7-4-26

Note: The full version of this commentary can be accessed by clicking on this link.

My friends and American countrymen, for your convenience and in the interest of informed civic reflection on this 250th anniversary of America's independence, I have herein summarized the eight indisputable reasons why America remains an exceptional nation. These are not sentiments. They are documented facts, and I invite you to weigh them accordingly.

The first and most foundational reason is that America is a paragon of liberty in a form no prior civilization had achieved. Its government was the world's first to be constructed on the premise that sovereignty flows upward from the people rather than downward from a crown, a premise so radical in 1776 that King George III himself could not comprehend George Washington's voluntary resignation from power. That political liberty was reinforced by religious liberty, secured by the First Amendment against the very kinds of state-sponsored persecution that England under Henry VIII and France under Robespierre had inflicted on their own citizens. Liberty regardless of race, though delayed by the founders' tactical compromise with the slaveholding states, was ultimately vindicated by the 13th Amendment, the Civil War in which 324,000 white soldiers died in the cause of black freedom, and subsequent civil rights legislation that dismantled institutionalized racism across every sector of American life. Economic liberty, enshrined in a constitutional framework that no prior nation had attempted, generated a productive base so formidable that the United States surpassed Great Britain as the world's leading economy by 1900, issued 640,000 patents in its first century of operation, and produced the assembly line, the internet, and the smartphone. Finally, that liberty was extended abroad not through colonial annexation or resource extraction, but through military interventions in Korea, Kuwait, Kosovo, and elsewhere, in which America bore the cost and left the sovereignty intact. Political commentator Dennis Prager states the matter plainly: America has been the greatest model of liberty, the greatest spreader of liberty, and the greatest preserver of liberty the world has ever known. The most credible witnesses to that verdict are not partisans, but Orlando Patterson, a black Jamaican-born Harvard scholar who declares America "the least racist white-majority society in the world"; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who called the Declaration of Independence "a promissory note" of universal natural rights; and Frederick Douglass, the former slave who revered the Constitution and called it "a glorious liberty document." (For the expanded first reason and full version of this commentary, click on this link.)

The second reason is the Constitution's unbroken operation across 238 years. Political scientists Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and James Melton calculated that the average national constitution endures only 17 years. The American Constitution has survived a civil war claiming 600,000 lives, two world wars, a Great Depression, and presidential assassinations, without once requiring replacement. France has replaced its national charter 15 times in the same period. Venezuela has done so 25 times. Haiti, 21. The Philippines, which shares significant constitutional DNA with the American system, has operated under 7 constitutions since 1899, each change following a period of political rupture. That America has required only one such reset in nearly two and a half centuries is not circumstance. Historian Bernard Bailyn demonstrated that the founders designed their governmental architecture with a deliberate, historically informed understanding of how republics fail, and built the constitutional mechanisms to prevent each failure mode they had studied. Constitutional stability is not merely a legal achievement; it is the precondition for every other liberty enumerated above.

The third reason is that anyone can become an American, while no American can become a Filipino, a Nigerian, a Mexican, or a Russian in the same sense. Throughout history, national identity has correlated with ethnic or racial identity. America was among the first nations, if not exclusively the first, to de-emphasize bloodline in favor of individual achievement and the adoption of a shared creed. Political scientist Samuel Huntington defined that creed as the embodiment of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property, and demonstrated that millions of immigrants achieved wealth and status in America precisely by assimilating to it. Andrew Carnegie, born in Scotland, built Carnegie Steel. Jan Koum, born in Soviet Ukraine, co-founded WhatsApp. Irving Berlin, a Russian Jewish immigrant who did not yet speak fluent English, wrote what became America's unofficial national anthem. The Latin motto E Pluribus Unum, from many, one, is not a slogan. It is a governing principle with no true parallel in the world's history of nations.

The fourth reason is that America's system of checks and balances was not derived from theory, but from the documented study of how every prior free republic had failed. The founders scrutinized Greece, Rome, France, and England, reading Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, Montesquieu, and Locke not as ornamental scholarship but as operational intelligence. Athens fell to the mob, as illustrated by the trial and execution of Socrates by a 500-member jury of legislators in 399 BCE, and by the summary execution of eight generals after the Battle of Arginusae in 406 BCE. Rome fell to the dictator, as Julius Caesar's assassination in 44 BCE and the subsequent conversion of the Republic to an Empire under Octavian demonstrated. Britain fell to the monarch. The Constitution was designed, with historical precision, to prevent all three outcomes simultaneously, dividing power horizontally across three branches, and vertically between the federal government and the sovereign states, drawing on the Lycian Confederacy's model of proportional representation, which Montesquieu had identified in The Spirit of the Laws and Madison cited approvingly in Federalist 9.

The fifth reason is that America established and sustained the world's first tradition of the peaceful transfer of executive power, regardless of personal or political animosity between rivals. Every prior civilization had known violent, coerced, or dynastic transitions. Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times. King Charles I was beheaded. King Louis XVI was guillotined. George Washington, by contrast, voluntarily resigned the presidency and returned to his farm, prompting King George III to call him the "greatest character of the age," a reaction that itself confirms how incomprehensible voluntary abdication of power was to the world in 1797. When John Adams lost his reelection bid to his personal rival Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Adams attended Jefferson's inauguration. That institutional behavior in the face of personal hostility established the precedent that every subsequent American transfer of power has followed, and that other democracies have since attempted to emulate.

The sixth reason is that America has been, by measurable evidence, the most charitable nation in history. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1831 that Americans of every condition perpetually formed voluntary associations to accomplish what Europeans left to the state. That observation has been vindicated by nearly two centuries of data. Americans gave an estimated $592.5 billion to charity in 2024, the largest sum the Giving USA Foundation has ever recorded, with roughly two-thirds coming directly from individuals. The United States supplies approximately 40 percent of all global humanitarian assistance. The difference between American generosity and European generosity is not one of character but of architecture: the European model channels solidarity through taxation and the welfare state, while the American model channels it through voluntary association, precisely as the founders intended and Tocqueville foresaw.

The seventh reason is that America leads the world in the sustained, bipartisan, and unrelenting prosecution of the war on terror, a campaign whose origins predate September 11, 2001 by two centuries. In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson dispatched the newly established navy to confront the Barbary pirates of North Africa, terror-sponsoring states that had extorted over one million dollars annually in tribute from the United States government. The war concluded in 1815 under President James Madison, marking the first time in history that a Western power refused permanent submission to terrorist appeasement. In the modern era, Osama bin Laden was eliminated under President Obama in 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani under President Trump in 2019, and Ayman al-Zawahiri under President Biden in 2022, a sustained bipartisan campaign spanning over two decades. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury, a joint military campaign that opened with nearly 900 strikes in the first twelve hours and achieved the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man who had led Iran's terror-sponsoring regime since 1989. Sustained American pressure subsequently forced Iran's hand on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which a substantial share of the world's oil flows, after Tehran closed it during the 2026 war. From the shores of Tripoli to the office of Ayatollah Khamenei, the United States has never permanently yielded to Islamic terrorism, and no other nation on earth can make that claim.

The eighth reason is that the very existence of America required the overcoming of historical odds so formidable that its birth cannot be regarded as inevitable. China, under Admiral Zheng He, commanded the most powerful naval fleet in the world between 1405 and 1433, possessing, as law and public policy professor Ted Stewart documents in Seven Miracles That Saved America, the capacity for movable type, natural gas, smallpox inoculation, and oceanic circumnavigation while Europe was still copying scripture by hand. Had the Ming Dynasty not abandoned those voyages in 1433, and had China reached the Americas first, the Confucian administrative tradition, which political scientist Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations identified as placing authority, order, and the collectivity above the individual, would have shaped the New World instead of Magna Carta, Locke's natural rights philosophy, and Montesquieu's doctrine of separated powers. Within the American Revolution itself, George Washington commanded a chronically underfunded, undersupplied, and outmanned Continental Army, personally suppressed an officers' coup at Newburgh in 1783, and was the indispensable presence at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, whose delegates had conditioned their attendance on his. Remove Washington from the equation, and neither the Revolution nor the Constitution survives in the form that produced the republic we commemorate today.

Two hundred and fifty years of evidence constitute a verdict. The question Obama's 2009 remark implicitly raised, whether American exceptionalism is merely a sentiment indistinguishable from what any nation believes about itself, does not survive the historical record above. British exceptionalism does not include 238 years of unbroken constitutional operation. Greek exceptionalism does not include a founding creed that naturalizes any person on earth as a citizen. No nation's claim to exceptionalism includes all eight of the documented distinctions enumerated above. The record speaks for itself, and on July 4, 2026, we do not merely celebrate it. We inherit it.

Long live our brave soldiers!

Long live the Republic of the United States of America!

Note: The full version of this commentary can be accessed by clicking on this link.

The post The 250th Anniversary & Final Case for American Exceptionalism first appeared on Marcial's Law.

7-4-26

My friends and American countrymen, we rightly celebrate George Washington as the founder of our republic, the father of our Constitution, and the architect of the American presidency. Yet we rarely pause to consider the more unsettling truth that underlies each of these achievements: he should not have survived long enough to accomplish any of them. The historical record documents, across three decades of military service and multiple theaters of combat, a pattern of close encounters with death so extraordinary that Washington's own contemporaries struggled to explain it in purely natural terms. I submit to you that this record deserves careful examination, not to inflate legend, but because the evidence itself is remarkable.

The first and most thoroughly documented of these encounters occurred on July 9, 1755, at the Battle of the Monongahela in present-day western Pennsylvania. Washington, then a 23-year-old colonel serving as a volunteer aide-de-camp to British Major General Edward Braddock, rode continuously across the field of a catastrophic ambush, delivering orders under conditions that killed or wounded sixty of the eighty-six British officers present by the battle's third hour. Two horses were shot from beneath him. Four bullets passed through his coat and hat. Every other British officer on horseback was shot. Braddock himself was mortally wounded and dead within four days. Washington survived without a scratch. In a letter to his brother John Augustine Washington dated July 18, 1755, preserved by George Washington's Mount Vernon from the Founders Online at the National Archives, Washington wrote: "By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability and expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, altho' death was levelling my companions on every side." Dr. James Craik, Washington's physician and eyewitness, later told Washington's early biographer John Marshall that "I expected every moment to see him fall. His duty and situation exposed him to every danger. Nothing but the superintending care of Providence could have saved him from the fate of all around him."

Washington's second major encounter with death occurred on January 3, 1777, at the Battle of Princeton, New Jersey. The Continental Army, already exhausted from the overnight crossing of the Delaware and the surprise attack at Trenton eight days earlier, was on the verge of collapse when General Hugh Mercer's brigade was overrun and Mercer himself was mortally wounded. Washington rode forward on a large white horse, conspicuous against the field, to within thirty yards of the British lines (well within effective musket range) to rally his disintegrating troops. According to George Washington's Mount Vernon, Washington called out to his soldiers: "Parade with us my brave fellows! There is but a handful of the enemy and we shall have them directly!" His aide-de-camp John Fitzgerald reportedly pulled his hat over his eyes, expecting to see the General shot from the saddle at any moment. Both sides fired simultaneously at close range, filling the field with smoke. Historian W.J. Wood writes that "Colonel John Fitzgerald of [Washington's] staff covered his eyes so that he would not see his commander blasted from the saddle. Yet when the smoke began to clear, there was Washington, standing in his stirrups, calmly waving his men forward." The British broke and ran. Washington, untouched, shouted after them, "It's a fine fox chase, boys!" — a remark recorded by Mount Vernon and the American Battlefield Trust from contemporaneous accounts.

What is one to make of this evidence? The record establishes that upon at least five occasions when in great danger from gunfire, Washington remained unscathed — his hat was shot off his head, his clothes were torn, horses were killed beneath him, but he was never so much as scratched by a bullet, and for this immunity he consistently thanked Providence. Mount Vernon's own scholars have examined the so-called 'Indian Prophecy' — the account of an Indigenous chief who allegedly declared after the Monongahela battle that his men had fired repeatedly at Washington and missed, concluding that a spirit shielded him. Those scholars have determined that the legend as fully told by Washington's step-grandson George Washington Parke Custis in the 1820s almost certainly did not unfold precisely as described. What is not disputed, however, is that Washington escaped serious harm in a battle that killed nearly every officer around him, and that this feat, combined with his later prominence, was seen as remarkable, if not miraculous, by his contemporaries, and perhaps, even by Washington himself. The verified facts require no embellishment: on a battlefield that killed nearly every officer around him, and before a British firing line thirty yards distant, Washington was not struck. The historical record does not require a legend to produce astonishment. The record itself is sufficient.

My friends and American countrymen, we have in previous commentaries documented the five great junctures at which Washington's choices preserved the republic — Valley Forge, Trenton, Newburgh, Annapolis, and the presidency itself. What the evidence above adds to that argument is this: at two of those junctures, the republic's survival depended not only on Washington's willingness to act, but on his survival under conditions that should, by every calculation of probability, have produced his death. Had a bullet at the Monongahela in 1755 killed an obscure colonial colonel twenty years before the Revolution, there would have been no commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, no Newburgh Address, no voluntary resignation at Annapolis, and no presidency to define. Had a British musket ball at Princeton in 1777 struck the man thirty yards from its muzzle, the Continental Army might not have survived the winter of 1777, and the republic it was fighting to establish might have expired before it could be constituted. The indispensable man was, by the evidence of his own battles, a man who should not have been there to be indispensable.

Long live the spirit of George Washington and long live the Republic of the United States of America!

The post George Washington’s Close Encounters with Death first appeared on Marcial's Law.

6-11-2026

My American friends and countrymen, consider what our nation might look like today had a Chinese fleet, rather than a Spanish-commissioned Genoese navigator, first established a colonial presence on American shores in the fifteenth century. This is not merely an idle historical curiosity. It is a precise instrument for measuring the value of what you possess and what you stand to lose if you cease to understand how it came to exist.

The voyages of Admiral Zheng He between 1405 and 1433 demonstrated that China possessed, at that moment, the most formidable naval capability in the world. His treasure ships, by most scholarly estimates, dwarfed anything sailing under European flags. However, the Ming Dynasty ultimately abandoned those voyages, turned inward, and left the Americas to be reached by others. This is due to Confucian court officials, who viewed foreign engagement as wasteful and destabilizing, successfully arguing that China was a self-sufficient civilization. Emperor Zhu Di, whose expansionist ambitions had already extended Chinese imperial reach across Southeast Asia, India, Arabia, and the East African coast, provided Zheng He both the mandate and the means to project power further still. Under so aggressive an imperial commission, and commanding the most formidable fleet in the world, Zheng He possessed the capability and the institutional authorization to extend that reach across the Pacific to American shores, had the political will in Peking survived him.

Had Zheng He established a lasting colonial presence in America rather than Christopher Columbus, the intellectual inheritance that produced our founding documents would never have arrived on these shores. After all, the Declaration of Independence was not conjured from thin air. It was the product of a specific and irreplaceable genealogy: Magna Carta of 1215, which first established that even a king was bound by law; the English Civil War, which demonstrated that a sovereign could be held accountable by his subjects; John Locke's natural rights philosophy, which articulated that life, liberty, and property are not privileges granted by government but endowments antecedent to it; Montesquieu's doctrine of separated powers; and one hundred and fifty years of colonial self-governance in which Americans developed both the habit and the expectation of ordered liberty. None of that intellectual inheritance exists in the Confucian administrative tradition. In Confucian political philosophy, the individual does not possess rights which the state cannot touch. The state, properly ordered, is the guarantor of social harmony, not the threat against which the individual must be protected. From that premise, no Declaration of Independence can ever be constructed, because its self-evident truths are not self-evident within that framework. They are, in fact, incomprehensible within it. Political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996): "The Confucian heritage, with its emphasis on authority, order, hierarchy, and the supremacy of the collectivity over the individual, creates obstacles to democratization."

To understand precisely what American life would resemble under the governance that a Chinese colonial inheritance would have produced, one need not speculate beyond what is documented. Mao Tse-tung's seizure of power in 1949 and his subsequent administration of China produced, by credible historical estimates, between 45 and 55 million deaths during the Great Leap Forward alone (the largest man-made famine in recorded history, achieved not by natural catastrophe but by deliberate policy). Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, in Mao: The Unknown Story (2005), documented that Mao said privately to associates: "Deaths have benefits. They can fertilize the ground." This was recorded in the context of his indifference to mass casualties during the Great Leap Forward. His Cultural Revolution then systematically destroyed China's intellectual class, abolished private property, criminalized religious practice, and subjected the entire population to ideological surveillance administered through neighborhood denunciation sessions. Every American freedom you exercise without a second thought (to speak, to worship, to publish, to own property, to demand a fair trial) was precisely what those policies extinguished, in a nation of hundreds of millions of people who possessed no constitutional mechanism to resist them.

Xi Jinping's governance represents the mature and technologically sophisticated continuation of what Mao began. Consider the specific instruments currently applied to China's own population. The Social Credit System assigns behavioral compliance scores to citizens and restricts their movement, employment, and economic participation based on political obedience. An estimated seven hundred million surveillance cameras, equipped with facial recognition technology, monitor public and private behavior continuously. More than 1 million Uyghur Muslims have been interned in Xinjiang without trial, charge, or conviction under any recognizable standard of law. Hong Kong's common law protections, which had guaranteed its residents freedoms approximating those of the American Bill of Rights, were systematically dismantled after 2020. Xi Jinping himself abolished presidential term limits in 2018, making himself ruler for life. These are not mere hypothetical projections of what Chinese governance might become. Indeed, they are already its documented present condition, applied to 1.4 billion human beings who have no First Amendment, no Second Amendment, no Fourth Amendment, no Fifth Amendment, and no independent judiciary empowered to enforce any equivalent protection.

Apply those instruments to the American population and the implications become precise rather than abstract. The American who writes political commentary critical of his government would face not disagreement or social disapproval but the documented fate of those who have done so in China. Liu Xiaobo, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 for advocating constitutional democracy, died in Chinese government custody in 2017. Journalists like Chen Qiushi, who reported honestly on the origins of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan in early 2020, disappeared, were silenced, or imprisoned.

The Chinese government's own official criminal conviction rate stands at approximately 99.9 percent, a figure that is not evidence of exceptional law enforcement competence but of a judiciary that exists to serve the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), rather than to adjudicate truth. An acquittal implies prosecutorial error, and prosecutorial error implies Party failure, and Party failure is the one verdict no Chinese court will render.

Without our Declaration of Independence, the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, would have no legal standing and no philosophical foundation in civic life. Without our Constitution, freedom of speech and of the press would be replaced by what Xi Jinping's government formally designates as the correct guidance of public opinion, essentially meaning state media monopoly and criminal prosecution of unauthorized political expression. Freedom of religion would be replaced by the active subordination of all religious institutions to state authority, precisely as the CCP currently practices with Catholic bishops, Protestant house churches, Tibetan Buddhist leadership, and Muslim communities.

The right to keep and bear arms (which is the provision our founders most explicitly connected to the people's capacity to resist tyranny in protection of their property) would be entirely absent, as it is throughout the history of Chinese governance. Private property rights, which John Locke identified as the material foundation of all other liberties, would exist only at the pleasure of the state. In China today, all land is technically owned by the state, and private holdings may be seized by administrative order without judicial review.

The American who takes these liberties for granted has perhaps never asked himself why no equivalent of the First Amendment exists in Chinese law, why no equivalent of the Second Amendment has ever been proposed in Chinese governance, and why the Chinese Communist Party expends such extraordinary resources to prevent its own citizens from reading, writing, and speaking freely, and why no Chinese citizen may lawfully own a firearm with which to resist the government that owns everything he possesses. The answer is not that the Chinese people are incapable of valuing liberty. The answer is that a government which cannot survive honest scrutiny must suppress it, and a people which possesses no constitutional document enumerating their rights against the state, possesses no rights at all; they only possess privileges, which are revocable at the state’s will.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America (1835): "The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one." Our freedoms are not the natural condition of human civilization. They are the exception, which is precisely why the word exceptional applies. They required the right explorers arriving from the right civilization at the right intellectual moment, carrying with them a legal and philosophical tradition one thousand years in the making. They required founders who understood that tradition thoroughly enough to encode it in documents designed to outlast any single generation's virtue or vigilance, and they require a citizenry today that understands what it holds. It is not as a permanent birthright that needs no defense, but an inheritance so specific and so fragile that it can be lost by any generation that forgets the conditions of its creation. Benjamin Franklin, upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, was reportedly asked by a citizen what form of government the delegates had produced. He replied: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Therefore, my friends and countrymen, regardless of how you may personally feel about Columbus the man, Columbus the explorer played a crucial role in America as we know it today.  Hence, his voyage was essential to the establishment of a government engineered to protect our individual liberty. It was his voyage that delivered the civilization whose thousand-year legal inheritance made possible our freedom of speech, our freedom of worship, our right to bear arms, and our right to hold property that no government may seize without due process of law, none of which a Chinese colonial inheritance could ever have produced.

Long live Liberty, and long live the Republic of the United States of America!

The post Could America Be A Province Of China Without Christopher Columbus? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and countrymen, the founders of the American republic were students of failure. They did not theorize about self-government in the abstract; they autopsied every prior attempt at it and built constitutional barriers against the precise mechanisms by which free republics had collapsed. Chief among those mechanisms was what former Senator Richard Gordon identified was occurring in the Philippine Senate as the "tyranny of the majority." Of course, he was invoking what James Madison, the principal framer of America's Constitution, called the danger of a numerical majority wielding institutional power without check — using it not to serve the common good, but to entrench its own position at the expense of the minority.

The events of May 2026 gave that warning a local address. On May 11, 2026, amid the chaos surrounding Senator Ronald dela Rosa's evasion of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, the Senate majority ousted incumbent Senate President Vicente Sotto III and installed Alan Peter Cayetano in his place. Two weeks later, on May 26, Senator Rodante Marcoleta — a majority ally — moved to amend Senate rules to allow members to vote remotely through online platforms under "justifiable" circumstances. The minority bloc of eleven senators, recognizing the motion for what it was, walked out.

Their objection was straightforward: under prevailing Senate rules, senators may only vote while physically present in the plenary hall, with remote voting permitted solely in cases of force majeure or a nationally declared emergency. No such emergency existed. What existed, instead, was a majority whose two most legally embattled members (dela Rosa, evading an ICC warrant, and Jinggoy Estrada, facing legal jeopardy) could not appear in person to vote. The rule change, in other words, was not procedural housekeeping. It was a maneuver to manufacture votes the majority could not otherwise cast, and events quickly vindicated the minority's suspicion.

Within days of the walkout, Estrada, who had been present on May 26 but already facing Department of Justice recommendations for plunder and graft charges over alleged flood control corruption, was arrested on May 29 on graft charges and again on June 1 on plunder. The majority had not merely been protecting dela Rosa. It had been building a procedural shelter for a class of legally embattled members whose courtroom troubles were, even then, accelerating toward detention.

This is precisely what the founders meant by faction, Madison's term for a self-interested majority acting not in the common interest but in its own. In Federalist 10, Madison defined faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." The Philippine majority's push to rewrite the rules of the institution in order to count senators who cannot appear due to legal jeopardy is, by Madison's definition, faction in its most transparent form.

However, the minority's response is equally instructive, and herein the American constitutional inheritance reveals its full relevance. Senator Panfilo Lacson announced that if the rule change were forced through over the minority's objections, the minority would bring the matter before the Supreme Court for possible grave abuse of discretion. That instinct to seek relief, not in the streets, not in a counter-coup, but in an independent judiciary, is the founders' institutional logic in practice. Madison did not merely warn against majority tyranny; he engineered the remedy. Separated powers, bicameral chambers, and an independent judiciary exist precisely so that the aggrieved minority has somewhere to go other than the mob. The Philippine minority, to its credit, appears to understand this.

What makes the current dispute a particularly acute illustration is that it lacks even the passion of the classical mob. Madison warned against emotionally inflamed majorities — the Athenian assembly that executed eight generals in a fit of rage after the Battle of Arginusae, or the jury of 500 that condemned Socrates on the flimsiest of grounds. The Philippine Senate majority's maneuver is something colder: a calculated exploitation of institutional rules to compensate for numerical weakness. It is faction by arithmetic rather than by fury, which makes it pernicious, because it is more difficult to recognize and easier to justify in procedural language.

The Philippine Constitution, modeled substantially on its American counterpart, adopted the same architecture of checks and balances for the same reasons. The founders of both republics understood that the greatest threats to self-government do not announce themselves as tyranny. They arrive dressed as parliamentary procedure.

The minority senators who walked out on May 26 were not being obstructionist. They were doing precisely what a functioning bicameral system demands of a minority: refusing to grant legitimacy to a process that had abandoned the deliberative standards the institution exists to uphold. As Senator Lacson put it, the majority's numbers were not enough to sustain proceedings once the quorum was questioned. The minority did not defeat the majority by matching its votes. It defeated it by withdrawing the consent that makes majority rule legitimate in the first place. That is not mob rule. That is republican government working as designed.

Madison wrote in Federalist 51 that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." The Philippine Senate in May 2026 offered a reminder of why that observation remains as true in Manila as it was in Philadelphia. The remedy is not cynicism about institutions; on the contrary, it is fidelity to them. The minority senators who stood their ground, and who now carry their grievance to the Supreme Court rather than to the barricades, are demonstrating that fidelity. Whether the institutions hold is the question every republic, American and Filipino alike, must answer in each generation.

The post Tyranny of the Majority in the Philippine Senate? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and countrymen, ever since Rodrigo Duterte entered the presidential race in 2016, some of his most fervent supporters, including some of my esteemed colleagues, have held him with such high regard tantamount even to their high regard for Sen. Richard Gordon.  In fact, many voted for both public servants believing they would be an ideal tandem, one for president and the other for senator.  Many of our citizens who voted for Duterte in the 2016 presidential election are the same ones who voted for Gordon in his 2010 presidential race.

Perhaps such electoral behavior is due to the perception that they both are “no-nonsense,” maverick leaders, who “think outside the box.”  Hence, it is indubitable that they would govern similarly, if not identically.  However, such a conclusion has little basis in fact, considering their views, policies, and overall knowledge differ drastically.  Please allow me to illustrate.

Anti-Drug Policy

On the issue of the drug epidemic, Duterte seems content in executing his plans by literally executing people---drug lords and addicts---just as he did as mayor of Davao City.  He has even encouraged civilians to follow his lead, whereby he would give them a medal or cash in return.  “If you know of any addict,” stated Duterte, “go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.”  Duterte has reiterated to the PNP (Philippine National Police) that he would take the fall for any policeman prosecuted for “doing his duty,” even to the point of incarceration.

Gordon, on the other hand, has a comprehensive approach to the drug problem.  For instance, since China has failed to effectively enforce its anti-drug smuggling laws, he suggests they be condemned.  “We should shame China,” advises Gordon, “They’re not only taking our land.  They’re also bringing in drugs to our country.”  He urges the Foreign Affairs Department to “launch a strong protest” against the imperial power.

Additionally, Gordon proposes that schools provide highly trained guidance counselors and facilitate active Parents-Teachers Associations in order to detect and prevent potential drug addicts.  He supports the establishment of village watch groups that would coordinate with the police and has been proven to be effective in Olongapo City under his mayorship.  Gordon also proposes establishing police courts for handling drug-related crime and extrajudicial killing cases and body cameras for the police to promote transparency.

Upon the event of extrajudicial killings, he proposes the immediate suspension or dismissal of all policemen involved, just as he initiated as mayor.  I might add that as an infrastructure project and extra border security, the Philippines can emulate American Pres. Donald Trump’s proposal of erecting a “wall” for which China will pay, but I digress.  🙂

American Foreign Policy

Although Duterte has given mixed signals about his position on America and so-called “independent foreign policy” with other countries, his numerous rants and actions indicate he is, indeed, anti-American.  For example, Duterte prompted the Supreme Court to deliberate on the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), in spite of its benefit to RP.  He said that 2016 would be the last year the Philippines would participate in joint military patrols and exercises with the U.S., although he recently requested China’s assistance in sea patrolling as a pre-emptive measure against piracy.  Duterte has constantly condemned the U.S. for the atrocities of the Bud Dajo Massacre in 1906, prompting former Pres. Fidel Ramos to characterize such anti-colonial thinking as “20^th-century thinking” from which we must detach ourselves.

