Tag Archives: Donald Trump

The November Democratic primary expands!

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, has now announced his support for a carbon tax, this following earlier positions that rejected religious liberty and endorsed gun control.

Read the story at the link. It is very clear that libertarian principles have little to do with Johnson’s campaign. He is running as a moderate liberal, through and through.

Adding the Green Party candidate Jill Stein we now have four liberal Democrats running for President, with two (Clinton and Stein) occupying the communist wing of the party and two (Trump and Johnson) occupying the moderate liberal wing of the party . O joy!

Another establishment Republican endorses Clinton

Today a former Romney official, one of many similar establishment Republicans from the Romney campaign as well as the Bush administration, announced in an op-ed that he is voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

I haven’t reported on this stream of Clinton endorsements by Republican politicos, as I generally consider most such endorsements to be meaningless. However, I think it important to make one comment. It is perfectly understandable if a conservative decides that he or she cannot support Donald Trump for president. Trump’s past history as a liberal Democrat certainly makes him a poor choice if you happen to be a sincere conservative who believes in the Constitution and small and limited government.

At the same time, if you are a sincere conservative you don’t then announce that you are endorsing Hillary Clinton and will vote for her instead. You either don’t vote for anyone for president, or you pick the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, who has his own problems but at least has a past conservative track record. By throwing their support to Hillary Clinton, these establishment Republicans are finally revealing to the world that they really never had any interest in conservative values and have always been lying when they said so. Instead, they are simply more interested in the power they gain in Washington, and will do whatever it takes to obtain that power, including supporting the most socialist, corrupt, and dishonest Democratic Party candidate presented to us in the past century.

Thus, these endorsements are actually very useful information. They finally tell us who the fake conservatives in the Republican Party are and, should Donald Trump win in November, will allow him to finally purge the party of these liars and backstabbers, so that we might be able to finally make real some progress in gaining some control over our presently very oppressive and destructive federal government.

Trump’s agriculture advisory panel

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his list of agricultural advisers, drawing mostly from established Republican players.

The New York City real estate mogul’s rural and agriculture advisory committee — comprising 65 people — is a Who’s Who of farm policy, with five members of Congress, including the chairmen of the House and Senate agriculture committees, 10 current and former farm-state governors and two former GOP presidential nomination rivals, former Govs. Rick Perry and Jim Gilmore.

…The list includes some major GOP donors, including Charles Herbster, a Nebraska cattle rancher who’s serving as the council’s chair, and Bruce Rastetter, a wealthy agribusiness leader in Iowa. But it also lists most of the Republican farm policy establishment, including Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Mike Conaway of Texas, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who used to lead the House panel, as well as nearly a dozen state agriculture commissioners.

The advisory committee — which is six times larger than Mitt Romney’s 2012 panel — also includes a number of distinctly Trumpian characters, from Red Steagall, Texas’ official cowboy poet, to Sid Miller, the Texas agriculture commissioner who made national headlines for trying to bring deep fryers and sugary drinks back to schools.

Much of this panel appears to be very much mainstream Republican establishment, which has its positives and negatives. On a positive side, the article notes that in the panel’s first discussions about policy there was talk about eliminating or streamlining federal regulation on agriculture. On the negative side, the panel has some important members who favor the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal worked out by the Obama administration.

This information once again suggests that Trump will govern somewhere in the middle. If Congress is controlled by Republicans than there is also a good chance that its policy will lean rightward, though this panel also suggests that policy will continue to favor the crony businesses that the Republican leadership likes.

Trump considers John Bolton for Secretary of State

In a radio interview today Donald Trump said that he was seriously considering appointing John Bolton as his secretary of state.

This could simply be pandering by Trump to the conservative audience he was speaking to, or it could be a real trail balloon. Either way, it emphasizes again that the policies of a president is largely determined by the people he surrounds himself with, first by indicating the direction the president is leaning, and second by providing counsel to that president. So far, the majority of Trump’s picks have leaned to the right, with some exceptions. Bolton would emphasize that rightward direction, and this is a very good thing.

By the way, I don’t know if my readers have noticed this, but the stories I have posted here about the presidential election campaign have had nothing to do with the stupid stuff that the mainstream and conservative media have been obsessing about. Instead, my focus, as always, is on trying to find out what these candidates will actually do when they become president, based on what they actually do (not say). Thus, I post about Trump’s potential appointments once in office, and real evidence that Hillary Clinton committed illegal acts as secretary of state. Making believe that Donald Trump is a monster because he made a minor miscue at one point in one speech is not a way to learn anything, other than to demonize the man absurdly and wrongly. I won’t participate in that childishness.

Clinton put State Department up for sale

New emails reveal that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to pass out favors in exchange for donations to her foundation.

The facts are very welled documented here. Hillary Clinton wasn’t interested in acting as Secretary of State. She was interested in garnering cash donations for herself and Bill Clinton, and used her position of power to hand out favors for those donations.

But don’t worry! Our valiant press is on the ball, screaming about petty miscues by Donald Trump that mean nothing, are taken badly out of context, and are largely irrelevant to the kind of President he might be. That the Democrat running against him is a proven liar, law-breaker, and incredibly corrupt is just not important to them. All that matters is that she is a Democrat, and part of their team!

Which by the way should give us all a bit of a pause to consider how dishonest, illegal, and corrupt the entire elite culture of the U.S. has likely become. As I said, Clinton is part of their team.

Trump reveals economic policy team

Donald Trump has unveiled his list of economic advisers.

The list is quite varied, with some very conservative individuals (Steven Moore of the Heritage Institute for example), a good number of former Reagan administration officials, a bunch of middle-of-the-road businessmen, and at least one past Hillary Clinton contributor (Steven Mnuchin). Overall, this list once again suggests that a Trump administration will be moderate though lean right, while also favoring business. It also suggests that Trump’s administration will not be as reform-minded as he sometimes claims. Instead, it suggests that while Trump will push through some much needed reforms, his administration will mostly work to try to fix the status quo.

Will that be good for the country? Right now, considering the dire state of the federal government’s budget and the general corruption that increasingly seems to permeate its entire operation, I personally don’t think so. Strong and fearless reform is needed badly, and it looks like the Trump administration won’t really give us that. However, this list of advisers also suggests that a Trump administration will possibly include some positive change, and also be far less harmful than a Clinton administration, which will push to do more of the very things the federal government has been doing so badly during the past two decades.

“News Media Now Giving Trump the ‘Full Palin.’”

Working for the Democratic Party: The expected full-media assault on the Republican Party candidate has begun. As the author at the link notes,

There have been few conservatives who have been more critical of Trump since the start of this insane campaign than me, and he deserves every bit of condemnation he has gotten for needlessly mishandling the Khan situation. However, there is also no doubt that the media became obsessed with the story because they want Trump to lose, got a bit freaked out about his very temporary convention bounce, and smelled blood.

Hillary, while she is less likely to be stupid enough to so publicly take on the parents of a fallen war hero, would also never have been lured by the media into the conflict to the extent Trump was. If she had somehow stepped in it, the news media would have let it go far sooner than they did for Trump (for instance, how many voters are even aware of the controversy over her basically calling some family members of Benghazi victims liars?).

This story has seemed to open the floodgates now on Trump in much the same way that the infamous Katie Couric interview did with regards to Sarah Palin in 2008. Now, everything Trump says seems to be instant fodder for the media’s intensified “gaffe watch.”

It is very important to recognize one more additional fact: Any Republican candidate would have been treated this way by the now openly partisan and decidedly bankrupt mainstream media. The question now is whether the low-information public has finally become aware of this game.

Making a choice in November

Two articles today provide some interesting and worthwhile information and perspective on at least two of the candidates running for President in November.

The first, Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice, makes its argument from a Christian and religious perspective. I know there is at least one regularly reader of Behind the Black who will agree with this author’s arguments wholeheartedly, and I will say that the essay at the link provides some very compelling arguments in favor of voting for Donald Trump. While he makes many very effective arguments, especially on the issue of the the Supreme Court, I think for me his most effective point comes when he asks “How can we know that Trump won’t change his mind?”:
» Read more

Two different kinds of boos

The American election process can be messy and entertaining, frightening and exhilarating, confusing and educational. In the past week we have had one great example of this during the nominating conventions of our two main political parties. In both cases, the convention-going party attendees have broken out in loud boos, loudly attacking people on the podium for their positions. Such behavior is not what you would expect from the modern conventions, which for several decades have been nothing more than staged propaganda events designed to sell their candidates to the American public. One doesn’t usually boo during such staged events.

First we had at the Republican convention the response to Ted Cruz’s speech, where when he refused to endorse Donald Trump he was almost literally driven from the stage by boos from the audience.

Then, yesterday we had Bernie Sanders supporters overwhelm the Democratic convention with boos, first during an appearance of former Democratic chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and then during the convention’s opening prayer.

It is important to understand the difference between these boos, as they are a strong marker of what will happen in November. In the case of the Republicans, the booing was in support of the Republican candidate, hostile to the implied opposition to Donald Trump by Ted Cruz. In the case of the Democrats, the booing was in opposition to the Democrat candidate, hostile to Hillary Clinton’s nomination and the perception that the Democratic Party stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders.

I have always believed that Hillary Clinton was the worst presidential candidate I have seen in my lifetime. It seems to me that this difference illustrates this fact once again. Sadly for me, the Republicans have wasted this opportunity and picked a liberal Democrat as their candidate, losing the best opportunity since 1980 to put an honest and principled conservative into office.

All I can do now is hope that Donald Trump will surprise me and be far more conservative than I expect, when he becomes President in January.

More speculations about Trump’s cabinet

This article gives a nice overview of the people who it appears are being considered for positions in a Trump presidency, should he win.

Unfortunately, it does not give a lot of background about the people mentioned. Many, like Chris Christie, Jeff Sessions, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich, are well known. Others, like businessman Donald McGahn, are unknown. Some, like Senator Bob Corker, suggested as potential Secretary of State, would be a disaster, based on his past history of getting the Iran deal approved.
Some. like Harold Hamm and Steve Mnuchin, have been described here at BtB at the links behind their names, Hamm positively and Mnuchin negatively..

There is more at the link. Read it all. This list is a start. It will require vetting to get a sense of what we can expect from a Trump administration.

Note that there is a reason I am so focused on Trump and not Clinton. Trump remains an unknown, who might be worth voting for if it appears his plans as President are reasonable, something that might still be possible, despite all the negative reports I’ve given him. Moreover, there is a chance that Trump can be positively influenced. Learning as much about him as possible increases that possibility.

Clinton however is not an unknown. She is corrupt, a liar, and an avowed socialist who believes strongly in increasing the size and power of the federal government, as does the entire political party that supports her. To deny any of this is to live with your head in the sand. She thus needs no vetting.

Trump considers funding super-PACs to defeat Cruz and Kasich in later elections

Update on the November Democratic primary: Donald Trump is considering creating two super-pacs expressly focused at destroying the political careers of Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

During an event in Cleveland on Friday, Trump hinted at the prospect of funding an outside group against Cruz in the future.“Maybe I’ll set up a super-PAC if he decides to run,” Trump said of Cruz. Turning to his running mate Mike Pence he asked rhetorically, “Are you allowed to set up a super-PAC…if you are the president, to fight someone?”

The source close to Trump’s thinking indicated that Trump would consider forming the super-PAC whether or not he wins the presidential election in November.

This sure doesn’t sound like the actions of a Republican and conservative looking for allies within his party. Instead, it sounds like a Democrat who, having gotten the Republican nomination for President, can now stop pretending and begin the process of using his position to destroy the conservative movement in the United States in order to make it easier to impose liberal policies.

Trump’s supporters keep screaming that Cruz should have endorsed Trump for party unity. Well, the same applies to Trump — to bring the party together — only more so, since he has the nomination for president and as such is the de facto leader of the party. Moreover, while Cruz’s speech could have been more carefully worded, it nonetheless laid out the arguments for voting against Hillary Clinton and supporting all Republicans nationwide, even Trump (though unstated). Trump however is clearly doing the exact opposite, considering the investment of millions of his own money to actively work to defeat two of the party’s more conservative Republicans.

But hey, Trump can win! Who cares what he stands for!

Cruz’s speech at the convention

My first reaction to Ted Cruz’s exhortation that Republican’s vote their conscience in his speech at the Republican Convention last night was distress, as I expected the response to be mostly hostile (which it was) and unnecessary, as to my mind he could have gone there and simply said that “When Donald Trump becomes the next president I will be ready and waiting in the Senate to work with him to make sure the Constitution is defended and the federal government is brought under control.” Worded in this way, Cruz would not have been endorsing Trump, but he also would have not made himself an enemy of a significant percentage of the Republican voting bloc.

However, these two articles have changed my mind:

Cruz did the right thing. As noted at the first link,

If you’re voting for Donald Trump because you think he’s the lesser of two evils; because you think Hillary is clearly worse; because you reject leftism and know Hillary will foist leftism on us and only suspect Trump might . . . then you and I are cool. I respect that position. It’s not my position — but if it’s yours, I respect it, and I respect you.

But if you’re going to knock Ted Cruz for standing up against a man who bullied his family, I don’t respect you. I don’t want you here. Feel free to leave. It may make this place smaller, but it will make it better.

The second link also noted the unhealthy nature of today’s politics, where somehow one is not allowed to take a stand on conscience because of politics. Well to hell with that. There are things worth dying for, and one’s family is surely one of them.

Trump considers fracking businessman for Energy Secretary

Good news if true: Reuters today reported that presidential candidate Donald Trump is considering nominating Oklahoma businessman Harold Hamm as energy secretary if he wins the election.

In addition to considering Hamm, who has also functioned as Trump’s informal energy adviser in recent months, the article also noted this:

Trump, who has yet to make any announcements about his prospective cabinet, has already surrounded himself with strong advocates of traditional energy sources like oil, gas, and coal and has promised to gut environmental regulations to boost drilling and mining if elected. He tapped U.S. Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a climate skeptic and drilling advocate, to help draw up his campaign energy platform, and picked Indiana Governor Mike Pence, also a climate skeptic, as his running mate.

Both moves cheered the energy industry but alarmed environmental activists who say a Trump presidency would set back years of progress on issues like pollution and climate change. “Given that Hamm’s as close as we’ve got to a fracker-in-chief in this country, it would be an apropos pick for a president who thinks global warming is a hoax manufactured by the Chinese,” said leading environmental activist Bill McKibben.

I keep saying it: Should Trump win, the best way we can guarantee that he favors conservative values is if he is surrounded by conservatives. These moves suggest that that Trump is agreeable to this, though there is also possibly a bit of some crony capitalism going on here as well. While these guys will likely advocate for less environmental regulations, I also doubt that they will work to eliminate the gobs of corporate welfare the federal government presently hands out.

Astronaut touts space at Republican convention

American astronaut Eileen Collins spoke last night at the Republican convention, calling for a renewal of the American space effort.

Her remarks were very short, essentially calling for an end to the American reliance on the Russians to get our astronauts into space. Her speech also differed from her prepared remarks in that she left out the part where she specifically endorsed Donald Trump.

According to a transcript of her prepared remarks provided by the GOP Convention to Syracuse University (her alma mater) and posted on the university’s website, however, the ending was supposed to be “We need leadership that will make America first again. That leader is Donald Trump. Thank you and God bless the United States of America.” Thus, although she did not read the line endorsing Trump, she did use his slogan “make America great again” instead of “make America first again” as in the prepared remarks.

The press will make a big deal about this, but I suspect that when it came time to say the words, Collins’ decades of training at NASA, where astronauts as government workers are specifically forbidden by the Hatch Act from lobbying for specific political candidates, took over. She clearly was supporting Trump. Habits just made it hard for her to become political, even though she is now retired from NASA.

What is important is that both she and Ted Cruz in their convention remarks both invoked the need for a vibrant American space effort, but both were vague about how to do it. Combining that with Trump’s already noted position, that we need a space effort but we also have to find ways to do this efficiently because the government has bigger priorities, suggests to me once again that, should Trump win, SLS and Orion will die quickly while commercial space will get a boost.

On a personal note, I am hoping that my policy paper, Exploring Space in the 21st Century, due out in about a month and focused very much on this precise issue, will land on these politicians’ desks at exactly the right moment, and help convince them to make what I think are the right decisions.

Trump Treasury Secretary to be former Clinton donor and Goldman Sachs banker?

According to one Trump fund-raiser, should Donald Trump win the presidency he plans to nominate for his Treasury Secretary a former Clinton donor and Goldman Sachs banker.

[Steve] Mnuchin, who is a former donor to Hillary Clinton, spent 17 years with Goldman Sachs, where his father also had been a prominent executive. He later worked with investment groups affiliated with George Soros, including as chairman of controversial mortgage lender OneWest Bank Group (which would later be acquired by CIT Group). He also has spent time as both an art dealer and film producer.

Heh. I seem to remember how Ted Cruz was attacked because his wife worked for Goldman Sachs. Trump was going to save us from the big bankers!

I myself am not really bothered by this man’s connections with Goldman Sachs. What worries me is that Mnuchin previously supported Hillary Clinton and also has ties to the very leftwing money-man George Soros. Thus, this story once again underlines the need for voters to elect as many conservatives to Congress as possible, in order to limit the influence of Trump’s liberal friends.

Trump will ask Congress to ease the firing of government workers

Good if true: According to New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is in charge of Donald Trump’s transition team, should he win the presidency he will ask Congress to pass laws making it easier from him to fire government workers.

Trump’s transition advisers fear that Obama may convert these appointees to civil servants, who have more job security than officials who have been politically appointed. This would allow officials to keep their jobs in a new, possibly Republican, administration, Christie said. “It’s called burrowing,” Christie said. “You take them from the political appointee side into the civil service side, in order to try to set up … roadblocks for your successor, kind of like when all the Clinton people took all the Ws off the keyboard when George Bush was coming into the White House.”

Originally these laws were passed to reduce the spoils system, whereby new presidents got to hand out lots of jobs to friends once elected. Now, these laws merely act to prevent elected officials from having any supervisory oversight over the employees they manage.

The article also noted that the Trump campaign is beginning to assemble a list of government workers they want to fire should they win. This is also encouraging, considering the overall incompetence we’ve seen in the federal government these past few years. (I would especially like to see the entire management of the National Park Service fired for the part they played in helping Obama during the government shutdown.) It is time for a purge. If Trump follows through with this, it will be a very positive thing.

Expect a lot of squealing however from the usual suspects in Washington. The key will be whether Trump will have the courage to follow through despite those squeals.

Trump rally attendees sue San Jose

Fourteen attendees of a San Jose Trump rally on June 2 have filed a class-action suit against the city, the mayor, and the police chief for their failure to protect them from rioters.

“Law-abiding citizens leaving the Trump rally were victimized by being forced by armed police to walk into a riot in full swing where many were assaulted while police looked on,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Harmeet K. Dhillon, who is also the vice chair of the California Republican Party.

Dhillon says her clients range from a 14-year-old who was assaulted by two different individuals and denied assistance by the San Jose Fire Department to a 71-year-old woman whose glasses were ripped off and destroyed by three rioters. She said it was made clear that the “inaction” of 250 San Jose police officers “was colored by political viewpoint considerations.”

As documented at the time, the San Jose police actually arranged things so that the Trump supporters were forced to take a detour that would put them directly in the path of the violent protesters, and then stood down and watched them get attacked.

I hope they win big, and bankrupt the mayor and the police chief.

Trump picks Pence

It appears that Donald Trump has chosen Indiana governor Mike Pence as his vice presidential running mate.

This article provides a detailed look at Pence’s background, which is decidedly conservative and tightly linked with tea party philosophy.

Trump’s choice here is definitely encouraging. It suggests that his claimed conversion to conservative values might actually be sincere (though clearly shallow), because it suggests he is looking for conservatives to help him figure out how to be a conservative. As I’ve said repeatedly, the best way to make sure Trump governs as a constitutional conservative is to surround him with constitutional conservatives. This choice indicates that he is not going to resist that possibility.

Let me add that picking Pence could help Trump significantly in garnering support from the status quo Republicans that have been resisting him, since these same people respect Pence highly.

Let me also add one cautionary note. I have a memory of Pence at one point waffling on conservative principles for political gain, but I cannot at all remember the context or situation. Thus, it is important to remind ourselves repeatedly that these are all politicians, and that their interest is not necessarily that of the nation’s but of their own self-interest, which means getting elected. At any time they could toss the Constitution in the trash heap if that is what they think will get them votes. UPDATE: This article outlines Pence’s waffling as governor in Indiana, confirming my reservations about him.

It is therefore very important to not only surround Trump with conservatives, all politicians must be surrounded by voters who demand they defend our rights and our freedoms, as defined by the Constitution. Only then can we be reasonably assured that those rights will be defended.

Trump doesn’t care if Republicans hold Senate

Update on the November Democratic primary: Donald Trump was quoted in a news article today that he really doesn’t care that much it the Republicans retain their majority in the Senate.

When I asked him recently whether the party’s maintaining its majority in the Senate meant anything to him, he replied: “Well, I’d like them to do that. But I don’t mind being a free agent, either.” Trump has shown similarly little interest in helping his party’s committees build the sort of war chests typically required in a campaign year. After winning the presidential nomination on a shoestring budget and with fewer paid staff members than the average candidate for governor, he has been visibly reluctant to help build much in the way of national campaign infrastructure, sending a clear message to his fellow Republicans: This fall, you’re on your own. [emphasis in original]

I strongly advice all my readers to read the analysis at the link. From all accounts, Trump’s campaign effort sure does look like he is a Democratic wolf in Republican sheep’s clothing, and that this prediction describing an actual Trump administration will prove amazingly accurate.

A blunt honest appraisal of America today

The coming dark age: This op-ed encapsulates perfectly my despairing sense of today’s American culture, and what it will bring to the future.

After noting the effort by Obama and the Democrats these past eight years to divide Americans by race, party, gender, religion, and creed, he then adds:

Into this, Republicans are responding not with a candidate who will rise above the fray and try to unite us all back into common culture, but a man with no temperament to do anything other than divide. His loudest supporters embrace a “convert or die” mentality. We are either with him or against him.

Republicans have embraced a man who takes tribalism to new levels and, in the process, have put on blinders and willfully ignored how much he excites white nationalists and the race baiters of the right. For every New Black Panther in love with Barack Obama there are two white nationalists willing to march through hell for Donald Trump.

In his conclusion he adds

I’m afraid 2016 is the beginning of a chaotic time and not a one off occasion. We may look back on 2016 as the calm before the storm. What is most galling to me is that my party, the party I once served as an elected official, has turned to a man who has no intention of uniting the nation, who brings out the worst in absolutely everybody, and with so much on the line has so little a chance of even winning. But to point this out is to be accused of being a traitor and helping a woman I find equally offensive.

All of this is to say we get the government and national character that reflects us and right now it is all a damning indictment of our American character. How many more will die? How many more Americans will turn against each other? How many will seek blame instead of reconciliation?

Meanwhile, I am reminded of how, during the primary campaign, Ted Cruz was always willing to graciously reach out to protesters and debate the issues with them politely, face-to-face. That behavior, in modern America, has now been called “creepy” and the act of a liar.

We get the government we deserve. Be prepared for bad things in the future.

Puerto Rico debt restructuring signed into law

A law written by Republicans and signed today by President Obama will allow the federal government to restructure Puerto Rico’s debt and freeze bonds owned by American citizens.

The article notes correctly that the restructuring of those bonds is essentially in direct violation of the fifth amendment, which states that no American can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The article also notes that the law includes provisions that nullify the right of those citizens to go to court to challenge it.

The webpage that published the article is a big Trump supporter. And who can blame them when the Republican party works hand-in-glove with the Democrats to nullify the Bill of Rights. As they note, “Not hearing any shouts or screams from Mark Levin, Ted Cruz or Mike Lee are you? Yeah, funny that… Remind me what ‘conservative’ means again?”

As my readers know, I am not a fan of Donald Trump, and do not expect him to do anything different than the Republicans and Democrats who passed this unconstitutional law. Yet, I also understand why he is doing as well as he is. The American public is not being represented in any way by those in power, and thus the public wants someone outside that cartel to shake things up.

Trump campaign announces Christian advisory board

This is encouraging news: The Trump campaign today announced the formation of an executive board of important evangelical Christians to advise the candidate.

The list of members, shown at the link, is decidedly conservative. They were asked to join the board but were not required to endorse Trump to do so.

As I’ve said repeatedly, the most important way to make sure a Trump presidency follows conservative and constitutional policy is to surround Trump with a lot of conservatives.That the campaign has done this is good news, though I must also add that it is no guarantee that Trump will pay any attention to these people once he is elected. Right now this could merely be a move on his campaign”s part to gain the support of these evangelicals.

Posted from Los Angeles, California, a place so wonderful that my hotel has locked doors and security gates everywhere, making my one night here seem more like a night in jail than an overnight hotel stay. Interestingly, the only time I have ever seen the need for this much security has been when I have visited or lived in major urban cities, run by Democrats. I wonder why that is.

Trump softens tone on gun restrictions

In a television interview today Donald Trump softened his position on the use of terrorist watch lists to deny Americans their second amendment rights under the Bill of Rights, aligning his position more closely to that of the National Rifle Association which endorsed him.

This whole kerfuffle illustrates once again the importance of surrounding Trump with trustworthy conservatives who can influence him. Trump is not trustworthy, but he will bend to the will of those who advise him, and he has made it clear that he wants the NRA’s advice.

Thus, it is crucially important to elect a lot of conservative Republicans this November. Such people in Congress, and only such people, can prevent the worst abuses coming from what will likely be a generally confused Trump administration, or a decidedly leftist Clinton one.

Posted from Washington, D.C.

Trump affirms support for denying Americans their second amendment rights

Update on the November Democratic primary: Donald Trump today repeated his support for the idea of allowing the FBI or a bureaucrat in Washington to decide whether Americans will have the right to own or buy guns, essentially denying them their second amendment rights.

Donald Trump reaffirmed his stance on restricting individuals on the terror watch list from being able to purchase firearms, despite Republican objections. “We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns,” Trump told ABC’s White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview that will air Sunday on “This Week.”. [emphasis mine]

So now, according to Trump it is even reasonable for the government to deny you your rights, based merely on what they think you think. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that idea, especially when such power is handed to government bureaucrats whose political bosses crave power above all else?

I must admit I have been toying with the idea of voting for Trump, because Hillary Clinton is going to be far worse. Trump however is doing his damndest to convince me that this would be a mistake, and a third party vote makes more sense, even if Gary Johnson has his own problems..

Trump the gun control expert

Donald Trump said today that he will consider regulations that will allow the federal government to deny anyone their second amendment right should they be suspected of harboring evil thoughts.

Donald Trump says he’ll talk to the National Rifle Association about introducing new restrictions on guns for suspected terrorists at an upcoming meeting. Trump said Wednesday morning in a tweet: ‘I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.’

Earlier this week Trump hit presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over her support for an assault weapons ban and accused her of trying to to not only ban guns, but get rid of the Second Amendment. Clinton had also called for a block on firearms purchases for persons on the TSA’s no fly list and the FBI’s terror watch list.

Trump said last year after the Paris terrorist attack that he was in favor of congressional legislation that would do just that.

Remember, you get on a no-fly list or a terrorist watch list not because you actually did anything wrong and were convicted of it in a court of law, but because some federal government bureaucrat decides to put you on the list, based merely on their opinions or conclusions. Just imagine giving this power to our federal government: What could possibly go wrong?

Once again, it is imperative that Trump be surrounded by as many conservatives as possible. Hillary Clinton, a confirmed leftist, cannot be influenced on this and other political matters. Donald Trump, however, can be.

Update: This article, 6 Things To Know About Tying Gun Sales To A Watch List, is definitely worth reading, as it puts the entire issue into clear perspective. The calls by Democrats to deny second amendment rights to anyone on a government suspect list are nothing more than a fascist effort to gain power over free Americans.

San Jose police herded Trump supporters into mob

In this op-ed today by a Trump supporter, describing how leftwing thugs broke his nose at a Trump rally in San Jose, there was the very significant sentence, highlighted below:

My trouble began once the rally was over.

My friend and I joined a crowd of Trump supporters who had all left the convention center around the same time. The garage where we had parked our car was right next to the building, but police were directing everyone around the block to another garage entrance instead. The farther we walked, the fewer Trump fans were with us — people began peeling off to go to restaurants or bars in the area, or to other garages nearby.

And suddenly, there were protesters everywhere. Some were holding Mexican flags, or burning American ones. They were yelling “F— Trump!” at us and cornering us. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the San Jose police, who had been given the stand-down order by their mayor, who hates Trump and has sent campaign money to Clinton, had arranged things so that Trump supporters couldn’t simply go to their cars. They had to run the gauntlet through these violent thugs, without police protection, thus guaranteeing that some ot them would be hurt.

New poll shows Trump barely winning Utah

More news on the upcoming November Democratic primary: A new poll in Utah shows Donald Trump getting only 29% of the vote, with Hillary Clinton getting 26%, and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson getting 16%.

The article correctly notes that Utah has been solidly Republican for decades, until now.

Bear in mind that Utah is a state that Mitt Romney won 73/25 over Barack Obama in 2012, boosted no doubt in part because of Romney’s Mormon faith. Still, John McCain won Utah in 2008 by a 63/34 margin as well. Utah has not been competitive in decades, with the smallest margin in recent times coming in 1996 — a 21-point win by Bob Dole on his way to a national defeat.

It appears that a large percentage of Utah’s conservative voters are choosing Johnson, which might be their only conservative choice, though sadly he might not be much of a conservative or libertarian as he claims From this second link:

When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth. In New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Johnson’s Democratic successor, clocked in a little better than he did, but Richardson’s successor, Susana Martinez, has shown what a fiscal conservative looks like: New Mexico currently spends less than it did when she took office. It’s not just at a state level that being more fiscally conservative than Johnson is a bipartisan achievement. Federal spending during the time Johnson was in office grew at an average annual rate of 4.49 percent. Late Clinton and early Bush weren’t as successful in their efforts to fight spending cuts as they might have been, but Johnson makes them look like Coolidge, and federal spending since then has grown at an average annual rate of 4.56 percent.

One piece of good news from the poll in the first article above. It shows down ticket Republicans doing very well, despite the poor support for the party’s presidential candidate. And that really is what is most important at this point. It is essential the public vote in as many conservatives as possible to force whomever is President to move in a conservative direction. As Milton Friedman so wisely noted,

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.

Insurance companies abandon Colorado because of Obamacare

Finding out what’s in it: Almost a hundred thousand Coloradans are about to lose their health insurance because of Obamacare.

More than 92,000 Coloradans will lose their Obamacare health care coverage in 2017 as four leading insurance companies scale back or eliminate their plans while others propose rate hikes of as much as 40 percent. Insurance holders with individual plans through Anthem, UnitedHealthCare, Humana and Rocky Mountain Health Plans will need to find new coverage for the 2017 coverage year, according to a Monday statement from the Colorado Division of Insurance.

But don’t worry. Thanks to the wisdom of the majority of Republican Party primary voters, when we vote in the November we will have a choice between the official Democratic candidate, a member of the party that shoved this monstrous law down our throats, and a liberal Democrat who thinks Obamacare didn’t go far enough.

We truly do get the government we deserve.

Trump the liberal revealed again

Donald Trump has made his first political endorsement, and in doing so decided to throw his support to the moderate Republican in a tight North Carolina Republican primary race.

Donald Trump has inserted himself into one of the most contentious House primaries in the country this weekend, endorsing GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers in her member-versus-member race in North Carolina. Trump makes a personal appeal to voters to back Ellmers in a robocall released Saturday. She was “the first congresswoman to endorse me and she really was terrific and boy, is she a fighter,” Trump says in the call. It is the first time this election that Trump has picked sides in a congressional race. ….

Ellmers faces fellow GOP Rep. George Holding and two-time Senate candidate Greg Brannon in a June 7 Republican primary for a new district. Court-ordered redistricting drew Ellmers and Holding into the same territory outside Raleigh earlier this year, guaranteeing that at least one incumbent will lose in Tuesday’s primary.

Powerful conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth have been working against Ellmers for weeks, running critical television and digital ads and sending canvassers door-to-door. Ellmers has also lost favor with anti-abortions groups that once backed her.

Ellmers first won her seat running as a tea party conservative. When she got in office however she became very much a moderate RINO, working with Democrats and the moderate Republican leadership to stymie conservative budget efforts. That Trump supports her once again illustrates his political position, and is a reason not to back her. To protect us from Trump’s liberal Democratic leanings we need as many conservatives in Congress as possible.

Let me add that Trump’s support here of a moderate Republican is actually provides a reason to support him in the presidential election. Though he is a liberal Democrat at heart, he is an old-fashioned liberal Democrat, not a modern leftwing ideological radical communist/socialist we now find dominating the Democratic Party. His endorsement of Ellmers here illustrates this.

Another leftist mob attacks Trump supporters in San Jose today

Fascist brownshirts: Trump supporters leaving a Trump rally in San Jose today were violently attacked by leftist protesters, while police stood by and did nothing.

Check out the videos at the link. The hate and violence exhibited once again from these anti-Trump protesters is quite disturbing.

1 2 3