More Sifu/John Debate on Trump


John R. Houk

Sifu Mode

© October 13, 2016

hillary-the-criminal

Sifu and I continue our debate on Donald Trump. He posted the comment on the post that inspired the debate: “Trump vs. Crooked Hillary – Conservative vs. Leftist”. However Sifu’s thoughts are based on the cross post of his original comment on the newer post, “Trump the same as a Dem Administration?

 

I thought Sifu was a Leftist the way he came after Trump, but it appears I am mistaken. I went to his G+ page and it looks to me that Sifu is a bona fide Conservative. I can only guess he is a NeverTrumper. That is absolutely Sifu’s right, but I think NeverTrumpers will insure a Crooked Hillary election even if they vote for neither Hillary or Trump. Crooked Hillary will take America further down the tubes with a large amount of certainty. I’m willing to give Trump a shot to follow through or modify his campaign promises to make America great again.

 

If the NeverTrumpers turn out to be correct or Crooked Hillary is indeed elected, then I will abandon the GOP completely as in never voting for a Republican because of ineffectiveness. If bad scenarios evolve it will be time to replace the Republican Party with politicians actually accountable to Conservative voters rather than some elitist Establishment with an elitist agenda out of touch with constituents.

 

Since I was unaware of Sifu’s political persuasion I am not going to search for where I may have called him (or her) a Leftist. NeverTrumper Conservatives are still Conservatives. It is my humble opinion an elected Crooked Hillary will corrupt America absolutely. A corrupt America is not a good America. On a personal level a Trump gamble is better than a crooked and corrupt Hillary Clinton.

 

Sifu, if you are reading this, I have been researching and writing this piece for the better part of the day. I am too lazy to fix any of my accusations of you being a Leftist. I apologize ahead of time.

 

Sifu quotes me in italics text then offers his thoughts criticizing Donald Trump. I answer Sifu in bold text primarily defending Trump but also tossing in some Crooked Hillary barbs.

 

JRH 10/13/16

Please Support NCCR

*************

Sifu Mode

10/12/16

 

+John Houk

 

I don’t see any massive growth of government

Look at everything he says he wants to do. Everything. It is by federal programs. He will have to create departments with staffs and budgets. He wants to continue Obamacare. He wants to raise the minimum wage. He wants to try to run the economy like it is one of his businesses. If you don’t see it, that is you choosing not to.

 

I want Trump to run the Executive Branch like his business. Efficient spending rather than wasteful spending. If a project isn’t working, rather than making excuses or blaming someone else then scrap and start over – much like a high dollar bankruptcy restructuring for success. Frankly unlike most of my fellow Conservatives I don’t have a problem Big Government. My problem with government is private citizen intrusion and wasteful spending. Obamacare is a debacle of good intentions ruined by lies and deception and worse – INEFFICIENCY. I have no problem with healthcare reform, but a socialist system will be too costly and inefficient much like Veteran’s Healthcare has led to deaths.

 

Obama’s military reduction, idiotic rules of engagement and a strategy to lose rather than win has made America less secure. AND I like the idea of our allies contributing a fairer share of defense money or making a deal that makes our protection worthy of our cost.

 

Donald does want a higher minimum wage but not as high as the Dems AND he favors an Amendment 10 (10th Amendment Explained) action rather than Federal action on a minimum wage.

 

Donald Trump on 5/8/16:

 

No, I’d rather have the states go out and do what they have to do. And the states compete with each other, not only other countries, but they compete with each other, Chuck. So I like the idea of let the states decide. But I think people should get more. I think they’re out there. They’re working. It is a very low number. You know, with what’s happened to the economy, with what’s happened to the cost. I mean, it’s just– I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour. But I would say let the states decide.

 

I understand the fiscal difficulties with rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them en masse; however, preventing more illegal aliens should be preeminent then work on getting rid of criminal illegal aliens then amnesty for working illegal aliens so that they can pay taxes and responsible for the rule of law like American citizens.

 

Trump Policy Page

 

 

Blog Editor: I suspect Crooked Hillary has her own version of cybersecurity that probably includes Bit Bleach and a hammer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog Editor: The Child Care policy seems to me to be Liberal slanted rather than Conservative; however, it is practical for lower income citizens.

