Why I Support Donald Trump

PART I: THE ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU

by Don Fredrick, ©2016, author of The Complete Obama Timeline

Bill Kristol is one of 22 “conservative” pundits who contributed an article for the biweekly “National Review” aimed at derailing the presidential candidacy of businessman Donald J. Trump, claiming he is not a true “conservative”

(Jan. 25, 2016) — Either the 22 authors of National Review’s “stop Trump” issue don’t “get it” it or they are frightened to death that the voters do “get it.” While the gang of 22 is allegedly preoccupied with preserving “the conservative movement” (which Mark Steyn observes “barely moves anything”), the rest of us are worried about preserving our nation. While they are worried about the loss of their immigrant maids and lawn care services in Connecticut and Georgetown, those of us who make our own beds and cut our own grass are worried about the loss of our culture.

I am not sure what people like William Kristol and George Will do besides pontificate (with varying amounts of arrogance and alliterations), but if they and their cohorts were asked by the average citizen, “What have you done for us lately?” they’d be hard-pressed to provide a convincing answer. Kristol could be counted on to nod approvingly if you want to engage in a war we have no business fighting, and Will knows a lot of baseball stats, but they have arguably done little to contradict Steyn’s observation.

Granted, most people are beholden to their bosses. If the millionaire who funds your Internet broadcasts is all-in for Ted Cruz and even set up his political action committee, you aren’t going to disagree. Heck, you’ll even ask an underling to pen an anti-Trump article as well. Still, there are limits to one’s loyalties—or at least there should be.

Editor Rich Lowry lost me at his despicable “make the trains run on time” remark on The Kelly File—a remark that Miss “And Did I Tell You About My Husband’s Book?” chose not to challenge. Thomas Sowell—who I had thought was above such things—did Lowry one better. Sowell not only compared Donald Trump to Hitler and Mussolini, he tossed in Vladimir Lenin and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for good measure.

If the face of conservativism is outrageous comparisons to several of history’s more murderous thugs, then I am more than happy that National Review’s declining readership has fallen even lower than Rachel Maddow’s dismal ratings. Fewer than 200,000 readers out of 300+ million Americans is a batting average Will would declare incomparably inconsequential, although Kristol could put quite a few boots on the ground with 200,000 blind followers. But knowing that few watch Maddow or read NR helps restore my faith in America.

Lowry and staff may get their comeuppance, however. At ChroniclesMagazine.org Justin Raimondo points out that National Review’s tax exempt status as a 501(c)3 organization requires that it must “not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” If Lowry is not meeting with his magazine’s tax lawyers and accountants, he probably should be.

The 22 tried their darnedest to make their point (“Trump is not a real conservative”) and declared unworthy of respect anyone who dares support the Manhattan real estate magnate—while at the same hoping no one would recall that in 2012 some of those same 22 wrote off (and even attacked) more than a few far more conservative candidates in their eagerness to promote Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. (For those of you who have forgotten, Romney started the socialist ObamaCare ball rolling with RomneyCare in Massachusetts, and Paul Ryan has so far managed to do the impossible: make us wonder why we hated Eric Cantor and John Boehner so much.) National Review, requiescat in pace.

Elections always bring out the ludicrous “I am not part of the establishment” claims, and this year is not only no exception, it brings out Guinness Book levels of mendacity. Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer if she is part of the establishment, Hillary Clinton responded, “I just don’t understand what that means.” Apparently the Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena are not obvious enough for her, but she will find out soon enough that the voters certainly understand the term. Eventually, she may even discover the meaning of “minimum security facility,” and her communications with Huma Abedin will be via mirrors passed through steel bars rather than a private server.

Former World War II Five-Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president in 1952 and served two terms

Define it as you will, but Americans have had it with “the establishment.” In 1952 they saw favored conservative Robert Taft replaced by Dwight D. Eisenhower in a smoke-filled room. But by the end of his two terms even Ike learned to be wary of the military-industrial complex. (Today it is closer to a military-media complex.) In 1960 the nation was given an establishment candidate (Richard M. Nixon) opposed by John F. Kennedy, whose inexperience and naiveté were compensated for by a quick mind, a good sense of humor, his old man’s money—and monumental vote fraud by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley. But even Kennedy’s money could not stand in the way of the establishment, which forced him to accept as his running mate Lyndon B. Johnson—one of the most corrupt and despicable human beings ever to tread American soil.

The establishment saw to it that JFK would not serve a second term, and LBJ went all the way in 1964 with the help of the infamous “daisy commercial” concocted by the smarmy Bill Moyers. In 1968 the establishment was initially fought by Senator Eugene McCarthy, who managed to get Johnson to withdraw from the race. That lured Bobby Kennedy into the competition. But once again the establishment saw to it that no “upstart” would win a nomination, and Hubert Humphrey was anointed. Of course, it did not matter to the power brokers whether Humphrey or Nixon won; they would get what they wanted either way.

Watergate upset the applecart in 1974 and gave us Jimmy Carter in 1976, who was stuck with the disastrous economic consequences of the war in Vietnam and Nixon taking the nation fully off the gold standard. Not that Carter wasn’t a Jew-hating doofus, but even the brilliant Friedrich Hayek would not have been able to put a quick stop to the massive price inflation.

In 1980 the establishment was challenged by Ronald Reagan. (National Review didn’t want him either, at least in the beginning.) The only people who wanted Reagan were the voters—the people who are supposed to be involved only peripherally in presidential decisions. By sheer force of will and personality, Reagan defied the odds, won the nomination, and pummeled Carter. But just as Kennedy was forced to take Johnson as his running mate, Reagan was forced to accept George H. W. Bush as his. Strings got pulled, but not enough of them and Reagan survived the 1981 assassination attempt—which likely tempered some of his conservative plans, such as eliminating the Department of Education. (Don’t believe everyone in the GOP establishment who says, “I supported Reagan even before he became popular!” Ask them to prove it and they’ll react as if you demanded they show you their ticket stub from Woodstock.)

Reagan was followed by Bush the elder in 1988, who four years and one war later bumbled his way through a few debates with Arkansas’ premier womanizer and sexual molester, William Jefferson Blyth III, aka Bill Clinton. Clinton learned the tricks of the political trade from racist Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. The Clintons are, of course, as establishment as they come—and will remain so as long as the checks keep coming.

In 2000 the choice was between establishment Al Gore and establishment George W. Bush. Establishment John Kerry, an embarrassing dunce who was nevertheless intelligent enough to court wealthy widows, tried to end the Bush legacy but was thwarted by a few war veterans who remembered more than he would have preferred about his “feats of bravery” in Vietnam. With his invasion of Iraq, Bush thrilled neo-conservatives like William Kristol and every other idiot who believed we could “bring democracy to the region”—as if people still living in the seventh century would know what to do with it. It turns out that the “New World Order” is a bit difficult to impose on a world overflowing with disorder.

Then along came Marxist community activist Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Obama (BHOSO), or whatever his name is, to thump Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 by bringing in busloads of supporters from Chicago to vote in the Iowa caucuses. (The state’s black population probably doubled on that day.) Additional cheating in Texas, and considerable rule-rigging from the Democrat National Committee, guaranteed that Webster Hubbell’s daughter’s mother would not be the Demosocialist party’s nominee that year. She settled instead for Secretary of State, where her incompetence ensured that she would fail at almost every task she attempted, and where her corrupt and secretive nature ultimately led to 150 FBI agents poring over the server she apparently lacked enough cloths to adequately wipe.

Obama, as we are all constantly reminded by our astronomically high health insurance deductibles, defeated the hapless John McCain—largely through the help of John McCain himself and an incompetent campaign staff that seemed determined to see him lose. The “conservative” National Review pushed McCain—rather than a more conservative, and probably more electable, alternative. Things went so badly for McCain in 2008 that in 2012 the GOP (again supported by National Review) naturally repeated the process, by nominating perhaps the least conservative candidate in the race and even using some of McCain’s crack campaign advisors. (In two elections the Democrats practically pleaded for the gutless GOP to nominate McCain and Romney—and listen they did.)

Here we are now in 2016, with an establishment that has spent decades shoving bad candidates down our throats and often into the Oval Office, telling us once again that we voters are nincompoops who should defer to their remarkable and unsurpassed judgment. (George Will and National Review to the Chicago Cubs: “You have to trust us; Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio will be a tremendous trade!”) Thanks, but I’ll pass on the establishment’s advice. If Rich Lowry and William Kristol know what’s best for us, then put them on a “National Review Party” ticket and let the electoral college chips fall where they may.

The reality is that we voters have simply had enough and we’re not going to take it anymore. We want no one named Bush, Clinton, Obama, or anyone like them in our Oval Office, while behind the scenes Goldman Sachs, George Soros, Tom Steyer, Warren Buffett, Martin Sorrell, Rupert Murdoch, Leo Gerard, General Electric, Time-Warner, and a few other conglomerates call the shots. We don’t care if Disney and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce want cheap labor. We don’t care if Heidi Cruz’s comrades want a New World Order. We don’t care if Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to be the caliph of the ISIS-created caliphate while Barack Obama runs interference for him as the next Secretary General of the United Nations.

We certainly don’t want South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley telling us not to be angry when we have millions (actually 18+ trillions) of reasons to be angry. We don’t want the federal government forcing the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide employees with free abortifacients. We don’t want foreign aid going to nations that hate us. We don’t want to pay for the defense of Japan and Germany until the end of time. We don’t want a welfare system as generous as Michael Moore’s waistline. We don’t want a border as porous as a Kardashian brain. We don’t want illegal immigrants raping our daughters and murdering our loved ones. We don’t want terrorists who claim to be refugees infiltrating the United States and poisoning our water supplies. We don’t want hypocritical celebrities flying around in their private jets telling us we are using too much gasoline. We think it is perfectly reasonable and prudent to ask for photo identification to vote, especially when you need the same darned ID to board a plane, rent a car, or pick up a package at the Post Office. We don’t think our lives are better with health insurance that covers what we don’t need and doesn’t cover what we want covered. All this nonsense (and a lot more) was given to us by “the establishment.” Well, this year the establishment can go to Hell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.