Furthermore, Duterte has shifted RP’s arms supply source from the U.S. to Russia and China, in spite of what political scientist Richard Heydarian addresses as “problems with configuration” in which it could take “years for the Philippines’ army to reorient itself with new technology.”

He did all this in spite of the 70-year alliance in which the Americans fought alongside our countrymen against the Japanese imperialists during World War II, invested billions of dollars in private capital (much of it accounting for a booming BPO industry), defended RP’s right to use arbitration for maritime disputes in the West Philippine Sea, and has provided foreign aid in the form of disaster relief goods and services and military equipment and training against Islamic terrorists.

I have yet to mention the billions of dollars of remittances from American OFWs (which comprise approximately 43% of total remittances).   Does this sound like Duterte merely seeks an independent foreign policy, or does this manifest his entrenched animosity towards the U.S.?

Gordon, on the other hand, has consistently supported the U.S. as early as his Olongapo mayorship.  He vehemently defended the U.S. Bases Treaty in 1991 as well as EDCA.  In an interview during his 2013 senatorial run, when asked if he supported EDCA, he responded, “EDCA, yeah.  Our air force is all air and no force.”  More recently, Gordon pointed out that “Japan and South Korea have used the US military bases there as their defense umbrella, while they funneled resources to rebuild their ravaged economy to build up their society to first world status” and that RP “must do the same.”

Panatag Shoal

On the issue of Panatag Shoal, a Pulse Asia survey (taken Dec. 6-11, 2016) shows that 84% of its participants want the government to uphold the ruling of the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), favoring RP’s claim and invalidating China’s nine-dash line as contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Perhaps that is why many cheered at Duterte’s proclamation that he would jet ski all the way to the disputed territory on which he would plant the Philippine flag.  However, since he has forged an alliance with imperial China, he has refrained from discussing the matter with them.  Instead they discussed trade deals, financial aid, and arms supplies.

Though Philippine fishermen are now able to return due to China’s permission---not its acknowledgement of the PCA ruling, which Rep. Tomasito Villarin says will “subject us to international ridicule”---RP appears to be China’s lapdog.  How ironic considering Duterte, in condemnation of America, clearly stated, “I am not a tuta (lapdog) of any country!”  Even more perplexing is that about 55% of our countrymen have “little trust” in China, according to an SWS poll.  Indeed, Duterte has not only contradicted himself and thwarted the will of the people, he has defied all conventional logic by shifting loyalty from an old, reliable ally---sharing similar ideals and aspects of civil liberties, human rights, democracy, and military culture--- to a hegemonic, dubious foe---sharing no such ideals or cultural facets.

The U.S. has already hinted that it will make preparations to block China, if it continues militarizing Panatag Shoal.  However, Duterte still refuses to collaborate in defending RP’s legal claim.  Gordon called such neglect of the PCA’s ruling “dangerous because anytime you have a claim, you must assert it,” and “if China steps on Scarborough Shoals, that is a red line and we’ll have to fight.”  He also agrees with Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio that, “if Duterte concedes sovereignty, it is a culpable violation of the Constitution, a ground for impeachment.”

With such a serious charge pending, what could be the rationale for such illogical behavior?  Is Duterte simply focused on the economic bounty RP will derive from China in exchange for Panatag Shoal?  Perhaps I can appropriately adapt Mark 8:36 as “For what shall it profit a nation to gain the whole spectrum of prosperity (in banana exportation, increased tourism, financial aid for infrastructure, and foreign direct investments) but lose its own sovereignty?”

Death Penalty

On the death penalty, Duterte seeks to reimpose it.  Gordon opposes it on the grounds that it violates international conventions to which RP has agreed and the risk of mistaken identity.  In fact, the Free Legal Assistance Group conducted a research study in 2004, which revealed that “71 percent of death sentences handed down by trial courts were wrongfully imposed.”  The same study also showed that “70 percent of the 1,021 inmates on death row earned less than P10,000,” essentially indicating the death penalty to be anti-poor.

Political Economy

On the economy, Duterte styles himself a “socialist” and the “first left president of the Philippines.”  As I pointed out in my commentary titled “My Concerns about a Duterte Presidency,” Duterte has been sympathetic to the communists and has offered them Cabinet positions in his administration.  While it is uncertain whether or not he himself is a communist---especially since he recently rebranded the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) as a “terrorist group” and declared an “all out war” against them after breaking a ceasefire---he has not replaced his appointees, three of whom are from the National Democratic Front (NDF) and one (Leonicio Evasco Jr) of whom is from the New People’s Army (NPA) and currently supervises 18 Cabinet agencies.

There are various theories from renowned commentators on the matter, and I am open to any and all of them without a firm conviction as of yet.  For example, many people think that Duterte has appointed communists to his Cabinet in an effort to make peace after 50 years of enmity.  Perhaps, but following that logic, should he not also include members of the Abu Sayyaf, ISIS, and Maute terrorist groups, since they are equal adversaries of the state?

Some think that since the founding chairman of the CPP, Jose Sison, was Duterte’s close friend and political science professor at the Lyceum of the Philippines, they are simpatico in their vision of a communist RP.  Others, like political columnist Francisco Tatad, speculate a grand scheme is at play in which Evasco is behind the peace talks of the CPP, NPA, and NDF for the “eventual communization of the Philippine government.”

However, some even believe that the current war on the NPA establishes a predicate for Duterte to declare martial law, since the communist movement can be construed as a rebellion, especially since they recently broke the ceasefire by killing some AFP members.  That may explain why he has visited various military camps throughout RP in order to garner support for such a drastic measure.

In spite of Duterte’s dubious intentions and association with communists, Gordon’s economic platform is pro-growth and pro-free trade.  His legislation proposals include lowering taxes, increasing savings and investments, and enabling entrepreneurs to be more competitive with big corporations for government contracts.  Gordon has frequently condemned government handouts as merely a Band-Aid solution to a deeper problem, which he says will only perpetuate “the attitude of mendicancy among our people” as has been the case “over the last four centuries or so.”

Speech

 In speech, Duterte is impulsively forthright, vulgar, and excessively foul-mouthed.  Indeed, such ostensibly undiplomatic verbiage has had national and international repercussions that have been adverse and the subject of universal media scrutiny.  Although a few of his spokesmen have publicly dismissed Duterte’s crude remarks as mere hyperbole or public misperception, “perception can be more damaging than reality” as Gordon pointed out.

On Duterte’s offensive remarks, Gordon insists “we have to protect the country from bad statements, and the President has the duty to be a statesman.”  As for his most frequently used expletive, Gordon suggests Duterte “not be heard saying all bad words” lest RP’s new tourism slogan be “Welcome to the PI” or “Wow PI.”  Even Donald Trump has displayed more oratorical discipline, since his election as president to the astonishment of many, including myself.

In contrast to Duterte’s unrefined oratory, Gordon’s is forthright but professional, eloquent, and with scholarship---in a word, most presidential.  View the following speech in which he presents his perspective on reopening the senatorial probe into the alleged Davao Death Squad with new testimony from Senior Police Officer 3 Arthur Lascañas.  Observe his diplomacy in articulating his disagreement with some of his senatorial colleagues.  Was he effective in conveying his points without using expletives?

Public Service

 Although Duterte’s public service and patriotic achievements (as prosecutor and 22-year mayor) cannot be denied due credit, they were largely confined to Davao City and its residents.  However, as president, I must at least credit him for persuading more than 700,000 drug-related criminals to surrender themselves to the proper authorities.  However, it can be disputed that the drug epidemic is simply the symptom or consequence of the more profound problems of psychological instability, poverty, and corruption, and should thus not be considered such an impactful achievement for the country as a whole.

After all, a liberal measure of the number of drug users is calculated to be a mere 4.74%, which is below the global average of 5.2%.  Meanwhile, the Asian Development Bank rates the poverty level at a whopping 25%.  Should not the “war on poverty” be prioritized over the “war on drugs”?  Would it not be more laudable, if Duterte contributed more to job creation, expanding the tax base, and creating prosperity---which could decrease drug abuse---not to mention would have preserved the lives of the 7,000 killed suspects in the drug war?

Gordon’s public service is far more diverse and has profoundly impacted the entire country.  For example, he was a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, authored the Automated Elections Law as a senator, and has helped save the countless lives of natural disaster victims as a Red Cross volunteer for nearly 50 years.  Hence, while Duterte may have contributed to the safety and prosperity of Davao City, Gordon was instrumental in framing the supreme law of our country, modernizing and automating the electoral process in order to curb voter fraud, and helping create prosperity for the whole Philippines in the tourism industry.

By now, it should be ostensible that Duterte and Gordon would govern very differently because they are very different public servants with different views on different issues, some of which are in direct contradiction.  If the name, “Digong,” were partially covered in such a way that only the first two letters, “Di,” could be seen, it may be innocently misconstrued as “Dick.”  However, such an error could easily be prevented by simply viewing all the alphabetical letters as a whole, just as we should examine all our public servants in their totality before electing them into office.

In conclusion, friends and countrymen, I submit that Rodrigo Duterte may be the first Mindanaon president of the Philippines, a former prosecutor and 22-year Davao City mayor, whose voice mesmerizes his admirers and strikes fear into the hearts of drug lords.  He may even be a maverick with drastic policy proposals and changes, which contradict conventional norms and even tradition.  Perhaps Duterte has a genuinely pure heart, good intentions, and is very passionate about our country as well as our countrymen.  Indeed, Digong may be a hero to many people, but he is certainly no Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is.

Leave a Reply

Comments from the group: Asian Alliance against China.

Rohellio Zoryaga They are not the same in terms of foreign relation.
Like · Reply · March 7 at 9:42pm
Marcial Bonifacio They are scarcely the same in domestic or foreign policy. As I pointed out sa paliwanag ko, they differ on key issues, halimbawa, the drug war, death penalty, American foreign policy, Panatag Shoal, etc.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 6:15pm

Ashz Ashzl Yes both of them are a sissy dick
Like· Reply · March 8 at 12:23am
Marcial Bonifacio How is Gordon, Ashz?
Like· Reply · March 8 at 6:23pm · Edited

Ashz Ashzl Just ch3ck ur balls and compare it to gordon you'll get what i mean. ????
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:36pm · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio Please give me facts, Ashz.
Like· Reply · March 10 at 3:42pm · Edited

Josephus Ramos What's the comparison for? i can only see the two side of the two china and the US...
Like· Reply · March 8 at 7:17pm

Marcial Bonifacio The comparison shows the difference between Gordon and Duterte in general and in their approach to China in particular. While the former would stand up to them, the latter has sacrificed our sovereignty to them, Josephus, which is an impeachable offense.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 8:58pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna Our people...deserve better leaders. May the Good Lord give us leaders that truly care for the welfare of the people, instead of their own..families, clans...and bank accounts. Tsk tsk tsk 🙁
Like· Reply · March 8 at 7:59pm · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio That leader would be Sen. Dick Gordon. He may very well be our next president.

Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:00pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna Perhaps, that remains to be seen.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:03pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna We will see ...
Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:03pm

Marcial Bonifacio Even if he doesn't become president, what Gordon has done for the country until now far exceeds what Duterte has done or is likely to do before his term expires.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:08pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna Ok.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:09pm

Joe Bacero Marcial Bonifacio really?
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:19pm

Joe Bacero Look DICK Look - look at Durts -
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:25pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna Joe Bacero
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:28pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna Mas magaling naman si Gordon kaysa kay Digz Joe ..that's TRUE
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:29pm

Joe Bacero yes - its true...
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:30pm

Joe Bacero no snatchers no pickpocketers in subic when he was a mayor...
Like ·  Reply · March 8 at 10:31pm

Joe Bacero and most of all NO death squad
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:32pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna 🙂
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:32pm

Joe Bacero ano tawag dun kung meron... SDS naman
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:32pm

Joe Bacero if he run for president on 2022 - i will not vote for him...
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:33pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna Who??? Gordon? Why?
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:39pm

Joe Bacero i mean if gordon run for president.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:40pm

Sandra Joson-Acuna Ok Why not Joe?
Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:57pm

Marcial Bonifacio I'm also interested in knowing Joe Bacero's reason for not voting for Gordon after he just praised him.
Like· Reply · March 10 at 3:22am

Marcial Bonifacio Nga pala, magandang punto tungkol sa Olongapo and Subic Bay having low crime rates without a death squad under Mayor Gordon.
Like· Reply · March 10 at 3:27am

Comments from the group:  WHAT THE FILIPINOS NEED TO KNOW - Politics, News & other Relevant Issues.

March 7

Alwyn Balingit They are on the same page on many things, and they are both excellent administrators who can bring their experience of running a city onto running a country

Like· Reply · March 7 at 9:51pm

Marcial Bonifacio Talaga, Alwyn? Name one policy in which they agree. I have pointed out several in which they are in direct opposition. Tungkol sa gobyerno ng ating bayan, alam mo ng mga accomplishments ni Gordon. Gayunman, Duterte's only national impact has been in the drug war. Even then, as I pointed out sa paliwanag ko, that has little effect on poverty, unemployment, or development.

