Reflections on the Revolution

  • 03/17/2016 12:00 AM
  • Nelson Hultberg
I believe Donald Trump to be a man of character and honor, not the caricature that a desperate establishment is painting of him. Sure, I’m uncomfortable with the bombast. But despite this, I support his wrecking ball efforts to roust the D.C. grafters and mealy-mouths of the GOP and restore some truth to the American political landscape.
Unfortunately few “talking heads” want to accept that, though Trump campaigns like a human blow torch, he is quite capable of changing his style. In case you missed it, see his Super Tuesday victory speech here. He was quite good. He gets into all kinds of "specifics" and is presidential. He talks as a unifier, not a divider. And he wings it off the top of his head. No teleprompter needed for this guy.
The GOP nomination obviously has a long way to go, but it is definitely now a two way race between Trump and Cruz that may go all the way to June 7th and the big prize of California with its winner-take-all 172 delegates.
In November, though, the Democrats are going to get the shock of their lives. If Trump is the nominee, he will roll over Hillary like Patton rolled over the German Wehrmacht. Just look at all the Democrats crossing over in those primary states that allow open voting. This crossover will be magnified into the millions come November. Can Cruz do likewise? Not likely; more on this shortly.
What stooges like Mitt Romney and Karl Rove don’t understand is that the American people are not just upset with the slow economy. They are vehemently outraged with GOP humbuggery and Democratic tyranny. They have become like the Romanians who, in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, rose up to end 42 years of communist rule by throwing dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, out of office and then executing him. The pent-up anger exhibited toward Ceausescu and the communists was mind-blowing. This is what is also pulsating throughout America today – full-scale, mad-as-hell rebellion. And what is coming is a dramatic new paradigm.

The witty Australian pundit, Nick Adams, says Americans want a butt kicker, not a butt kisser in the White House Here. Trump will be a butt kicker. Hillary offers us a feminized Obama. Ugh! The male version is repugnant enough. Can you imagine eight years of this blatant prevaricator in Washington, waddling around like a madam in a bordello, planting air kisses on ga-ga minions at her soirees in the Rose Garden? She’s become a dumpy old floozy who belongs in a bawdyhouse, not the White House.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
Thankfully Hillary has a truckload of problems with the recent revelations in the email scandal coming forth. According to Judge Napolitano, she is in real trouble, and there will be a recommendation for indictment by May. If this scenario takes place Hillary's campaign is dead on arrival. The Democrats will be in total disarray. Trump will cruise to the presidency. And then irony of ironies, his Justice Department will indict Hillary early next year. A fitting end to her corrupt and shameless career. 
Building the Wall
Will the notorious wall at the border actually be built? It is an important part of Trump’s immigration policy, but it is not the key part. The key elements are the enactment of mandatory E-Verify and the denial of welfare services to illegals, both of which Trump supports. Once these two policies are enacted, the illegals will gradually self-deport over the next ten years. Problem solved. The wall should certainly be built, though, and hopefully Trump is serious about doing so.

The wall’s cost would be approximately $10 billion. Making Mexico pay for it can be done by levying a withholding tax on all “remittance payments” that Mexicans in America send back to Mexico from their earnings. Legal Mexicans would get the remittance tax refunded when they file their income taxes, but illegal Mexicans would not because they pay no taxes.
The amount of remittance money sent to Mexico in 2014 was $23.6 billion, almost all of it from America. A tax of 20% would bring in at least $4 billion. If half of that was from illegal sources, it would mean at least $2 billion annually in extra tax revenues. The wall could be paid for in five years.
Vital to Understand
When Trump says he's a "common sense" conservative, he's saying that he is a "pragmatic" conservative. Not what I would prefer, but I'll take it right now. Rubio is so clearly an imperialistic neocon committed to open borders. And while Cruz is definitely an advocate of freedom and a strong constitutionalist, he would get beat by Hillary because he is too much of a “doctrinaire” conservative. The media would crucify him like they did Barry Goldwater in 1964. The country is not ready for libertarian-conservative ideology yet. Hopefully one day, but not in 2016.
Hillary can beat a Cruz type of conservative; but she will not be able to slam Trump as a "right-wing extremist." It's all in perceptions. Trump will be perceived as a manly, patriotic centrist. Cruz will be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a deceptive right-wing extremist. I'll take manly, "pragmatic" conservatism and be satisfied at this juncture in history.
One danger rising, however. Trump is seeking advice from, or intends to do so, from “establishment war hawks” on foreign policy, e.g., Richard Haass and John Bolton. Haass is president of the globalist CFR and says we need to “dial up” our military involvement in Asia. Bolton, frequently seen on Fox News, is an equally enthusiastic interventionist. In addition close confidant, Chris Christie, is already in the Trump camp and is a big war hawk.
So does Trump really believe America should NOT be the world’s policeman as he has said repeatedly? Is he really against fighting the hegemonic wars that neoconservatism has saddled our nation with over the past 15 years? This is a major alarm bell. One does not end imperialistic wars with advisors who are leading advocates of militaristic global hegemony. Unfortunately Ted Cruz is equally as bad on foreign policy, if not worse.
A positive note is that Trump’s chairman of his National Security Advisory Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, recently had the following to say: “Mr. Trump and the American people know our country needs a clear-eyed foreign policy rooted in the national interest. We need to understand the limits of our ability to intervene successfully in other nations. It is time for a healthy dose of foreign policy realism.”  [emphasis added] 
Amen, but one man’s realism can be another man’s hubris. Sessions is top notch in his advocacy of a strong border, anti-amnesty position (thank goodness for that). But he is also comfortable with the Patriot Act and urges the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe – not policies favorable to individual rights and ending imperialistic wars.

Here’s our danger. If Trump proves to be “flexible” on military imperialism, then perhaps he will also become “flexible” on illegal immigration. The CFR corporatists are used to bending U.S. presidents to their globalist, collectivist vision. They will certainly impose immense pressure upon a Trump administration. Will The Donald stand up to them? Upon that question the fate of freedom rests.
JavaScript is off. Please enable to view full site.