To Trump or Not To Trump

ToTrumpOrNotby Leigh Bravo6/23/16
What will happen if Hillary Clinton wins in November? There has been much speculation that we will continue to have a failing economy. More regulations. More taxes. More loss of liberty. More loss of Religious freedom. More loss of our second amendment rights. But, outside of these claims, is there a more disastrous outcome to another four years of Democratic rule? If Democrats keep the White House in the next election, they will rule forever. Republicans and/or conservatives will never retake the White House again.

What have we seen happening over the seven and a half years under the Obama administration? He has systematically dismantled U.S. immigration law, and Hillary Clinton has promised to bring about the complete dissolution of our nation’s borders.  Illegals are not being deported, but are being given housing, education and healthcare at the expense of the American worker. Obama and Hillary have promised to open our borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees from Middle Eastern countries without background checks. We have seen Democratic states offer driver’s licenses to illegals and some are taking it a step further by allowing illegals to vote in local elections.

What will happen if Hillary wins the White House? NBC recently reported,

“If elected, the former secretary of state has promised to build on President Obama’s executive actions and introduce comprehensive immigration reform during her first 100 days in office.”

Hillary’s website explains,

“Comprehensive immigration reform means full citizenship for all illegal immigrants, which would give them welfare access, voting privileges and the ability to bring over their family members through chain migration.”

Once the U.S has been flooded by non citizens, and all illegals are granted the right to vote by Democrats, than conservatives and Republicans will NEVER gain access to the White House again. The left will rule and the citizens of the United States will no longer have a voice or the power to reverse the path of the liberal left.

We have already seen the corruption within our government elections. While Democrats scream that there is no such thing as voter fraud, we have seen record numbers of convictions for voter fraud. We have seen voting machines changing votes, people who have voted in more than one state and the reanimation of hundreds of thousands of dead people who have returned from the grave just to vote for their favorite Democrat. California has already passed legislation that will automatically register eligible voters when they obtain or renew a driver’s license. When you sign up for a driver’s license in California, you DO NOT have to prove that you are an American citizen, therefore allowing illegals to participate in our election system unchecked.

You have to ask yourselves why Democrats are against voter ID’s? Why are Democrats so determined to leave our borders open? Why is the current president suing any state that enforces our immigration laws? Why is our current Visa system unmonitored?  Why has our current president continued to allow unchecked border crossings and the release of convicted illegal criminals back into our communities? Currently there are over 200 sanctuary cities in the United States that ignore federal law when it comes to prosecuting illegal immigrants. Add in the obvious rigged system we have experienced during the primaries, and the American citizens have to realize that our government is controlling us and we are slowly but surely losing our rights and voices.

We have seen many Republicans refusing to vote for Donald Trump as the Republican Candidate for president. However, we all have to take note that if we want change for our country, then we must vote for change. If you stand your ground and refuse to vote, then you may lose your right to your voice in all future elections! If Hillary wins the presidency in 2016, the liberal left will rule forever!


Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet. • (715 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to To Trump or Not To Trump

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    This is in essence the same case Ann Coulter makes: that the Demagogues are trying to make their presidential control permanent via mass immigration (which also reduces many natives to welfare dependency, an added advantage for the Left). Given various circumstances (including the Supreme Court, with Scalia’s seat ultimately to go to whichever party wins the election), this may be the last chance to stop them.

  2. GHG says:

    And yet many of the the Big Business lapdogs (aka GOPe, aka globalists) refuse to vote for Trump because he’s an affront to their genteel sensibilities.

    • pst4usa says:

      Or maybe the fact he is a life long, lying liberal, big government, crony capitalist! May be that is the problem. He only has one issue that he has not taken both sides of with in the past 12 months, maybe that is why we cannot the lying sack of ….?

      • GHG says:

        I’m not here to sing the praises of The Donald. He could become the worst president in US history, but that’s only because it meant Hillary didn’t get elected.

        I’d like to give Will and his ilk the benefit of the doubt and believe they truly see Hillary for what she is and realze she would be worse for the nation than Trump, but then I’d have to think even worse of them because it means they have made the (mis)calculation that there is enough time to play the long game where they get to keep their brows held high and have time to get the ship back on course after Hillary is done.

        We’re one Supreme Court justice away from losing the last of our enshrined freedoms. There is no long game if Hillary gets elected – it’s game over.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It would be hard for Trump to be the worst president in US history. The current incumbent has that pretty well locked up. One thing to remember with regard to those who’ve decided not to vote for Trump: Most states aren’t going to be close, so that a large number of people could vote for some sort of 3rd party candidate knowing it really makes no difference. I may yet do that myself; there’s no doubt in my mind that The Donald has Kentucky sewed up.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    However, we all have to take note that if we want change for our country, then we must vote for change.