Also, the future of our country seems bleak when the President cannot even protect our sovereignty sa Panatag Shoal. Sa kabilang banda, he has sold it for China's money. That was one of the key issues I pointed out, wherein Gordon and Duterte disagree.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 7:50pm · Edited

Alwyn Balingit I cannot list and paste everything here, but you can scour the Richard Gordon FB Page, all posts that are supportive of Duterte. And yeah, while they have things that they agree on, there are also things they disagree about, for example, yung pag-away noon ni Duterte kay Obama.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 8:44pm

Marcial Bonifacio Please post the link sa Gordon's FB page here, para I can check it. Tungkol kay Obama, that is probably the one thing wherein I disagree with Gordon sa kasamaang-palad. Are you referring to Chicago, Alwyn?
Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:52pm

Alwyn Balingit https://www.facebook.com/senatorgordon/
Dick Gordon
Government Official · 600,634 Likes


Liked

Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:10pm

Alwyn Balingit Too many to paste here, click on their photos section na lang ang check the ones with paragraphs like the one below. Again, most of the time in favor of PRRD, and at times disagreeing.

https://www.facebook.com/senatorgordon/photos/a.261832317830.144280.225987507830/10154336217617831/?type=3&theater
Like

· Reply · March 8 at 10:15pm · Edited

AlwynBalingit https://www.facebook.com/senatorgordon/photos/a.261832317830.144280.225987507830/10154263316767831/?type=3&theater

Dick Gordon with Rodrigo Duterte 16th President and 28 others.

December 16, 2016 ·

WE ALL NEED TO DO OUR PART.

To those who wish to bring the President down, a word of caution, just because you say it, it doesnt mean it's the truth.

You need evidence. It must be proven. Proof is not spoken, it is shown.

To the President, I say once again, loose lips sink ships. Make your actions speak louder than your words.

Like· Reply · March 8 at 10:15pm
Marcial Bonifacio Salamat, kaibigan ko, para sa mga links. While Gordon may appear supportive of Duterte, meron mga ambiguities. Halimbawa, when Gordon says, "If we want our country to succeed, we need our president to succeed," he is making a general statement that the president and the other branches of government need to work coherently. It is Gordon's way of trying to unify the people behind Duterte in so far as everything he does is lawful and constitutional.
Like· Reply · March 11 at 2:51pm

Marcial Bonifacio Gayunman, sa specific, major policies, I have listed several quotes from Gordon indicating clear opposition to Duterte. Halimbawa, sa China, Duterte coddles them, nguni't sabi ni Gordon RP should fight them.

Sa Amerika, Duterte constantly reiterates the Bud Dajo Massacre, which happened more than a century ago, before Obama was born. That means anti-Amerika siya. Gordon has only blamed Obama specifically, but he has openly embraced America's alliance, even since he was Olongapo mayor.Sa Panatag Shoal, Duterte appears disinterested. Gordon wants RP to assert its legal claim ayon sa ruling ng international tribunal. He even goes as far as stating that not asserting RP's claim could be an impeachable offense.Anong palagay mo, kaibigang Alwyn?
Like· Reply · March 11 at 4:07pm · Edited

Alwyn Balingit Yup, basically Gordon is supportive of Duterte while at the same time maintain his stand with the usual objective Gordon stance. It's healthy.
Like· Reply · March 11 at 6:54pm

More Comments :

Emma Morgan I rather to see Gordon as a president, he is true to his job, never get involved with any corruption, killing etc. This is the person should lead the country not someone who's been involved with massacre.
Like· Reply · March 7 at 11:57pm
Gilbert Menchu Its much better if Gordon is President.He knows better what our peoples need.They need descent job and money if we want our people lives a better life they need a better job.Other things changed automatically.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 6:45pm · Edited

Perci Lozano Piña No. Gordon is the only Dick that WE LOVE.

Like· Reply · March 7 at 6:49pm
Jeffry Dy Very long analysis and well yeah different styles,different leaderships and oh boy at times pres.is pro China which is something Both us and phl leaders need to talk bout since they support one another although i disagree w the vulgar rant there. Sometimes it has to and he understands the frustrations of everyone around us thristy for a real Change something no ordinary leader has done.So yeah great points and excellent view
Like· Reply · March 7 at 7:24pm · Edited

Jeffry Dy Also on the ejk part on digong its all pure exagerration and all bs when did the media ever find any figures on 7,000 plus when in our normal lives everybody does the crime everyday and that's a fact.

My estimates on the so called ejk is massively lower than that and this whole sherade on him a dictator and all that is plain wooey.If hes ever like that would u think for once social media or all the modern things u need are still exist??Think bout that even hypocrites are ranting it out on digong too I call it smarks for all i care.

I can smell the party of digong resign right bout now hypocrites want him that.

Like· Reply · March 7 at 7:40pm · Edited

Dodong Aberca He used his DICK wisely by the way.
Like· Reply · March 7 at 8:18pm

Doray Ramon Inayinay Di nagpapagamit si Dick! Tatayo yan pG kailangan 😉

Like· · Reply ·  March 7 at 8:55pm

Marcial Bonifacio Salamat, Jeffry. Actually, I did not plan for my commentary to be this long. However, as new developments occurred, I had to update it. Anyway, I do appreciate Duterte's aggressiveness and political will, but I think he should direct them against China and the NPA. Those are the real threats to RP, since they undermine our sovereignty and ability to govern pursuant to democratic ideals.

Of course 7,000 killings is only an approximation of the total number of victims of the drug war. The conventional estimate of police killings is about half, while the other half is likely due to vigilantes and other drug-related criminals. However, don't you think that if Gordon were president, that number would be drastically reduced?

Like· Reply · March 7 at 9:23pm

Jeffry DyOkay lang po iyan mqrcial as long as you have the say may kalayaan naman tayo diba?
Like· Reply · March 7 at 10:23pm

Hill de RobertsThe real threat to the nation is the LP and its dangerous members from top to bottom
Like· Reply · March 8 at 12:45am · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio Perhaps, Hill, but there is a political remedy to deal with LP. The violent nature of the NPA and imperialism of China can only be remedied by force, not appeasement as is Duterte's way. Indeed, If he used the same fervor as he does with the drug lords, China would think twice before infringing on our sovereignty. Recall that even you started an FB group promoting the boycott of Chinese products kanina, hindi ba?
Like· Reply · March 8 at 2:27pm · Edited

Carlos Jalijali Guanlao Si Dick kusa yang tumatayo kapag kailangan!
Like· Reply · March 7 at 11:38pm
Oscar Saddul NEVER.... IDICK IS A DICK IS A DICK & NO ONE ELSE, I believe so !
Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:30am

Melchor Salonga Well he is a Dick but with cursing ????

Dick and Duterte are similar in the sense they have a no-nonsense approach in getting things done, abrasive and tell it like it is attitude and can back up their bravado (i.e. Davao, Subic).

Dick is just more articulate in the manner he answers IMO since he can get his message through without necessarily blurting out curse words.

Like· Reply · March 8 at 2:48pm

Marcial Bonifacio I definitely agree that both are forthright, abrasive, and perhaps, no-nonsense in their approach. However, their differences are not confined exclusively to their oratory, but extends to their policies as well. For example, they are in direct opposition on American foreign policy, death penalty, and Panatag Shoal, Melchor.
Like· Reply · March 8 at 9:22pm

Dodong Aberca MY DICK IS GOOD TOO
Like· Reply · March 8 at 8:14pm

Sari Aya Malaya Certainly, Digong is no Dick and will never be. Sen. Dick Gordon is Pro-Life, Pro-Peace and Pro-Constitution. Digong is the exact opposite. Kudos to the PR and marketing geniuses who made and repackaged him during the time when Davao was an experimental area of the left. They made him look and sound "cool" especially to the business sector and from then on he made history. But they should had known any better. They may had put Davao on the business map but on one end, created a Frankenstein called Duterte. Frankenstein in contemporary debates on bioethics provided lessons which are seemingly clear: don’t play God, don’t over-reach, don’t unleash uncontrollable forces, don’t treat humans as material, don’t act alone. Such a fitting metaphor for an empowered, unfeeling man who decides on the life and death of his so called "masters", the ordinary citizenry over allegations of illegal drug use. He put too much attention to the war on drugs and criminality, but where are the big fishes? What about our war on poverty? Our security from external threats? We need real and tangible government policies that will help us in our day to day struggle for survival.
Like· Reply · March 15 at 3:02am · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio Frankenstein, indeed? Hahaha! That's the first time I've heard anyone refer to Duterte as such, Sari. However, using your analogy, I don't think his supporters see him as a monster. On the contrary, they see him as ridding RP of monsters (drug lords and drug addicts), although there are mass casualties as well, which Duterte's undiplomatic rhetoric masks.

I don't think he expended much effort or money in his presidential campaign. Instead, I think he acted naturally, which is what caused much of what Gordon called "noise" and gained him so much media coverage. He basically capitalized on the people's frustration with traditional politicians, spoke his mind unencumbered, and many of our kababayans took solace in him as a "different" type of public servant, much like Donald Trump in America.

I infer that Duterte's assertiveness on the drug-related criminals, his unrefined oratory, and his perception as a non-traditional politician are what mesmerize his supporters, even to the point that they are so distracted from other issues of significance as you pointed out. Unfortunately, many of the people who voted for Gordon in the 2010 presidential election paradoxically voted for Duterte last year. I view that as our country transitioning from progress to regression.

Like· Reply · March 14 at 3:10pm · Edited

Sari Aya MalayaHis supporters are bunch of hypocrites. They see the truth, know the truth but still choose to believe the lies his strategies have deeply embedded in their systems. Duterte is a masterful tactician and strategist. His Opening Strategy. Remember how everyone was in suspense until he delivered his coup de grace? His middlegame Strategy. How he uses his weakness as his strength, his cursing and the deliberate showcase of his rough edges. And his Endgame Strategy, the very popular "you can oust me if I abuse power".

Two things though, first, our nation is teeming with patsies, he capitalizes on their vulnerabilities, thirst for change and ignorance. Second, our nation losts its moral ascendancy. He is destroying the moral fabric of this nation and making us rise against each other. He broadened the gap of division and misunderstanding among Filipinos than bridging it. Worse is, most Filipinos consented on it, in fact, applauded it.

They have not realized that this is all about "brand-is-crisis’ strategy, the political landscape are made to keep shifting, ever changing. The powers of the State apparatus are made to be trained at moving, unstable targets, for the President to be the first to call it a crisis, then he becomes a hero, instantly seen to be part of the solution itself. This strategy is traditionally effective in keeping leaders in power. Crisis branding is supply-driven rhetoric. Now, for instance, it's focused on illegal drugs then illegal gambling - then his political imagination would be limitless.

They keep on saying they are the majority but the truth is that they are just loud. Noise is essential and is used for the purpose of deflecting attention to an imagined hot button issue while the proponent quietly works upon another.

Crisis branding can be an effective political campaign strategy because it draws power from frightening people, but it has no place in day-to-day governance. What we need today is to maintain respect, implement policies that ooze with common sense, and take a long-term orientation in regional stability and cooperation.

Like· Reply ·March 17 at 5:03pm · Edited

Marcial BonifacioExcellent points, Sari! Another name for what you described is the "politics of fear." I just watched Duterte speak at the First General Assembly of League of Municipalities. He had a 2-minute speech already prepared, but discarded it and decided to speak for more than an hour about killing drug lords again. He even displayed another list of drug-related criminals.

I noticed a few people in his audience were dozing off. Perhaps they were bored or intoxicated themselves in preparation for Duterte's usual speech.

When he said he does not think of himself as a president, but as a mayor, I thought that is precisely his problem. He is using his limited, parochial perspective for a post that requires a broader, national perspective. For a city and a mayor, perhaps the drug epidemic was a necessary focal point, but the country as a whole has other, more urgent concerns as poverty, unemployment, and the specter of China's intrusion on our sovereignty.

Like· Reply ·March 14 at 6:27pm

Doray Ramon Inayinay Simple lang yan. Ang mga Hindi adik nakakatulog Na ng mahimbjng sa Gabi. Sorry Na lang sa mga kapitalistang di nakakapang gago ng ordinaryong pinoy.
Like· Reply · March 14 at 6:33pm
Evangeline Mejia sa lahat ng analysis nyo kay duterte at sa problema ng kung ano anong salot na nangyayari sa bansang Pilipinas, mayroon bang pangulo o kung sino man sa taga panguna natin na nagbigay ng kalutasan ? WALA PA, at ngayon na merong pangulo na kahit papaano may ginagawa pra kahit papaano ay malutas o papunta sa kalutasan ay kung ano anong analogy o katawagan ang ibinabansag sa kanya, pati mga supporters nya ay kung ano anong masasamang tawag ang inila-label nyo sa kanila, magaling lang kayong mag-analysis at magsalita ng English pero wala din naman kayong ginagawa pra sa bansa, for all you know itong Sari na ito ay hindi naman Pilipino pero parang alam na alam ang kalagayan ng Pilipinas pero hindi naman, baka naman in your perspective lang Sari ang tingin mo sa lahat...baka ikaw ang hypocrite kasi ang galing mong magbigay ng pagsusuri sa iisang side, hay naku, panay na lang kayo analysis ...ano kaya ang maitutulong nyo sa PILIPINAS?
Like· Reply · March 14 at 7:40pm · Edited
Sari Aya Malaya Mawalang galang na po, Ginang Mejia, pinoy na pinoy po ako. Wala po akong ni isang patak na dugong banyaga. Tubong Batangas at Bulacan po ako. Nakapangibambansa man po ako ng ilang beses, di ko iwinaglit ni minsan ang pagka Pilipino ko. Magaling lang po talaga siguro akong magmasid at kumilatis ng kabalintunaan at kasinungalingan. Gising po ang diwa at mulat ang mga mata ko sa bawat hinaing, paglibak at pagkabigo ng ating mga kababayan. Araw araw po akong nakikipagsiksikan sa MRT, lumalanghap ng maitim na usok ng EDSA at nagpapakasaya sa isang tuhog ng kwek kwek sa paanan ng tulay ng Boni. Isa po akong buhay na saksi sa bawat pagbabagong nagaganap sa bayan natin. Isa po akong payak na manggagawa, na halos kalahati ng kita ko ay kinaltas para sa buwis. Aba, malaking halaga na rin po yun dahil labingwalong taong gulang pa lang ako nang maging kapakipakinabang na akong mamamayan. Lumalaban po ako nang parehas at hindi po ako nanlalamang ng kapwa. Hindi man po ako nabigyan ng pagkakataong maglingkod sa bayan gaya ni Duterte, ang maliliit na ambag kong tulong sa sambayanan ay malayo-layo na rin ang narating. Hangad ko lang pong gisingin ang diwa ng mga kababayan kong tila himbing pa sa uyayi ng mga mapagbalatkayong ugoy ng pagsasamantala. Turuan silang maging mapanuri. Kilalanin ang totoong naglilingkod sa bayan, gawing huwaran si Sen. Gordon at magsilbing pamantayan ng isang magaling na namumuno.
Like· Reply · March 14 at 9:55pm

Marcial Bonifacio I appreciate and understand your perspective, Evangeline, kaibigan ko, and I have been observing Duterte for eight months now. If, as you say, Gordon is not perfect, then Duterte falls far below mediocrity.