 

 

All these policies may have some government growth BUT they also enable government streamlining as well as economic growth which means job creation which means more tax revenue without raising personal taxes. That works for me as opposed to Hillary’s Leftist Transformative Obama-utopianism that destroys social and personal Liberty fabric of American culture.

Trump is not Hitler!

I never suggested he was. I pointed specifically to the fact that nationalism is not a binary good or bad, yet that is one of the only differences between him and Obama. This is not necessarily a good thing.

 

Hmm Sifu … You said, “Maybe he will be rabidly nationalist. How are those necessarily good? Putin isn’t weak. Doesn’t make him good. Hitler was nationalist. Didn’t make him good.”

 

Binary or not, the imagery alludes to the picture that Trump’s nationalism is comparable to Hitler’s Socialist Nationalism (Nazi: Comes the German “Nationalsozialist”, in English “National Socialist which is derived from “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”). It sounds like a Trump=Hitler image to me. I understand that “binary” in this case refers to the potential of good and bad, but there is a large disparity between Trump’s Nationalism and Hitler’s racial supremacist socialistic Nationalism. Trump’s Nationalism makes America exceptional and Hitler’s Left Wing Nationalism was imperialistic and genocidal.

Is Trump fascist? Well, remember, fascism doesn’t have to include genocide as Hitler did.

 

But fascism is despotic, supremacist and worse elitist statism as opposed to American Constitutional Originalism that limits the power of National Government.

fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

So, if we made a checklist
1. Nationalist
2. What the leader says, goes
3. Not allowed to criticize the administration
4. Harsh social regimentation
5. Harsh economic regulation
6. Strong central government
This description is more relevant to the current makeup of the Obama/Crooked Hillary domination of America rather than a limited government.

  1. We know Trump is a nationalist, so CHECK

BUT not a Socialist/Fascist National, so NOT CHECK!

  1. He is constantly saying he will impose his ideas, regardless of anyone else’s opinion, so the second point is CHECK

Again, NOT CHECK! If a person given a job fails, they are fired. That has nothing to do with imposing Trump’s will on WE THE PEOPLE such as Obama has done and the Obama third term via Crooked Hillary.

  1. http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/02/trump-promises-to-make-harsh-media-criticism-of-him-illegal-if-he-becomes-president/

Counter Current News – really? Sounds more like a Leftist rag concerned about litigation from a deep pockets billionaire when spin something into a lie.

 

From the link:

 

It almost sounds like satire, but during a speech in Texas on Friday morning, the Republican candidate and frontrunner, Donald Trump said he wants to sue news outlets if they negative stories about him.

 

He acknowledged that currently the First Amendment of the Constitution protects a free press, and thus shields journalists from suits like this.

 

But Trump said on Friday that he would limit the press using litigation that would be permitted due to “opening up” libel laws and allowing them to include things like criticism and critiques that he doesn’t like.

 

“I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met,” Trump stated. “They’re terrible.” (Trump Promises Harsh Media Criticism of Him Will Be ILLEGAL If He’s President; By Counter Current News Editorial Team [too cowardly to pin a writer’s name]; Counter Current News; 2/27/16 9:51 am)

 

Time.com is a part of the Left Stream Media meaning it also provides slanted anti-Trump and pro-Crooked Hillary news bytes was a bit more even handed than Counter Current News:

 

Donald Trump won raucous cheers from his Fort Worth, Texas, crowd on Friday when he promised supporters that he would make it easier for them to sue journalists with whom they disagreed.

 

 

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win—and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading—I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said of a litigation wave against major news organizations. “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said. (Donald Trump Promises to Make America Litigious Again; By Philip Elliott; Time.com; 2/26/16)

 

How is this an attack on the First Amendment? Trump is working within the law threatening litigation for a lack of honesty in reporting. It would not be a questionable Executive Order such as has President Barack Hussein Obama has done frequently in his bully politics.

 

  1. Just look at how he intends to shape society. He isn’t planning to free us to shape ourselves. He wants to do it himself with government authority.

