Category Archives: American Politics

Should the Government Shutdown End in Sympathy for Its Employees? Absolutely . . . Not!

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and countrymen, in the midst of the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history (35 days), many Americans insist the Republican and Democrat parties come to a compromise.  Others hold President Donald Trump responsible for the shutdown, and hence holding federal employees hostage in exchange for border wall funding.  While there have been various issues made into spectacles, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s cancellation of Trump’s State of the Union address (traditionally delivered in the House of Representatives) and Trump’s allegedly retaliatory cancellation of Pelosi’s Air Force One flight to Belgium, many focus on the approximately 800,000 furloughed federal employees.  Their sympathizers claim that they are financially suffering as a result of the gridlock from partisan politics.

Are they, indeed, or could this be yet another display of the very same partisan politics which they decry?  First and foremost, federal government shutdowns are not only not a new phenomena, they are anticipated whenever each chamber of Congress is dominated by opposing parties.  In such cases, federal employees are furloughed until both parties compromise.  Each party gets and concedes something, a new budget is legislated, the government reopens, and federal employees resume their regular work schedule with back pay.

One would think that federal employees, aware of such a prospect as a government shutdown, would be financially prepared.  Even if they are oblivious to history, it is conventional financial wisdom to have a minimum of 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies, such as being unable to work.  This applies equally to the private sector, wherein corporate downsizing or layoffs occur.  It is basically a self-prepared and self-regulated insurance policy, and since their average salary is $80,000 (some even earning as much as $100,000), saving seems hardly difficult.

Surely, they could utilize their credit cards or state unemployment benefits.  They could even withdraw money from their 401k plan without accruing any financial penalties.  Otherwise, they could do the old-fashioned thing and simply implement austere measures on their household budgets.

The aforementioned remedies are perfectly viable and temporary, but sufficiently compensatory for the average time employees are furloughed due to a government shutdown.  Business Insider policy reporter Bob Bryan makes this ostensible in his estimation:

On average, the 20 previous shutdowns lasted eight days, though they have been longer in recent decades. The six shutdowns since 1990 have lasted nine days on average. And removing the short, nine-hour funding lapse caused by Sen. Rand Paul in February, recent shutdowns have averaged 11 days. Most of these shutdowns weren’t severe, with 11 of the 20 lasting five days or fewer, and seven lasting three days or fewer.

Furthermore, the current economy is such that those furloughed employees can be assimilated into the private sector.  Indeed, the unemployment rate is at 3.7%, which is the lowest since 1969 (nearly five decades ago) while the labor participation rate has steadily risen in the past five years.  In fact, the number of job openings currently exceeds the number of available workers by more than a million according to the Wall Street Journal.  Such a labor shortage accounts for the 3.2% increase in wages over the past year.

Aside from the matter of so-called financial hardship for furloughed employees, is the matter of constitutionality.  According to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Hence, the current size and scope of the federal government has far exceeded its original design, which is precisely why America’s founders would scarcely notice the ongoing or even the past government shutdowns.

In conclusion, my friends and countrymen, let us pivot back to the original question along with some follow-up questions: Should the government shutdown end in sympathy for furloughed federal employees?  Should Americans contribute to a cancer fund in sympathy for the elderly who acquired lung cancer via smoking their whole life?  Should serial killers and rapists be paroled in sympathy for their austere life in prison?  I would hope that sensible, responsible Americans would respond with a resounding “Absolutely . . . Not!”

Why Texans Should Cruise with Cruz and Bet against Beto

Updated 10/20/2018

By Marcial Bonifacio

My Texan and American friends, this is a non-partisan article by which rational voters can decide which is the most qualified and capable choice for the U.S. Senate, the upper chamber of Congress.  What follows are reasons for choosing Sen. Ted Cruz over Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke as the most suitable candidate based on facts relevant to the position.

  1. Cruz is a trustworthy, anti-Establishment, public servant.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, there can never be a question of where Cruz stands, and if he will ever compromise his principles out of political expedience.  Indeed, he has opposed both the Democrat and Republican Establishment equally whenever their agendas ran contrary to his mandate to Texans and the American people, even to the detriment of his own political career.  Cruz’s renowned 21-hour speech on the Senate floor is an ostensible display of his passion, as well as his strong legs, large bladder, and enormous proverbial testicles.  In spite of such fierce opposition from his own political peers, Cruz never deviated from his promises and mandate to the American people. Thus, he has been consistently principled, whereas others have been principled only until Election Day.

On the other hand, while O’Rourke professes to represent the oppressed and downtrodden, he (as city councilman) collaborated with his fellow cronies to exploit the eminent domain power to displace Segundo Barrio residents, while enriching his own family.  As a result of losing their homes, constituents expressed their outrage at a city meeting.  “We feel betrayed,” exclaimed one resident, “and we feel sad.” (Translated from Spanish)  Another disenfranchised resident voiced to him that O’Rourke’s disregard of his constituents is “why the community doesn’t want anything to do with you anymore.”

Now and Then

New ad… WATCH: If Beto O’Rourke’s own El Paso constituents couldn’t trust him then, why would the rest of Texas trust him now?

Posted by Ted Cruz on Monday, 10 September 2018


  1. Cruz has more vast experience in legal and constitutional matters.

Cruz was an attorney, law clerk for a U.S. appeals court juror and a Supreme Court chief justice, Texas solicitor general, associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department, and is currently a U.S. senator.  At roughly the same time when O’Rourke spent his time playing in a punk rock band in the 1990s, Cruz graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, served as Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, and served as domestic policy advisor.

Such an extensive legal background gives him the competitive advantage to effectively author or vote for or against legislation on a wide range of issues with legal and constitutional implications—concerns of privacy, free speech, property rights, criminal justice, immigration, foreign policy, etc. O’Rourke would have to rely excessively on legal advisors or attorneys for their expertise or simply draw from his own limited knowledge and experience from being a lawmaker.

  1. As a U.S. senator, Cruz has crafted and supported several significant bills.
  • He supported a bill which lowered taxes and increased income for the labor force (including wages and benefits), helped create thousands of jobs (some at record levels), accelerated economic growth, and contributed to America’s global competitive advantage; O’Rourke opposed it.
  • He supported a pipeline project which would create jobs and lower the price of goods and services due to the reduced cost of energy; O’Rourke opposed it.
  • He co-authored a law permitting the states to impose mandatory drug testing for federal unemployment benefit recipients.
  • He introduced legislation that, if passed, would ensure all pertinent agencies report convictions to the National Background Check Database, which would have prosecuted anyone who attempted to illegally purchase a firearm, such as the Texas church shooter. It also would have provided more school security, e.g., metal detectors and police officers.
  • In the midst of the fierce debate about separating undocumented parents from their children, he introduced emergency legislation that would permit them to remain together during detention.
  • He co-authored a bill allocating a few billion dollars in tax relief to Hurricane Harvey victims; O’Rourke opposed it.
  • He introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which revokes the citizenship of any American who collaborates with Islamic terrorists and bans those who leave the country to join them.
  1. As congressman, O’Rourke supported anti-poor legislation.
  • He supported an increase in the gas tax, which would be detrimental to the working poor, who do not have the luxury of driving an electric or hybrid car.
  • He supported legislation to impose a carbon tax which, according to the Institute for Energy Research, “has a greater negative impact on lower income people than on higher income people” because in other countries it has led to “job losses” due to business closures as a result of increased energy costs.

  1. As an ethnic minority, Cruz’s achievements make him an ideal role model for other minorities in forging their own American success story.
  • He is the first Hispanic from Texas to serve in the U.S. Senate.
  • He was the first Hispanic to serve the longest term of solicitor general in Texas history.
  • He was the first Hispanic to clerk for a U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.
  • At Harvard Law School, wherein Professor Alan Dershowitz referred to Cruz as being “off-the-charts brilliant,” he was a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.

In conclusion, my Texan and American friends, I urge you all to support Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate for the simple reason that he is a trustworthy, astute, accomplished public servant. That is precisely what Texas and America need.  Therefore, choose Cruz, veto Beto.


Barack Obama’s Re-Election: The Peak of Tyranny and Beginning of Its Destruction

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and countrymen in the U.S., the re-election of Barack Obama on November 6, 2012 and his upcoming inauguration are, indeed, occasions to lament.  However, there are a few things for which we should rejoice and ponder, which I hope will ease the psychological (and perhaps later, economic) depression from which we all may suffer.

First, aside from the GOP retaining the House, Congress has gained more conservative representatives in 2012.  Two most distinguished senators include the champion of the Constitution, Ted Cruz from Texas and Tim Scott (the first black senator in South Carolina since 1881).   In the House, eight fiscal conservatives are noteworthy.  They include Justin Amash (from Michigan), Thomas Massie (from Kentucky), Kerry Bentivolio (from Michigan), Steve Stockman (from Texas), Randy Weber (from Texas), Ted Yoho (from Florida), David Schweikert (from Arizona), and Walter Jones (from North Carolina).

Bear in mind that the congressional midterm elections are approaching—after just one short year.  Once the GOP recaptures the Senate, even a second term of Obama would not guarantee the advancement of his liberal agenda.  All the Republicans need to do is block his and the Democrats’ proposals.

Second, the number of Republican governors has soared from twenty-two (when Obama assumed the presidency in 2009) to thirty in 2012 (when Pat Mc Crory became the first Republican governor in twenty-four years in North Carolina).  Just as the 2014 congressional midterm elections are another opportunity to increase our numbers in Congress, the 2014 gubernatorial elections allow us the same opportunity on a state level.

Third, Michigan has become a “right to work” state last year in the midst of a prevalent labor union climate.  This echoes the victory of Wisconsin, wherein even in Governor Scott Walker’s recall election (precipitated by staunch union supporters), he won with a greater number of voters.

Fourth, in an effort to exercise state sovereignty as protected by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, three states have nullified Obamacare. Indeed, Montana, Alabama, and Wyoming have amended their state constitutions, rendering the unconstitutional law obsolete.

Indeed, such actions by state officials were precisely what our founding fathers envisioned they utilize as a check against a tyrannical government.  To learn more about the origin and application of state nullification of federal law, I recommend you all read Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas Woods.  It is precisely on the state level that our war against the tyranny of the federal government may be won.  Perhaps this is as it should be in order to establish a deeply rooted foundation for a more perfect Union.   “All of us need to be reminded,” declared Ronald Reagan, “that the federal government did not create the states.  The states created the federal government.”

In conclusion, my friends and countrymen in the U.S., do not be disheartened and surrender the perpetual fight for liberty, for that would not do justice to the military and political victories of our founding fathers, not to mention the colossal national debt and tyrannical federal government  our children and grandchildren would inherit.  Therefore, I strongly encourage all of you patriots to vote for conservatives in the 2014 midterm elections, read Nullification, contact your elected representatives, and demand they nullify or promote the nullification of any and all unconstitutional federal laws.  Should they be doubtful, you need only present the historical cases of the founding fathers, themselves (from the book) or the current cases, which I, myself, have presented to all of you in this blog.  Indeed, we must choose to nullify federal tyranny before such tyranny completely nullifies our individual liberty.  Let this be a lesson in federalism not just for Americans, but of federalists all over the world.

Long live liberty!  Long live federalism!  Long live the U.S.A.!