Please understand that I am only being objective in comparing the two public servants based on their policy positions and even according to Gordon's own criticism of Duterte. Therefore, my premise that they would both govern very differently and even in opposition to each other, is factually based.

For example, I have pointed out numerously that Duterte's neglect of defending Panatag Shoal violates the sovereignty clause of the Constitution, and is an impeachable offense. Even Gordon acknowledges that as should my esteemed colleagues of law, Atty Taipan Millan, Jose Camano, Gretchen Mae Ortega, Alexander Yalung, and Lester Nazarene Ople. This is the most important issue for me, since one of the primary functions of government is to protect the sovereignty of its territory.

If the President fails to perform such a fundamental function, then anything else he does is in vain. It is analogous to having all the prosperity in the world, except you are someone's servant. It appears that is precisely the position that Duterte has put the Philippines in with China.

Gordon, on the other hand, would never let that happen as president. He has even said that RP would have to engage in war over Panatag Shoal in order to assert its rights. Why would any of our kababayans support Duterte's position over Gordon's? This is a sincere question, kaibigan ko.

Like· Reply · March 18 at 5:36pm · Edited
Marcial Bonifacio Also, I did give Duterte credit for "persuading" more than 700,000 drug-related criminals to surrender. However, I also mentioned that drug abuse is about 4.74%, which is below the global average of 5%, while the poverty rate is about 25%. As a simple man, I can't help but wonder why Duterte has prioritized drug addiction over job creation. Does that seem logical to you? Do you really think Gordon would do the same as president? This is another sincere question, kaibigang Evangeline.
Like· Reply · March 16 at 5:56pm
Philip Basilio Marcial Bonifacio Senator Gordon is much deferent I work with him when he is the mayor of olongapo
Like· Reply · March 16 at 6:06pm
Evangeline Mejia kaibigang marcial,I agree and I must say that Gordon would indeed govern differently if not better, pero kasi hindi siya ang presidente ngayon kya sana tumakbo siya sa susunod at alam ko na ang mga pinoy, including me ,ay susuportahan siya...
Like· Reply · March 16 at 7:22pm
Evangeline Mejia Sari Aya Malaya , ganun din naman ako SAri , pero nga kasi, walang maitutulong sa bansa natin ang mga negatibong batikos, lalo na pag ang mga supporters nya ang pinagsabihan mo ng masakit na salita, it would only create division,katulad mo din sila na umaasa ng pagbabago, sabihin mo man na nagbubulagbulagan which I think not (,hindi ako supporter nya, I didn't vote for him), pero I think with all the crime and corruption in the country, we become an evil nation, so to speak kaya we deserve such president, we can only give him the chance to do whatever it takes to propel the country in a better state ...
Like· Reply · March 16 at 7:31pm
Sari Aya Malaya I admire your patriotism, Evangeline. We may not see eye to eye with Duterte but we, undeniably, agree to support Sen. Gordon as he endeavors to take the country back to every Filipino, from the system or economy that has been rigged to the advantage of the rich and powerful. We need his strong leadership to unify the country, to take the country to where it's supposed to be.

Filipino people, per se, are not divided. Diversity in religion, political beliefs and other practices are the freedoms we enjoy under a vibrant democracy. It is our leaders and policy makers who are divided and can't put their acts together for selfish reasons at the expense of the people they had promised to serve. And Sen. Gordon will change such political landscape and behavior.
Like· Reply ·March 16 at 10:25pm
Rabulan Corpuz Well said and factual kaibigan. Saludo ako sayo. Dios Mabalos and Mabuhay!
Like· Reply · March 14 at 3:50pm

Marcial Bonifacio Salamat po, kaibigang Jocelle! I spent a great deal of time with research and fact-finding for this commentary. I even wrote it in English for my Bisayan friends and colleagues. My goal is to unify the Gordon supporters, some of which oppose Duterte and the others which ironically support Duterte. After all, if we can't unite just the Gordon supporters, how can we unite the entire country?
Like· Reply · March 14 at 6:46pm · Edited

Jocelle Rabulan Corpuz Thank you. As for me my respect is always for Gordon.
Like· Reply · March 14 at 7:31pm

Marcial Bonifacio This was all my research and fact-finding material.

Like· Reply · March 14 at 6:52pm

Jocelle Rabulan Corpuz Wow
Like· Reply · March 14 at 7:34pm

Evangeline Mejia kaibigang marcial, hindi ka nakatira sa Pilipinas at laong hindi sa Olongapo, ibang iba angnlarawan ng Pilipinas pagdating sa ibang bansa kaya mahirap mag analysis ...ang tanong, ano ba ang nagagawa ng mga katulad nyo para malutas ang problema sa bansa...

.both Gordon and Duterte are good leaders in their own right, taga gapo ako at alam ko ang pamamalakad ng mga Gordon doon,, maganda rin pero hiondi rin perfecto...si Duterte ngsisiskap lutasin ang mga problema sa bansa...I know, Gordon will be a good president and if he will run, uuwi ako pra bomoto at iboboto ko siya, but for now, l just want to give Duterte the benefit of the doubt...wala naman maitutulong ang mga batikos sa kanya at sa mga supporters nya...di makikinabang ang bansa kung tawagin siyang monster at tawagin din hypocrite ang mga supporters nya....
Like· Reply · March 14 at 7:49pm
Marcial Bonifacio I wonder if Alejano and Trillanes got their idea of impeaching Duterte from my commentary. 😀

https://www.msn.com/.../alejano-says.../ar-BByxrA4...

Alejano says impeach complaint vs. Duterte stays
Magdalo Party list Rep. Gary Alejano said Vice President…
MSN.COM
Like· Reply · March 26 at 1:27pm

Evangeline Mejia kaibigang marcial,alejano is just a "kaning sundalo" like trillanes, he doesn't love the country, pretends for his own sake....
Like· Reply · April 10 at 7:06pm · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio Marahil tama ka, kaibigang Evangeline, nguni't hindi ko alam what is in his heart. I only know that his impeachment complaint has merit. Even Justice Carpio has warned that Duterte may be in violation of the sovereignty clause of the Constitution.
Like· Reply · April 16 at 4:39pm

Marcial Bonifacio I've decided to insert the following quote into my commentary, Alwyn, directly after Duterte's single remedy of killing drug-related criminals and Gordon's numerous remedies.

Like· Reply · March 26 at 1:51pm · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio My friends, here is another contrast between Duterte and Gordon---the issue of giving away the housing units to the squatters. Gordon has expressed his disapproval thus:

“My God. Kinukuha yung bahay na ginawa ng NHA [National Housing Authority]. Ibibigay mo dun sa mga nanggugulo. Bad signal, Mr. President. Again you are falling on your own sword. Nadadapa ka sa sarili mong espada because pagka-ganyan, that’s a ticket to what you call anarchy."

http://www.philstar.com/.../gordon-letting-kadamay-keep...

What say you, Jeffry and Alwyn?

Gordon: Letting Kadamay keep houses 'ticket to anarchy'
Sen. Richard Gordon disagreed on Wednesday with…
PHILSTAR.COM
Like· Reply ·April 9 at 1:53pm

Alwyn Balingit Already posted my comment about this on my wall days ago... Granted dapat talagang paalisin ang mga squatters, moving forward, wala na kasing red tape sa pagbigay ng mga bahay para di sila maunahan ng mga squatters; dapat preventive, may bantay.

Expect Digong to always err on the side of letting squatters live there; or at least, transfer them first to another place before removing them there. Yan ang stance nya kasi even sa mga Pre-Election interviews.
Like· Reply · April 9 at 4:58pm
Jeffry Dy Nice argument Marcial,if what u say is the alternative to what kadamay been bitchin and monin about then it's all fare and equal no matter what the bias media says if Duterte or his cabinet have any brains on this matter then all is fare what not?
Like · Reply ·  April 9 at 10:52pm
Evangeline Mejia kasi naman laging ang mahihirap ang nahuhuli sa kahit ano mang social benefit mula sa gobyerno. maging dyan sa NHA kaya they resort to this, madala kasi yang mga nasa gobyerno ginagamit ang "legal" para apihin ang mahihirap...hay naku, you really have to be living in the Philippines to really know.....
Like· Reply · April 10 at 7:12pm
Marcial Bonifacio I have no problem with the process being swift, kaibigang Alwyn, nguni't the rule of law should not be compromised. Once that line is crossed, that slippery slope can and will be used as a justification for any lawless behavior by any president.

It would also encourage more people with illegitimate grievances to emulate the Kadamay in their pantawid mentality. At least, Duterte could have imposed mandatory community service for those squatters in order that their housing will actually be earned instead of stolen from those who risk their lives to keep us safe.Sa totoo lang, such measures have been implemented in the US before Obama and even in some European countries, which have experienced lower unemployment as a result.
Like· Reply ·  April 16 at 5:18pm · Edited
Marcial Bonifacio Marahil totoo ito, kaibigang Evangeline, nguni't abusing the legal system in one way should not justify abusing it in another way. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery, regardless of the good intentions. Even Gordon was critical of Duterte for this. Surely he knows better than Duterte.
Like · Reply · April 16 at 5:56pm
Axel Dholly mas matalino si Dick kay digong. ,,,,naging Pres. nga lang si Pdut.
Like· Reply · April 9 at 2:00pm

Carolina Baro Balmaceda Lol! Ikaw talaga, Marcial! 🙂
Like· Reply · April 10 at 1:37pm

Marcial Bonifacio Well since Gordon is among my top 10 role models, next to Dr. Jose Rizal, Apolinario Mabini, and Thomas Jefferson, I'll gladly accept that as a compliment, kaibigang Carolina. 🙂
Like· Reply · April 16 at 6:01pm

The post Digong is no Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and fellow conservatives, this commentary on the election results has apparently been long overdue, since Nov. 9^th---the day after the general election.  However, various developments have prompted me to postpone it for fear of publishing it prematurely.  After all, what if Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was correct about voter fraud, or the Russians influenced the presidential election, or that some of the electoral college members will change their vote on Dec. 19th?  Regardless of such prospects, I have finally decided to publish my commentary.

Therefore without further ado, I am pleased to announce Donald Trump’s win.  On the whole, Trump won 306 electoral votes, the largest Republican win since George H.W. Bush’s election in 1988.  Clinton tallied at 232 electoral votes.  However, Clinton’s total popular vote count is approximately 65,762,564 (48.1%), while Trump tallied at 62,914,474 votes (46.0%).

To the astonishment of leading pollsters and political commentators as Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Trump even won electoral votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and Michigan---states which voted for Pres. Obama in 2008 and 2012.  Incidentally, it is the first time a Republican has won Wisconsin since 1984 and Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988.  The Michigan contest was the closest race in the state’s history with Trump’s count at 2,279,543 votes and Clinton’s tally at 2,268,839 votes.  Such unlikely wins occurred, in spite of overwhelming odds and opposition from the Republican establishment, Democrat establishment, mainstream media establishment, and the short-sighted #NeverTrump conservatives.   Indeed, this has been, as Fox News anchor Bret Baier accurately described “the most unreal, surreal election we have ever seen.”

To my astonishment, not only did Trump win the presidential election, but Republicans have retained power in both chambers of Congress which essentially establishes a national Republican trifecta.  In the Senate, Republicans have 52 seats, while Democrats have 48.  The House of Representatives is comprised of 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats.  That essentially means the GOP will control all three branches of government, including the Supreme Court, whenever Trump fills the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat and replaces retiring justices with conservatives.

GOP victories extended to the state legislatures and governorships as well, just as during the 2014 midterm elections, which I wrote about in “Another Big Blow to Obama’s Tyranny.”  As a result of nearly 6,000 legislative races, Republicans dominate 66 out of 98 chambers.  They control both chambers in 33 states and hold 33 governorships.  Finally, at least 25 states have Republican trifectas, while Democrats have only retained 5 trifectas (namely, California, Deleware, Oregon, Hawaii, and Rhode Island).

In Kentucky, the GOP increased their state house membership to 64 (from 47, out of 100) which has been controlled by Democrats since 1921.  That puts 30 legislative chambers in the South in Republican hands for the first time in American history.  Iowa’s state senate was won by Republicans, putting them in control of both chambers.  Wisconsin’s Republican state legislative majority is the largest since the 1970s.

Phil Scott won the Republican governorship in Bernie Sanders’s home state of Vermont, which puts a check on its Democrat-controlled legislature.  In Indiana, Eric Holcomb defeated Democrat John Gregg, which will preserve the state’s 12 year lineage of Republican governors.  Before the race, the former was nominated to replace Mike Pence during his vice presidential run with Trump.  Republican and former Navy SEAL Eric Greitens beat Democrat Chris Koster in Missouri’s gubernatorial race, making him the state’s second Republican governor in the past 24 years.

In order to continue this momentum of GOP dominance on every level of government, I have a few suggestions to offer Trump and his team.  Notwithstanding his primary issues of border security and Obamacare, Trump must prioritize aiding the blacks (many of which are disgruntled Democrats) who voted for him.  Since he garnered more black votes than John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, he has an excellent opportunity to start flipping the blacks, just as Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson began goading them into swelling the ranks of the Democrat Party in the 1960s.  The only difference is that instead of appeasing them with a pittance, “just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference” in order “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years” (as Johnson so blatantly put it), Trump will provide them with opportunities for a bright future via diverse educational options (public, private, charter, magnet, home schooling, etc.) and job and career options, especially for those who reside in the inner cities.

Since many black church leaders advocate family values aligned with the GOP (e.g., the right to life as opposed to abortion and traditional marriage), Trump must launch a massive outreach campaign to establish a dialogue with them as well as others in the black community.  His meeting with black role models as former football stars Jim Brown and Ray Lewis and musician Kanye West to discuss gang violence, education, and jobs was a good start.  Such a move can eventually undermine the agenda of the race hustlers like Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jessie Jackson, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright., who have profited from the racially-based entitlement and grievance industry they help perpetuate.

Trump must also expand the Republican base by welcoming his blue collar voters (over 1 million of which are Democrats) to the “big tent”, just as Pres. Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s.  However, he must refrain from his populist, protectionist rhetoric, and simply emphasize regulatory and tax reform as an incentive to dissuade businesses from outsourcing, at least on such a grand scale.  It is a fact of economics that some outsourcing or automation (the primary cause of worker displacement) is essential to streamline the production process, which, in turn, will keep the price of goods low for American consumers, thereby increasing demand and output, which will create new jobs.  It is the principle of what free market economists call “creative destruction” at work.  For that reason, Trump should encourage displaced blue collar workers to either learn new skills or acquire knowledge calibrated to the predominant service and knowledge sectors of the economy.

Alternatively, many blue collar workers have become successful entrepreneurs either by starting their own businesses or by inventing products or services, which have allowed them to resign from their jobs or professions.  You can easily view them on TV shows as Shark Tank or Blue Collar Millionaires.  Indeed, such entrepreneurs and small business owners are the backbone of the American economy, which is why Trump should acknowledge them as successful examples of the free market system, rather than focusing so much on retrieving outsourced manufacturing jobs for big companies.

That is more practical and realistic than threatening companies with punitive taxes (namely, a 35% tariff) for outsourcing or subsidizing them in exchange for retaining their plants in the U.S., an arrangement which Gov. Sarah Palin says reeks of “special interest crony capitalism” as was possibly the case with Carrier.  Incidentally, Mark Levin (constitutional scholar and former advisor to Cabinet members under Reagan) questions the constitutionality of “specifically targeting (or favoring) one business and possibly threatening that business, should they leave the country.”   Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal editorial board criticizes it as “a mercantilist Trump trade policy” in which the Carrier CEO Gregory Hayes was “made an offer he couldn’t refuse.”

Anyway, after scaling back on regulations and reducing taxes for businesses and the working class, many jobs will be preserved.  Others will be created as a result of outsourcing and automation, and many jobs will yet be created from the ingenuity of blue collar inventors, who will use their entrepreneurial skills or knowledge to form their own companies and employ others.  Afterwards, Trump can rightfully take credit for a booming economy while winning over much of the blue collar Democrats.  Although he has 4 years (or 8 if re-elected in 2020), Trump should set the deadline at 2 years after his inauguration in order to steer the 2018 midterm elections in the GOP’s favor.

Aside from what Trump and his administration must do, conservative voters must hold him, as well as other elected officials, accountable.  That includes all the national and local legislators and governors.  While it may be argued that many of these newly elected Republicans simply rode Trump’s populist movement into victory, we must see to it that this powerful force eventually converts into the conservative movement whose end aligns with the vision of America’s founding fathers and the restoration of constitutionally limited government.

For that reason, I advocate a mass, nationwide campaign to educate citizens on America’s constitutional history and its relevance today.  In an age wherein the uninformed youth are easily mesmerized by the socialist rhetoric of Sen. Bernie Sanders or the populist rhetoric of Trump, constitutional literacy is the appropriate and perennial remedy.  Indeed, Sen. Ted Cruz emphasizes this:

It’s easy to talk about making America great again.  You can even print that on a baseball cap.  But the critical question is, do you understand the principles and values that made America great in the first place?

Hillsdale College offers a free online course on constitutional studies, which is certain to impart such principles and values to anyone taking it.

Another effective thing conservatives can do to preserve and expand the GOP majority is become active in local politics.  Whether by attending townhall meetings with the Tea Party, signing petitions, registering citizens to vote, running to be a precinct captain, or simply sharing conservative content on the social networks (like Facebook or Twitter), one can have a positive impact on a collective scale.  American Majority is a conservative organization which trains activists in all these things.

My friends and fellow conservatives, in closing, I would like to express my appreciation to everyone who contributed to this turning point in the election of Donald Trump.  That includes all pragmatic Cruz conservatives, blue collar Democrats, and former political rivals.  I wish I could extend my gratitude and praise to the #NeverTrump conservatives with whom I endeavored to persuade in my previous commentary.  Perhaps they will all eventually have a change of heart as it will soon be “morning again in America”---not because of Trump’s short-lived wave of populism, but because of the time-tested constitutional principles, which conservatives will revitalize within the party of Reagan and throughout the country.

Long live Liberty!  Long live the U.S.A.!

Update: As of December 19---the day in which the electoral college members cast their votes for the final time---seven altered their vote. In Texas, one elector voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, while another from Texas voted for former Texas House Rep. Ron Paul. In Washington state, three Democrat electors cast their votes for former state secretary Colin Powell and one voted for Sioux tribe leader Faith Spotted Eagle. A Democrat elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders. Three other "faithless" electors from Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado had their votes barred. That puts the final electoral tally for Clinton at 228 and 304 for Trump.

The post Historic GOP Wins for 2016, Flipping the Blacks, and a Little on Trump's Carrier Deal first appeared on Marcial's Law.

My friends and American countrymen, both of the presidential candidates this election year are close to being equally weak.  That is why I have surpassed the more trivial issues, which the media and others, have sensationalized.  In order to simplify things, I have restricted the most relevant areas of concern to only two---accomplishments and criminal background.

Hillary Clinton has grossly mishandled classified information in that she has conveyed it to unauthorized persons, removed it from a secure storage area, failed to report its removal or communication, and retaining it at an unauthorized location.  All of those are acts of felony, which have compromised America's national security.  Also, lying under oath before a legal inquiry is perjury.

Donald Trump has created a minimum of 34,000 jobs.  Some factor in the businesses not owned by Trump but thrive due to related business activities, which could raise the number of jobs to 67,000.

Which one do you trust more, and which one will have a more positive impact on the country?

The post Whom Should Americans Vote for President---A Well-Known Job Creator or a Well-Known Felon? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and American countrymen, I am a constitutional conservative and am no advocate for Donald Trump.  In fact, I have been very critical of him in my two commentaries titled “Are Trump Conservatives Irrational?” and “Why Conservatives Should Cruz with the Best and Trump the Rest . . . including the Donald.”  Anyway, I am also a pragmatist.  As such, I view the leftist progressivism of Hillary Clinton (more so than Trump’s populist-nationalism) as an imminent threat to conservatism, namely in her Supreme Court justice appointees.  Clinton herself clearly vocalized in the last presidential debate that she favors justices who would uphold same-sex marriage and the pro-abortion Roe vs. Wade ruling.

By contrast, Trump has vowed to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia,” including the constitutional conservative Sen. Mike Lee, whom Sen. Ted Cruz said “would make an extraordinary justice.”  This issue of the Supreme Court justices alone is sufficient reason to keep Clinton away from the White House because as political commentator Dennis Prager points out, “Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant.”

Political reality is such that only Trump, not Gary Johnson or Evan McMullen, can beat Clinton.  Some of Cruz’s staunchest supporters (who are #NeverTrump conservatives) have vowed to write-in Cruz’s name on the ballot.  However, Cruz himself has said, “I am not encouraging anybody to write my name in.  That is not something I am suggesting that anybody do. . . We lost the race.  I recognize that.  I respect the democratic process.  I respect the will of the people.”

That is precisely the only reason why I, along with Sen. Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, and Dennis Prager, urge conservatives to vote for Donald Trump---not because he is the icon of conservatism and the champion of America’s founding fathers, but because as Cruz says, “Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her [Clinton’s] way.”  For the #NeverTrump conservative whose conscience prevents you from voting for Trump, I must ask you:  How can your conscience be clear, if Clinton wins the presidency due to your refrain from voting for Trump?  Consequently, would her election make you feel better knowing the adverse repercussions it will have on your children and grandchildren (in terms of life, liberty, the national debt, the economy, etc.) ?

“The choice this November is tragic,” states Prager. “As it often happens in life, this choice is between bad and worse, not bad and good. . . When forced to choose between bad and worse, we supported Joseph Stalin against Adolf Hitler, and we supported right-wing authoritarians against Communist totalitarians.”  Therefore Trump would be the less unfavorable choice in order to defeat Clinton.

Furthermore, if you are concerned that Trump’s newly adopted conservative positions are all a charade in order to get elected to the presidency, and he reneges on his promises as president, there is another course of action conservatives can undertake.  The founders have established a process by which delegates can hold a Convention of States in order to propose amendments to the Constitution.  It is designed to curb or restrain the power of the federal government in the event that it becomes unresponsive to the states or the people and serves as an alternative to another constitutional convention.  The process is outlined in Article V of the Constitution and is advocated by Mark Levin, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Tom Coburn, Gov. Greg Abbott, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sean Hannity, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and other prominent conservatives.

Lastly, I suggest conservatives meet their delegates in the Rules Committee of the Republican Party to add a few clauses, which would make the GOP more effective in the next presidential election and others to come.  For example, a “Closed or Republican Exclusivity Clause” would only permit registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primaries.  Political commentator at RedState.com Michael Harrington has estimated that Trump's voters in the primary were composed of only 3.3 million Republicans, while the rest were composed of 12 million Democrats.  Many political analysts contend that if such a clause took effect in the primaries, Cruz would have won the nomination, instead of Trump, since the former tallied well in most of the closed primaries.

The additional amendment to the rules would include a “Conscience Clause,” which would serve as a safeguard against politically weak candidates as Trump.  The proposal would allow the current 1,237 delegates to freely vote their conscience on the first ballot, rather than automatically binding them to their state's primary or caucus.  It would also help prevent discouraged conservatives from joining the #NeverTrump voters, and thus maximize votes for the Republican Party.  Sen. Mike Lee has been at the forefront of this effort as well as being a prominent member of the Rules Committee.

In conclusion, my friends and fellow conservatives, if you want to defeat Hillary Clinton and restore constitutional principles to the American Republic, do not write in Ted Cruz’s name on the ballot, and do not stay home and refrain from your civic duty.  Go to the polls on November 8^th, and vote for Donald Trump.  Join the Convention of States movement, and pressure your delegates to add a “Republican Exclusivity Clause” and a “Conscience Clause” to the election rules.

Long live Liberty!  Long live the U.S.A.!

Comments

Devlin Baker I read it, not sure what you were hoping from someone that is by definition a christian and constitutionalist to read someone that claims to be a constitutional conservative, then confesses he is really just a pragmatist.

Great appeal to the pragmatists with no convictions though

Like · Reply · 2 · October 30 at 9:55am

Marcial BonifacioI appreciate your perspective, Devlin, but is it not possible to be both? If your family is being threatened by an assailant, and the only practical way to save them at the moment is to shoot him, what would you do? Would you adhere to the Christian principle of refraining from killing, or would you take a more practical approach to save your family?

Life is full of such unfavorable choices. However, reasonable compromises are necessary in times when our choices are limited due to reality, are they not?

Like · Reply · October 30 at 11:14pm

Kayleen Knisley My conscience is clear...
#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary

Like · Reply · October 30 at 9:44pm

Marcial Bonifacio That means if Clinton becomes the next president due to your refrain from voting for Trump, you will not feel any guilt or remorse, Kayleen?

Like · Reply · October 30 at 11:18pm · Edited

Kayleen Knisley I will not feel guilt or remorse.. my conscience will be clear.

Like · Reply · October 30 at 11:23pm

Marcial Bonifacio What about if more lives are aborted due to Clinton's Supreme Court justices, which you can help prevent?

Like · Reply · October 30 at 11:46pm

Kayleen Knisley Trump is so unstable. So many issues are made of the Supreme Court, but big like decisions Roe v. Wade were made with a majority Republican Supreme Court. Too much "fear" is being played upon and not enough logic, in my opinion. The way I see it, is if Trump goes in, we lose the Senate, and will not gain the House. Also, if he wins the GOP will never recover. Look how he's divided us. If Trump wins, the GOP will be too busy trying to contain him to be aware of what the other side is doing. Add to it, Trump only ran as a Republican because he knew he could not beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination.

Like · Reply · October 31 at 7:29am

Kayleen Knisley I hear so many people trying to justify voting for evil because Supreme Court Justices are at stake. Do these people not realize that a majority of Republican nominated judges voted to pass Roe vs. Wade and many other abortion cases? Not to mention a Republican nominated judge voted in favor of Obamacare? The Senate can stop Hillary Clinton's nominations if they so choose to do so. But I hear no one mentioning that fact.
Solution:
We need to stop voting for parties but for candidates who will support Godly values and the Constitution. Secondly, we need Congress to do their job and impeach when necessary. Thirdly, we need states to step up and nullify unconstitutional federal laws and Supreme Court opinions.

Like · Reply · October 31 at 7:32am

Marcial Bonifacio You have made some valid points, Kayleen. However, conservatives are more informed and mindful of history, thus the prevalence of the Tea Party.

Anyway, in order to restore constitutional principles to the American government, it would be much easier to do so without a Clinton presidency. Even as much of a RINO as Trump is, the conservatives in Congress can put him in check, so that if he betrays them, they can simply vote against his progressive policies or impeach him. If that doesn't work, then the American people can meet with their state delegates and propose a Convention of States, as I mentioned in my commentary.

In the meantime, we can at least prevent a Clinton presidency by electing Trump because with a Clinton presidency, conservatives will lose. With a Trump presidency, conservatives may win, even if only a little bit.

Like · Reply · November 1 at 12:31am · Edited

Marvin Remmers Kayleen Knisley , if Hillary wins and Democrats take over Congress, then it will be like Obama's first couple years where he was able to nominate radically liberal justices and was able to pass Obamacare. We need to vote for Trump and we need to vote for Republicans for Congress.

Like · Reply · November 1 at 1:23am

Kayleen Knisley Which is why we Need to vote the down ticket!
Trump will lose the senate and congress

Like · Reply · November 1 at 7:17am

Kayleen Knisley http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/trump-constitution.../...