Again Sifu you are confusing Trump’s government streamlining and waste-fighting with the Big Government despotism of Democrats under Obama. Which again, Crooked Hillary vows to continue:

 

 

 

 



  1. Trump plans to run the economy like he is used to running one of his businesses, NOT allowing the free market to work
    https://fee.org/articles/trump-s-economic-plan-higher-taxes-higher-inflation-and-higher-minimum-wage/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw3s6-BRC3kKL_86XDvq4BEiQAAUqtZ08FoUgqKY9afGUHmbY-aMZ9I66G8_CYHEaYydTHH_4aAuKA8P8HAQ

 

Hmm… The above link is largely the Dem talking points cherry picking Trump’s words and twisting them to offend Conservative Less-Government proponents. The whole article is such but here is an excerpt that mirrors Sifu’s above sentiments on the economy:

 

Usually presidents run on a platform of reforming government, cutting government, improving government, controlling government, etc.. After all, government — not the whole country — is their bailiwick.

 

But not Trump. He posits himself as the head of the whole country, running America the same ways he runs his businesses. He would stamp his name brand on the nation, as he does with everything else he owns, thereby imparting it with his own purported greatness. Probably the last president who was so open about his belief that he runs the nation was FDR himself. (Trump’s Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Higher Inflation, and Higher Minimum Wage; By Jeffrey Tucker; Foundation for Economic Education; 5/9/16)

 

Now what gives weight to this evaluation by FEE is that the organization is guided by the Conservative/Libertarian thought of Austrian Economics. So the perspective definitely not Leftist, ergo kudos to Sifu for finding the Trump criticism. Nevertheless, I have said Trump is no Conservative in the traditional sense but rather an apolitical realist on making profitable deals that have little to do with ideology.

 

I wonder what FEE profiles about Hillary Clinton?

 

 

After years of toiling in the halls of power, the presidency finally seems hers for the taking. Yet, the closer Hillary comes to assuming the presidential chair, the closer Americans examine her public pose only to recoil.

 

 

In a word, many Americans find her “mendacious,” and the revelations regarding the appearance of the Clinton State Department’s “pay-to-play” scheme – delivering special access and favors to Clinton Foundation donors – is only the latest episode in a long series of scandals besmirching her trustworthiness.

 

The revelations – and there are more to come and they will never end – is shocking and not shocking. If you think government is good, clean, and constantly striving for the public good, seeing all this up close must be startling. Most thinking people long ago let go of their naïveté about government and therefore find nothing particularly surprising about any of this.

 

 

Where power may begin as simply a means to achieve one’s dreams, winning and wielding power ultimately becomes the dream itself. Compromise after compromise of principles is made for the sake of power. Sacrifice after sacrifice of others is offered for the sake of power. Lie after lie is told for the sake of keeping the truth of power-hungry dreams alive. One’s ideals become hollow pretense, mere words, and the curse of power takes hold, i.e. for every good deed done, two or three “necessary” evils must be committed.

 

Such appears to be the tragic tale of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

The Radical Turned Establishment Figure

 

In 1969, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis, titled “There Is Only the Fight,” on the work of that now infamous radical, Saul Alinsky. … At the beginning of his own book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky quotes himself:

 

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

 

That said, Hillary diverges with her role model Alinsky in her thesis on one crucial point. Rather than rebelling against the establishment to win her own kingdom, she would become the establishment. 

 

 

At this point, Hillary Clinton is, indeed, the establishment. 

 

 

Power Corrupts

 

Do Hillary Clinton’s “noble” ends justify her choice of means, her ambitions for state power?

 

In my opinion, the answer is a firm “no,” but I do not say this as something unique to Hillary Clinton. She comes from a long line of murderers and thieves dressed up in high ideals – the type of person Isabel Paterson once called the “humanitarian with the guillotine,” – those who, as Paterson wrote, cause great harm as “the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.” In step, Hillary is quick to downplay her mistakes and the “collateral damage” left in her wake in the name of her “virtuous ends.”

 

 

Faith in state power and the corruption that follows may not be unique to Hillary Clinton – before writing Clinton Cash, author Peter Schweizer wrote another excellent book, Extortion, outlining how our dear public servants systematically use their political power to manipulate those they supposedly serve – but Hillary’s career in politics certainly provides a crash course in how such a faith corrupts.

 

Whether it be her support of NSA mass surveillance programs, her penchant to centrally plan the American economy through a morass of crony capitalists enabling job-killing policies, or the Clinton Foundation’s global pay-for-play scheme, Hillary has in many ways become the very establishment she used to dream of replacing. She makes the ‘69 establishment President Richard Nixon look like a domesticated pussy cat, as she escalates America’s imperial wars, facilitates arms deals for Clinton Foundation donors, and continually lies to the American public about her own record.

 

Break with Alinksy [sic]

 

When did Clinton READ ENTIRETY (Hillary Clinton: A Portrait of Power and Corruption; By Joey Clark; Foundation for Economic Education; 8/26/16)

 

Sifu, there is the reality of the matter according to FEE. The Austrian Economic organization does not Trump’s economic plan because the Trump numbers do not conform to the Austrian model, BUT Mrs. Clinton is soooo Crooked that our government would slide further into a quagmire of corruption and despotism to elicit Leftist utopian ideology by hook or crook.

 

I’ll go with FEE’s description of Crooked Hillary and give Donald Trump at least a chance!

 

  1. Everything he says/promises, he intends to do through government power. He intends to grow government and its authority.

Trump worked within the law.

Legal! = right

A thing can be legal and still not right. Look to his usage of eminent domain.

 

Hmm… Trump has been criticized for using eminent domain to bulldoze widow Vera Coking’s house for a Casino parking lot, right? Well, not actually factual:

 

A Ted Cruz TV ad says Donald Trump “colluded with Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow” for a casino parking lot. Trump called that claim “false.” We wouldn’t go that far. He wanted to bulldoze the home but lost an eminent domain case. However, the ad leaves the false impression that the widow lost her home, and she didn’t.

 

After a long court battle, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Vera Coking of Atlantic City and said that she could keep her home. Trump eventually decided not to fight the ruling.

 

 

Two months later, the CRDA officially dropped the case, deciding not to appeal the judge’s ruling because the Trump organization said it was no longer interested in the properties.

 

So, Coking was able to keep her home for more than a decade longer until she moved to a retirement facility in California. Her house in Atlantic City was purchased at auction for $530,000 in 2014… (Widow’s Home Wasn’t Bulldozed; By D’Angelo Gore; FactCheck.org [A project of Annenberg Public Policy Center – biased to the Left]; 1/25/16)

 

The Leftist Website Think Progress give Donald Trump kudos for his eminent domain in a GOP Primary debate:

 

Donald Trump made the case for eminent domain at Saturday night’s ABC debate, arguing for the government’s right to seize property for infrastructure projects in exchange for appropriate compensation.

 

“Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country for our country. 

 

Trump is right. Eminent domain paved the way for major infrastructure projects now taken for granted in the U.S. Water supplies, highways, subways, and other sprawling public projects required the government’s power to buy private land. … (Trump Makes Surprisingly Reasonable Defense Of Government Power; By Aviva Shen; Think Progress; 2/6/16)

 

I realize the American Left will not agree but it is my opinion a President would utilize government eminent domain for infrastructure and pipelines – job producing projects that Obama failed to institute and undoubtedly so would Crooked Hillary fail.

 

By the way Trump lost his imminent [sic] domain case and complied

So losing means his unethical attempt never happened? His character is less blemished because he was stopped by an external source? No, he is still THAT slimeball.

 

Hmm… Did Trump’s big business agenda kill anyone – ever? Crooked Hillary’s Foreign Policy agenda did kill people – Benghazi! Compare Trump’s “slimeball” accusation to nearly an entire adult life of Crooked Hillary scandals (right along with Slick Willie):

 

  1. Benghazi: Committing Perjury or Lying Under Oath

Hillary has repeatedly committed perjury or lied under oath throughout her career. One of the most telling examples was during her Benghazi testimony when she claimed a video had inspired a protest that ended up killing Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. This was subsequently shown to be a lieHillary famously declared, “What difference does it make?” when the questioning got too tough, in regards to the causes of the American deaths and personnel she was supposedly in charge of protecting. She stated she had submitted all documents, but 20 months later, FOIA requests uncovered 41 new documents. Yet another lie.

 

  1. Faking Uncontrollable Fits of Coughing

Check out this compilation of clips where Hillary pretends she can’t stop coughing in order to avoid answering tough questions or testify on an issue at all. On the Benghazi issue, Clinton testified 4 months late to Congress.

 

  1. Email Gate: Illegally Mixing Government and Personal Emails

In the latest scandal over emails, dubbed Email Gate by some, Clinton set up a homebrew server to hold official Government property in terms of classified information. She also used her official Government work email to conduct private and personal business.

 

  1. Email Gate: Endangering National Security and State Secrets

Another aspect of Email Gate was the reckless endangering of Governmental secrets Clinton engaged in. Although many readers of The Freedom Articles will be all too aware of the way Government abuses the concept of national security, the fact remains that there is some need for it. Numerous officials have stated there is no doubt –zero ambiguity– that her emails endangered national security, due to the fact many were classified SAP (Special Access Program). However, she may have been doing this deliberately (see point 6).

 

  1. Email Gate:  Obstruction of Justice, Destruction of Evidence

Email Gate has many aspects to it. A further aspect is Hillary’s deliberate withholding (and deleting) of around 30,000 emails. Her excuse was that these were the personal, private ones, yet Congress had asked to see them all. Given what we know of Hillary as a cover up agent extraordinaire, what are the chances that she wasn’t deleting them to destroy information? It remains to be seen what will come of the deletion, since the FBI is reported to have the server and flash drives (with all the emails) in its possession.

 

  1. Selling State Secrets to Foreign Countries

Mike Rivero (WhatReallyHappened.com) puts forth impressive evidence that Hillary has deliberately sold US Government State secrets to foreign countries. She and Bill did this with China during Bill’s presidency. Hillary may also have intentionally set up her homebrew server with weak security that could easily be hacked, so that the hackers could get the information and Hillary could claim the problem was “weak or flawed security” rather than a deliberately set up situation to leak data.

 

  1. Bill the Rapist, Hillary the Coverup Agent

As I covered in the article Billary Clinton: Rapist and Coverup Team Par Excellence, Hillary has been covering up for Bill’s violent sexual escapades and rape for decades, threatening his female victims into silence, sometimes with death threats. Some of them have been outright killed.

 

  1. Failed Stint as Secretary of State 2009-2013

A State Department spokesperson could not point to a single tangible achievement by Clinton. Hillary wasted $80 million on an Afghan US consulate. She lost $6 billion due to improper filing of contracts. She refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group, leading to the kidnapping of 300 school girls. She called off internal investigations into her State Department involving the endemic engagement of prostitutes by her security, drug use by State Department contractors and the US Ambassador to Belgium soliciting male child prostitutes.

 

  1. A Giant Whopper: Pretending to be Under Fire in Bosnia

Hillary claimed she was under attack by snipers when she landed in Tuzla, Bosnia, 1996, but subsequent CBS footage showed her walking calmly along the tarmac there and even stopping to greet a young girl. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

  1. Flip-Flopping: NAFTA

This video (also embedded above) shows how Hillary has flip-flopped on the issue of NAFTA, saying to some people that she favored it (“NAFTA has proven its worth”) while saying to others she opposed it (“I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning”). Anything to get elected!

 

  1. More Lies: Gun or No Gun?

In the same video, Hillary claimed her grandfather taught her to shoot, yet later on, claimed she grew up in a house without any guns. Which is it?

 

  1. More Lies: Bringing Peace to Northern Ireland?

Hillary claimed she brought Protestants and Catholics together in a Town Hall meeting for the first time. However, as this video states, “negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday agreement in 1998 told the Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the grueling political talks over the years.”

 

  1. Flip-Flopping: Marriage Equality

Hillary has variously claimed that she opposes gay marriage and supports gay marriage at different times. It’s all about opportunism and pandering to a political base.

 

  1. Hillary during Watergate Investigations: An “Unethical, Dishonest Lawyer”

Bill Clinton was asked to serve on the special staff to handle the Nixon impeachment inquiry. He declined and suggested they hire his girlfriend Hillary Rodham instead. As Mike Rivero writes:

 

Hillary Clinton was later fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Watergate scandal in 1974. She was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who stated, “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” he said. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” Zeifman refused to give Clinton a letter of recommendation, one of only three employees he refused during his entire career.”

 

  1. Blood Gate: Selling AIDS-Infected Blood

When Bill Clinton became Governor of Arkansas, he awarded a fat contract to a Little Rock company called Health Management Associates (HMA). The company was paid $3 million a year for “medical services” for the state’s prison system. The game was to pay prisoners for their blood ($7 per pint) then resell it at massive profits on the international plasma market ($50 a pint). HMA’s entry into the blood market coincided with the rise of AIDS in America, but HMA did not screen the prisoners’ blood, even after the FDA issued special alerts about the higher incidents of AIDS and hepatitis in prison populations. In Canada alone, more than 7,000 people died from contaminated blood transfusions, many of them hemophiliacs. More than 4,000 of them died of AIDS. In 1986, public outrage forced the cancellation of HMA’s contract.

 

  1. Whitewater Scandal

The Whitewater Scandal involved Bill using the power of office of Governor of Arkansas to build public roads to the Clintons’ private land. The Clintons and McDougals made money with real estate contracts for Whitewater property that included harsh clauses. This resulted in elderly buyers defaulting on land payments and repossessions. The habit of using State power to personally enrich themselves is a very common theme running through the Clintons’ careers.

 

Hillary was the first woman ever subpoenaed by a Grand Jury in relation to Whitewater. Pervasive conflicts of interest were discovered between Rose Law Firm (Hillary) and Madison Guaranty (McDougal). Billing records disappeared (presumed stolen) from Vince Foster’s office the night he died. They reappeared in the Clinton residence following their acquittal, covered with Hillary’s fingerprints. Susan McDougal refused to testify against the Clintons, so went to prison, but was pardoned by President Bill. 15 Clinton friends were found guilty of 40 federal crimes. This cost US taxpayers around $145 million.

 

  1. Cattle Gate: Insider Trading – Hillary’s Magical Trade

Hillary invested $1000 and turned it into $100,000 through insider trading. She entered and exited the market at the exact right time. According to economists at Auburn and Nth Florida University, 1995, who concluded in their study in the Journal of Economics and Statistics, the probability of Hillary’s trade being genuine and not an insider trade was 1 in 250,000,000! The broker involved was given a 3 year suspension.

 

The trade was connected to Tyson Foods, the largest employer in Arkansas and a big Clinton donor.

 

  1. Eliminating Drug Testing at the White House

In an effort, no doubt, to avoid embarrassment over Bill’s cocaine-snorting habits, the Clintons eliminated random drug testing at the White House through the appointment Patsy Thomasson.

 

  1. File Gate: The Clintons’ Enemy List

The Clinton Administration improperly requested and received FBI background reports on 900 Republican officials in 1996. These FBI files contained sensitive information on average American citizens. It turned into a “Compilations of Enemies” list. Hillary was the source of the requests. The NYT called Hillary a “congenital liar”. Congressman Bob Barr commented:

 

“Clearly what the Clinton Administration is trying to do is an orchestrated systematic effort to thwart justice, to thwart the rule of law, to thwart legitimate investigations by the Congress, whether it is impeachment proceedings or regular oversight  to derail investigations (and) derail prosecutions.”

 

  1. China Gate: The China Connection

Bill Clinton and Al Gore took money from rich Chinese donors who ran prostitution rings. Again in 1996, agents of the Chinese Government and military funneled money into the Clinton re-election campaign, Clinton Legal Defense Fund and Democratic National Committee, in violation of US law.

 

  1. Prison Population Explosion under Bill

The total prison population increased by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute.

 

READ 23 MORE (44 Reasons to NOT Elect Hillary Clinton;Makia Freeman– Editor; The Freedom Articles [Conspiracy Theory site, but I’m smoke/fire kind of guy]; 2/4/16)

 

A Crooked Hillary/Slick Willie list dwarfs any scandal linked to Trump primarily because the Clinton scandals demonstrate a Teflon get-out-of-jail elitism. Trump hasn’t even been close to felonious jail and potential treasonous activities.

He also donating money to Republicans. The donations demonstrate advancing his business goals and profiting his investors. That’s not politics,

Having no principles and going as the wind blows to maximize your personal desires? That is the ESSENCE of “political”.

 

Sifu there is a vast difference office politics in business and politics in government or at least government in America. Office politics is accountable to the Board of Directors, Shareholders and/or the Boss. Politics in government in America are accountable to the voters Constitutionally known as WE THE PEOPLE. The Dems have lost the concept of voter accountability. Unfortunately, I believe, the Establishment Republicans have lost that concept as well. Politics is the art of power agenda to achieve an agenda that can be good or nefarious. I am uncertain if Trump has use Office Politics to break any laws. He certainly has been challenged on a civil level and he has done his share of civil challenges as well. The Clinton clan can easily be called a crime family due to the prosecutions they slinked out of and the prosecutions that never went forward. THAT THE ESSENCE OF CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT!

Your blog is attempting to make me sign up for a new g+ account to comment, so my comments will have to remain here.

 

Sifu I apologize for your G+ issue. That is truly odd there is a Google demand to sign up for a new account apart from the one you already have.

Trump the same as a Dem Administration?


Emphatically NO!

donald-trump-america-first 

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2016

 

Sifu is a Google+ comment contributor that usually makes a reasonable stand when he disagrees with me rather than a hysterical ad hominem attack. I appreciated that. Even though I do disagree.

 

These comments are between Sifu and I relating to the post “Trump vs. Crooked Hillary – Conservative vs. Leftist”. Sifu’s thoughts are in normal text and mine are in bold text as well as being indented.

 

JRH 10/12/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

Sifu Mode

22 hours ago

 

+John Houk He supports massive growth of government. That is his vision of “great”. How is that so different than Obama? Maybe he won’t be as weak. Maybe he will be rabidly nationalist. How are those necessarily good? Putin isn’t weak. Doesn’t make him good. Hitler was nationalist. Didn’t make him good. His goals are still very much in alignment with the liberals. Look at his recent history of support publicly and financially for Hillary and others on the left.

 

Hmm… I don’t see any massive growth of government EXCEPT in terms of an efficient military and National Security. In terms of National Debt and Gross Domestic Production I see government decrease. Obama is a globalist tending toward ending National Sovereignty – Crooked Hillary too. Is Trump a rabid Nationalist? NO, he is an America First Nationalist. Trump admires Putin’s leadership skills NOT his Russian imperialistic agenda. Trump is not Hitler! Hitler wanted a Socialist Despotic Aryan German Empire where nations were subservient and Jews dead. Trump wants to keep America good without Multiculturalist globalism destroying American exceptionalism. Trump’s goals are VERY MUCH unaligned with the American Left that supports the globalism of NAFTA and TPP! Trump supported the Clintons when it would benefit his business. He paid to get Clintons to play. The play benefited Clintons financially while charging for government favors. It is legal to donate. It is illegal to play for pay in government. It’s called corruption.

Those qualities can be good or bad. It depends on the underlying principles they are used to accomplish. Trump’s only consistent principle is to HIS PERSONAL DESIRES; see his history of the use of eminent domain. His ego and selfishness do nothing to inspire hope that those qualities would be used for good.

 

Trump worked within the law. Bill and Hillary worked outside the law and used power to become Teflon so no charges were filed. By the way Trump lost his imminent domain case and complied. Bill and Hillary LIED and people have died and American foreign policy has is in full disarray. Trump’s business is just fine.



Trump apolitical? That’s laughable. He is not PC, but that does NOT mean apolitical. He is VERY well versed in navigating politics and manipulating people to get what he wants. He is a very political personality; he simply hasn’t held office before.

 

Hmm … I believe history proves that wrong Sifu. You yourself mentioned how he has donating money to Dems. He also donating money to Republicans. The donations demonstrate advancing his business goals and profiting his investors. That’s not politics, that’s solid business in the realm of profit and loss. In America we call that Capitalism. Capitalism has made America wealthy enough that foreigners who hate us want to dip into that wealth by hook or by crook (mostly crook). Donald Trump at worst is a business personality and not a power-grabbing-monger like the Clinton clan.

 

Judeo-Christian Values are in U.S. Constitution


Constitution for moral & religious people -John Adams

John R. Houk

© March 14, 2015

 

Below is a comment dialogue between myself and Sifu Mode from the SlantRight 2.0 post “Religion and the Constitution”. My 3/14/15 response is the meat of this post. I am guessing Sifu is one who intentionally or unintentionally supports the concept of a Living Constitution. I am definitely one who stands with the Original Intent Constitution.

 

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 5, 2015

 

Anyone who believes Constitutional rights don’t apply to any person or class is irrational and wrong.

##

John Houk

Mar 9, 2015

 

Anyone who believes the Original Intent of the Constitution changes with the whims of immoral Leftists is wrong and manipulative.

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 9, 2015

 

Original intent was that everyone is included regardless of religious beliefs so I have not advocated for changing it, you are.

##

John Houk

3/13/15 12:00 PM

 

Actually Sifu Original Intent was freedom to worship as you please (or not), but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective. Read the beginning and ending of Constitution and the entire Declaration of Independence factoring in each State’s Constitution which were never Federally abrogated by the U.S. Constitution.

##

Sifu Mode

3/13/15 12:24 PM

 

+John Houk 
but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective

This sentence does not make sense in context of the meaning of “rule of law”.