    “Voting for change” is not a specific platform. One might just run into another iceberg, and a bigger one.

    We will likely be left between the choice of Trump and Hillary. Both are embarrassments to this country. This is the best and the brightest in a country of over 300 million?

    And I don’t really buy the line that we must vote for Trump or else forever lose our voice in future elections. There will, presumably, be future elections. Our “voice” is most diminished because of the ever-present and non-stop Leftist propaganda filling our schools, our universities, our entertainment industry, and our “news” to the extent that it resembles news-gathering.

    To put all this on any one politician, including Trump, I think is to miss the forest for the trees. We mustn’t forget that we had Ronald Reagan for eight years and, in the scheme of things, his presidency was but a forgettable backwater on the rising tide to a Brave New World.

    If Trump was running against the issue of Leftism (as Dennis Prager rightly says any Republican should), then a vote for him could be substantial. As it is, he’s such a mish-mash of half-truths, bad character, and incoherent policies (when they aren’t outright Progressive policies) that we can’t be certain that he would be much better than Hillary.

  4. SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

    There is, in my mind, perhaps a chance that the Dems might not rule forever given that Hillary the Honest gets 8 years in the White House. I will describe it as a parable. If the Dems love ice cream, I mean really love ice cream, it could be possible that if they are perhaps over fed ice cream to the point that they got sick of it they might come to despise the taste of ice cream. That, would indeed, be poetic justice if there ever was.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I can’t find where we were talking about “globalism,” but an intern at NRO has a thoughtful article on the subject: The Globalist Bogeyman

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      “Globalization,” properly understood, refers to a process whereby economies of scale forge international connections abetted by technological developments.

      In any case, to the fretful on left and right alike, the enemy is always American political elites abetted by powerful financiers who prefer to operate behind the scenes.

      Hence, Congress and their financier friends outsource jobs to Mexico in pursuit of globalism. This concatenation of fear and ignorance is less principled than the leftist critique, and equally deluded.

      The clear truth, as always, is that there is no conspiracy. Secret cabals exist only in the collective imagination, to clarify matters for those uncomfortable with the idea of a world rolling along without direction.

      The above quotes show why one should avoid reading articles by interns. One can only surmise which globalist at NRO, a publication run by globalists, fed the intern this stuff.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I think making a distinction between economic globalization and one-world-government globalism is a good one. What you seem to be doing, Mr. Kung, is not thinking beyond the bugaboos and simply reacting to a word (globalism) that has been emotionally charged and become a catch-all term that tends to mean little (depending on who is using it).

        Take this in the context of those who thought Ted Cruz was some kind of nefarious “globalist” because his wife worked for a god damn bank. I think a little diffusion of this “globalism” hysteria is right on the money, as is the need to make distinctions.

        And to the extent that people have a fuzzy, libtarish, “We are all one” globalist attitude, then have it it. Define it, critique, etc. But I can assure you that “Globalism” has at least a half dozen different meanings. So to speak on the subject you have to try to eek out the distinctions. And you dismiss this intern for trying to do so. I, on the other hand, give the chap some credit.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          One problem with economic globalism is that you get large corporations run by a small set of executives serving on their board of directors, and unconcerned about anything other than maximum profit. A local firm might be willing to stay in a city as long as they profit well enough; the conglomerate is willing to leave if they think they can do a hair better elsewhere. Like globalists of all sorts, they don’t care about their country or its people.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            One problem with economic globalism is that you get large corporations run by a small set of executives serving on their board of directors, and unconcerned about anything other than maximum profit.

            Isn’t there a famous essay out there that shows how wide regions of the globe are involved in making something as seemingly simple as a pencil?

            I’m for de-mystifying and de-demagoguing the word. What you said of “economic globalism” applies equally to how businesses can be run inside a nation or just a region of a nation. A corner donut shop can be “unconcerned about anything other than maximum profit.” And if he’s got a family to feed, that’s not necessarily a bad ethic.

            And we can certainly talk about the point of business. For the Left, business is tolerated to the extent that it can exist for “about anything” other than profit. An Ayn Randian might take the other extreme view and say the point of business is about “maximum profit.”

            What’s the truth? Might some businesses, of global reach or otherwise, be a mix of interests and styles? Sure, they have to make a profit. And almost every aspect of a successful business is oriented to efficiency (aka “maximizing of profit”). That’s the nature of business. But certainly there are other concerns such as public relations, etc. We already know that major corporations are the most politically correct entities on the planet outside of universities. That is, corporations already exist to a great extent not to “maximize profit” but to forward the social utopian goals of the Left. That’s certainly how they often act.

            Even so, I would suppose there is a sub-species (perhaps large) of squishy “Progressive” companies that only use the Progressive shtick as a veneer. You should watch the first few episodes of Mike Judge’s juvenile, but often funny, Silicon Valley. It’s hilarious how they lampoon this. Every product announcement always has tacked on “And to make a better world.” This series is by no means Shakespeare. But it has its moments.

            But to say that “all globalists don’t care about their country or people” is basically to show the problem with this word. You can just wrap up all the bad stuff, tie a ribbon around it, and call it “globalism.” Who says “globalists” don’t care about their country or people? Should we buy into that hobgoblin? Isn’t it true that many companies are pushed out of the U.S. because of excessive taxes, regulations, and environmental wacko stuff?

            This is one word you will not likely hear me using, “globalist,” because it can mean anything from making pencils to believing in an international Jewish conspiracy.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              If you want to think “transnationalist” or “citizen of the world” rather than “globalist”, that might give you an idea why globalism inherently means being concerned with the world as a whole rather than one’s own homeland. My contrast is to the modest local business whose proprietor is a part of local society. As long as he does well enough, he’ll stay there. The multinational conglomerate doesn’t care about such things because they aren’t part of local society.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                The multinational conglomerate doesn’t care about such things because they aren’t part of local society.

                Yeah, but then we have to take into account that whole Adam Smith thing:

                It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

                So what if they “don’t care about the local community” as long as they are creating the next miracle drug?

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          What you seem to be doing, Mr. Kung, is not thinking beyond the bugaboos and simply reacting to a word (globalism) that has been emotionally charged and become a catch-all term that tends to mean little (depending on who is using it).

          Knowing me and my many decade experience overseas , I am surprised you could say such a thing. It is complete nonsense!

          Simply because the idiot intern criticizes Trump, does not make him knowledgeable about much else. His definition of “globalization” is particularly fatuous and pompous.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I find the entire etymology of “globalism” to be fatuous and pompous. But I thought the author made a couple nice distinctions as well as noting how “globalism” has become a useful word for demagogues.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I find the entire etymology of “globalism” to be fatuous and pompous.

              Exactly! He uses the word “globalism” as a catch-all to cover many different complicated phenomena and has the conceit to think he can encapsulate these in his shallow, and in my opinion, incorrect definition.

              We have had this discussion before. NRO gives young know-nothings, whose only talent is writing, the ability to fill up space on a blank page. And we are expected to take them seriously?

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Maybe someone will volunteer to write the definitive article on globalism: what it is, what it isn’t, it’s roots, and the inherent fuzziness of the word itself.

                Here’s the two definitions that come up on my built-in computer dictionary:

                a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.

                • a person or organization advocating or practicing operations across national divisions.

                The second definition is innocuous enough. And there are certainly people who think it is harmful (such as Islam) to have to many (or any) outside influences lest the culture be significantly changed or diluted. And as Timothy might say, “to be fair,” it’s not just France’s attitude toward Disneyland or McDonalds. Some of us here in America worry about our culture being changed and diluted by illegal aliens. Some reasons are good. Some are bad. And perhaps some are indifferent. On the other side of this coin are the multiculturalists who think any dilution is always a good thing. Both the mechanics of trade and the realities of culture (and politics) are mixed into this definition.

                But you can’t make a damn thing of any technological significance these days without dipping into the global pond for raw materials, parts, technologies, labor, etc. “Globalism” could be said to simply be trade made larger by modern technology (both transport and communication), and as technology becomes more prominent in our lives, the ability to export culture (or homogenize it amongst different countries) increases.

                But mankind has always (at least in the West) traded with outsiders for the benefit of each. There have been some closed societies like previous incarnations of China or Japan, but at least in the West, those are a rarity if they exist at all.

                Then you have the type of “Globalism” whereby we might as well say “International Socialism.” It’s the naive, anti-Western, kumbaya-filed no-borders notion that strife is caused by such things as “divisions” and the inability or unwillingness of different peoples to “know” each other. If only we would “come together” and be “unified,” we would have a virtual global utopia.

                And I think the third kind of “Globalism” is the kind that sparks the hatred of the anti-globalists which is really a first cousin to the definition above because this anti-globalism is simply anti-capitalism and anti-Westernism under another word. They are the Jihad arm of the kumbaya, no-borders (one world government) globalists. Both understand the need to tear down existing structures, and the anti-capitalist/anti-Western globalists carry this water for them. The whole movement could be said to “Inhale love of socialism and exhale hatred of capitalism” in two different bodies or parallel movements.

                Even the above barely scratches the surfaces because you have apparently a significant globalist definition that Obama’s Pastor Wright would have signed onto (and perhaps did sign onto). And that is the supposed Global Jewish Conspiracy. I think knocking Goldman-Sachs is a dog-whistle for that mindset.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’ll let the viewers at home decide whether or not I’ve engaged in Trump Derangement Syndrome. I don’t think I have. But it’s amusing to see those cases when they do pop up.

    You may have read about the small controversy about the supposedly anti-Semitic star graphic in a Tweet sent out by Trump.

    Well, the noted resident Jew at The American Spectator is Aaron Goldstein (his first article on the subject here). And he sees not the outline of a Sheriff’s badge (a very common motif) but a Jewish star.

    Jeffrey Lord calls him on what is clearly a case of Jewish hypersensitivity combined with Trump Derangement Syndrome. (Actually, the posters below the article connect most of the dots on this.)

    Goldstein compounds his stupidity (or arrogance) in a follow-up article.

    Nothing like a good soap opera, huh? Let me say that yours truly tries not to be too quick to jump on “hyper-sensitive Jews” as an answer. After all, you’re not paranoid if someone is really out to get you. And the world is full of Jew-haters. That said, some people I think can have their anti-Jew detector set way too high. I think that is the case with Goldstein, part of yet another conservative rag (The American Spectator) which is going to pot (and having nothing to do with whether they are pro- or anti-Trump).

    Anyway, I figured Mr. Kung, in particular, would appreciate this, especially because (in my opinion) I think his anti-anti-Jewish-hypersensitivity meter is set too high (that is, I think he sometimes sees Jewish hypersensitivity where it ain’t). This obviously gets complicated. But let it be said, I don’t hold it against Trump that he thinks a Hispanic Judge could be biased against a white guy. Granted, I think Mr. Trump is of the low character that he would use any excuse to deflect criticism from himself. But as they say, even a blind chicken may find a grain now and then.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I had heard about this business, but your link is the first time I have actually seen the graphic in question.

      Having seen it, only confirms my sometime questioning of the reasoning behind some Jewish hypersensitivity. Sorry, but to see anti-Jewishness in this graphic one really does have to be hypersensitive or a (Leftist) cynic.

      Of course, there is no shortage of both types, but that doesn’t mean I have to pay attention to them or give them any credence. In today’s world, when someone cries “it offended me”, it is generally to shut down discussion. Just another Leftist ploy to regulate speech.

      It brings to mind an incident in the 1940’s or 1950’s in which Churchill was going to make a speech, I believe, in which he made a factual observation about the Jews. Some Jewish friends and colleagues asked him to delete it from the speech, which he declined to do. His reply was something to the effect that he believed he had been a good friend to the Jews for many years and didn’t believe he had to prove his bone fides by not stating the truth.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        In the graphics industry, we call them “starbursts” among other things. I think the connection to “you’re busted by the law” is there, if a light suggestion. We’ve all seen “America’s Most Wanted.” We get the Sheriff’s badge motif if that’s what they were going for. I think incidents such as these further cement The American Spectator‘s standing as a second-rate publication, if that.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I think incidents such as these further cement The American Spectator‘s standing as a second-rate publication, if that.

          I stopped reading the rag months ago. I have better things to do with my time, like playing solitaire.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    Kurt Schlichter has a nice article on Town Hall stating the case for Trump as being essential to maintaining the rule of law, especially government accountability. He also has a nice turn of phrase, such as referring to “media catamites, using our Constitution as toilet paper” in service to the liberal elites (“coastal femboys and hectoring harridans”). The link is:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/07/you-need-to-suck-it-up-and-vote-for-trump-n2188770

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      He makes some good points. Love his opening. No kool-aid drinking with this guy. No seeing a cracked glass with has its bottom missing as half full.

      I think an anti-Hillary vote is completely rational and justified. Schlichter brings to light an interesting element that has been missing. In short, Trump will work as the bull in the China shop knocking down that which both Establishments have erected. In doing so (if I’m reading this correctly), he will be doing what the Republican Establishment has not been doing: providing opposition to the other party.

      Paul Ryan is the poster boy for the Eunuch wing of the Republican Party. I’ll grant one and all that Trump is no Eunuch. He can potentially provide opposition. To what (probably most likely conservatives..same shit, different day) we’ll see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *