Ted Cruz Pivots to vote Trump, 80's Metal can explain the Trump Phenomenon, 1st Debate Analysis

Anyone who follows any of my writings, podcasts, or even corresponds with me online knows around this time last year, we were filled with Hope. Obama's presidency is finally in the sunset, in the rear-view mirror now. We had the opportunity to go “full bore”, and push ahead with a Constitutionalist (or even a conservative that understands its very importance) in a point in time where a correction of course back to our original direction is necessary. And then, the Trump "cult of personality", pretend ‘outsider” phenomenon occurred. One by one, they all fell...some were already so close to the Progressive ideology that it wasn't surprising that they did. Others made what seemed like small contradictory stances, like backing Mitch McConnell or making silly course changes such as flying to Florida for a change of drawers and then vilifying those trying to make sense of it all. And then, September 23^rd happened.

Ted Cruz came out and said he's voting for the Republican nominee. Now in my mind, his statements weren't truly an endorsement, although people have made it out to be. Of course, the media is out there pretending as though he gave it a ringing endorsement, to which it wasn't. It angered me at first, because I really wanted Ted Cruz to hold the line. I really wanted him to be "the example" of the part of the party, the grassroots," that actually stood for something. The part of the party that doesn't just “go along to get along”, because it's what we're supposed to do. If there was anything that I’ve learned in previous elections, which really came to the forefront and to fruition during this election primary process, was the fact that the Republican Party is “a private organization” and they will pick who they want to pick. When it came down to the final few candidates like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, & Donald Trump regarding the delegate threshold, Reince Pribus and the GOP establishment kept telling the mantra "well it's a private organization we can do what we want!" Certainly it is, but you may also want to consider those of us that are a small part of the organization...those who you need to show up and vote for whichever candidate that you pick at your own volition. To sit there and say that we should all "fall in line" is insulting at best. Especially when I feel as though the party has left me and it is no longer my responsibility! I don't need to fall in line, when there is a Constitutional Party (which has a limp and uninspiring candidate), there's a Green Party (that has an Uber progressive socialist), there's Libertarian Party (that's been pushing candidates that aren't even libertarian, as though they don't even want the opportunity to win when it's abundantly available to them), there are choices beyond the two party system. There’s even the Electoral College Independent choice, Evan “HEAD McLovin” McMullin (who has been interviewed and said that he was for a legal path to citizenship for his immigration stance).Obviously all those choices are awful, but they are choices. Could there be a possibility for a new choice? A new party of grassroots constitutionalist, who are looking to move in a different direction? One’s that would be able to control their own fate? The resources are available... As I've said in the earlier podcasts, the ability to connect to the average citizen through social media, through streaming…the ability to raise funding through now established Super PACs and even crowdfunding opportunities are all new options. Those are just a few examples of what's available that didn't used to be. But everyone seems to think we need to work from inside the Republican Party to reform it. So how do we do that? Well, we've already tried that and it was destroyed and the movement was shut down. The people responsible for it were ultimately vilified beyond recognition! So basically, it's the establishment’s party. They get to pick who they want because it's a private organization. And now we have to fall in line because we have the nominee and we all need to jump on board whether we like it or not. Look what Reince Pribus (Mr. Reince, douche, Repeat) said as a threat to the former presidential candidates?

“Look, people that agreed to support the nominee, who took part in our process…they used tools from the RNC, They agreed to support the nominee, they took part in our process. We’re a private party, we’re not a public entity. Those people need to get on board. If they’re thinking that they’re going to run again someday, I think we are going to evaluate the process of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them”

Was this the reasoning for Ted Cruz shift in position? Is he still looking to work from inside the GOP infrastructure in the future? When Ted Cruz put his statement out, it showed up in my email inbox. I really didn't want to read it. Actually, I stayed away from it for quite a few hours. And then, I sat down to soak it all in. When I read it I noticed a few things. I believe by reading Cruz's statement, to give support, he outlined each point and said "AND TRUMP PROMISED TO DO SO". Now, where I thought Ted Cruz should've just kept his mouth shut, slipped off into the night, under the radar and allowed this election to go in the direction it's going in, he thought differently. I can't understand why he thought differently. There was absolutely nothing to gain from this position change. Those who aren't Republicans, those who don't understand the political landscape and don't get their information from deep sources news already have a skewed view of Ted Cruz. I’m talking about those who take the headlines and sound bites from the nightly news.  I'm not talking about the 24 hour cable news channels sources either. I'm talking about the “dinnertime, three major network nightly news” programs that are then proceeded by Hollywood tabloid new shows viewers. They’re opinion of Ted Cruz that he was some extremist, Tea Party Nut, Evangelical fanatic. They weren’t fans of his from the beginning. The Trump supporters, many of whom were cheering his hard line stances in Congress, have now changed their view of him and now say he’s as a liar and a "CUCK" (as term they like to throw around on a regular basis). Even though they would be more than willing to accept such a liar as a Supreme Court Justice Nominee, who would have to have the integrity to uphold the highest laws in the land…go figure? But now, after this pivot, the Ted Cruz supporters feel betrayed! Not only that, the Trump supporters who booed him for not endorsing at the RNC convention are now calling him a fraud for actually supporting him now! It's a no-win! Now, everybody has to make their own decisions based on their own circumstances, obviously. For me, I'm in a unique position this election. Due of my proximity and location, I'm viewing it through the Electoral College. My District, City/County is going to vote Donald Trump whether I vote for him or not. Unfortunately, my State, due to extreme northern liberal counties on the outskirts of Big Government Washington DC, are going to push the State into voting for Hillary Clinton. So I can actually make the conscious decision to “vote my conscience” while not feeling as though I let the country down. But that's my unique position. Others have decided that they have to make the decision between the two binary evils that are left by picking the one that will stop the other evil. And I get all of that. The problem is, politically speaking, I'm not sure how Ted Cruz recovers from this. I understand that he has prayed about it, he's talk to his father and his wife, and has come to this decision. I can only imagine there was enormous pressure from donors, especially from those that helped him along on his campaign. And even though I feel that the GOP will not allow any second attempt by Ted Cruz to run for the presidency again, he feels as if his opportunity is to come around again, he should tie up the loose ends to make it possible. But, I do know that his statement makes a lot of “anti-deals” with Trump regarding Ted’s positions. Almost like a reverse deal, that stated “this is what I want, this is what I'm afraid of happening if Hillary wins, and this is what Trump has promised to do”. That list of Supreme Court justices better be stellar!  So, when Trump caves, Cruz can call him on it and not look as though Cruz caved on his original pledge.

So what does this say for the remainder of the party? Does the GOP push out its grassroots? I mean the Democratic Party has embraced there is an allowed the socialist to overrun their party? They've purged the Jim Webb's and Joe Lieberman’s. The John F. Kennedy Democrats of the past have been left behind as they moved on to their future. Time will only tell. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz is coming across as a typical politician. And although he may plan on working within the Republican Party, he's going to have to cede some of his stances. This is ultimately the crux of my disappointment. Am I abandoning Ted Cruz? No. Just as I haven't abandon rand Paul or Marco Rubio. Both have portrayed legislative fortitude and keeping things on the constitutional path. Have I abandon Scott Walker? No he still has the ability to move governing conservatism into the realm of the alligator and sharks, and weathering that storm without a bruise. But do I think Ted Cruz will be the facilitator of a principled new movement no I don't think so anymore. Maybe I should've thought that from the beginning.

So how did we get here? If you follow me down a divergent rabbit hole, we can actually use a non-political, cultural, historical trend phenomena to use a basis of theory…80’s Glam Metal. From the beginning of Rock Music, the British invasion turned a style of music like Rhythm and Blues into a new, innovative style…something so fresh and liberating was delivered by the unique cultural phenomenon of the Beetle’s, much in the same way the Revolutionary War happened after the British settlements revolted. It led to the most innovative, unique, and liberating form government to ever exist. Now, they may not have been the first to mine that territory, just as there were many earlier settlements in the New World as well. But, they were the ones to do it RIGHT and led to an explosion. Of course, this led to the slow evolution within the rock and roll genre. From the 60’s crop of Crosby, Stills, and Nash/Jefferson Airplane/Jimi Hendrix, even the ‘Free Love” Hippy rock groups led to experimental rock styles and brought to life Led Zeppelin/The Doors/The Who/Black Sabbath groups, and even the Flashy Showmanship of KISS. This was a heavier rock evolution that was happening and the creativity continued. It moved into the 70’s Foreigner, Boston, Bad Company Rock where it was finding a comfortable footing. It eventually led to VAN HALEN. Now I focus on Van Halen here, not so much because of their place in some sort of Rock and Roll History, but more importantly, what was being cultivated in the future based on their style and sound. They took the edginess of those before them and combined it with pomp and circumstance, showmanship, and glamour. And THAT is where I’m going with this comparison to make this point. This is when the Record industry (think GOP Establishment) took the success of Van Halen and looked to replicate that to the furthest degree. This led to the 80’s Glam metal explosion. Def Leopard’s and late era Aerosmith which moved to Motley Cure’s and Poison’s, which led to Slaughter and Warrant, and begat Enuffz Enuff and Sleaze Beez…you know why you’ve never heard of them? Because they SUCKED. The market was oversaturated with the same old, same old. They’ve replicated the same premise to the point of exhaustion. It was hollow, shallow, and lost every bit of its roots and foundation. They looked the part, operated like a group should, but there was nothing below their surface, much like the RINO Republican Politicians. They look like Conservatives and say that they are, but beyond the surface they are bland and void of any foundation and surface. The 80’s metal 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th wave groups were looking for the Record deal and to make the quick payoff, as the GOP does with its politicians and their relationship with the corporate world and the Establishment Party Machine. And while that was dominating the record industry and airwaves, there were a few things bubbling in the underbelly. In New York, D.C, and California, they were just railing against the trends. It was a grassroots effort – Hardcore and Punk. I’m talking the Ramones, Black Flags, Minor Threats, Misfits, Bad Brains, Agnostic Front, Dead Kennedys, JFA, 7 Seconds, Faction, TSOL…it was a movement that was just bashing the status quo. They made their own records and tapes, which were traded underground and word of mouth. They promoted their own shows with cut and paste, pencil drawn fliers. Some of it morphed into the late 80’s thrash metal, which was a combination of The New Wave of British Metal (like Iron Maiden, Motorhead, and Diamondhead) and Hardcore/Punk. It led to the Big Four of Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax and Slayer. The problem with that movement back then, more specifically the Hardcore and Punk movements (not so much the Thrash Metal offshoot) was the fact that it quickly imploded, because it wasn’t based on anything beyond anarchy and rebellion. If you don’t believe so, there are many documentaries where those involved in the scene directly will testify to this fact – down to Henry Rollins and even Ian Mackay. That’s not to say that it’s legacy didn’t endure, even to today. But this was similar to your fringe parties – Libertarian parties, green party et al. Parts of it also encompass the current Trump Phenomena of a “wrecking ball” mentality. There was no intention of breaking through into the mainstream at all. Now, later on another movement began bubbling in the Northwest. This is what I equivocate to the current grassroots. It was based on all of the aspects of the rock movements that we spoke of earlier. They were ignored and neglected, to the point where they made their own ways similar to that of the Hardcore/Punk movement. They used styles that were popular and tried and true. The core principles of Rock that made it great in the past were the focus, but they were ideas not popular in the late 80’s. And many of those began to see success. The saturated, record company dominated corporate rock couldn’t hold down many of these groups, although their initial success was limited. The people were yearning for something different and real! They were thirsting for substance and something that wasn’t bound to the Corporate Record Industry Establishment.

But then, 1992 came along. Much like the Trump Phenomenon, Nirvana appeared from the Pacific Northwest. Their styling and sound were taking parts of what was defining that scene, but added the rebellious edges of punk and hardcore, even some experimental noise rock. They pierced through the grassroots movement that was building. The explosion of popularity hijacked the scene that spawned Mudhoney, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains and ended up redefining the movement, arguably to something it wasn’t originally based upon even though it was very appealing. The continual popularity wave built, because the people were yearning for something different in a field of surface only, hollow, empty Corporate Record Company ideas that were expected to always work. And the 80’s Glam metal Status Quo despised this movement. Nirvana kept rebelling against the system. Unconventional and brash, they didn’t play by the typical rules. They would go on American Bandstand type dance shows were they were instructed to pretend to play their instruments to a music track, like many of the other groups have done. Only, they decided to throw and destroy their instruments instead of complying. They would appear on late night talk shows and when the host would announce their song choice, they would switch it last minute to the most raucous, non-radio friendly song in their catalog. And that was hilarious and refreshing to see. But eventually, that scene to end up slowly dying. The once anti-establishment outsiders became the insiders. And eventually, Nirvana too were taken and exploited by the Record Industry “Establishment”. Many were falling for the trappings of Rock and Roll lifestyle excesses, much like the 80’s Glam Metal Scene did. Quite a few were overdosing and dying because of it, much like the somewhat principled Republicans are ceding principles and succumbing to a career suicide. Nirvana ended up imploding on the death of its founder. Some, like Pearl Jam (much like the Ted Cruz of the scene) fought parts of the system to their detriment, like Pearl Jam’s fight against Ticketmaster, and paid a price for standing on their principles. But the force that Nirvana was riding on suddenly ended on the death of its founder. The supporters were left brokenhearted and dismayed when their idol killed himself and left them with nothing. Ultimately, Rock and Roll died that too, for an extended number of years. But the Establishment remained and moved on. They moved to another tried and true trend…which brought about the 90’s and early 2000’s version of 80’s pop. The yearning by the public for something new and different is sometimes good. But what is it based on? Currently, the plastic, surface based majority of politicians with a complete lack of substance have over-saturated “the scene”. Do we want that rebellious explosion that sounds so sweet but eventually destroys itself in the end? Or do we want that substantive, principled, roots oriented type that adheres to what made things great from the very beginning. This, to me explains why there are the Trump movements and the Never Trump grassroots movement, all housed within the same party with the Establishment.

So, who made their case in the first debate? Trump didn't take long to fall back into his classic snarkiness. He started with the “teleprompter persona” he’s been riding on, but that all went to pot after the first 5 minutes. He had more chances than Mitt Romney did to crush his opponent, back when Romney refrained from launching into Obama over Benghazi when he had the opportunity sitting right in front of him. I even remember yelling at the T.V. during that debate screaming, “WHAT ABOUT BENGHAZI???” Trump left four times the opportunities all over the stage floor. We didn't have any criticism of Obamacare, no vilification of the Clinton foundation, complete absence of Immigration policy, and we didn't hear him dig further into the email issue...it was tossed into his LAP, but he allowed Hillary to shift the focus to his tax returns. In turn, he would defend himself by shifting to his personal success and touting his wealth. Now, as a licensed tax professional as myself, there is nothing wrong with utilizing the available deductions afforded to a person or a company, even down to constructing future financial decisions according to what is allowable in the tax code IS SMART business. But after that detour, he was given the opportunity to revisit Hillary’s email issue and it just dissipated. He carried the Left's positions with government assisted childcare and forcing businesses to return to America (which isn't constitutional AT ALL). He has serious Free Trade issues. It’s one thing to be against NAFTA & Trans Pacific Partnership (to which I vehemently am as well in respect to T.P.P.), but enacting higher tariffs on other countries will not solve this issue. His furthering of the narrative of removing gun rights to those who are placed on the No-Fly list with no actual due process, even the stop and frisk measure that also thumbs its nose at probable cause, is not Constitutional. Keep in mind, those critical of Trump realize that Constitutionality isn’t in his card catalogue of “go to” answers for solutions. That is the fulcrum of the Cruz supporter’s concern with Trump. To top it off, he admitted that he didn’t pay contractors for services because they didn’t do a good job. He even based it on the premise of it being “the laws that were available to him and that they should change them”. REALLY? How does that play to those that view him as a “Working Businessman, outsider” and not smear him as another Crony Capitalist that Hillary’s supporters (more importantly the few Bernie supporters and Millennials who support cause based, philanthropic businesses) already distrust…more big self-centered corporate business? Now, He did connect with the average working class American, who doesn't know the intricacies of why America is in this scenario. The people who are tired of government infringement, a stunted economy, and want to burn the system down because the reinforcements that have been elected by them during the various mid-terms and for what was expected in 2012 as a shoe in, based upon historical precedents, have all jumped in the bed with the establishment and joined in the game instead of fixing it. But he really sounded disconnected to the youth, especially when his “Granddad who doesn't even know how to use the universal remote control” side comes out and says that his 10 year old runs rings around him with computers WHILE DISCUSSING THE RUSSIAN & CHINESE HACKS!

