Election Day isn't the end of all hope...there's still Article V, Convention of States

Today is Election Day. We go into the final days learning that Hillary Clinton is going to be rectified and admonished of all wrongdoing over her emails from a private server...Again. You know, that personal server that sidesteps FIOA requests and resides in a bathroom in a remote location in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The hard drives that she said she wiped...like, with a rag...Using bleach bit? The devices that were REALLY cleaned when they were decimated and had the snot beat out of them into dust with hammers. The emails that possibly have information on them as to how the Clinton Foundation received money from selling uranium to Russia. Email’s that could show money received from Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the Foundation to allow Qatar and Saudi Arabia to fund ISIS in order to topple the Leader of a country, simply to clear a way for a freaking oil pipeline. Allowing a cancer of fundamentalists run roughshod at the expense of the lives Syrian Christians and Muslims who simply lived in the wrong part of the world...who had to witness family members be slaughtered by evil butchers. The same classified information entrusted to the highest cabinet level, foreign liaison who is the 4th in line of succession to the Presidency of the United States. Classified information that, if mishandled by a lower grade military officer, would've caused them to been put in the brig for years simply by allowing unauthorized disclosure.

She’s up against her former donor and Supporter. The same gentleman who invited his rival to attend his wedding. The same guy who had golf outings with her husband and former President…who have daughters that are still BFF’s? That’s where we're at. And Hillary's bullet dodging of federal law enforcement is the reason why we do not like socialism, because those who are in investigative positions of power will look the other way if their side is the side under investigation. It's why you do not allow the people at the top “impose and regulate CEO salary caps”...as a liberal classmate once proposed. It doesn’t work because the regulator’s salaries will exceed the salary caps because they're getting paid to oversee and regulate the salary caps. They will get the kickbacks from those who can afford to pay for influence and favor to procure their own exemption from the regulators.

So, on one side, you’ve got the Hillary supporters. They will make the decision to vote big government status quo. They are the electorate that has been brainwashed, from higher education universities all the way down to public schools through curriculum built by socialist bureaucrats. The ones who look like a prepubescent versions of the Brawny paper towels guy. The one’s who want to go to Bumbershoot to see Mumford and Sons, because it's a festival that “gives its proceeds and help BACK to the community” and to support "the arts". They're not sure whether they should fly there or not, because they can't calculate the correct number of pine seedlings needed to offset the carbon footprint of a round trip flight. So, it looks like they maybe might be driving their Subaru Outback, the LGBTQRS vehicle of choice…crying about how he hasn't gone hiking in a while in road trip conversations, passing up on ordering the Free Range Chicken entrée of the day on the menu at the Vape Lounge in favor of the Organic Kale Salad, because they doesn't eat anything that has a face (vegan tool)...but they won't be eating the corn salsa...that might be from Monsanto. They saw how evil they were on a Netflix Documentary. And they won't be ordering the eggs either! In fact, they'll be going into a restaurant YOU'RE dining at, interrupting your meal to excoriate you for doing so:

I bet Snow, the social justice warriors pet chicken that she blasted the restaurant for serving  would've made a great addition to my family...of entrees. I would have liked snow...with garlic & herbs, side of Monsanto Corn, Sodium Laced Fries, and a 42 OZ Sugar laden, NY outlawed Soda. And so, the fight to correct our selfish, capitalist injustices marches on. Let’s continue to worry about how many lumens our freaking light bulbs put out because it might melt one square foot of an iceberg in the Arctic Circle that a polar bear will be able to cling to! That bear have to use his natural ability to swim 5 miles to the next one that hasn't been defiled by the emissions from your SUV in order to make it to the casting call for the cute lovable Coca-Cola Christmas Commercial this year. And while I'm trying to figure out which car is acceptable to drive around in, I'm also having to worry about which Halloween costume I can dress up in! Don't dare dress like a pilgrim and Indian... you'll send 35 Ivy League college students crying to their safe spaces, just like the 1970's public service announcement commercial with the Native American shedding a tear over the trash you threw out the side of your friggin GMC Pacer. 