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law. All are equally subject to the same treatment by law.

Now to say that laws were often based on the values commonly taught by the Christian religion is pretty fair. To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

###

John Response to Sifu 3/13/15

3/14/15

 

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law.

 

Sifu you are sorely mistaken! The “Rule of Law” means the law rules the land as opposed to the Rule of Man which implies a man or an oligarchy of men rule the land. Men rule by a pen and a phone (edict) are not subject to laws. When law is the rule no man is above the law. In Western Culture laws are derived from a heritage. The West’s heritage is Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian influences. This heritage is the reason Western nations that don’t have a Third World element thus have evolved a Representative Democratic form of government in laws have replaced men as the ruler.

 

To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

 

Even the Democratic-Socialist Representative governments of Europe demonstrate the laws have an exclusivity to Judeo-Christianity – although that exclusivity is being eroded by culture destroying Multiculturalism. In America Multiculturalism only has a mere toe-hold because Left Wing Democrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM) have been ramming the concept down American throats.

 

As long as constitutional interpretation is via Original Intent rather than the make it up as you go along Living Constitution (Rule of Man), the Judeo-Christianity inherent in American culture and intended by America’s Founding Fathers will be preserved which has made America great.

 

Once Multiculturalism gains more than a toe-hold in America then the erosion of the Christian heritage that has made America exceptional so that the world’s poor dream of coming to America for a better life. The secularist value system promoted primarily by America’s Left is eroding American culture by a determined effort to dilute our Judeo-Christian influence to the point of actually belittling Christianity and calling Bible believing Christians bigots. Once Biblical values are replaced with the acceptance of concepts such as homosexual acceptance and allowing counter-American culture concepts such as despotic Sharia Law that is derived from a specifically antisemitic and antichrist religion known as Islam, then America’s values derived from Judeo-Christianity will cease to exist. America will cease to be exception followed by America ceasing to be great.

 

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

 

Sifu either the Constitution is wholly a part of “those laws” or it is a piece of paper that exists to provide citizens an illusion of the existence of the Rule of Law meaning the Rule of Man is the reality and America is despotic and America has never been exceptional and thus America’s greatness is an illusion. That doesn’t sound like the same America I have studied nor is it the America I have grown up in from birth to the present (58 years). AND my elementary and secondary school learning occurred prior to the American Left making their efforts to revise history in text books and in class curriculum.

 

Now the Constitution did constitute the creation of a Federal government with three Branches designed in such a way that one Branch does not dominate the other. To prevent Branch domination the Constitutional Rule of Law provides for Checks and Balances. Once those Checks and Balances are breached by any Branch then despotism will ensue that will replace the Rule of Law with an oligarchic Rule of Man.

 

Part of those Checks and Balances is the influence of Judeo-Christianity and the Constitution maintaining that laws not mandated to the Federal government is under the sovereignty of the several State governments.

 

An essay by David W. New provides an astute observation the God of Christianity and the U.S. Constitution in terms of Original Intent, State Constitutions and the Federal government:

 

Where is “God” in the Preamble to the Constitution?

 

Secularists are very quick to point out that the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be ‘under God’ in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word “God” will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word “God” appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is “Almighty God.” This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words “Almighty God” appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word “God” in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: “Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . . and Georgia.” When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their ‘spin’ on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Where is “God” in the First Amendment?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or “Congress.” This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Let’s compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . .” The subject of the clause is clear. It is “All men.” The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses’ better wording. It says “Every individual . . .” In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a “natural right” of an individual to worship “Almighty God” according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the “right” of an individual, the word “God” naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the “Congress.” The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words “God” “natural right” “worship” or “conscience” do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word “God” in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.

 

Where is “God” in the Constitution?

 

The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like “secularism” and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn’t even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word “God” does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is “God” is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: “Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers.” (Where is God in the Constitution? By David W. New, Esq.; posted by Ed Current; Free Republic; posted 12/10/2004, 5:38:41 PM; Originally from Faith and Action [dead link]; November 04)

 

Sifu God is in the Constitution.

 

Further Reading:

 

How Did the Bible Influence the U.S. Constitution? (eHow.com)

 

Rule of Law Legal Definition (Duhaime.org)

 

Rule of law (TheFreeDictionary.com – Legal Dictionary)

 

JRH 3/14/15

Please Support NCCR

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk