Donald Trump

America IS Exceptional ~ Trump vs. America

Published by Papa Giorgio

This was a BIG-DEAL with Obama… but no biggie for Republicans supporting Trump? Trump is an idiot. “American Exceptionalism” is not a monetary standard! “American Exceptionalism” is not able to be placed into a spreadsheet! Here is a decent article about what we are seeing today in this 2016 election cycle. The article is entitled: “What Are Trump and Sanders? They Are the End of American Exceptionalism”

…Among other things, that America is simply different from other nations. It is a nation of immigrants from every corner of the earth, a nation bound not by ancestral blood but by revolutionary ideas and beliefs brilliantly articulated more than two centuries ago in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The founding of the United States ushered in the modern democratic experiment, along with new concepts of freedom and human rights. In the 20th century, the Greatest Generation fought for the survival of that experiment against its totalitarian enemies, Nazi, Fascist, and Communist alike. Today, the challenges posed by Islamic totalitarianism test a new generation.

America has been a uniquely productive nation: a font of invention, creativity, and economic dynamism. In America, tens of millions of people have risen from poverty. The United States has been a singularly generous, if not always effective, provider of assistance to other countries, including those where Americans are not popular.

But, most of all, exceptionalism implies that the responsibility for global leadership rests on America’s shoulders, not because Americans hunger for power but because there is no good alternative….

(National Review)

All that being said… here is a great video intro by Charles Murray to his book, American Exceptionalism: An Experiment in History (Values and Capitalism), But this cogent understanding of history and “what” America is DEVOID of anything “the Donald” espouses.

Conservapedia has this:

American exceptionalism is an intuition about the United States, a country that occupies a special place among the nations of the world primarily because of its unique origins. The concept of “American exceptionalism” may be defined as the notion that the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals, its struggles and accomplishments, stands apart from — and, in some eyes, above — other nations.

Dinesh D’Souza wrote:

  • The notion that in many respects America is unique in the world in called American “exceptionalism.”

[….]

Alexis de Tocqueville is commonly cited as the originator of the phrase, and once said that the United States held a special place among nations because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. He specifically cited the American Founding as the basis of this exceptionalism. Tocqueville wrote:

The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one. Their strictly Puritanical origin, their exclusively commercial habits, even the country they inhabit, which seems to divert their minds from the pursuit of science, literature, and the arts, the proximity of Europe, which allows them to neglect these pursuits without relapsing into barbarism, a thousand special causes, of which I have only been able to point out the most important, have singularly concurred to fix the mind of the American upon purely practical objects. His passions, his wants, his education, and everything about him seem to unite in drawing the native of the United States earthward; his religion alone bids him turn, from time to time, a transient and distracted glance to heaven. Let us cease, then, to view all democratic nations under the example of the American people.

Many important observations suggest themselves upon the social condition of the Anglo-Americans, but there is one which takes precedence of all the rest. The social condition of the Americans is eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the Colonies, and is still more strongly marked at the present day.

Edmund Burke, who is sometimes referred to as the Father of Conservatism, wrote about what made Americans truely exceptional. He said: “They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.” What he means is that early Americans did not wait for government to hurt them, they kept an eye out in advance. Patrick Henry told Americans to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel”, and Burke confirms that they did exactly that.

In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole: and as an ardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and untractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies probably than in any other people of the earth.

 

 

A Four-Way Race for President Is Possible

Published by Papa Giorgio

Michael Medved reads from and discusses Jonah Goldberg’s article in the National Review, “A Four-Way Race for President Is Possible.” I am hopeful this is how it will shake out. Which is why I have held my endorsement until 8-1-2016 (http://cfaparty.org/endorsement-8-1-16/).

This will be a very interesting couple of months to say the least!

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to visit: http://www.michaelmedved.com/

Mark Levin and Carrie Severino Discuss Trump’s SCOTUS Picks

Published by Papa Giorgio

Mark Levin speaks with Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network about Donald Trumps “telegraphing” of his Supreme Court [possible] judicial nominees.

I am somewhat ambivalent to his dedication to and for such picks… but in speaking to the Heritage Foundation as well as the Federalist Society he is showing some commitment to get conservative to vote for him.

In my post at The Constitutional Federalist of America, I note really three criteria that will get people like myself to vote for him…

  • He would have to announce plans to be in office for one term;
  • He would have to announce a conservative leaning VP;
  • He would have to foreshadow his choices he is considering for the Supreme Court.

…and this was one of them.

An informative segment to say the least.

For more wise counsel like this from Mark “the Great One” Levin… I invite you to visit: http://www.marklevinshow.com/

Trump Speaking About Himself In 3rd Person ~ Creepy

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the Washington Post’s story:

…A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.

In 1991, Sue Carswell, a reporter at People magazine, called Trump’s office seeking an interview with the developer. She had just been assigned to cover the soap opera surrounding the end of Trump’s 12-year marriage to Ivana, his budding relationship with the model Marla Maples and his rumored affairs with any number of celebrities who regularly appeared on the gossip pages of the New York newspapers.

Within five minutes, Carswell got a return call from Trump’s publicist, a man named John Miller, who immediately jumped into a startlingly frank and detailed explanation of why Trump dumped Maples for the Italian model Carla Bruni. “He really didn’t want to make a commitment,” Miller said. “He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially.”

Miller turned out to be a remarkably forthcoming source — a spokesman with rare insight into the private thoughts and feelings of his client. “Have you met him?” Miller asked the reporter. “He’s a good guy, and he’s not going to hurt anybody. . . . He treated his wife well and . . . he will treat Marla well.”

[….]

Miller was consistent about referring to Trump as “he,” but at one point, when asked how important Bruni was in Trump’s busy love life, the spokesman said, “I think it’s somebody that — you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once, quickly, and beautiful . . . ” and then he quickly pivoted back into talking about Trump — then a 44-year-old father of three — in the third person.

In 1990, Trump testified in a court case that “I believe on occasion I used that name.”

In a phone call to NBC’s “Today” program Friday morning after this article appeared online, Trump denied that he was John Miller. “No, I don’t think it — I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time and it doesn’t sound like my voice at all,” he said. “I have many, many people that are trying to imitate my voice and then you can imagine that, and this sounds like one of the scams, one of the many scams — doesn’t sound like me.” Later, he was more definitive: “It was not me on the phone. And it doesn’t sound like me on the phone, I will tell you that, and it was not me on the phone. And when was this? Twenty-five years ago?”

Then, Friday afternoon, Washington Post reporters who were 44 minutes into a phone interview with Trump about his finances asked him a question about Miller: “Did you ever employ someone named John Miller as a spokesperson?”…

Funny point that Trump will save the country money!

Hot Sauce and Taco Bowls

Published by Papa Giorgio

No, this is not a joke. It is real. Hildabeast and “The Donald” write comedic scripts FOR SNL… SNL doesn’t make it up. What a sad day in our political malaise that THESE TWO people are our candidates. For more resons why conservative should vote different than Trump, see the article and audio at CFA News: http://cfaparty.org/news/

See also CNBC’s article entitled “Taco bowls and crazy tweets: Why Donald Trump will never be presidential

For more clear and humorous exchanges like this, go to The Morning Answer

The Morning Answer on the GOP Rift

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Morning Answer Crew discusses the rift in the Republican Party… visa~vis the non-endorsement by leading Republicans. From Paul Ryan to the Bushes. Talk of those who are calling for support as well are included in the discussion, like Mike Huckabee and Bill Bennett. I am one who thinks along the lines of Paul Ryan that while we don’t always get the ideal… “The Donald” is not even near the minimum standards of the ideal. He is, as Ben Shapiro puts it, the farthest left leaning person to EVER be the presumptive nominee.

For articles discussing the reasons NOT to vote for Donald Trump, see The Constitutional Federalists of America’s posts and article/audio.

For more clear and humorous exchanges like this, go to AM870 The Answer.

The Conservative Minority

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the portion of the article Prager is reading from, via The New York Times:

But it turned out that Republican voters didn’t want True Conservatism any more than they wanted Bushism 2.0. Maybe they would have wanted it from a candidate with more charisma and charm and less dogged unlikability. But the entire Trump phenomenon suggests otherwise, and Trump as the presumptive nominee is basically a long proof against the True Conservative theory of the Republican Party.

Trump proved that movement conservative ideas and litmus tests don’t really have any purchase on millions of Republican voters. Again and again, Cruz and the other G.O.P. candidates stressed that Trump wasn’t really a conservative; they listed his heresies, cataloged his deviations, dug up his barely buried liberal past. No doubt this case resonated with many Republicans. But not with nearly enough of them to make Cruz the nominee.

Trump proved that many evangelical voters, supposedly the heart of a True Conservative coalition, are actually not really values voters or religiousconservatives after all, and that the less frequently evangelicals go to church, the more likely they are to vote for a philandering sybarite instead of a pastor’s son. Cruz would probably be on his way to the Republican nomination if he had simply carried the Deep South. But unless voters were in church every Sunday, Trump’s identity politics had more appeal than Cruz’s theological-political correctness.

Trump proved that many of the party’s moderates and establishmentarians hate the thought of a True Conservative nominee even more than they fear handing the nomination to a proto-fascist grotesque with zero political experience and poor impulse control. That goes for the prominent politicians who refused to endorse Cruz, the prominent donors who sat on their hands once the field narrowed and all the moderate-Republican voters in blue states who turned out to be #NeverCruz first and #NeverTrump less so or even not at all.

[….]

What remains, then, is Trumpism. Which is also, in its lurching, sometimes insightful, often wicked way, a theory of what kind of party the Republicans should become, and one that a plurality of Republicans have now actually voted to embrace.

Whatever reckoning awaits the G.O.P. and conservatism after 2016 will have to begin with that brute fact. Where the reckoning goes from there — well, now is a time for pundit humility, so your guess is probably as good as mine.

 

 

3rd Party Option Is Realized (RPT Positions)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I suggest that the lover of our U.S. history and Constitution (and other founding documents) listen to this extended interview with professor Barnett via ReasonTV. Here is a snippet that caught my ear from the interview that has ALL the relevance a day after “The Donald” won the delegates in Indiana:

Here is the Professor “3rd Party” column:

Is it time for a new third party? Not yet. But if Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination, then a new third party will be an imperative — and the time for organizing it is now.

I have long vocally opposed third parties as irrational in our two-party system. They inevitably drain votes away from the major party closest to them, thereby benefiting the major party that is even worse. But strategies must adjust to circumstances. If Trump wins the GOP nominations, one of two things will happen, either of which would be disastrous for the Constitution and for the country.

If Trump wins, he’s made clear he cares nothing for the constitutional constraints on the president, or on government generally. His ignorance of our republican Constitution — to match his ignorance of much else — and his strong-man approach to governance would make Trump’s election a political cataclysm second only to Southern secession in its danger to our constitutional republic.

For this reason, millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him…

[….]

…And let’s be frank. By refusing to credit the legitimate concerns of ordinary Americans, the GOP establishment created Donald Trump. And many K Street Republicans will rush to embrace him because they know he has no principles and will be happy to deal.

What the nation needs is a new party that is expressly dedicated to upholding theConstitution of the United States, however it may cut politically — a party that can attract principled conservatives, but also any American who is tired of crony capitalism, runaway government and rule by an out-of-touch political class.

Should such a party split the GOP vote and throw the election to Hillary, this beats a Trump presidency, which would inevitably remake the Republican Party in the Donald’s own image. And, if Republicans hold onto Congress, divided government under Hillary beats one-man rule by a demagogue and his party.

Could we see a “Rand Paul” figure stand in for the real conservative? People like George Will and others can get behind the movement. National Review and the Weekly Standard can start support this option, called maybe The Federalist Party: Defending Intent Since 1776. We shall see.

Here is an interview with Dr. Barnett about his most recent book, “Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People,” Dennis Prager asks some great questions for the layman to access the main idea behind the book:

(During the actual interview portion the audio changes quite a bit. Whatever phone the Professor was on I tried to even out a bit… be forewarned)

  • (Video Description) During the first hour and the third, Dennis Prager was talking about the “heartbeat” of America, it’s philosophy. What is conservatism? Later, Prager interviews author and professor Randy Barnett (Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution). Take note as well that an article was discussed that the Professor wrote for USA Today, can be found here. For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit Prager.com as well as Prager University.

Clear thinking in the above interview on our REPUBLIC is expressed as-well-as-is clear delineation between Cruz and Trump… which is why — at the risk of repeating myself… as of early morning on May 3rd — I have finally decided that I will NOT vote for Trump. He has mainstreamed conspiracy stories (RPT and National Review), he has expressed clearly the massive expansion of government over healthcare, free speech, and the like.

I have purchased some URLs to meet a need for a real third party choice:

  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.com
  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.org
  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.net
  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.info
  • CFAParty.com
  • CFAParty.net
  • CFAParty.org
  • CFAParty.info

Obamacare Solidified

Published by Papa Giorgio

Had to add this short exchange on my FaceBook. I said: “Trump wants Hillary’s plan for healthcare. So either way it [Obama-care] is getting worse.” To which this reply came:

  • M.H. said: “No he doesn’t. If you like I can help you come to the trump side.”

To which I replied:

…here is his more recent dilliniation of renaming “single-payer” with “heart-payer,” it’ll be INCREDIBLE:

  • “That’s not single payer, by the way. That’s called heart. We gotta take care of people that can’t take care of themselves. But the plans will be much less expensive than Obamacare, they’ll be far better than Obamacare, you’ll get your doctor, you’ll get everything that you want to get. It’ll be unbelievable.”

American Spectator:

INDIANA PRIMARY WILL DECIDE OBAMACARE’S FATE

If Trump wins in the Hoosier State tomorrow, repeal is a dead letter.

Indiana’s Republican primary is not merely the Cruz campaign’s last chance to stop the Trump juggernaut, it will also determine the ultimate fate of Obamacare. If Trump wins Indiana tomorrow, he will almost certainly win the Republican presidential nomination only to lose the general election to Hillary Clinton, who is committed to preserving the unpopular law. Even if Trump manages to eke out a win in November, he will probably be hobbled by a Democrat-controlled Senate that will kill any Obamacare repeal bill. A vote for Trump in the Hoosier State tomorrow, in other words, is a vote for Obamacare.

[….]

In addition to being the most unpopular presidential candidate in decades, he is viewed askance by key demographic groups without whose support no candidate can win. A recent Gallup survey found the following: “Donald Trump’s image among U.S. women tilts strongly negative, with 70% of women holding an unfavorable opinion and 23% a favorable opinion of the Republican front-runner.” Women make up more than half of the electorate — election over.

Which brings us back to Obamacare. Trump can’t repeal the perversely titled “Affordable Care Act” or anything else if he can’t get elected president. And when he loses in a landslide to Hillary Clinton, she will claim a mandate to expand President Obama’s “signature domestic achievement.” In other words, she will make the already intrusive and dysfunctional health “reform” law even worse. Her vision for building on Obamacare’s “successes” involves a soviet-style regulatory regimen that would dictate how insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and care providers operate and what they charge their customers.

Clinton also plans to exhume the dreaded “public option.” According to her campaign website, “Hillary supports a ‘public option’ to reduce costs and broaden the choices of insurance coverage for every American.” This idea was so bad it never made the cut to be included in Obamacare. Even single payer advocates have denounced it. And it gets worse. Clinton also plans to expand Obamacare eligibility to illegal aliens: “She believes we should let families — regardless of immigration status — buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Families who want to purchase health insurance should be able to do so.”

This illustrates the cognitive dissonance that plagues Trump’s supporters. By backing a candidate whom no one believes can win the general election, the very government policies that make them angry will be perpetuated for at least another four years. Trump’s supporters are angry about how Obama and Congress have handled illegal immigration. Yet their candidate will lose badly to a woman who supports amnesty and openly declares that she will make sure illegal aliens receive taxpayer-paid health care. They hate Obamacare, but their candidate will inevitably lose to a woman dedicated to expanding it….

In case you forgot how bad Obamacare is, Life News has this:

Congressional conservatives are taking a stand against the Obama administration’s abortion agenda by blocking one of the president’s Health and Human Services nominees. Until the White House investigates whether California is unlawfully forcing health insurers to cover abortions, Mary Wakefield, the deputy HHS secretary candidate, will have to wait.

The Senate Finance Committee, led by Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), is placing an obstacle before Wakefield – not out of personal animosity, but concern for the right to life and religious freedom in California. A couple of years ago, the state’s department of health mandated that insurers provide coverage for abortions as a “medically necessary procedure.”

As a result, some churches and Catholic institutions were forced to violate their religious beliefs. Pro-life groups like Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation condemned the directive as discriminatory and filed lawsuits against the state’s department of managed health care, but the mandate remains….