The same people who charge us as being Science deniers. They deny the Science of conception while touting the "Science" of Climate Change...which has been shown to be fraudulent at best. In effect, these enlightened fools have advocated for the streamlining accessibility of eliminating that kicking & moving "clump of cells" while complicating your ability to dispose of your trash...requiring you to select from between 8 separate waste containers, with instructions on which type is allowable for each container at your nearest Whole Foods. They over-complicate your choices of household waste disposal by mandating you to have 6 different trash bins, to which 6 different types of trash trucks are providing a 12 hour symphony of noises, back up signals, and let's not forget the emissions that are supposedly being reduced by driving your semi-electric hybrid vehicle, that cost a ton and never economically made sense to purchase, if your motivation for purchasing one was to save on fuel. 

These are the Hillary supporters who are also college kids who believe Voter ID is"Racist". These college kids come across even more entitled and racist in their explanations as to why it's racist. Then, when they interview the assumed recipients of Voter ID racism, they are dumbfounded by their explanations and prove that the entire argument is utter crap! They whine and complain that safe, innocent fixtures of Americana, such as The Beach Boys, are the epitome of White Privilege, as Music critic Ben Ratliff did (This from The Blaze):

But time and social change have been rough on the Beach Boys. Their best-known hits (say, “California Girls,” “Help Me, Rhonda,” “I Get Around”) are poems of unenlightened straight-male privilege, white privilege, beach privilege. It is hard to imagine that they helped anyone toward self-determination or achieving their social rights.

That’s not the Beach Boy’s Gig…to aid in Self-Determination of achieving social rights via 4 part harmony. And beach privilege…not sure what that is, actually. It must be those darn coastal appropriation advocates who used their imperialist privilege to procure all of the available property on the coasts…public access beaches be damned!

They talk of taxes as an investment. Taxes are "An Investment"? WTF? Can you say they're also a "Penalty"??? So, if I buy an Electric Car and get a Tax Credit, am I taking investment away?? They justify this by saying, "why not forgo that cup of Starbucks latte in favor of paying a little bit more for investment?" How charitable of you…to be charitable with other people’s money. The Hillary electorate.

Every bit of what I laid out gives fuel to the Trump electorate. They are fed up and want to get “Limp Bizkit at Woodstock’ and “Break Something”. The problem is all of the friendly fire they are exhibiting. They are angry with the establishment of the Republican Party that was supposed to be fighting for them. The problem is, they cannot discern between who the freedom fighting, grassroots are from the RINOs. They not only want to through the baby out with the bathwater, they want to through the tub out with the toys in it. The problem with that is that you can’t exist in a home with no actual plumbing…you might be able to, but it’s going to be extremely difficult to do…and the left already wants to outlaw your copper pipes, so you’re doing them “A Solid”.  They know they want things “Fixed”, but they don’t have a deep enough understanding to know that a simple change of a President isn’t going to repair all of the damage that the left has caused over the last 8 years. They are willing to wage war on their side’s congressional majority, more importantly the Senate, while complaining about how the wrong President will be responsible for the appointment of up to 4 Supreme Court Justices during their term. They lose the irony that Trump’s crucial court appointments will all be “Robert Borked”, knocked out completely by a Swamp Drained Senate. This election is not the time for Congressional Pruning and trimming. Save that for the 2018 mid-terms. The pitchfork wielding Republican electorate wants to destroy the other side SO MUCH, that they will back the loudest, most obnoxious candidate to do the job. But additionally added to their lack of civics and Governmental awareness, the videos and pictures of the Rock Show Size Trump rallies do not translate to Electoral College Delegates. As of today’s recording - it’s not looking too good for Trump. Giving Trump Nevada (even though they say he's losing there, but the average polling has him up by .6) and giving him New Hampshire (which I actually think Clinton is barley pulling) and Florida to Clinton because she's just barely ahead there as well, it comes down to Clinton 295 VS Trump 240. Even if I leave everything as is and move Florida over to Trump, he still only gets 269. He needs Florida, NC, Nevada, & New Hampshire plus some additional Hillary State. Even though the rallies are slam packed like an overpriced Beyoncé or Adele concert, it doesn’t turn into States counts and delegates. WE don’t have a National election, but a collection of State Elections that decide our president.

So there you have it…two different views of America! If you inherently feel that people are stupid, can't provide for themselves, and you have no faith in a higher power then you believe government should do it all and will be voting for Hillary to make that happen. If you believe that the individual should be responsible for their choices & consequences of mistakes, then I see it from your side!!

So are we simply screwed because of the options at hand for electing the next leader of the free world? I'll give you some hope...The Convention of States. I've mentioned in previous podcasts that I'm voting for Article V tomorrow. To make that happen, you MUST look at conservatizing your State Legislatures. That means that even further down the “down ballot” consideration is needed to make this happen. So what is the “Article V convention of states”? Typically, congress – 2/3rds of both houses, are needed to propose amendments to the Constitution. That’s how it normally happens. But reading on, “OR on the application of the legislatures of 2/3rds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the several states or by conventions in 3/4ths thereof.” So the States can “break the glass, pull the fire alarm” on an overreaching federal government, which we clearly are witnessing. Now, this has been in the organizational stages for some time…at least since we found that no one was planning to impeach President Obama. They conducted a simulation on September 23, 2016 in Williamsburg, VA. Here are the results: The overview, mission statement of the event was, “The Convention respectfully submits these proposals to the American people with the conviction that they are a sound beginning to a critically-needed national discussion about restoring the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Further, it is the conviction of this body that the states must deliberate and adopt appropriate proposals for a balanced budget amendment and an amendment to provide the states a means to serve as a check on judicial overreach by the federal judiciary of the United States.”

·         Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1:

o   SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.

o   SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.

o   SECTION 3. The provisions of the first section of this amendment shall take effect 3 years after ratification.

§  45 – Support, 3 Opposed, and 2 abstained

·         Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1:

o   SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states.

o   SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

o   SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.

o   SECTION 4. This article shall become effective five years from the date of its ratification.

§  44 – Support, 6 – Opposed

·         Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1:

o   No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

§  35 Support, 12 Opposed, 3 Abstain

·         Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2:

o   SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form.

o   SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.

o   SECTION 3. No government entity or official may take any action to enforce a provision of federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general jurisdiction in the state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision.

o   SECTION 4. No provision of federal law abrogated pursuant to this amendment may be reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation.

§  43 Support, 5 Opposed, 2 Abstain

·         Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2:

o   SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.

o   SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President.

o   SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.

§  33 Support, 14 Opposed, 3 Abstain

·         Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3:

o   Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution

§  42 Support, 5 Opposed, 3 Abstain

Obviously, we need to get familiar with our State Legislature Choices to enact Article V to save the Republic. Any that are running in State elections along with those who are municipal candidates with aspirations of moving to the state level should be thoroughly researched. We also need to be aware that if we “drain the swamp” of RINOS in this election, court appointments are going to be impossible. We are going to be in a dire situation if we have a Republican President and a Democrat Congressional majority, especially in the Senate.  Research who is a Conservative in your district and focus on voting the “Down Ballot”. We need Article V on deck and we need to have a Senate a majority to effectively save the next four years. 

Podcast Link Below
https://soundcloud.com/adrianslade/adrian-slade-show-11-7-16

Vote your conscience, Research your role in the Electoral College

I’ve come to my painstaking decision with regards to voting. Although we’re 25 days out, this election cycle has been like watching skin graft surgery performed on a burn victim. That’s even down to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates. Being that 2016 has been such a “gonad punting”, an election a few weeks out should be at “To Be Determined” status because we’ve seen that everything can change daily and instantaneously. For me, it’s still up for debate.

As we speak, I’m seriously considering voting for Evan McMullin, but not because of some of the interviews I’ve heard from him. It’s not because of his Constitutional understanding or of his conservatism either. Both of which is far more prevalent with him than any other candidate in the race. Unfortunately, his conservatism doesn’t rise to the level of a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, which were two of my preferred candidates. His views on immigration are a bit looser than desired. I don’t believe his support for TPP has been completely thought out, as he only views the Free Trade aspects of the bill and not the ceding of sovereignty that’s sown and fertilized deep within it. His stance of the Muslim Brotherhood having moderate annexes within its Sharia Activism leaves an acidic taste in my mouth. I believe, and I feel, as though Evan McMullin is a Marco Rubio lite: less calories, less filling but tolerable. At this point we are less finicky, because the restaurant is under new management and they’ve replaced all of our favorites on the menu with dung sandwiches and excrement salads. I want Evan McMullin to win a State. And it looks as though he may win Utah. I’d like to help him win a 2nd state. The last time a 3rd party candidate won ANY electoral state was George Wallace of the American Independent Party in 1968. I want to prove something to the Ted Cruz/Mike Lee types of the neglected and ignored grassroots wing of principled visionaries that reside within the imperial party of corruption and status quo. I’d like to show that a 3rd Party, if done correctly, can be a viable option on the future. A beginning of a long term strategy starting in 2020.

