The Beltway Brigade and Donald Trump

Perhaps it is incredibly naïve to think that the people who profess to believe in conservatism, smaller government, free market capitalism and liberty (pursuit of happiness) would apply some of these basic principles to the nomination process for the Republican party. Instead, we have the Beltway brigade, the self-appointed (on the right) elites who believe that, in spite of the fact that they live in a bubble, they know what is best for the unwashed rabble out there. What these people might really know is what is best for the political class and their fellow elites in D.C., New York and LA. Just like the politicians whose first and foremost preoccupation is to be re-elected, the Beltway brigade’s is to preserve the status quo, tell the rest of us what and how to think, get rich in the process and importantly, preserve their social availability for cocktail parties no matter which “side of the aisle” wins. I am sorry, this is not how it works; this is not conservatism at its most basic which, in my view, is about freedom. What it is, is the model of the left where people succumb to groupthink and will gladly do as their told in exchange for putting control of their lives in the hands of some chosen few. We have heard now from every single one of these vessels of the establishment, each trying to be the David to bring down the goliath that is Donald Trump; the reward and accolades would be historic, spectacular! If any of these people (and there is really no need to name names) have taken on the sell-out wimps that control the Republican party leadership with the same venom that they’ve been attacking Mr. Trump, I have missed it. None of them, to my knowledge, has vociferously defended conservative principles when they are attacked and undermined by the current Congressional leadership; none.

My advice then to the Beltway brigade, you’ve all said your piece and opinion with respect to the ongoing primary race, it’s out there, we’ve heard you. Now, act in accordance with the principles you profess to believe in and let the chips fall where they may. It may also help to accept that if none of the other candidates can beat Mr. Trump in this race, it is very likely that he/she will not be able to beat the Democrat party nominee. Mr. Trump fights (and actually fights back) as well or better than the cabal that is that party and its minions in the media; so conversely, if someone else in the race can take him on, on his terms and win, there is every likelihood that this person will have the fortitude to prevail in the general election.

The Audacity of that Hopeless Reprobate Clinton (HRC)

What seems to be missing from the discussion of what Mrs. Clinton has been up to is the utter audacity, chutzpah, of the woman.  Here we have someone, the Prince Charles of American politics as I have previously referred to her, whom we all know has lusted for the power of the presidency since, well, at least 2007.  This person had to have known for sometime now and particularly during her time at the State Department, that she will run again for the office.  And yet, with the run likely being a near certainty (with the possible exception being for her health), she knowingly, willfully and with reckless disregard for security, setup her very own email server in Chappaqua.  This, necessitated by the single “fact” that she didn’t want to carry more than one mobile device.  Who, out there, actually believes this?

More well-qualified people will inform us about the legal ramifications of what she has done so, let’s focus for a minute on what it suggests.  What it shows is a person who simply does not believe that the law and rules should be an impediment to her ambitions or personal interests.  The “smartest” woman in the world had to know that her use of a personal server would become public or at minimum, that the risk of this exposure could be problematic and yet, she forged ahead in the unprecedented manner (nevermind the spin from her eunuchs about Colin Powell, etc.).  So, what made her do it?  Did she really think it was not a problem (knowing differently and again, presumably, knowing the security risks), did she think it would have been kept hidden or did she do it because she thought there was no downside at all?  We have to eliminate the first of these because, surely, someone would have advised her that the security risk alone was not worth it (it is simply unbelievable that Mrs. Clinton has actually attacked the Chicoms for hacking into the US Government protected OPM database and yet, some how, we are to believe that her little server in Chappaqua escaped attention).  This leaves us with either the thinking that the server would have been kept secret (willing accomplices in the media) or that the risk of exposure and potential damage from it were far outweighed by whatever there was to gain; that is, carrying only one mobile device, does anyone believe this?

If you don’t, you have to think what this says about Mrs. Clinton and what it’d mean if she has unfettered and fully confidential access to the levers of power in Washington, D.C.  The audacity of this person and her history (and we only need go to the infamous Youtube/Benghazi lies for affirmation) should disqualify her from even running for the presidency in the minds of most fair and serious minded persons.  Mrs. Clinton needs to understand that at some point, her baggage will and should make a difference.

By the way, when she relaunches her campaign (inevitably), this should be her calling card: