The Ted Cruz RNC "Vote Your Conscience" Speech: The New "Charles Sumner Caning" Moment

This election cycle was supposed to be entirely different. With the initial candidacy announcements over a year ago (As early as late March/early April 2015), it was looking like the ideological purity struggle between the “Emotional morality of that ‘Sweet’ Democratic Socialism” (which is more like a reimagined and reconstituted form of Communism) VS. Constitutional Republicanism (Small Government, rugged individualistic Capitalism) would finally be hashed out once and for all. Unfortunately, the Establishment on both sides of the aisle have shoved their grassroots out into the parking lots of their conventions in favor of that Cult of Personality Candidate that will continue to uphold each party’s Status Quo. Some within these separated grassroots factions have shared interests and some common ground, with differentiated cores. Some don’t truly understand why they even have those beliefs, as many of the Bernie Sanders “Sandernistas” have based upon their indoctrination. They don’t realize Capitalism is the answer for what they are actually longing to implement. And THAT was who Ted Cruz was directing his speech towards. The outrage over the “vote your conscience” speech given by Cruz is completely ridiculous.

To think that his sole reason for his speech would have been to endorse Donald Trump based on a “Good Faith Pledge” that Donald Trump himself disavowed on national television months ago is to be completely naïve. To assume that a Candidate would turn their back on their core principles, in order to graciously support an individual that publically impugned and assassinated their character, branding them a LIAR, is complete madness. To surmise that a Candidate, who was painted as an adulterous philanderer for having affairs with 5 women in convention center closets and with unconfirmed extra-marital relationships with campaign managers/advisors, would offer a conciliatory recommendation for the highest office in the land is laughable…and even intellectually vapid at best. To think that you can sabotage a person’s speech by yanking his microphone audio as its being aired on a major news network, where the only sound you could hear was the noise of Servers taking orders and clanking plates shrouding a Candidate’s impassioned plea for Constitutionality, and then expect that Candidate to provide a glowing endorsement is plain lunacy. To opine that a Candidate is the ultimate conservative choice, just after that candidate attacked your father with false stories of a relationship between him and one of the most notorious presidential assassins in American history would be literally unhinged. To think that his speech was “Self Serving” as many of the RINO Establishment players were trumpeting on FOX News, when he began his speech with congratulating Trump on his nomination- QUOTE: “I congratulate Donald Trump on winning the nomination last night”, is completely delusional.”

Now, Ted Cruz’s speech was actually filled with meat and potatoes that the convention attendees were sopping with biscuits, until “someone” (More like the Trump agents – specifically the Cruz infatuated Peter King) decided to initiate a chant of “En-Dorse-Trump, En-Dorse-Trump”. This shut down the overall reception of Ted Cruz’s final moments of his speech. Ted Cruz responded with, "I appreciate the enthusiasm from the NY delegation" Anyone get the NY delegation reference? That was a dig towards the same crew that yanked his Microphone audio feed during his speech (which aired on Fox News and lacked the concern of the Fox News producers to attempt an expeditious fix to the problem)?

The focus changed from his ideas and messaging to that of an anticipation as to whether or not an endorsement would be teetering on the brink. Only, it never did.

But let’s take a look as what Ted DID cover:

·         He wanted to address what was really at stake. - The Case for America, the case that Freedom Matters. He made the point that America is the only nation were We, The People constrain our government.

·         He gave the answer to how to constrain either POTUS pick – Down ticket voting (Municipal, State, & Congressional representation).

·         He gave the case for “Constitutional Conservative Inclusiveness”, which includes all sides of the political spectrum, including disaffected millennials and Bernie Sanders fans, or “Sandernistas”

·         He made the case for Individualism – Choice of your own Doctor, Individual Choice to defend yourselves under the 2^nd Amendment, Choice of your own children’s education

·         He debunked the notion of the effectiveness of a Large Federal Government. He conversely focused on the importance of States Rights. Gay marriage, Legalization of Drugs…these were all “experiments” that the localities should be allowed to vote on for their own preferences. It shouldn’t be a “One Size Fits Al” mandate from the Federal Government Bureaucracy.

He made the points that we need to focus on to straighten the path of our nation

·         Border Security

·         Elimination of Trade Deals with Terrorist Nations

·         Taking the Islamic Threat Seriously

·         Minimize taxation of the Citizenry

·         Removal or Obamacare

Cruz made a case for freedom to everyone that has been pushed aside in favor of a self-serving political machine, including Sanders supporters. It wasn't simply a speech for GOP party unity, but one without endorsement...it was a National Unity speech for the disenfranchised. It was for EVERYONE disenfranchised by Establishments on either sides. He was making an additional case to those who think that Bernie Sander’s America is the answer. He was displaying that Conservatism actually is! It was a Reagan "We carry the message they're waiting for" idea. It was Constitutionalism, with an Olive Branch to Misguided Millennials. And by the way, Reagan never officially endorsed Gerald Ford at the convention, but when he spoke, he spoke of the values that Conservatism provides and that we should revere. Whether or not you agree that Ted’s speech was “Reaganesque”, you must admit that his goal of making that case was met.

 Unfortunately for us, the only part of the speech we continually heard was the part that was never said – A Cruz Endorsement of Trump. They cite the betrayal of Cruz’s word based on the Loyalty Pledge that the candidates were to sign to eliminate a 3^rd party run by candidates that didn’t win (But mostly to ensure an unhinged, unpredictable 3^rd party run by the Businessman himself).  The argument against Ted Cruz’s Non-Endorsement was rooted in the infamous Pledge – signed by Trump on September 2, 2015. Donald Trump eventually eviscerated the Loyalty Pledge on March 29, 2016

“COOPER:And, welcome back. We're talking to Donald Trump. A week before the Wisconsin primary, voters asking the Republican candidates the questions that matter tot hem, looking for answers to help them decide. Before we go back to the audience, I want to ask you a question I asked to Senator Cruz as well. more than six months ago you pledged to support the Republican nominee, whoever that may be.

A lot has changed since then. It sounded, when I was pressing Senator Cruz on it, sounded like he was saying he was saying he'd have a hard time supporting somebody who went after his wife.

TRUMP: Honestly, he doesn't have to support me. I'm not asking for his support. I want the people's support.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Do you continue to pledge whoever the Republican nominee is?

TRUMP: No. I don't anymore.

COOPER: You don't?

TRUMP: No, we'll see who it is.

COOPER: You won't promise to support the Republican nominee?

TRUMP: He was essentially saying the same thing. Let me just tell you, he doesn't have to support me. I have tremendous support right now from the people. I'm way over two million votes more than him. I have many, many, more delegates than him. Like, many, many more delegates. As I said before, he was talking about his great victory the night Utah -- well, I won Arizona. Many more delegates. Many, many more delegates.

I don't really want him to do something he's not comfortable with. Just like I can't imagine Jeb Bush -- look, I beat these people badly. I beat Jeb Bush. I beat the governor of this state, the governor of this state came in, he was favored to win. He was at 22 points. Then he said something bad about me and I hit him very hard, and he went boom, and he left the race. He was very early...

COOPER: ...Just so I'm clear...

TRUMP: I don't want to make people uncomfortable. I don't need their support. Now, maybe it will be a negative, maybe it won't.

COOPER: So, the pledge you took is null and void. The idea of supporting whoever...

TRUMP: ...  I have defeated...

COOPER: ...  the Republican nominee is, you say you will no longer guarantee you will support the Republican nominee...

TRUMP: ...  I have been treated very unfairly.

I won the state of Missouri, right? No, I have.

Aww, Cruz people.

I've been treated very unfairly.”

So obviously, 3/29/2016 was the day Donald Trump eliminated the pledge. Even Kasich was aware.

Jeb Bush resigned his allegiance to this pledge on May 6^th 2016, when he announced via his Facebook Page his intentions for Presidential Support:

” In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life.  –

That’s called voting up and down the ticket, which Cruz made the case for in his speech.

Lindsey Graham turned his back on the Loyalty Pledge that same Friday:

“I also cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief.

After the election, regardless of who wins the presidency I will do everything I can to help our new President deal with the many challenges facing our nation. The next President will inherit a mess and will need all the help they can get.

I will enthusiastically support Republicans for other offices in South Carolina and throughout the country. I will focus my time, energy and effort on raising resources and advocating for our Republican majorities in the House and Senate. It is imperative that we have strong, reliable conservatives acting as a check and balance against excesses in government. I strongly encourage Republicans and Independents to vote even if you are disappointed in your choice for President.

Finally, I do not plan to attend the Republican convention in Cleveland this summer.”

Rand Paul, as of this July 26, 2016 morning VIA a Breitbart article, stated that he would stick with the pledge and support the nominee (Although, the word “endorse” was yet to be declared. But after Mr. Paul’s deal that he cut with Mitch McConnell, it should be as no surprise that his strong understanding of Constitutionality, that I admire, does not match the size of his Cajones, to which are about the size of Donald Trump’s hands.

But Donald Trump knows how to play on the stupidity or naivety of the low information crowd. This pledge issue was another "Cruz stole Iowa from Ben Carson because Ben Carson told everyone he was going home to get clean drawers and CNN Reported it" moment. Pin the issue completely on Cruz as if he was the only one involved. Even though everybody rushed to inform delegates that Carson left, they pinned it all on Cruz. So even though the pledge was signed by Trump, Cruz, and Kasich, they acted as if Cruz was the only one who broke the pledge, even though the other person who took the pledge was the governor of the state convention and didn't even show up.

Cruz DID say he would show support for the Republican nominee. So exactly what would be the legal definition of “Showing Support”? Would it be actually attending the convention, as opposed to the sitting governor of the HOST STATE’s absence from putting on his party’s convention? Would it be speaking to the constituents to fortify the party platform? Or were the words, “I ENDORSE DONALD TRUMP” be required? I don’t believe so…What we witnessed the other night was a moment from past history.

This was a “Charles Sumner” Moment – When Charles Sumner was beaten w/a cane in the Senate Chamber for following principles & not party loyalty, a new party formed.

Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was known for his deep commitment to the cause of civil rights and emerged as an antislavery leader in the late 1840s. In 1849, in the Roberts case, Sumner argued for integrated public schools in Massachusetts. He also became active in political protests against Texas’s annexation and the Mexican War. In 1848, he joined with other disenchanted Whigs and Democrats to form the Free-Soil party, which opposed the extension of slavery into newly acquired territories. Despite the Free-Soil defeat in 1848, and especially after the passage of the odious Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, Sumner persevered in his antislavery activities. In 1851, he was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Free-Soiler, where he campaigned against what he saw as southern aggression on the slavery issue. In 1855 he endorsed the Republican Party, which had been organized primarily to oppose slavery interests. As North-South tensions heightened, so did Sumner’s rhetoric. In his Crime against Kansas speech, delivered in May 1856, he lambasted southern efforts to extend slavery into Kansas and attacked his colleague, Andrew P. Butler of South Carolina. Shortly after that speech, Butler’s cousin, Congressman Preston Brooks, assaulted Sumner on the Senate floor. He spent three and a half years recovering from the beating. When Sumner returned to the Senate in 1859, the North-South rift had intensified, but he, like most other Republicans, did not realize or perhaps care that Republican ascendancy would bring on civil war. From the war’s beginning Sumner argued that it should be waged to abolish slavery, not solely to preserve the Union. He regularly pressed President Abraham Lincoln to sponsor legislation to free the slaves, grant them civil rights, and enlist them in the Union army. He also argued for stringent conditions for readmission of Confederate states to the Union.

Your CHARLES SUMNER moment, ladies & gentlemen...not a physical caining...but a verbal one. But rumor has it that a physical one DID occur…with Sheldon Adelson, the Rich RNC Donor Casino owner and Trump supporter. It was reported that he was responsible for not allowing Cruz into the RNC lounge. Others have said it was a physical confrontation with him along with Susan Hutchison, chairwomen for the Washington State GOP. From an unsubstantiated report, “As they wereheaded to the elevator that would take them down to the super glamhospitality suites, Susan Hutchison blocked their way. According to a witness,Hutchison “went bananas” at the couple, calling Cruz a “traitor to the party”and his refusal to endorse Trump “inexcusable.” She had to be restrained and was hustled away by security, though she doesn’t seem to remember that part. I just told him I thought his speech was inexcusable, and I was so disappointed in him,” Hutchison said… she didn’t recall Cruz’s response. “I was angry, everybody was angry. You heard everybody booing him. We were astounded at what he did.” Hutchison said she did not think security got involved. To add insult to injury, the Cruz couple were not allowed into that hospitality suite. Turns out that suite was Sheldon Adelson’s and he is a Trump supporter. Some have said the Adelson’s confrontation with Cruz was somewhat physical as well, although I can’t verify if this is true or not.

The Trumpkins & the GOP Establishment were trying to put their boot on Ted Cruz’s neck & said, "SAY HIS NAME, SAY HIS NAME!"

He didn't do it, folks. Kudos, Ted!

There was nothing in that speech that was disparaging, vindictive, slanderous, or hate filled. This wasn’t an anti-Christian display of a lack forgiveness? When you forgive someone, you don’t ENDORSE that person! Some that you may have forgiven may not have even changed the actions and behaviors that caused the animosity towards which your original rift caused a falling out. So you forgive…but you aren’t mandated to endorse their behavior! Judging by the cordial behavior surrounding the discussion for Trump requesting that he speak, EVEN THOUGH by winning the 2^nd highest number of delegates into the race gives you the RIGHT to speak, shows that possibly forgiveness was there. I don’t know his heart, but that is usually a good step. Being gracious enough to congratulate him on his victory is another step in that direction. To put aside the issue completely and to focus on what the actual issues in the nation are currently, shows the importance of his focus…another step towards what someone does to forgive…to move forward on what is important and not hold a grudge or take a below the belt shot, when he clearly could while holding the floor as he was allowed.

The Slanted News Media Outlets and Misinformed “Trumpers” have cited that many in the #NeverTrump Movement have turned their backs on Ted Cruz after this speech. These fail to realize #NeverTrump wasn't exactly "Pro-Cruz", just as Mike Lee/Ken Cucinelli aren't “Establishment” by simply having an R by their name. The Never Trump movement was kick started by the Marco Rubio supporters, more specifically Liz Mair’s “Make America Awesome” Super PAC who was responsible for putting out the racy photos of Melania from GQ in an ad attempting to impugn the morality of the Nominee, to which trump revisited in his press conference the following morning. They latched onto Cruz after Rubio suspended his campaign in order to defeat Trump. There was no connection or even loyalty to support him from the beginning. So, sure, you’re going to have some defectors.

Speaking of Trump’s Press Conference the following the RNC Speech that he gave, he made wild assumptions. He made the assumption that Cruz added sentences that weren’t actually in the transcript of the written speech:

“Justa couple of things: I knew his speech. They gave me his speech. I knew exactlywhat his speech was, because when you go up to speak, you have to give yourspeech. You know, we don’t want surprises, right? So they gave it, they came tome, they said, "It’s a boring speech, Mr. Trump. Nothing good, nothingbad. He just congratulates you on the victory and here’s the speech." Well he got up, and in the first two sentences, he added a sentence. In other words, he got up, and he added a sentence. Which could have been viewed as a nasty thing in terms of what he said because it was implying something which is wrong, but that’s okay. So he took his speech — and you’re bound by that speech, just like you’re bound by the pledge. You’re bound by the pledge. So Ted Cruz took his speech that was done — was on the teleprompter — said hello, then made a statement that wasn’t on the speech and went back to his speech.”

But the off the cuff addition to the Cruz speech was this line: "And just like each of us, I'd like to see the principles of our party succeed in November" – hardly anything nefarious and of any concern at all. But Trump can use legalize to say, “Well he did add things that weren’t there” assuming his minions would never see the actual transcripts of the speech. Trump has stated that he would consider creating a Super PAC to attack Ted Cruz and John Kasich. There’s something very vindictive of a Presidential nominee that looks to create a Super PAC in order to destroy those whom he’s already defeated. Is vindictiveness a Fruit of the Spirit, Frank and Jerry?

Then, he doubled down on the Rafael Cruz Lee Harvey Oswald conspiracy. Even Photo specialist that questioned if that was Mr. Cruz in the infamous picture said there’s a little similarity…but more Dissimilarity than similarity. SERIOUSLY??

Now, as far as the Trump Media and their supporters, they’ve tried to make a case that looking at the Russian Email Hack of the DNC emails that were released through WikiLeaks have verified many of his wild assertions. They have believed that they’ve found a few emails concerning Ted Cruz…and, like the Roger Stone/Bridebart hit pieces that we were bombarded with during the primary, they’re taking the association of a name within these emails as an admission of guilt.

First was the news of the Cruz campaign asking, the DNC for donations to help fortify a Delegate Protection fund, due to death threats by the Trump campaign. Upon close inspection of the email, you’ll notice that the Cruz campaign email was sent to Eric Bennett of the DNC’s personal gmail account. This email, most likely due to the nature of the subject matter, it was forwarded to his official DNC email account, where it would be scooped up within the net of the wikileaks leak. Now, if you were a supporter of Ted Cruz or had given your email address to their campaign and decided to do an email search by subject line, you would have noticed that YOU received the exact same email. That’s because it was a form email sent by all Cruz email accounts asking for donations. There was no “plea” to the DNC for financial assistance. But the rush to judgment in order to vilify and smear Senator Cruz still went to the presses.

The next was the so-called “CONFIRMATION” of a Raphael Cruz/Lee Harvey Oswald Connection 

From Wikileaks :

“While I will note that Cruz's father was in fact a militant who fought the Batista regime (which Fidel Castro defeated) and it would not be unusual for him to be caught up in the ugly web of Cuban militants with questionable histories (just look at the cabinet in the basement, one of the Watergate burglars was...Cuban...with plenty of other examples including a guy who blew up a plane and was basically given safe refuge in Texas...not to mention those who were involved in the ugly Central American wars in the 80's... I think this is a fun hit. I made edits to dispute each claim.”

So, I can only assume that because Raphael Cruz DID fight with the Batista Regime in his youth in Cuba, the Trump Low Information Supporters ASSUMED that he was a militant that would fall in with Oswald. BUT, if you actually had background on Cruz and were familiar with him as his supporters are,  you’d realize that Raphael Cruz has been more than forthcoming about his time in Cuba and how he fought the Castro Regime…this doesn’t indicate a relationship with Oswald. This is akin to saying that a person is a supporter of Mao simply because they ate at Number One Chinese Buffet.

They seemed to find much humor in Trump’s attacks on Ted Cruz’s father:

Could use the Eric Walker touch Dangerous Donald's Conspiracy Theories: "All I know is what is on the internet." This morning on Fox and Friends, Donald Trump accused Ted Cruz's father of helping with JFK's assassination - "parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963." So, while we're on the subject of the GOP's presumptive standard bearer just spouting nonsense he reads on the internet or in the tabloids, here are some of the other conspiracy theories and facts that the great mind of that Donald Trump's "good brain" felt it was necessary to entertain: is gathering from the tabloids and the internet:

·         Donald Trump speculates that Antonin Scalia was murdered

·         Trump not knowing questioning whether President Obama was born in America, and then sending investigators to Hawaii to look into it - still cited as one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all time. The President was born in Hawaii.

·         Trump thinks that vaccination causes autism. It doesn't

·         Trump claims that thousands of American Muslims cheered when the World Trade Center collapsed. Didn't happen.

·         Trump repeatedly telling a hoax story about an American general executing Muslim prisoners with bullets covered in pig's blood. Also not true.

o   After it being told it wasn't true, Trump doubling-down on his claim that a man who tried to rush on stage at one of his rallies was associated with ISIS - because "all I know is what is on the internet."

This would explain his Alex Jones exclusive interviews in December of 2015 and how he has galvanized the Jones Fan Base.

Have you ever in your lifetime witnessed people who are supposedly "Anti-Establishment" as trump supporters scream "YOU BETTER PICK OUR LESSER OF 2 EVILS?" They scream: YOU WILL UNITE, DAMN IT, OR YOU'LL PAY! WE LET YOU SPEAK AT OUR TRUMP PARTY THAT WE JOINED ONLY A FEW YRS AGO! YOU WILL COMPLY AND YOU WILL LOVE IT!

Not I…Apparently, Not Cruz either.

The Clinton Method : Same Shite, Different Decade

Hillary Clinton claims now that the Benghazi reports have finally been issued, the final versions, that we need to “go ahead and move on” and “get this behind us”. This is the same lady that went to a wake for those killed in Benghazi and spoke with those parents who lost their adult children in that attack, saying it was a video that was responsible for the attack. She assured them that they were going to get to the bottom of it. This is the same lady who went back years later and insinuated that those same parents who were grieving even at this moment, were liars. And she use the same “vast right-wing conspiracy” tactics to vilify the investigation. She opened up and dusted off the Clinton Family Scandal Playbook, and went back to the tried-and-true methods of impugning and discrediting Trey Gowdy and the entire Benghazi investigation.

Here’s the Clinton Methodology:

First, calculate and criticize the amount of wasted time.

Next, calculate and criticize the amount of wasted tax money.

Then, they say “we need to move on” and “get back to focusing on the problems at hand”.

This is the method they’ve always used! When the Branch Davidians were in a standoff with the ATF and the FBI, President Bill Clinton (using the news media as its public relations department) employed the same tactics to gain the public’s support against them. Every single day that the news reported the standoff was a daily standoff count that was plastered on the TV screen of how many days accrued in the standoff. And every time they spoke of how long the standoff was taking, they made it a point to include the calculated amount of tax money that was being spent to prop up the standoff. And then when the place burned to the ground, they rushed through the final investigation to “get back to the work of the American people”.

When Bill Clinton was being investigated for lying under oath in Paula Jones case and his affair with Monica Lewinsky, the same approach was employed. When expending every smear tactic they had in their playbook towards Kenneth Starr’s investigation, they complained about how much time was being taken away from B.J. Clinton’s job as President and how much tax money was being spent to follow this so-called “witchhunt”. And after being thoroughly annoyed by the situation at hand, President Bill Clinton said he needs to “get back to doing the work of the American people”

To know that the Benghazi attacks were going to occur as they issued an apology in Cairo before the attack should anger us all. The fact that security at the consulate was basically nonexistent should be extremely troubling to every citizen of the United States. To know that they blamed it on a video that was never even viewed by anyone in Libya, let alone anyone in the Middle East, should piss off everyone in the United States. The Federal level of Government was designed to protect its people domestically or abroad. They allowed these deaths to happen, lied about the reasoning for it, and covered it up on every level possible. And with Operation Zero Footprint looming in the distance, where weapons were being run through the Libyan consulate to Syria, especially now with ISIS being the biggest terrorist threat of our lifetime (ask residents in Orlando and citizens of Istanbul), The American people should be so mad that they would be stopping the White House grounds with flaming torches and pitchforks.

Unfortunately they’re not.

With this scandal, along with the elitist, emboldened attitude of being able to use your own server to conduct high-level government business SOLEY so your financial gain from countries that of been sanctioned by the United States can line your pockets (while being completely illegal at the same time) is treasonous! You couple this with Obama’s White House using the Internal Revenue Service as a means of destroying political opposition by sending their nonprofit fundraising organizations status to application purgatory, should be enough to scare the American people completely. Then, you pepper it all with the NSA being used as a wide net to eavesdrop on the citizenry (after railing on the previous administration’s creation of the Patriot Act) while pushing for Government controls over the Internet using Net Neutrality, Americans should be severely alarmed…

But again unfortunately they’re not.

Deconstructing Bernie:The cultivation of the modern socialist and why debunking socialism is essential

Spending time on a random Saturday afternoon with my family, I was met with some realizations that I didn’t want to encounter. I typically want to turn the brain down on “low” for those occasions, as it was a “day off”. Unfortunately, the liberal agenda NEVER takes a breather. When I think of simple entertainment options that my family may wish to partake in for enjoyment, such as taking your child to the movies, you become aware of many sobering realities. Your day of “family fun” isn’t simply mindless entertainment. It is actually an exercise in deflecting constant liberal propaganda, although you wouldn’t recognize it unless you were actively aware of its looming presence. Going to see a Pixar “cartoon” movie with cute, talking animals suddenly turns into a “Clockwork Orange” mental reeducation session. They’re littered with liberal comedians and progressively ideological actors and actresses that provide voice-overs covering a litany of leftist talking points and positions such as: Political Correctness, Climate Change and Environmentalism, Gender Inequality, and even revisionist history. The latter of which being its sole mission to reshape your view of the founding of the country in which you take tremendous pride in and love so much. These movies include a snappy, top 40 “insta-hit” that will be regurgitated on every radio station, every 18 minutes after the top of the hour...every hour. They will be played in every department store and restaurant across the nation. These little ditties will be reworked into school plays and will show up as song choices for contestants in Reality TV singing competition shows. The writers and performers who created these skull burrowing, “mental musical torture devices” that implant themselves into your brain will win Grammy awards or MTV VMA’s for said musical compositions. And while receiving their accolades, they will espouse their political talking points in their award show acceptance speeches, which are usually the same ones firmly embedded within the plots of those movies. Progressives will also inundate the unsuspecting, unassuming participant with propaganda in other forms of entertainment, such as Network television shows. Television shows which are littered with characters designed with left-wing, agenda driven stereotypes. They will meticulously place these characters into each sitcom, with the sole purpose of shaping and normalizing the unassuming public’s views towards their progressive platforms. The propaganda placement doesn’t end there! They will also inject it where the cutting edge, pop culture trends reside, such as new technological forms of entertainment. Their agenda appears in the highly skewed, streamed, “Netflix’ styled documentaries which are framed as being neutral while actually being highly focused on destroying the specimen to which they are “observing”. These Propaganda vehicles place us in a perpetual state of “Progressive wack-a-mole”, leaving us to continually swat down encroaching agendas multiple times a day. Their shaping and molding eventually culminates when the budding and flowering, free thinking College student arrives at the University. Academia is the “Coup De Grâce” of propaganda that attempts to seal the deal on indoctrination. Higher education eventually becomes a virtual petri dish playground of progressive ideology and social engineering. It infects the “host” student without their working knowledge of it ever even occurring. It cannot be avoided, even within the “Safe Spaces” they seek for emotional shelter in order to hide from offensive language and opposing viewpoints or thoughts. Reshaping political ideology has been a methodical process of continual, slow erosion within our culture and through the teachings of progressive propaganda to the citizenry. The fight for the morality and ideology of an unassuming public is an ongoing war, established within the culture at the earliest of ages. Its goal is the shaping and the molding of the youth, in order to benefit those whom seek political control. If you are unable to recognize it, you will succumb to it. Millennials are the most susceptible to this process and find themselves at the core of this struggle. Most are completely unaware of it! The result is the rise of the Millennial Socialist, which explains the fanatical support of socialist agenda taste-makers, such as the current Democrat candidate, Bernie Sanders. We must defeat this phenomena in order to change the course back to freedom and to eventually restore individual liberty. To accomplish this, we must dissect the Socialist platform to illustrate its true negative impact on society and by showing its economic failings using the principles of free market forces.

Bernie Sanders flaunts a persona of a champion for the working man: the Anti-Big Business and Anti-Wall Street (aka Anti-capitalism) Candidate. His supporters long for an end to the influence of "Big Corporations" in politics. They view corporations as if they're aren’t even affiliated with actual human beings. They constantly speak of corporations as if they were mysterious phenomena, such as "Dark Matter", "Sasquatch", “Loch Ness " or even "The Force". So, what is the actual definition of a Corporation? A Corporation is “a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law”. Even though Mitt Romney was painted as an out-of-touch, rich Republican (especially with his 47% remark), he was correct in stating that Corporations are actually people. By definition, that is 100% true! But the corruption of Big Business and Multi-National Corporations, with their influence over government and political parties, is a tremendous issue. Even the Koch Brothers are agreeing with Bernie Sanders in that regard. Believe it or not, we Conservatives also agree as well…to a certain extent. Where we disagree is actually at the intersection of “Personal Freedom Boulevard” and “Government Solutions Avenue”. Which direction, lane, and speed we take determines the defining future of our society and place within the world. Do we take the turn down the avenue of those who've studied Aristotle, Socrates, and Montesquieu? Do we veer down the same road of those who were continually under the oppression of a religious zealot? Do we "tailgate" behind those who've lived under an all-powerful, ruling King who overtaxes its citizenry? Do we merge into the lane of those who’ve taken up the charge of charting a new course of governmental design within a new land, using the brilliant aspects of the Roman Government, portions of English Common law, and utilization of various experimental Colonial Governmental Charters established in various colonies in the "New World" (Pre-America)? Do we maintain this mix of governmental ingredients, which were specifically chosen, combined, and eventually fleshed out in a tortured manner in order to create something extraordinary in modern civilization? Or do we stay in the “authoritarian lane”? A lane which has been a standard road that has benefited the elite and autocratic rulers since the beginning of time. The standard under which the premise of pseudo "fairness" and faux equality is propagated in order to clinch the citizenry’s freedom in return for safety and order, overseen by selfish megalomaniacs (i.e. Socialism)? To illustrate the conservative disagreement towards Socialist talking points, let's dissect the argument to show the failures of the Bernie Sanders platform.

First point of interest: A living Wage – The Fight for $15/an hour. Bernie supporters continually tout the phrase, "C’mon, Give them a raise!” Those “Feeling the Bern” desire to increase minimum wage rates in order to inject more spending into the economy, with the hopes of aiding our country in its economic repair. Higher wages for everyone, including those in entry level jobs, will provide more money to be spent as disposable income and aid in injecting the economy with revenue. Viewing that Utopian solution in a singular perspective, this might make rational sense. But viewing it through the lens of the entire economic landscape, we can begin to see the entire picture and recognize the actual failures of government intervention through minimum wage increases. In Business, the entrepreneur decides to put his assets and collateral on the line for “Capital” (A.K.A. the resources needed to begin a business, sometimes in the form of a business loan) in order to place their talents, skill sets, or ideas into action in hopes of an economic return or benefit – otherwise known as starting a business. They embark on this journey in order to become profitable, while assuming the lion’s share of the risk. Their reasoning for beginning a business IS NOT to give you a $15 an hour, entry-level job. Employees are purchased for their talent by the business in the form of hiring, in order to accomplish the business' goals. The employees receive the benefits of the business’ success, indirectly. Although it makes excellent business sense to reward highly productive and extremely talented personnel through better wages, benefits, and bonuses in order to maintain employee retention (which is an actual business cost savings, by the way), they do not exist as a business entity solely to employ a portion of the population. So when the government mandates an increase in wages by law, what happens to the business? The business expenses have to increase in order to accommodate the new costs of labor from a higher minimum-wage. This changes the business model considerably. The new wage expenses must be allocated from some area within the business budget. The higher labor expense is not going to be reallocated from the businesses’ material cost, the cost of production, or even the cost of equipment needed to create the products it sells. It's not going to be reallocated from the cost associated with the tools, equipment, or even the travel expenses for those service based industries. It most certainly will not come from the Office Utilities Expense or from Administrative Costs for Accounting, Payroll, Human Resources and Management. It WILL come from a few areas: either it comes from reducing the profit margin or from reducing the business’ workforce. Reducing the profit margin will not even be considered simply to cover a higher labor wage law! That’s the whole reason why they invested the capital (or procured the business loan) that they’ve leveraged as a risk in order to facilitate a return on investment (R.O.I.). They want a percentage of revenue returned above and beyond the expenses and costs in the form of a profit. Any sane business person is not going to allow this area to be heavily impacted. It most likely will come from a reduction or reallocation of employee labor. That is one expense that can be controlled through effective management. They will reduce the cost of hourly employees in order to make up for the increase in wages. Once the mandate to raise the wages to $15/hour occurs, they will look towards reducing positions while continuing to maintain the same efficiency. They may even spread their current staff thinner and increase their workloads in hopes of maintaining the same level of production. It may also lead to a drastic result in order to control this cost in the form of technological innovation. A technological change towards automation will eliminate the cost of labor and aid in maintaining efficiency. Now, some businesses may be able to weather the storm of changing wage rates. Some established businesses will actually advocate for these rate changes and take a financial “hit” or even a slight reduction to their bottom line, because they know other businesses will not be able to handle the change. Through Government mandates, they effectively reduce their competition by running those businesses out of business, while increasing their market share in return for a temporary financial inconvenience (which can be viewed as a long-term Return on Investment). Case in point: Walmart. They’ve actually advocated and have even proactively raised their corporate minimum wage rate in order to set the example in the realm of public opinion. They do this to gain a better public relations image, along with the added hope of leading the charge of coaxing their competition into following suit. Thus, they collapse their competition financially and recuperate their initial loss with an increased market share in the long run. But let's talk about other costs that affect the bottom line for businesses. These costs are many times directly related to government intervention. Examples are: taxation and regulations - the costs of increased licenses, permits, and the costs of maintaining compliance measures. These are all additional cost a business must account for and scrutinize. Sometimes, these costs can be so tremendous that they become a barrier for entry for new businesses ventures seeking to enter the market, depending on their field. These can become extremely cumbersome costs that can be further exacerbated by an increase in a Government mandated minimum wage rates. We can safely surmise that a forced increase in wage rates will have a negative effect on business, which trickles down to the overall economy at large. This will negatively impact the employees financially. Businesses may also relocate to areas of lower government regulation and lower taxation, such as other nations or countries. They may have to weigh the risks, such as national civil unrest or the actual economic benefits relating to relocating outside of the United States, but a forced minimum wage rate increase will add to the consideration to relocate.  It will ultimately impact the entire nation’s economy, resulting with the culminating impact of those who are affected by the shrinkage, layoffs, or even business closings that result from a forced minimum wage increase while weathering a “recession storm”.

 Second point of interest: Free College – The advocates of “free college” are proposing the idea of free, government funded public higher education. The argument for free college is to have a better informed society with less debt due to the lack of college expenses. They see the possibility of an educated collective, one that’s well studied, as a public benefit to the nation as a whole. Free College advocates will specifically spin their cause, citing that it is specifically designated to Public Colleges, and not Private Colleges. Private College, should you wish to pay for it, will be available for purchase as normal. The government can either: remove the liability you’ve incurred towards that Liberal Arts Degree in Fashion you’ve slaved over for 4 years to obtain, or they should allow you to refinance the student loan, like a mortgage, because the Interest rate is too high. The crux and basis of these arguments are tremendously flawed from the outset. Firstly, much like private grade school programs, the price of schooling will drastically increase. Although the general public has the ability to engage in free public college, the smaller pool of private college recipients, or “Customers”, will lead to higher tuition rate in order to cover the cost of operations. Also, in regards to the difference in interest rates of student loans and home mortgages, a mortgage is a “secured” loan. It typically has a lower interest rate because it’s backed by collateral or a hard, valuable asset, such as the asset in the form of a home to which you are purchasing. If you default on the mortgage, they will repossess your Asset (“Home”) and recuperate their loan through its sale to a responsible purchaser. Also, obtaining a Student loan is a “Cost of Doing Business”. This is no different from a business owner that obtained capital in the form a business loan in order to create or enhance their business, as we covered earlier. Procuring the Student loan was done so that you could enhance your marketability, in the form of a higher skill set, a path to a possible certification within your field of expertise, or even the price paid for education from a prestigious reputation associated with the institute of higher learning to which you’ve attended. This raises your marketability in the context of the competition of the global economy considerably. Be aware from the federal income tax prospective, when a student loan is “forgiven”, you must still pay the tax liability associated with the amount of the debt that was forgiven. Most don’t ponder those aspects of loan forgiveness. What happens when you make that college degree free? Your degree now becomes worthless. It has absolutely no weight. The “free college” recipient has now obtained a degree that doesn't hold similar weight or stature to that of one that was purchased at a highly respected, private college. When in the running for that “gig” at the Civil Engineering firm, will they pick the candidate with the free degree from “American Community Public College” with the free degree? Or will they pick the candidate with the degree that was purchased and slaved over from Massachusetts Institute of Technology? These two points of interest refute the viability of a free, public college. Let’s not forget that it’s economically unfeasible for the Government to provide enough tax revenue in order to cover those expenses. In other words, defecate in one hand and dream for free college in the other…then notify us of which one arrives first! We’ll be waiting...

Third point of interest : Income and wealth inequality Bernie supporters think that he's going to “level the playing field” so that everyone will win and be paid the same. But here's the real world reality: some people are tall, some are short. Some individuals are smart, some are not. Some are ultra-talented, some marginally so. Some are extremely resourceful, others are not. The base line for equality has already not been met. This is the crux of the word “Individual”. So, how does someone think that income (which is based on talent, ability, and even exterior appearance, sorry to say) can be equalized? It’s never going to be equalized! You are not going to come close to tightening the income inequality gap. You will actually open up a “work ethic gap”. Are you going to be willing to step up and outperform the other employees in order to close this gap? Maybe you haven’t been given a raise in a considerable length of time. This may cause you to explore procuring additional employment. You may have to “fight” through multiple jobs to earn the money necessary to succeed. It may require you to relocate to other parts of the country that holds more promise in order to have better opportunity available to you! Regardless, you need to have that field of opportunity and “open environment” that a smaller government with less or more favorable regulation provides in order to earn and work for any success. Ultimately, it’s your responsibility to close the inequality gap and refrain from waiting for a higher governmental force to guide you to this result.




To understand the Millennial and their affinity towards Socialism, you must understand that all of these platforms are how Millennials define their “morality”. It’s not a spiritual morality, but a tangible morality that is based solely on an individual’s actions. Fairness, equality, selflessness (particular financial), and charity are the “Fruits of the humanists’ spirits”. The more you do outwardly, such as giving to charity, raising awareness to causes, paying taxes to maintain government assistance programs, and providing activism to change society, is how they make themselves right with the world. Bernie Sanders taps into this view of morality and attempts to portray the correction of immoral corruption by “Big Business” through Government’s role as the moral, higher authority. But this governmental regulation of morality falls short, especially in light of the recent Panama Paper’s Leak. These leaks show that, while actions were considered legal in many cases, Socialist leaders and Authoritarian overseers are more than content with cutting moral corners while hypocritically expecting their constituents, citizens, and servants to comply with unwavering servitude. As long as an individual with authority can compromise their integrity, principles, and character, Socialism will not work. No matter how you pepper up the ideology or rebrand it, such as the term Socialist Democracy (which was initially dubbed as such by Russian leaders like Vladimir Lenin before it naturally evolved into full blown communism, as it normally does) it will falter and collapse. These social democracies are simply communism that just won’t quite yet commit to the cause! They long for the economic benefits of Capitalism, while gripping and clinging to authoritarian control. Ultimately, Socialism is designed for those who are ruled under it. Those overseeing it are able to do so without reprisal. With the continual programming of socialism from birth to college and with its cultural influences of propaganda being inundated upon us with regularity, making the case for small government conservatism as to how it relates to the common ground solutions Millennials seek, is extremely essential. It’s a mission we must pursue on a continual, daily basis. And we must do so with the same vigor and tenacity that the Socialist seek, as they continually move the ball to their end zone.

Do we change "Business as usual" in Washington by simply electing a Businessman? Not necessarily...

                

We are witnessing the Armageddon of the two party system! The melt down is upon us! American politics is in complete disarray. The Republicans are witnessing the fracturing of their party, eerily similar to that of the demise of the Whig Party in 1854. Although slavery was at the crux of The Whig Party’s demise, a new type of “strong fisted subservience” that has suppressed the Republican electorate is now leading to a subversive revolt by its own constituents. For the Democrats, the Super-delegate ruse is emerging without apology, which is indicative to their governing style: “You’ll take what we give you and you will like it!”  In fact, the political two party system’s demise has been unwittingly set course by the obtuse and out of touch mentality of their political ruling classes. These political classes are subcultures, flush with elitism and self-imposed prestige. An exclusive club that “we, the people” have assumed to have elected as public servants to represent our interest. In actuality, we’ve elected to relinquish our voice and have essentially positioned ourselves to be completely shut out of the process all together. A desire of the citizenry for change is due, based upon decades of being governed against by our own representatives. It has led to a long past due overhaul, in order to reconstruct and change this behemoth of a ruling monstrosity. Those seeking change are seeking a different type of leadership.  Out of the box, creative methods are now being embraced as an alternative to the typical political styling of our current career representatives. What type of leader should we seek? Should we employ an outsider? Should our Chief Executive have “Executive Experience” with a history of leadership? Should we look towards a military leader? Or should we seek a successful private sector leader to steer the American Streamliner?  In an age of political discourse and disaffection of the political system, many believe a successful business person would be the most effective hire for this position. Although successful Private Sector experience is appealing on paper, with real world application this may not yield the most successful results.

Being a Business Owner may give you executive experience but, contrary to popular opinion, it does not qualify you to be the Chief Governing Executive of America. Yes, as a business owner you lead those to whom you have hired. The difference is, as President, we are NOT your employees. You work for us! As a Business owner, you're beholden to your board of directors. The Board of Directors in NOT AN EQUIVALENT to Congress. The Board of Directors represents the business interest. Conversely, Congress represents the interests of the people. It's a completely different mindset altogether. As a Business Owner, you make deals with other business interests in order to edify and satisfy the Company's interest with efficient ease. In Government, gridlock is instituted BY DESIGN in order to ensure that what makes it through the fire is a tortured result for the best interest of the citizenry. In business, the Company does not necessarily work for its employees. The employees work to further the goals of the business that employs them. The decisions that the business makes is not always in line with the employee’s desires. They are mostly enacted for the betterment of the business itself, to which the employees receive the residual benefits. In government, the representatives are elected to seek the interest of their citizens, with the Nation receiving the residual benefits of those decisions.  With business, you follow the businesses culture, code of Ethics, and Companies policies and procedures. If those policies and procedures and rules need adjusting, you adjust them for the betterment of the business. This isn’t necessarily the case with the Constitution of the United States. Although adjusting the laws is entirely possible, the lengths to which one must go in order to make a change to the Constitution are tremendously difficult to obtain. It should also be noted that the President cannot elect to make these changes themselves in order to fit the wishes of their desired results.  Although Government may have similar characteristics as that of a Business, they are diametrically opposed to one another with how they operate.

History has provided insight into the results of electing a businessman to the highest level of leadership in the land of the free. The last time we placed the faith of our nation in the hands of a “Businessman” was with the election of Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover was a successful businessman in the mining industry. Once he conquered the private sector, he yearned to conquer politics (although he gave the outward impression that he was being reluctantly pulled into executive cabinet positions).  He was affiliated with Woodrow Wilson’s “Ultra-Progressive” Democrat Administration. He switched his political party affiliation back to the Republican Party, which was the party he was registered to before the 1^st World War. He did show support for a period of time to The Bull Moose “Progressive” Party of Theodore Roosevelt. Hoover’s Populist Nationalism was something that he “mined” during the end of the roaring 20’s, leading into the beginning of the 30’s, just before the ensuing economic collapse. Increased Wealth Taxes on the highest tax brackets and higher corporate tax rates imposed by President Hoover aided in stunting the economic growth of the private sector while, at the same time balancing the Federal Budget. Trade Tariffs were passed, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, as a way of providing the Private Sector a form of protectionism in the burgeoning age of a new global economy. The Tariff Act of 1930 was actually counterproductive and further exacerbated the economic collapse, minimizing its attempts at recovery. The Great Depression ensued deeper, which led to unprecedented unemployment.  The various “Hooverisms” littered the legacy of this Big Business President. “Hoovervilles”, which were filled with the unemployed residing in dilapidated shacks, began to spring forth throughout the nation. Ultimately, having incredible success in the Private Sector was proven not to be the litmus test for an effective Elected Executor.

History is set again to repeat itself. With economic malaises continuing into its eight year, we face similar paths of economic recovery and governance.  With a political class that has rejected and ignored it’s very own electorate for the financial gains and influence of lobbyists and Big Business,  Americans are fed up with Crony Corporate, Career Politician relationships on both sides of the aisle. The question you'll have to ask and examine within yourself with is, "Why would I allow a businessman to cut corners, change positions on numerous occasions, and ‘grease the government wheels’ to their benefit in their personal life? At the same time, why would I demand with unwavering fervor, that a politician have consistency with absolutely no tolerance towards a movement in their policy positions?" We should also ask, “In the course of a national crisis, would the constitution be the guiding light to which the leader that we hire look towards for guidance? Or will an authoritative administrated solution of the basis of simple results, with no regard for Constitutional principles be the result?” These are the questions we SHOULD be asking of our selection for the executive leader of the free world.  Simply having business experience may not necessarily be the cure for our disaffection of the current political system.

The "Catphish Campaign" of a Pseudo-reality - The New Clinton Campaign Method

Nancy Pelosi once said, “You can create any reality you want”. Mrs. Pelosi, of course, was referring to the recent release of the undercover videos exposing the butchery of Planned Parenthood. Now, we all realize that there was absolutely no doctoring of those videos. The full, unedited footage is widely available for consumption online. But to play to the uninformed or naive, you may be able to make the case that a sizable portion of the nation will certainly believe that they were contrived based upon Pelosi’s ascertain alone. A large portion of the population is actually denying cold, hard evidence without even taking the task of investigating the claims themselves. It is an interesting phenomenon to witness. Based upon this phenomena, we are inadvertently given a window into a current trend occurring within the Democrat party. A trend that encompasses the methodology of the current White House administration's propaganda tactics. By controlling an alternate “virtual” reality through the lens of social media, you can effectively shape public opinion. This new frontier can provide inventive and innovative ways of propaganda through misinformation marketing. Ultimately, we're led to understand the new approach of the Democrats, more importantly Hillary Clinton’s "Catfish" Campaign strategy.

  With campaign season upon us, I have to pine for the days of the campaigns of yesteryear. Shaking hands, Kissing babies, and simple public interactive persuasion...that was how it was done. Technological media advances have always had an impact on the methods of reaching people within the political arena. It has also had an impact upon the basis for the perceptions the public has of their political candidates. New advances in technology always comes with new political challenges. Looking back over time and through the history of political campaigns, the impact of technology is clearly evident. The rise of Radio gave way to the "personal touch and connection" with the populous, as evidenced with the “Fire Side Chats” of the FDR administration. Television changed the image standards of current politicians. In fact, many news outlets continually LOVE to revisit the Kennedy/Nixon televised debate of 1960. It is often cited by Left-wing News Media as the pivotal point in the campaign, This was the moment Nixon's perspiration was similar to that which would most likely occur if Jenna Jameson was climbing into a Southern Baptist Pew after a cutting a “scene”. Ultimately, it showed a nervous lack of confidence with Nixon that was getting the best of him in real time. That new media forum allowed for a visual nuance to be added into future campaigns. With the rise of the internet and social media, the game has again changed and evolved the political candidacy of the major leagues.

  The new age of social media is an intriguing and interesting animal. As a former working musician, I understood the need to exploit these channels upon their earliest inception. Starting with forums such as MySpace and Facebook, we began to connect with fans and friends in ways we never could have imagined were possible. This led to interesting and unintended consequences. I began to connect with old friends and acquaintances that I had lost touch with over decades ago. I even inadvertently connected to those that I had relationships with ages ago. That led to questions such as, "Whatever happened to Sarah?" "Oh Look! She sent me a request on Facebook! Oh, WOW... I'm glad our relationship didn't go that far! I REALLY dodged that bullet!” Then, there were those that you knew had a grasp on reality and were blessed with above normal intelligence.  "Whatever happened my buddy Jim? It looks like he's doing really well!" But that's when reality dawned on me. Just about everyone you know would not display the disputes and arguments that they have with their spouses, the times that they were pulled over by the police and were cited with a ticket, or whether or not they were ever involved in a fistfight at the neighborhood bar with someone who tried to hit on their wife. With the exception of those who post every single life crisis on their page in a passive aggressive cry for help, most of us use it as a way to personally “market” ourselves to friends and relatives. We put on a "social media facade" in order to display to everyone that we’ve ever encountered that we've actually obtained the "dream life". Many would post pictures of their perfect relationships, houses, children, accolades, and all of the other successes that they had in their life. Then, after running into mutual acquaintances, you begin to learn that those same people were in the middle of a divorce, losing their house, and are splitting the children within viewing days and times. You learn their accolades were phony or not even close to the level that was conveyed.  That's when you begin to realize that using social media, you are able to create an image of an individual and have it be 180 degrees different than what is actually reality. Hillary Clinton and her campaign strategists, as well as the news media, understand this well. It defines the methodology that they currently employ.

     Hillary Clinton has a difficult time connecting, which is mostly due to her lack of likability and sincerity. The media shrouds her acidic personality, which is rarely displayed to the public at large. The need for controlling her image is important to be able to persevere into the democratic primaries. She employs social media to field questions and provide her stances on issues. So, she must mold and fabricate another separate entity, one that cackles with ear grating laughter and portrays her as America's, maternal "Grandmother". This leads us to the current method by which Hillary and her campaign strategists have decided to conduct her campaign. Image control is the reason for announcing her Presidency via internet video, which was deployed on YouTube and then shared on Twitter. It also explains that when the initial video campaign kickoff didn’t catapult her campaign upon its release, they’ve resorted to rebooting the campaign on two additional occasions. Hillary 2016 4.0. What’s somewhat disturbing is her claims of a lack of technological prowess in the wake of her ‘Private Server” scandal. On one hand, she plays dumb with all of the "new fangled" technology at her disposal. On the other hand, she is meticulously building an alternate image of her “brand” and personality, all while maintaining a command and control presence ONLINE! She's doing it all through the use of TECHNOLOGY! She can manipulate her online persona, as well as her interaction with potential voters. They’ve applied this approach in the real world as well. When general public interaction is possible, there's no engagement with actual citizens. Those whom are considered “the general public” are actually hired operatives, with cameras set to roll in order to film the ensuing love fest. It explains why there has been cherry-picked reporters and preferred news outlets that will prop up this perfect image, in order for it to be controlled and massaged. It’s also one of the main reasons that the social media virtual reality approach has a heavy focus. News/entertainment media bias heavily aids in setting the tone with the public of both sides of the political aisle. It’s why one Presidential candidate will get coverage playing a Saxophone, Singing R&B, or flipping flapjacks on Late Night Talks Shows and early morning news programs and other candidates receive blistering, constant criticism and condemnation. If you are affiliated with the right particular political party, you will have cameos on Sketch Comedy Shows & Hipster Blog/Podcasts. Massaging propaganda is more effective and less painstaking in a social media forum than strictly coordinating all of the components necessary to achieve this goal with traditional news/entertainment media. The main goal, ultimately, is to use either of these methods to control your image while infecting the culture. This is usually in an attempt to paint a portrait of a candidate that may not be completely in line with their actual personality.

   Fortunately, the Republican field of candidates offers a contrast and an amazing juxtaposition to Hillary’s approach, which is utterly stunning. With a field of contenders simultaneously echoing a message of self-reliance and small government many years into an age of rapidly growing government encroachment, it begins to show a stark difference that is truly refreshing. With their hearts on their sleeves and without the aid of large teleprompters, these candidates are “bullhorning” their messages almost in unison. Many of those listening to their offerings would’ve been too young to remember the sound of a leader who could speak with conviction and vision. Others will be able to remember the days of well-spoken and thoughtful leadership and be reminded as to how much we’ve missed that sound. Some, like myself, will have been at their wits end and feel a sense of relief from the sounds emanating from the collective of freedom fighting candidates. A “Read Through” styled, virtual reality campaign will have a TREMENDOUS struggle of immeasurable proportions in order to match those who are actually speaking from the heart. Along with the candidate anchoring email/classified information scandals currently affecting Hillary’s campaign, this public disconnection will be another “Achilles heel” derailing her coronation march. It could be the undoing of her self-proclaimed, quasi-“Queen of America”/”Political Outsider” duality, which currently defines her self-absorbed, politically obsessed candidacy. Many democrat presidential "investors" may be uncomfortable or even afraid of sacrificing their R.O.I., even with the “Insurance Policy” of inevitability that is currently being pitched by the mainstream news media and the Clinton crime family campaign camp. Time will certainly tell.

Welcome to the Sanger Baby Parts Chop Shop & Sauna Massage Spa...Planned Butcherhood

    Can we make a "Christopher Reeves" fly again? Can we save Alex P. Keaton from the withering effects of Parkinson's disease?  We, as intellectual beings, are continually trying to crack the code in the field of medicine. Can we find a cure for cancer? We defeated polio and even eliminated smallpox. Certainly, we should be able to come up with a solution to eradicate many of these other deadly diseases? What about Alzheimer's or Dementia? Many have sought out new methods and traveled down new avenues with the hope of defeating these diseases. Some have looked towards "Out of the box" methods of thinking for accomplishing this mission. Experimental methods, such as using stem cells for research as being a possible route towards a cure, have opened the doors to the realms of possibility. But we now find ourselves approaching a moral dilemma. The ethical line to establish a boundary between how to approach a medical cure for some of the most serious diseases of our time and what can actually be utilized to achieve this goal is pushing us to an impasse. It is something that must be handled and rooted in some sense of morality. But have we, as a nation, lost our morality and ethical standing in favor of propping up an ideological viewpoint.

  

   Stem cell research has always been touted as a new frontier for medical science (By the way, be aware that the term "Science" also doubles as a code word by Atheists as their ruling "God"...which means they do acknowledge SOME higher power. But that's an argument for another day. For the sake of this tirade, it will encompass both meanings). How do you effectively obtain the stem cells? Through donated tissue? Who would donate these cells? Would it be from consenting adults, wanting to donate to "Science"? Or will it be from recycling remaining body parts and organs of aborted babies? Sounds barbaric, doesn't it? Sadly, this practice has been uncovered as a regular method of maximizing the recyclable yield of a "Sacrificed" aborted "Growth tissue, thingy". It's downright sinister and despicable.

   When the arguments first began on the subject of "fetal" stem cell tissue's possibility of being an effective tool for use in medical research, it was framed in the media as a new world with endless benefits. To me, this was a very disturbing statement. When I was first made aware of this idea, I began to make the case that we are about to embark upon a new ECONOMIC frontier. It is opening the door to building a new market. A market built upon demand that must now being fulfilled. You must ask yourself, "How do you feel that the demand of this new market is now looking to be filled with baby parts"? How would you make the supply side meet demand? According to Planned Parenthood, you do so by taking aborted babies and using their parts! You even try and make it more palatable by giving it a "Sauna Spa Like" air of ambiance. And as you harvest the baby parts while the former mother sips hot tea in a robe, hopefully, you'll take a cut enough to purchase a modern luxury muscle sports car in exchange for 6 month old livers and hearts. Apparently, this is a practice that's been going on for years! The heart, liver, and the kidney...all the things that are involved with this "tissue growth" are now a part of the Stem Express stem cell tissue research company's inventory. The procedures are conducted in "less crunchy" ways to preserve the valuable "inventory" in order to obtain maximized utilization. In fact, many of these organs are now pre-ordered, with the objective of extracting a fetus in a manner as to ensure they are not damaged and intact being “baked in” to the procedure, just as the costs are “baked into” the purchasing order. They can be haggled over to cover these "costs", all while the harvesters are fainting as they are identifying and extracting fetal organs. The harvesters are being told, "You'll probably never get used to this". And you shouldn't. It's a telling statement that underscores the brutality and callousness required to perform this chore. They’ve even eluded to the possibility that if a baby was scheduled for the abortion actually arrives "via stork delivery" earlier than expected, it can be put down like a sick dalmatian and will be added to the inventory of butchery. This void of ethics and morality cannot be understated and should be applied to every other component of their actions in every aspect of their daily lives. Character DOES matter.

    God DOES work in mysterious ways. Much like the "on camera", unexpected response to the removal of God from the DNC Presidential Convention Platform, where Gods inclusion was booed by them 3 times, we are being given a window into the soul of the progressive movement's core. In contrast, the crux of any conservative's guidance is the divine morality that we look towards in order to govern us as we govern ourselves, or if elected, use to govern the electorate.  The progressive movement have remove GOD and divine morality, and in turn, have placed their own authority in a station of supremacy. In doing so, they have dismantled their moral compass and have lend themselves to become butchers, thieves, and authoritative demigods. They are ultimate authority, judge, and jury. Why are they above scrutiny? Why are they in a special class?How are they able to decide who lives, how they live, and how they'll die? These are typical questions that arise when pondering progressive ideology. The real question should be, "What are our values?" Ask yourself this question and then choose which side you wish to be on. My choice is Life and Freedom. What's yours?