Hillary, on the other hand, sounded like an unauthentic robot. Scripted and really awful with her cute "Trumped up trickle down" comments. “I have a feeling I’m going to be responsible for every bad thing by the end of the debate…HA, HA, HA.” SO TRITE AND FORCED. Her socialist giveaway bucket list was pandering to the Socialist Bernie wing of the party. Paid family leave sick time and scheduling time off? Is this an Affordable Universal Government Human Resource plan?  She wants to force businesses into providing mandatory profit sharing…for the workers. This is exactly like the Communist platform, which already centers on giving everything to the “workers”. When is it ever the Government’s responsibility to tell a business if or when they should provide profit sharing plans? That is an economic decision by the company for the good of its employees or based upon whether they can viably allow one to exist. It is an actual hefty business expense to retrain or hire new employees due to excessive turnover. So, they may create one as a way to retain employees and reward loyal ones for the work they provide to the company. It is NOT the government’s decision to force a business to provide a portion of their profits through coercion. So, the communist agenda is thick with Hillary.  The fact that she eluded to the demand for Obama’s birth certificate and questioning his citizenship as a racial slur was completely ridiculous. Of course, Trump spun that as an ancillary service to the public as it put the argument to bed…much like he did to Ted Cruz, another laughable assertion. Knowing what we know about Hillary, she did nothing to reinstall and reinstate any shred of Trust with the people.

Most of what Hillary stated could be laughably mocked, because the standard she was seeking to uphold, she has desecrated herself just months earlier. A few mocking responses I had, in regards to her comeback on saying that flying all over the world & negotiating deals was a show of Stamina, was "Look, until you make a toy reset button, put the wrong word on it & hand it to our adversary, then we can talk stamina". Regarding her explanation as to how the relations with Police should be handled "The lady from the party that hates the police is going to tell us how we should fix the police?" Hillary even grilled Trump by saying "who do you owe money to?" To which I thought "Who does Trump owe money to? Who does Hillary owe favors to from other countries at the expense of National Security?" Whenever Trump would make a point against Hillary, she had this inauthentic, "Hey, there fact checkers! No more joshing or Tom Foolery...it’s time get to work". It was agonizing. In fact, the same lady that is RESPONSIBLE for Media Matters propaganda peddled her website as a fact checker forum. That’s like going to the swamp to drink clean water. The problem is she stayed steady. She sounded coherent and barely shaken. Trump had the opportunity to destroy her, but he never took it to the level as he did with the Primary debates, more importantly how he handled Jeb, Rubio, and even Ted Cruz. That, to me is very telling...like I've said before, what would happen if Trump melted down on the 5 yard line? What does it do to his supporters & the GOP? Keep watch on that scenario. When Newt Gingrich said that Trump had an opening to take her down, but looked over at Chelsea and refrained from doing so, and that was a PLUS? That should indicate some connection to the Clinton/Trump relationship of the past...maybe that's why Donald donated to Hillary?

My final summation on this debate: There is absolutely nothing inspiring from any of these candidates. I don't get a glimmer of hope at all.

Adrian Slade Show Podcast 9 - 27 - 16

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.