match of agitation to strike the flint of ignorance in order to create a brawl.




Published in: on November 12, 2016 at 1:27 pm  Leave a Comment  

First Meeting Between Obama and Trump

If there was a fly in the wall on the Oval Office during the meeting between President Obama and President-Elect Trump, one would suspect that it would have to be a fly with a tolerance for a screechy violin and a box of tissues.


The meeting went on for much longer than expected. Judging by Trump’s praise of Obama and Obama’s lack of for Trump, one would think the meeting went pretty much Obama’s way.  Obama studiously made it difficult for the lone, press pool camera to capture the actual first meeting between the two.


Only after he seemingly softened Trump up, did Obama allow photographs to photograph them together. Obama led the press conference – as is his right as president – while (I thought) Trump seemed to slump in his chair, rather than sitting upright and confident.  Obama, in short, collared Trump and wouldn’t let him out until he’d sold him.


Did Obama, as soon as the Oval Office door close, begin his violin solo on his favorite theme, the one he wants to see as his enduring legacy – Obamacare? Despite Trump’s brash and abrasive appearance during the long primary campaign, one would suspect that a soft, generous heart beats beneath that gruff exterior.  Most men in his position are like that.


Obama is the polar opposite; he’s famously cold – a glacier front of icy-hearted collectivist ideals that care not a whit for individual people, but rather calculate on a faceless mass of people, the facts of whom cannot actually be confirmed.


So, did Obama launch on a 90-minute diatribe about the plight of the poor, the black, the Hispanic, the homeless. You can bet your lunch he did.  What was Trump going to say to all that?  Guilt and shame are the calling cards of the Left.


Except that if we had a properly functioning Society, those in actual need would represent a very small and manageable portion of our population. The very fact that we have such an enormous bureaucracy tells us there are too many people dependent upon the government.


A Fox News commentator noted that while the Executive Mansion looks large, inside the offices and corridors are all very small. The White House, in fact, houses over 400 political staff members and that population has long spilled over in the nearby Old Executive Office Building.


That’s how big and power the Executive Branch has become, and where the bureaucracy has taken root and grown out, like an ivy root strangling an oak tree.


Wanting to distance his now president-elect self from his former primary campaign self, President-Elect Trump was gracious in his praise of Hillary Clinton. One thinks too gracious towards a decidedly undeserving former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.


As a senator, Hillary Clinton violated many Senate ethics rules. Even Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., in their sometimes gushing biography of Hillary Clinton, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Back Nine Books, 2007) had to concede the her Hillaryness was sometimes ethically challenged:


Hillary has found…creative ways to leverage her considerable appeal and turn it into additional support. In 2003, she came up with the idea of establishing a small, non-profit foundation to promote job growth in New York, especially upstate.  This branch of Hillaryland was based in New York City and headed by Roger Altman, who served as deputy secretary of the treasury under President Clinton and went on to become chairman of the boutique investment bank Evercore Partners. 


In early 2006, Altman quietly organized a group of experts on energy policy from academia, investment banks, and think tanks to prepare a lengthy written report and personally brief Hillary on its work. Senators routinely seek advice and input from outsiders.  But it is unusual to rely on a secret task force.  Members of Hillary’s group say they were asked not to discuss their involvement and assured they would not be publicly identified with her.


Hillary did publicly announce another advisory group, quasi-permanent committee of New York agricultural experts. That panel’s creation traced back, in part, to a hidden staffing decision that led to Hillary’s apparent violation of Senate rules.


The story begins in the summer 2001, when Hillary was looking to fill a gap in the expertise of her staff. No one in her Washington office had much expertise in agriculture.  The need was urgent; a massive farm bill was coming up for consideration.


Hillary, in a conversation that summer with Susan Henry, the dean of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, sought help. Specifically, Hillary “indicated that she wanted to increase her own agricultural expertise and that of her staff,” as part of an effort to “speed up her understanding of New York State’s agricultural interests” for the upcoming farm bill debate.


What was happening was that dairy farms in New York were going out of business because they couldn’t compete with the more technologically-advanced commercial dairy farms that simply put their cows in stalls all day long and milked them for all they were worth.


A few weeks later, Henry supplied Hillary with Lee Telega, a long-time Cornell staff employee involved in a state-wide dairy program and, part-time, as a lobbyist in Albany, New York. Telega had been chosen by Cornell’ government relations, or lobbying, arm.


Telega rented an apartment in Washington for his six-month stint as one of Hillary’s Congressional fellows. Cornell continued to pay his salary and picked up many of his expenses for his “special assignment.”  The fellowship appeared to be a win-win situation for Hillary and the university.


“Cornell, for very selfish reasons, wanted a senator who understood northeast agriculture,” said one Cornell employee who worked with Hillary, adding “It’s very important to us” because Cornell’s agriculture school is one of the biggest in the state and benefits from land grants.


Historic land grants weren’t the only government gifts Cornell depended upon. The university has long been the recipient of numerous federal research grants.  Cornell, as well as northeast farmers, benefited from the 2002 farm bill.  Indeed, the university’s annual grants from the Department of Agriculture rose almost 40 percent from 2002 to 2005, including funds for new programs specifically created by the legislation.


Hillary was not a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, but she supported the bill, actively lobbied fellow senators on benefits important to New York (and Cornell), including conservation programs, and said she and others “fought hard” to win increased funding for those programs.


Hillary benefited from the arrangement as well, securing an in-house expert on an important subject at no cost to her. Telega prepared memos, cultivated sources inside the Department of Agriculture, met personally with Hillary and her staff, represented Senator Clinton in negotiations with other Congressional staffers, reached out to farmers he knew for help, and was granted Senate-floor privileges the day the farm bill was passed.


Hillary’s circle of farm advisers quickly widened when her agricultural advisory group was formed in 2001. Telega played a key role in selecting its members, which included Dean Henry and a number of other Cornell officials and alumni. 


“There’s no conflict of interest in a land-grant institution putting a fellow in the senator’s office,” Telega said. He explained, “Senator Clinton told me in one of the first meetings” that his job was to “make sure that New York State gets its fair share of the farm bill.”


But the job of determining whether there is a conflict of interest is not left up to a senator or a fellow. Instead, the screening for such conflicts of interest is done by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics.  Senators are advised to contact the committee before they use the services of a fellow because, by the practices of the chamber, “each fellowship situation must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis” for possible conflicts of interest.


Senators are supposed to file a report with the Ethics Committee if they use the services of an individual who is paid and works for more than four weeks. (Only about half the Senate’s members use fellows, mainly because it’s nearly impossible to attract the extra help without the office space.)  The form called the “Supervisor’s Report on Individuals Who Perform Senate Services” is supposed to be signed by both the supervisor (normally the senator) and the employee.


The report discloses the employee’s starting date and the source and amount of his or her compensation. Subsequent reports are required on a quarterly basis, as is a termination report.  For unknown reasons, neither Hillary nor her office filed a single one of these reports for Telega.


Another rule applies when senators use the full–time services of any individual, including fellows, who work for more than ninety days, even if they are unpaid. This rule says, “No Senator shall utilize the full-time services of an individual for more than ninety days [in a calendar year] unless [the individual] agrees in writing to comply with the Senate Code of Official Conduct in the same manner and to the same extent as an employee of the Senate.”


Hillary and Telega never completed any such agreement, either, which is to be filled in by the senator and then signed by both parties.


As a result of these omissions, the public and the Ethics Committee were left in the dark about Telega. And he was not an isolated example.  A few dozen fellows worked for Hillary in her first term, including two other Cornell agricultural fellows.  Some worked shorter terms than others; a few stayed on as permanent employees.


The breadth of issues on which they worked was wide-ranging – from military and national security issues to health care, aging, the environment, stem-cell research, and other domestic topics. Their tasks included writing speeches, conducting researching, drafting legislation, meeting with lobbyists and constituents, representing Senator Clinton at outside events, and preparing talking points for Hillary.


“These fellows are free labor,” said the administrator of one program supplying a fellow to Hillary. “They “expand the organizational capacity,” especially, “in the context of a presidential campaign.”


But during Hillary’s first term as senator, she filed only one supervisor’s report for her full-time fellows, in 2003 – and even that report was inadequate because she never filed the other necessary documents, even though the supervisor’s report that she signed clearly indicated they were required. The fact of the filing suggests Hillary was aware of the reporting requirements.  (Fellows are not expected to navigate the rules on their own.)  But again and again, she did not bother.


Then, beginning in late March 2007, Hillary and six of her fellows suddenly – and, in most cases, belatedly – filed the forms pledging to abide by the Senate Code of Conduct, and the initial supervisory reports. The filings occurred after questions had been raised with the sponsors of some of her current fellows.


Ignorance of the rules was certainly a possible excuse, albeit a bad one: Senators and Senate employees are regularly briefed by the Ethics Committee, so “everybody should know” the rules.  However, the committee, lacking audit authority, does not have the ability to hunt for missing reports; it simply receives and files the forms.


The lax enforcement practices of the Senate ethics panel have prompted critics, including [of all people] Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, to propose an independent investigative body to look in the behavior and practices of members.   Most senators, including Hillary Clinton, opposed the idea.


The laissez-faire enforcement of the rules by the Ethics Committee makes it difficult to determine how many reports Hillary should have filed for her fellows. (The number depends upon the duration of their work and whether they were compensated.)  Still, over the course of six years, she appears to have neglected to file a few dozen reports for at least a dozen fellows.  In eight cases, Hillary used fellows from the same sponsoring organization that supplied fellows to other senators.  While those other senators filed correctly, Hillary did not.  In four other cases, fellows from other sponsors worked long enough for Hillary to fall under the reporting requirement.


She may have been deferential when it came to matters of territory and seniority [in the U.S. Senate – eventually], but Hillary’s lack of documentation of these workers seems careless at best and negligent at worst. A Senate ethics expert noted that Hillary’s practices with her fellows were “unlike any other senator.”  Overall, the expert said, her office operated with a “we can do what we need to do [the ends justify the means]” attitude.  Her failu7re to file reports on her fellows demonstrates something that has long complicated the political and professional career of Hillary Clinton:  an underlying sense that the rules of the game are up to her.


That is the real senatorial record Clinton touts: legislation largely consisting of honorariums acknowledging Girl Scouts and sustainable growth gardeners. That is why we question Hillary’s entitlement to the generous praise of our soon-to-be president.  While it was kind and broad-minded of him to cite her long years of service, Hillary Clinton’s “service” to our country was dubious, at best, and criminal at worst.


When I worked in the public affairs office of an insurance company, not just anyone could shake the hand of the company president; they had to be vetted not only by their supervisor and their supervisor’s supervisor. After that vetting, the president’s office reviewed the request to even be in the presence of the company president.  Only then were you permitted to receive his acknowledgement.  Poor performers, the lazy, the disreputable, and the disloyal need not apply.


Surely, President-Elect Trump, as President and CEO of his own company, recognizes these rules. He doesn’t come to the office of the presidency completely devoid of executive experience.  In fact, he comes with much better credentials than the then-Senator Barack Obama did almost eight years ago.


We hope he will not be overawed by the office, its current occupant, and all its trappings. Nor should he be intimidated by the might of Congress, although of course, he must, by Constitutional law, recognize their separate but equal role in our way of government.  Those laws are something the current occupant flouted time and again, as we note by his numerous executive overreach orders.


President-Elect Trump needs to awed by the power of the people, not by the arrogated power of the bureaucracy that surrounds the presidency, nor by the Republican half of Congress (the Democrat half is thoroughly useless) that has unabashedly ignored the mandate of their constituency in order to appear “cooperative.”


Let not the lesser angels be your guide, President-Elect Trump. Nice is not the same as good.


Published in: on November 10, 2016 at 3:20 pm  Leave a Comment  

An Addendum on Trump’s Presidential Victory

In my last post, I wrote that I had faith in Donald Trump. What I meant was, I had faith in him as I was watching the election results last evening and into the early morning, not that I was among the original “faithful.”


I was reminded to modify this statement by the bellowing of Michael Savage (who I suspect reads this blog), who led “the parade” from the beginning.


As my readers know all too well, I was not onboard with Trump’s candidacy in the beginning. I didn’t care for his primary campaign style, to put it charitably and thought his campaigning needed some polishing.  Even his wife, Melania, thought he needed to act more presidential.


I cringed at what I viewed as self-destructive behavior. Or at least, campaign-destructive behavior.  He couldn’t act this way if he was going to represent us as President of the United States.  I was satirically critical.  I laughed about his spray tan.


The photographer in me, however, felt guilty, knowing that the cause of the spray-tan look was his bright red ties. How could I make fun of someone who looked just the way countless other men had looked in my studio back at my former company?  I complained about the red ties frequently.  My boss insisted that the red ties were good for attracting attention.


My primary guy was Ted Cruz. But Trump won the primaries fair and square.  I was not a NeverTrumper.  I was never, ever a NeverTrumper and often advised Twitterers not to take such an inflexible position towards the candidate.  He isn’t THAT bad.


In fact, after the primaries, I reflected on how often I had listened to him on WOR radio. I was impressed by his genuine concern for the nation and the direction it was taken.  He didn’t sound like the boss from The Apprentice, or a wrestler or a boxer or a bathing beauty ogler.


He sounded like a concerned American.


Gradually, he shed his Apprentice persona and began taking on the mantle of President of the United States, especially within the last month. I joined the parade late, it’s true, but I was a member of the band since he was nominated.


I became a genuine supporter within the last month, listening to his resonant voice expounding on the greatness of America and Americans. Now that was a guy I could vote for without cringing or hesitating.


So, yes, I was a little late in coming around. But yesterday I pressed the button for Donald Trump.


And I didn’t have to hold my nose at all.


Congratulations, Mr. Trump!

Published in: on November 9, 2016 at 3:55 pm  Leave a Comment  

Donald J. Trump Wins 2016 Presidential Election

Many political pundits, pollsters, politicians, and Democrats are scratching their heads this morning as the news broke at 3:30 a.m. EST, that Donald J. Trump was elected the next President of the United States, winning the Electoral College with 277 votes, which he gained by flipping blue state Pennsylvania.


If they’d paid any attention at all eight years ago, his victory wouldn’t be a mystery. The American people were, as our new president-elect calls us, “a movement” in search of a leader.  Trump was a natural-born leader, with a tremendous, resonant voice and a genuine, sincere love of America, in search of a movement.


My good friend and I watched the election night coverage right from the beginning, at around 7 p.m. We started out with Fox News, but I simply couldn’t abide their gloomy forecasts and insisted on switching the channel to Fox Business News, for which I’ve developed a new-found love.  God bless you, Stuart Varney.  And Charles Payne and Neil Cavuto, too.


I had faith in Donald Trump. I had even more faith in the American people.  I could sum up the issue in one word:  Obamacare.  As I sat anxiously watching the results come in, I prayed and prayed.  Obamacare was such an all-consuming nightmare.  Surely the American people would repudiate it?  My experience at the voting booth, where people I think who hadn’t voted in a presidential election since Ronald Reagan in 1980 suddenly were four deep in the tiny building that served as our polling station.  For my district, I was voter number 487.  And it was only noon.


This was never going to be a landslide for either candidate. We were, and still are, a divided nation.  The votes are still being counted, but Hillary is still in the lead by some 285,000 votes.  Some districts and counties aren’t finished with the job.


One of the pundits on Fox Business predicted – probably correctly – that Hillary would win the popular vote because of California. In the Golden State, illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities are free and welcome to vote in our elections.  So the popular vote may not actually be hers after all.


The funniest, most gratifying Conservative moment was when Fox Business News showed the Dow futures market tanking, at one point, at minus 900. The Asian Markets were panicking as well.  I thought with satisfaction that perhaps all those wealthy, Wall Street hedge fund brokers, whom Hillary shamelessly courted, were getting ready to plunge 71 stories from the top of 40 Wall Street (ironically called The Trump Building).


As for the Asian markets, they clearly saw the writing on the wall. Were they preparing their ceremonial swords for hari-kari?  The American people don’t take kindly to being cheated, having their pets poisoned, and having their jobs stolen, not matter how cheaply China markets it plastic, breakable toys.


So how did all those pollsters and pundits get it wrong?


They took the American people for granted. They couldn’t see us from 40,000 feet sailing from the Left Coast to the other Left Coast, what they’ve called for decades, “Fly Over Country.”  They just figured they could get away with bankrupting our country economically, legally and morally.  What were the little American people going to do about it?


Donald Trump, they sneered, was just a joke. That was another mistake they made:  underestimating him.  True, he didn’t have any political experience.  But that was the point.  Our own party had sold us out.  I suspect blue-collar Democrats felt the same way.  Someone dubbed Trump the Blue-Collar Billionaire.  That’s just about right.


Donald Trump is very, very rich. On the other had, he’s not actually right up there at the top of wealthiest Americans. He’s number 324.  That’s a respectable number.  I don’t know about you, but I’d be happy to be listed as the 324th wealthiest individual in America.  For him, that’s a humbling number.


Trump, in spite of everything, worked hard for his wealth. Sure, his father helped him out.  That’s what fathers (and mothers are for).  Long ago, he gave up building casinos for building golf courses.  Golf being an incurable addiction, even more all-consuming than mere gambling, Trump and his family are set for life with their golf courses and resorts.


Although Trump won the Republican Primaries, he was struggling to win over women and the college-educated. We might have cringed, but the sensible among us didn’t join the NeverTrump crowd.  He was the candidate.  Either he’d be cured or he’d be endured.


Fortunately, in the last month of the campaign, a miracle occurred. Well, several miracles occurred.  Obamacare premium spikes kicked in.  FBI Director Comey reinstated the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails (two days before the election, he would rescind that order and declare that there would no investigation into the e-mails).  Elizabeth Warren spoke in a rally about the “nastiness” of women voters.  They now see where that got them.


And presidential candidate Donald J. Trump emerged from his cocoon as the natural, patriotic leader many of us already knew he was, giving perfect speeches, with complete sentences, facts to back up his assertions, and anecdotes to give humanity to his facts. His naturally resonant voice boomed across one assembly hall or outdoor venue after another, proclaiming his love for the American people and devoting himself to their causes.  If you have to have someone speak for you, you want someone with a resounding, bass voice.  Trump had the necessary gravitas.


He spelled out his agenda in order and in detail. He also turned his campaign from a campaign of the self to a campaign of the selfless candidate embracing the causes and concerns of the American people.


We must give a salute to his female – note to feminists – a woman – campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway – for organizing Trump’s campaign. Gone was the reality television star of the spring.  Here was our candidate, in fine form, introducing Americans to what they never thought they’d ever hear or see – a path to freedom and prosperity for average Americans.


I know a certain former co-worker who is eating crow for lunch today. At a retirement party for my former boss, he said he was certain Trump would lose.  He said he “knew things” and was privy to many way, way, way behind-the-scenes sources.


I stood beside my former boss and simply listened as my boss told him he was wrong, that Trump was going to win.


I wanted to tell this silly, young guy that I knew things, too. He’d gone on to work in those lofty Wall Street towers.  He’s making a lot of money, whereas I am broke.  Once he made the move into Manhattan and Columbus Circle, he lost touch with the real power – the American people.


For eight or nine years now, as a Tea Party member, I’ve been listening to the real sources of power. They were rumbling and roiling, like an ache in your innards. They were an energy just searching for an outlet, for someone who would speak for them.


The Tea Party wasn’t enough for them. These were blue collar men and women.  They didn’t really want to study the Constitution, although they certainly supported and defended our legal foundation.  They wanted something done about the reality before them.  Businesses and factories were closing all across America, but here in tiny little jobless Jersey, it was perhaps more obvious because you couldn’t drive more than two miles before you came across an abandoned industrial park or a shuttered shopping mall.


Obamacare was bankrupting many families. There were families who found that either the Obamacare premiums, or the penalty for not having a policy, exceeded their actual income.  Doctors were planning on going into other fields.  My own doc is on vacation.  If it hadn’t been for Donald Trump winning the election, he might not have ever come back from “vacation.”


In the last month, evidently President-Elect Trump had an epiphany: it was all about the American people.  We’re the bosses, the force that has made America great, the reason America needs to embrace freedom and Constitutional justice.  We’re the reason our wonderful military and law enforce puts their lives on the line every day, and for which every right-thinking, decent American is eternally grateful.


We wanted our country back. We wanted our jobs back.  We wanted our individual freedom back.  That’s what the politicians and pundits didn’t understand.  We don’t want government to take care of us.  We don’t need government to take care of us.  We don’t want government establishing careers on our backs.  Let them go get real jobs.


Yes, this was a tight race. We are still a divided nation.  So long as one side of the country embraces freedom and the other embraces collectivism, we will continue to be a divided country.  For the next four years, we must take advantage of our freedom and prepare to pass it on to the next generation and the generation after that.


The fight isn’t over and never will be. Our preparation to defend freedom begins with educating the next generation.  We can’t do that until we can get their attention.  Somehow, we must break the stranglehold recreational drugs have over them.  A tough fight, but one that Mr. Trump’s promise of returning drug-dealers and other criminals will go a long way in winning.  Get the drugs out of our schools, off of our streets, and out of our kids’ hands.  We need to slap them upside the head, as the saying goes.  The science that tells us marijuana has a long-term, debilitating effect on the brain must be allowed to come forward.


Next, we must return American history to our schools, scrubbed of revisionism, entitlement, and, frankly, Marxism (it comes disguised in many forms: entitlement, “white privilege”, political correctness).  Schools must once again teach history, not social studies.  Social studies is a course for college freshman, not first-graders nor even high school seniors.  If students really want to study cultures, let them take a course in anthropology when they get into college.


But that’s getting far into the future. Let us relish this day when someone named Donald J. Trump used his celebrity to turn the spotlight on American freedom.


And won.






Published in: on November 9, 2016 at 1:46 pm  Leave a Comment  

Hillary Clinton and the Woman’s Voice

Her grating voice, her shrill screaming should be enough to embarrass any woman. Then, there was the “Nasty Woman” campaign speech by Elizabeth Warren.  If that wasn’t enough to give women second thoughts about voting for Hillary, then nothing would.


Hillary Clinton is said to be drawing young single women and college educated women. Presumably, the polls mean the “Career Women”.


I’m a woman. I’m single.  I have a bachelor’s degree in English and Communications.  No husband or children. But I am a Conservative, all the same.  No college professor would have ever convinced me that a career path was the better way to go.  That a husband and family, at best, were inconveniences to be dealt with through divorce and daycare.  Hang onto the husband long enough to produce some authentic children, then divorce the guy, take the house, and live happily ever after trying to break through the male ceiling of Corporate America.


What I love best America is our freedom of choice. A woman is, and always has been, free to choose her career path.  My mother was fighting for her right as a woman to equal pay to man’s before Hillary was even a glimmer in her father’s eye.  Mom didn’t need government help to get that raise in pay, the position itself being considered a “man’s” position.  She gambled on her own merit as a reporter, her work ethic, her integrity, her honesty, and her Bronx-inspired gutsiness.


In those days, those sorts of women were a minority. Not only did most women not want to be the president of a company, but they wanted to be homemakers.  They wanted to be wives and mothers, to raise the children and take care of the home.  World War II forced them into the workplace.  But the post-World War II Baby Boom proves that they were all too happy to return home once their husbands returned from the war.  Many men did not and those widows eventually remarried.


Motherhood was the greatest honor they could have. Not a sign on an office suite door.  Yet with Women’s Liberation in the Seventies, women were lured out into the work force, if only part-time.  My mother was glad to get out of the house.  She took a job as a bus driver and was soon driving the Atlantic City route just like the men.


Our family income certainly a nosedive by the time by younger brother was born. Gone were the new cars every other year, the fur coats, the Broadway shows, the vacations.  Now it was hand-me-downs from family friends, a mortgage, hot dogs and beans for dinner, and one beat up car from the 1920s that we called “The Purple Car”.  No springs attached.


My father was ultra-conservate. Mom was a bit more moderate socially, but definitely a fiscal conservative.  They recognized what the press dismissively called “The Red Menace” as a real threat to freedom and the American way of life.  They were furious when LBJ passed the chain immigration act.  They were suspicious of the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The campus hippies were KGB plants meant to ply our foolish American youth with drugs and radicalize them.

The poster child for this movement showed up on the cover of Life magazine – Hillary Rodham. I hated her immediately.  I despised what she stood for.  I examined the cover.  She looked like a hippie, only cleaner and less funky.  Was she a poser?  Her pants were certainly loud, but they looked like they were made of silk.


Hillary is no friend of men, as we know. She’s no friend of women, either.  She’s no friend of the family.  She’s a Marxist.  Marxists despise what they called the “Nuclear Family.”  A nuclear family, removed from the pressures of the city – it’s crime, it’s unrest, it’s claustrophobic politics – could insulate themselves from Marxist political pressure and teach their children their own values.


What the American suburbs couldn’t insulate themselves from was the wave of drugs. The park near the local high school took on the then-popular name of “Needle Park.”  It’s still Needle Park today.  It’s been Needle Park since Bill Clinton stripped ICE and the DEA of their powers at our borders.


Hillary came from a stable family. Bill did not.  His father was not Roger Clinton, Sr., an abusive alcoholic who was unable to have children.  His father, rumors say, wasn’t even William Blythe, killed in a car crash before Bill was born.  They say Bill’s real father was a Dr. Wright of Hope, Ark.; that his mother had a very provocative career as a nurse and everyone in the town of Hope knew who Bill’s real father was.


Hillary followed Clinton’s family pattern. She was rightly furious about her husband’s philandering.  But rumors (again, just rumors) have it that Chelsea is the daughter of convicted felon Webster Hubbell, a White House counsel during the Clinton Administration.


Is this Hillary’s idea of family values? She promotes hare-brained theories about multiple genders.  She’s an advocate of supplanting parents with government-appointed attorneys as guardians.  She experimented with the Arkansas educational system, where gifted children were made to feel guilty for their successes.


Hillary is set to follow Obama’s footsteps in universal healthcare and housing. Premiums on health insurance are set to increase by triple digits.  Our jobs have been driven out of the country by an economy over which Hillary and the Democrats ran rampant.  Those people who can’t find work will find themselves in a world of trouble when it comes time to collect Social Security.


A pundit on television stated that certain women are driven not by issues but by personality. What does Hillary’s personality tell them?  She’s foul-mouthed, bad-tempered, exercises poor judgement, blames others for her mistakes, lies with impunity, manipulates the press, and intimidates enemies with smear campaigns, string-pulling, and physical threats.  Some people have disappeared or died on her watch.


Hillary has no regard for law and order, or for those who enforce it. We won’t be safe with her in office.  Were you stupid enough to try drugs when you were young?  Well, the drugs are now going to be commonplace, right in our school corridors and on our playgrounds.  They’ll be legal and it’s all a genuine conspiracy to wreak revenge on the politics of the 16th Century.

In his last act of office, Hillary’s husband, Bill, granted pardons to hundreds and hundreds of serious criminals. The current officeholder, Barack Obama, just told the millions of illegal immigrants stationed in our country to go ahead and vote today – that he wouldn’t do anything to stop them.


Hillary will continue on this path. Heck, she paved the way for it when she was young.


Pundits keeping saying that “THIS is the most important election of our time.” They’ve all been important, because they’ve all been an incremental step in destroying our country and paving the way for its takeover by Marxists.  They want your children, they want your homes, they want your money, they want your freedom.


In their book, (“The Communist Manifesto”) individual freedom is considered not only a selfish act, but an actual crime. Millions of Russians were imprisoned in gulags when they discovered that Communism was just a massive takeover by a criminally brutal bureaucratic government.


Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said that he sure would be glad when this election cycle was all over. I wouldn’t be too sure of that.  Depending on who wins today, we may be looking back at today and wondering what else we could have done to prevent this.  If Trump wins, there may well be riots in the street.  That will be their reaction to a Trump win.


What are we going to do, if Hillary wins?







Published in: on November 8, 2016 at 11:14 am  Leave a Comment