When we think of voting, we think of the “Mr. Ed Pummeled” phrase: Binary Choice. Your vote will either be for “The lesser of two evils” Republican VS. Democrat. On the surface, this is the reality. To the largely disengaged and uninformed, they will look at their presidential election as some sort of a popularity, “American Idol” contest. I can’t fault them for that, because that’s the way every presidential election cycle is sold to us. We have the one or the other candidate selection and we rush out to the polls as though our lives depended upon it. We go home, biting our nails with nervous energy. The results start trickling in on your favorite news network. Then the biased news networks begin trying to prematurely call the race based upon some “Ja-whore-nalist” hack with a microphone, standing outside of a voting station and asking people who are strolling out, “Who did you vote for?” And they’ll try to predict each state’s results extra early, dual time zones be damned! And when the final numbers come in, it’s either the post orgasmic chill of losing, or the celebratory roaring of a win. That’s basically the standard view point on election night.

But when considering my vote, I started to rethink it based upon the technical side of the Electoral College. Some voters may not have a choice outside of a binary one, especially in swing states. Luckily for me, I’m not in that “responsible” and pivotal situation. My District/City WILL go for Trump…with or without my vote. I know this, because my city has voted Republican in every single race for decades. That includes John McCain and Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney and Obama in 2012...you can see how that worked out. Judging by the local conversations I have (or I have dropped in on) and the signage in every yard, this is verifiably true. And even with a building that now is sporting a homemade painted mural that says “Never Hillary” plastered on its side, along with a poorly crafted, giant Trump Train at an intersection a few miles from my home, it’s apparent who is causing the excitement in my town. But unfortunately, my State will go Hillary (also with or WITHOUT MY VOTE. Just want to make this clear to those who’ll assume “I’m with Jezebel”, as I’m clearly not) simply due to my state’s proximity to Washington D.C. The suburbs of Virginia, more specifically Fairfax County, are littered with Big Government Bureaucrats and employees. Their portion of the State decides our federal elections. So, my vote can go to something a bit more meaningful than “Lesser of 2 evils” drivel. I firmly believe a 3rd, New Party statement must be made to open the door to those who are sitting on the sidelines, hoping for someone to take the lead and start the avalanche. I want an independent candidate Electoral State win to be a blinding beacon for those looking for REAL change. The Whig Party didn’t implode in a quick, tidy pop and become the Republican Party over night? They went through some serious posterior birthing pains before they got there.

Now keep in mind we have a few things to consider. Along with voting for Evan “Head”, “McLovin’” McMullin, I’m also voting for 3/4th’s of the 50 state’s legislatures enacting Article V of the constitution, Convention of States. If “He” wins, we all win. Article V Convention of States MUST be in the organizational process, as it will need to be in play and able to move quickly when the flag drops to employ that option. It’s a methodical, slow dirge which takes a considerable amount of time to score and tremendously harmonious organization to perform. We need a strong wave of Constitutionalists in Congress in order to grind ANY Presidential powers to a halt. This impediment will include the stonewalling of any SCOTUS appointment in the Senate confirmation process, which has been the threat that has been a Magnum held to our head in demand for our vote to betray our principles. We also need to realize that if the 2016 congressional wave isn’t strong enough for this election, we can strengthen it in the 2018 midterms. Conservatives typically have always had the upper hand in midterm elections, due to the fact that simple civic engagement isn’t as sexy as the “big supreme leader” selection process.

Basically, to button everything up, the State Legislature races along with any Governor’s race will be crucial to be able to enact the Article V Convention of States. Be aware of who your candidates are. Google is an amazing tool, use it research your municipal and State candidates. The House of Representatives and Senate elections will be even MORE IMPORTANT than the Presidency, because it’s how we can stop whomever wins this morbid travesty called an election. This time around is already lost…because the Electoral College Polls are not looking good for the Great Tangelo “Livin’ Libido Loco” Nebuchadnezzar Reagan Vulgarian. On Election Day, be prepared to vote for back up, from the bottom up.

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.