Trump: The Constitution Isn’t Always Relevant

thelibertarianrepublic.com

Like · Reply · November 1 at 7:35am

Dean Edward Nicely Oh so now you want to urge us to vote for Trump?
First have Trump apologize then all you pieces of shit can apologize to me personally for your backwards ass inbred bullshit youall put us through with your vile crap.
I'll wait.

Like · Reply · November 2 at 6:23pm

Marcial Bonifacio I agree completely with you, Dean, that Trump owes Cruz an apology, which I don't expect him to ever give. However, we must now look beyond his flawed character and save the country from a Clinton presidency. Cruz himself said Trump is the only thing standing in her way, and Cruz will also vote for Trump.

Like · Reply · 20 hrs

Dean Edward Nicely I concur.

Like · Reply · 14 hrs

The post How #NeverTrump Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and Libertarians Can Defeat Hillary Clinton and Restore Constitutional Principles to the Republic first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and countrymen, with Congress’ proclamation of Rodrigo Duterte as the 16^th president of the Philippines (clenching 16,601,997 votes), I wish to convey some of my concerns.  I have posed them based on his proposals, actions, and what he has said publicly.  Such issues should be sufficiently addressed before any of our kababayans give him our full support.

First and foremost, the president must protect and defend the Constitution and respect the rule of law.  According to Article III, Sect. 1 of the Constitution, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”  Duterte’s Davao Death Squad has executed over 1,000 alleged drug lords and murderers, all of whom were denied the fundamental right to due process.  Duterte expresses no remorse and is even boastful he will continue that policy under his presidency.

He was even unapologetic for his daughter (Sara Duterte), who attacked and physically assaulted Davao City Sheriff Abe Andres a few years ago.  Ironically, both Dutertes were attorneys, reinforcing the idiom that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree."  Such uncivil acts are slippery slopes to more lawless behavior, are they not?  How can we feel safe and certain that Duterte will not infringe on our own rights and liberty due to his thirst for criminal blood or impulsive temperament?

Second, several factors, including self-reliance and free enterprise, are essential to transforn the Philippines into a prosperous nation.  Unfortunately, Duterte does not seem to promote any of those principles.  On the contrary, he is a self-avowed socialist, who proposes to expand the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.  That would only perpetuate what Sen. Dick Gordon said is “the attitude of mendicancy among our people, which we have had more than enough over the last four centuries or so."  I would add that such handouts (derived from hardworking taxpayers) would also prolong unemployment and encourage the systematic development of a welfare state.

Even more alarming is Duterte’s sympathy towards communists.  That is apparent in his proposals to designate cabinet posts to communists, grant amnesty to NPA prisoners, and end the exile of Jose Sison, founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines.  Duterte’s campaign manager, Leoncio Evasco Jr., was even a member of the NPA (New People’s Army).

Could Duterte himself be a communist?  If not, then why is he negotiating with them and inviting them to join the national government?  For someone known for his stringent form of justice (earning him the international reputation Time Magazine branded as "The Punisher”) even to the point of proposing the return of the death penalty by hanging, is it not inconsistent for him to be so lenient with terrorists who seek to overthrow our government?

My friends, I appreciate Duterte’s forthright oratory and maverick predisposition in opposing the oligarchy.  Such can also be said of the American presidentiable Donald Trump, but I digress.  Anyway, appealing rhetoric and opposition to the ruling class alone are insufficient in determining a suitable president. If they were sufficient, then it can be argued that Vladimir Lenin (Bolshevik leader of Russia), Fidel Castro (president of Cuba), and Robert Mugabe (president of Zimbabwe) should be heralded as great public servants.  However, history indicates otherwise, and until my concerns are sufficiently addressed, I must deduce that Duterte will be no different.

Comments

Marcial Bonifacio Joseph, your points are well taken. However, on the issue of dealing with the communists, I think that it would be better if Duterte implement his proposals to liberalize the economy and establish a Philippine federalist system. That would serve as the basis for a long-term plan to create jobs and promote competition, which would lower prices and provide better services.

Such a successful economy would crowd out the communists without appeasement or bloodshed. Offering them cabinet posts reminds me of Pres. Obama appointing Van Jones (member of the Communist Party) as "Green Czar."

In terms of a little socialism in RP, I think that at least on a subsistence level as food and medical services, it is reasonable for the destitute. I also appreciate Duterte's proposal to improve internet services:

http://news.abs-cbn.com/.../duterte-improve-internet...

Duterte: Improve internet services or face foreign players

news.abs-cbn.com|By ABS-CBN News

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · June 5 at 12:26pm

Hide 20 Replies

Paul Farol

Like · Reply · 3 · June 1 at 6:16am

Paul Farol This was the quote by gma7

Like · Reply · 1 · June 1 at 6:16am

Marcial Bonifacio However, his catcalling to the journalist Mariz Umali was certainly inappropriate and perhaps illegal. According to Davao City Ordinance No. 5004 (which he signed), whistling can be construed as sexual harassment.

http://www.rappler.com/.../135111-duterte-catcalling...

Catcalling: Duterte broke the law in own city

rappler.com|By Paterno Esmaquel II

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · June 8 at 6:40pm · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio Jeffry, I agree that the issues you raised are important, but if Duterte will not follow his own ordinance (which is fairly simple), how can we trust that he will respect and follow more serious laws? There is even talk of a potential Duterte dictatorship:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/.../most-powerful-ph-leader...

‘Most powerful PH leader since Marcos’

newsinfo.inquirer.net|By Gil C. Cabacungan

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · June 9 at 8:32pm

Marcial Bonifacio On the issue of India's growing population, the country is becoming increasingly prosperous. According to Forbes:

India is the world’s 4th largest IT start-up hub with more than 3,100 tech startups in the past year alone. It ranks second in worldwide food production. Its auto industry churns outs 22 million cars a year, making it one of the world’s largest auto manufacturers. It boasts a $600 billion retail market and is one of the world’s fastest growing e-commerce markets.

http://www.forbes.com/.../india-asias-next-economic.../...

RP is abundant in natural resources and an educated, English-speaking workforce. What it lacks are job opportunities and sufficient foreign direct investment. If Gordon were in Duterte's presidential position, he would do precisely what he did in Subic Bay, which was all lawful and constitutional. He would also lift trade restrictions similar to India.

India: Asia's Next Economic Dynamo?

forbes.com|By Ed Fuller

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · Yesterday at 1:46am · Edited

Jeffry Dy so by contrast du30 hasn't have any clue on how to regulate trade restrictions and I had an Indian friend on fb who is critical of moodi because most of India's tech he said was defective and also his Us trips as well http://www.dailyo.in/.../bjp-modi.../story/1/7763.html What i said was pro-poor because the poor themselves getting opportunities to see how he can handle things when he accomplished in Davao and many voted on him because of that even the tulfo bros the respectable tough talking journalist in media believes on his accomplishments too.Well I respect your opinion on not giving him a chance on this and thanks for having exchange of ideas in regards to du30 leadership you have yours i have my side and as such you make things balanced and constructive.

5 ways Modi's critics are hurting India

dailyo.in

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · Yesterday at 4:34am

Cha Aguilar http://interaksyon.com/.../marie-yuvienco--first-things...

MARIE YUVIENCO | First things first

Whatever it is, I can only hope it is not grounded on settling scores or paying political debts. As he himself…

interaksyon.com

Unlike · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · June 4 at 10:55am

The post My Concerns about a Duterte Presidency first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Ni Marcial Bonifacio

Mga kaibigan at mga kababayan ko, ang muling pagkahalal ni Richard Gordon sa Senado noong Mayo 9, 2016 proves the impact a proactive citizenry can have sa halalan.  Sa katotohanan, panglima siya sa pagkapanalo at nagkaroon ng 16,719,322 boto (as of COMELEC’s proclamation on May 19, 2016).  Sa kanyang unang pagtakbo sa Senado noong 2004, panglima rin siya sa puwesto at nagkaroon ng 12,707,151 boto.

Kahit isa siyang mabisang lingkod bayan, Gordon ran for the presidency and lost in 2010; pang-anim siya sa bilangan noon at nagkaroon ng 989,250 boto.  In 2013, he ran for the Senate again and lost.  Panglabingtatlo siya sa puwesto at nagkaroon ng 10,159,561 boto, just a few hundred thousand votes short of reaching the "Magic 12."

Given Gordon’s long-awaited victory, let us examine some lessons which can be learned mula sa  napakahalagang tagumpay na ito.  Unang-una, utilizing all the resources of a proactive and perseverant citizenry and netizenry can win an election, sa kabila nang mahabang pagkaliban o pagkawala ng kandidato sa paglilingkod bayan at ang sunud-sunod na pagkatalo sa mga naunang dalawang laban nito .  All of Gordon’s individual campaigners, bloggers, and Bagumbayan volunteers have done precisely that.

Pangalawa, maging ang pagliban ng mga boto galing sa apathetic pessimists (discouraged from voting and affecting social change) did not prevent Gordon from reaching the “Magic 12.”  Nor did the numerous votes of the “Wowowee Crowd” (a term I use when  referring to the intellectually and morally lazy, gullible, celebrity-worshipping electorate) hinder Gordon’s ascent to 5^th place.  Sa katotohanan, kung mayroong informed intellectuals (as few as they may be) who will participate in the electoral process, hindi dapat  akalain  na ang Wowowee Crowd will automatically win.

Pangatlo, hindi pa lubhang nababahiran ng mali at hindi pa lubusang pumapanig sa  piling  iilan ang sistema ng halalan .  If that were the case, then such an anti-trapo maverick as Gordon would not have been re-elected to the Senate, much less with eight higher ranks than in 2013.

Pang-apat, napakabuti nang sapat na traditional media coverage, nguni’t hindi ito mahalaga para sa ikapagtatagumpay sa halalan.  Rep. Manny Pacquiao received far more mainstream media coverage than Gordon, nguni’t ang bantog na kampiyong boksingero ay pampito lamang na may 16,050,546 boto (as of COMELEC’s proclamation on May 19, 2016) at pumapailalim sa kanya.

Sa wakas, mga kaibigan ko, let us use Gordon’s campaign and victory bilang isang huwaran para sa magiging kasunod na pagkilos ng ibang mga kandidato.  That means continuing to utilize the social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, blogging, forming a research team in order to answer the questions of potential voters or to debate political opponents and their surrogates, organizing and participating in rallies and fundraising events, and encouraging people to register and to vote.  For those who live abroad, they can launch an online campaign and vote as overseas absentee voters as a friend whom I wrote about in “Ang People Power at ang Ating Tungkulin.”  The key is to keep our kababayans informed and engaged.  Ngayon, let’s celebrate a well-deserved victory para kay Sen. Gordon at sa ating bayan.

Aim High Pilipinas!

The post Through Perseverance, Dick Finally Penetrates Again! first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends, “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.”  Not only has Donald Trump absolved himself from attending two important events, he said he would not participate in the next FNC debate as well.  All three events are significant, since they allow his potential voters and supporters to scrutinize his record, policies, and vision for America more closely.  Therefore, Trump’s pattern of absence from these events looks precisely like a “duck”---a hypocritical position since he has criticized Sen. Marco Rubio for his excessive absences in the Senate.

In my commentary titled “Why Evangelicals and Conservatives Should Cruz with the Best and Trump the Rest…including the Donald,” I criticized Trump for evading the Iowa debate just before its caucuses.  He claimed that debate moderator Megyn Kelly was unfair to him in the previous FNC debate, and that he committed to a veteran fundraising event instead (which he said was more important).  As a result, presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz challenged Trump to a 90-minute, one on one debate for which the former’s team would donate $1.5 million to veterans.  As an alternative to Kelly, Cruz stated, “We can arrange for Mark Levin to moderate, or Sean Hannity to moderate or Rush Limbaugh to moderate or Glen Beck to moderate.”   That would seem to be a win-win situation for Cruz, Trump, Iowa voters, and the veterans.  However, Trump declined Cruz’s challenge.  (I hear a duck quacking.)

In my commentary titled “Are Trump Conservatives Irrational?,” I mentioned that Trump did not attend the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in spite of being one of the first to accept the invitation.  According to its organizer, Matt Schlapp, Trump disliked the new question and answer format of the event, which was formerly a speech format.  As a result of CPAC’s refusal to capitulate to Trump’s terms, he campaigned in Kansas and Florida instead.  (I heard a duck quacking again.)

Again Trump has decided to forgo the FNC debate scheduled March 21 in order to speak at the pro-Jewish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  “I thought the last debate on CNN was the last debate, that was going to be it.  Nobody told me there were going to be more debates,” stated Trump, “I think we’ve had enough debates.”  Apparently Trump does not want to debate Cruz due to his poor performance in the last two debates.  Ironically, Trump did declare on March 6, “I would love to take on Ted one-on-one.”  (That is the third quack I heard.  Perhaps it is more accurate to say that a “quack” has “ducked” three times.)

On March 22, 2016 Cruz appeared on the O' Reilly Factor, challenging Trump again to a one on one debate.  However, he has chosen the feisty but fair Bill O' Reilly to moderate this time.  Trump may have a big penis, as he boasted in a GOP debate, but does he have big proverbial testicles to meet Cruz's challenge?  Perhaps it was his scheme all along to attack Cruz's wife on Twitter in order to distract his potential voters from the debate challenge.  After all, they both occurred on the same day.

Aside from another potential debate, why would Trump skip all three of the aforementioned important events?  Is it purely coincidental?  Could that have been his strategic plan in order to evade the informed conservatives---the ones who are well read and actually view and scrutinize the debates down to their minutia?  Cruz spokesman Ron Nehring concludes:

Perhaps Mr. Trump is unable to speak for more than one minute about any given topic because of his shallow understanding of basic policies, or perhaps he is scared of voters learning the truth---that he has spent his entire adult life promoting liberal positions completely opposite of the conservative platform that he has campaigned on.

If Nehring is correct, that puts into question Trump’s capacity to lead the country and confront America’s enemies.  Trump himself has admitted that he has never encountered so much pressure as he has in campaigning.  How much worse will it be once he starts governing as president?  Would this not be a grave risk for the American people as well as the world just as the election of Pres. Barack Obama was?

Fortunately, there is an alternative candidate who is a constitutional conservative and already has a proven record of defending life, religious liberty, gun rights, state sovereignty, and the free market system.  His iron political will has made him impervious to the pressures of standing up to his own party in defense of fulfilling his campaign promises before the Senate and defending the Constitution before the Supreme Court.  In conclusion, my friends, Trump the Donald and Cruz with Ted.

Victory to Sen. Ted Cruz for God and Country!

The post When Will Donald Stop Quacking? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Updated: 4/27/16

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and American countrymen, today I write in disappointment and dismay at so-called conservatives and evangelicals who supported Donald Trump in the states which logically and rightfully should have supported Ted Cruz.  First and foremost, the term "Trump conservative" is an oxymoron, comparable to a Catholic Protestant, a Marxist businessman, a vegetarian carnivore, or a leftist Republican, although the latter seems increasingly accurate, considering the prevalence of those whom conservatives are unapologetic to call a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only).  Such is Trump.  Aside from that as the primary reason that conservatives should not support him, I have listed a few others below.

1. Trump is not a conservative.

He has recently been styling himself as a "common sense conservative."  Could that be his flexible version of a constitutional conservative?  Semantics aside, conservatives support the principles of religious liberty, limited government, and a free market system.  Based on that conventional definition, here are some of Trump’s unconservative positions:

• He supports continued federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
• He favors the Obamacare mandate.
• He supports eminent domain, whereby the government can seize private property for his private use, such as his casino parking lot.
• He supports Iowa’s ethanol subsidy.
• He supported TARP (the bank bailout).
• He supported Obama’s stimulus package.
• He supported the auto bailout.
• He supports Obama’s cap on executive salaries.
• He opposed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on affirmative action.
• He supports a high tariff (up to 45%) on China, in spite of the prospect of worsening America's economy.

Such government intervention in the private sector is scarcely conservative.  By the way, Trump skipped out on a very important conference of conservatives (CPAC) in which all Republican presidential candidates speak.  He did so on a short notice in spite of accepting CPAC’s invitation several months ago.  Instead, he took it for granted that he did not have to answer questions by the attendees, and according to CPAC organizer Matt Schlapp, that was “disrespectful.”

2. Trump lacks basic understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law.

When asked by CNN host Anderson Cooper what the top three functions of the U.S. government are, he responded that "the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation. I would also say health care, I would also say education."  Every conservative knows that the last two are unenumerated powers reserved to the states.

Trump's disregard for the rule of law can be illustrated in his support for restricting free speech by loosening libel laws, whereby suing newspapers would be easier.  He also indicated that as commander-in-chief, he would coerce soldiers into waterboarding terrorists, even though the Obama administration has banned it.

3. Trump lacks good character.

On several occasions, he made a public display of his arrogance.  For example, on the issue of Sen. John McCain’s POW status, Trump objected to his heroism, since his plane was shot down in North Vietnam.  "He's not a war hero," Trump said. "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."  One could easily envision such arrogance displayed in other scenarios.  The picture below (displayed on a billboard sign by a church) illustrates a similar point.

When Trump refused to participate in one of the FNC debates, essentially because he could not dictate the terms, his arrogance became apparent again.  He mistakenly took it for granted that he did not have to present himself, his policy positions, or his American vision before Iowans in order to get their vote.  On another occasion, he was boastful of how loyal his supporters are, stating, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot people and I wouldn’t lose voters.”   Do any of you sense Trump's fear of the Lord or humility?

Aside from Trump's arrogance, he has also made some inappropriate remarks, as well as exhibited ill-mannered behavior.   In response to one of the questions (apparently unfavorable to Trump) of Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly, Trump disparagingly said that she had "blood coming out of her eyes and blood coming out of her...wherever."  Where could wherever possibly be?

In one of his rallies, Trump mocked New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski (a unique creature of God with a congenital disability), emulating his body’s irregular posture and movements---behavior that even properly reared children are taught never to mimick.  On another occasion, Trump publicly called Pres. George W. Bush a liar and called for his impeachment for allegedly misleading Americans to believe WMD were present in Iraq; Trump later stated he was uncertain whether or not Bush lied (putting his judgment into question as with other foreign policy positions).  Clearly, a man of his temperament, making such an outrageous and unfounded accusation and acting inappropriately, is not fit to be America’s chief diplomat or statesman.

4. Trump is not an anti-Establishment candidate.

Contrary to popular (or rather populist) belief, he is the ultimate Establishment politician. He may never have held the official title of politician, but by virtue of contributing large sums of money to Establishment politicians (Democrats and Republicans) in order to affect public policies, he displays the term in action.  That gives him the advantage for his business operations while trumping (pardon the pun) over conservative principles, perpetuating a large part of the Washington Establishment---namely, crony capitalism. His loyalty or, rather, disloyalty to both parties indicates he has no entrenched principles or political platform on which he can stand or predictably govern.  Gov. Bobby Jindal summed up Trump’s position well when he said, “He is not a conservative.  He is not a liberal.  He is not a Democrat.  He is not a Republican.  He is not an Independent.  He believes in Donald Trump.”

Even on the campaign trail, Trump emulates the cunning methods of typical politicians. For example, in order to galvanize evangelicals, he claimed that his favorite book (next to his Art of the Deal) is the Bible.  If that were the case, it seems logical that he would know how to pronounce II Corinthians 3:17 or be able to state his favorite biblical verse when requested to do so, which was not the case.  Another example of political expedience was raising the issue of presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president prior to the Iowa caucuses.  For several months, Trump was silent on the issue, as if he were finally satisfied that Cruz was eligible.  However, when GOP debate moderator Neil Cavuto asked why Trump continued to pursue it, he frankly admitted, “Because now he’s doing a little bit better [in the polls].”  Such is the myth of Trump not being a politician.

My friends, when there is a clear alternative candidate, who is a consistent conservative and has a successful record of defending Christian liberty (all of which I have documented), why don’t many conservatives and evangelicals in the southern states support him instead of Trump?  Could they be confusing his sophomoric, vulgar, and arrogant demeanor (scarcely Christian, much less presidential) for being forthright or politically incorrect?  Could it be that they are ill informed, gullible, or even irrational?  Could it be that they are confusing a populist candidate for a conservative one?

Could the Trump evangelicals be of the same mindset as the evangelicals who temporarily subdued their intellectual judgement and Christian principles in order to satisfy a more superficial impulse via membership in Ashley Madison (the controversial, extra-marital affair dating site)?  The renowned pastor Robert Jeffress of Dallas First Baptist Church sympathizes with the Trump evangelicals and reasons thus:

Christians overwhelmingly chose Ronald Reagan not because he was the most religious candidate but because he had the quality people thought was most necessary at the time, and that is leadership...I think many evangelicals have come to the conclusion we can no longer depend upon government to uphold traditional biblical values...We need a strong leader and a problem solver, hence many Christians are open to a secular candidate like Donald Trump.

Indeed, Reagan served in the Army Air Forces as Personnel Officer, Post Adjutant, and Executive Officer, assisting in the production of training films for the military.  He assisted the FBI in purging Hollywood of suspected Communists, and he served two terms as California governor (1967-1975) before he became president.  Therefore, Jeffress was correct to point to Reagan's leadership, and I would add patriotism.

What of Trump's leadership?  Could Jeffress be referring to being a leader in insulting American heroes, in mocking disabled people, or in his sexual performance of which he boasted at one of the presidential debates?  Perhaps he is referring to Trump's leadership in raising the issue of border security and immigration and making it the focal point of public discussion.  In that case, I must mention that Ted Cruz has led the opposition against amnesty, which is precisely why the Gang of Eight amnesty bill was quashed in the House.  Cruz also proposed several border security measures, including a wall in 2011---several years before Trump made his well-known pitch.

Hence, the leadership premise Jeffress raises is fallacious.  Perhaps these so-called conservatives have consumed the Holy Communion wine, which is spiked with a bit of the Shirley Temple beverage the blogger Conservative Cyborg has written about.

Just think rationally for a moment and consider your two viable choices for the Republican nominee.  One is a New York crony capitalist, who has changed his party affiliation at least six times (since 1987), and has done virtually nothing for Christian liberty, promoting constitutional principles or conservatism in general.  On the contrary, Trump has supported liberal and unconstitutional policies, which largely benefitted himself (hardly patriotic), and boasts that he will compromise conservative principles in order to “get along” and “get things done” with the Washington Establishment.

However, the alternative candidate (Ted Cruz) is a proven conservative, whose record of defending the Constitution (namely religious liberty, rights of the unborn, gun rights, and state sovereignty) remains unmatched by any of the current presidential candidates, and is tenaciously unwilling to compromise on core conservative principles merely for the sake of getting along and getting things done, even in the midst of political gridlock (a situation for which the founders devised an electoral process as a remedy, not a hindrance to be bypassed by executive orders).  By the way, should President Trump's deals or compromises fail in Congress, would he resort to executive orders as Obama currently does?

My friends, conservatives are completely justified in channeling their infuriation and distrust of the Republican Party (whose members have constantly reneged on their promises in capitulation to Democrats) into a candidate who shares the same sentiments.  However, shared sentiment alone does not qualify one to be president of the U.S.  As conservatives, we must not be blinded by our anger and vote strictly out of emotion, a trait which is generally attributable to liberals, especially those who voted for Pres. Barack Obama.  Instead, let us use our full reasoning capacity to see past Trump’s flimsy, populist rhetoric and elect a seasoned constitutional maverick, who seeks not to make deals with the devils in the Washington Establishment, but to defy them in defense of the conservative principles of religious liberty, limited government, and free enterprise.

As Cruz pointed out at a Texas rally:

It’s easy to talk about making America great again.  You can even print that on a baseball cap.  But the critical question is, do you understand the principles and values that made America great in the first place?

If you all do not understand, then please refrain from referring to yourselves as “conservatives.”

Victory to Sen. Ted Cruz for God and Country!

Comments

Julie Egan-James Unless it's rigged. You have to remember how involved the elite are. Like the Bildabergs. They choose. That being said, Trump , I believe knows this and is saying no more. Just like all the BS with 9/11. He's calling them out. I hope he can win.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 15, 2016 at 8:24pm  Manage

Richard Launey National Review seeing the writing on the wall?

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 15, 2016 at 9:17pm Manage

Marcial Bonifacio I challenge Trumpers to rebut my points in "Are Trump Conservatives Irrational?" https://t.co/OMuCLTmSst #tcot

Are “Trump Conservatives” Irrational?

Updated: 3/13/16 By Marcial Bonifacio My friends and American countrymen, today I write in disappointment…

MARCIALSLAW.WORDPRESS.COM

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 16, 2016 at 12:32am Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry You challenge? Lol

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1 · March 16, 2016 at 12:34am Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply · 5 · March 16, 2016 at 12:38am Manage

Julie Egan-James I can meet the challenge I am pretty up on my facts. I juts need to decide if I have time for this battle. Let me feed the kids . Get school started and drink some tea! Then I'm on it! ! I never back down from a little educating. Or shoolin, as some call it.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 12:48am  Manage

 

Marcial Bonifacio Excellent! I assume you are also conservative because my challenge is       addressed only to Trump supporters who claim to be conservative. 

Like  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 1:04am Manage

Julie Egan-James Sure am. However I am also like trump a common sense conservative. We are in far too much trouble for labels. Give me some time. I homeschool because of common core, so I need to read your link and get my kids going on school. 

Like   · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:09amManage

Julie Egan-James Fair warning. If this turns ugly and into a battle I will be done. I am not into playing that game. Your not going to change my mind. 

Like  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:12am Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry Go Julie!!! Thank you. I'm not good at debating Common Sense. 

Like · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:21am

Julie Egan-James So what first. Let's adress PP. And his change on his stance. Isn't it wonderful he evolved. Don't Christians want people to come on over to our side on this issue. Or do we judge him for once being pro choice? This is the one argument i feel no one has a right to bring up. Example. I am very pro life. However I am a rape victim. Had I faced that choice, I would have aborted. Then. Thankfully I was never in that position. I am also Christian. Now, I have evolved. Since then, I have come to realize that aborting a baby because of rape, creates two victims. But... I would never tell a woman what to do. Because unless you have walked that horrible journey, you have not much opinion in my eyes. In God's yes. And because of my somewhat liberal stance on this, as far as rape. I will ask for forgiveness. That's being a christian. I do not know what you dive into for your info. TRUMP has said to those facilities that perform abortions ,he will pull the funding. But, if you watch MSM you will get an edited version of his stance. I down watch TV. Ever. It's all lies. Especially the media. I was once too lied about in the media. So it is a very sore subject for me. So to sum this position up. If you are are conservative christian, you can't hold his previous stance against him. That goes against Christian values and Gods word. For the record. I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm not a victim. I am a survivor. Just have a clear understanding on this topic more than others.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  5  · March 16, 2016 at 1:28am Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry Just because someone Has Been wrong, should they Always Be wrong?

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 4  · March 16, 2016 at 1:34am Manage

Deborah Traichal Well said Julie!! We all get wiser as we grow & evolve!! At least most of us!!! Thanks for sharing your story!! God Bless Trump2016!!! God Bless America 🇺🇸🇺🇸

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 1:35am  Manage

Richard Launey Julie Egan-James, there you go with the common sense. You do realize what sort of response this elicits, right. But I agree wholeheartedly, even though I am still skeptical of Trump, but, this is politics, I'm skeptical of everybody.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:36am  Manage

Julie Egan-James People evolve I don't know one person that carries the same beliefs they did as a young adult. Thank God I don't. Who knows where I'd be.

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply · 5  · March 16, 2016 at 1:39am Manage 

Deborah Traichal Richard Launey you should read Crippled America by Trump which was written before he announced he was running for president!! It shows his ideas for America & his patriotism! May help you with your voting decision! God Bless

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 4  · March 16, 2016 at 1:40am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Obamacare. In all fainess, the thought behind it was good. If the reason it was created was honest. All it is has done is reak havoc on our economy as premiums skyrocket. To simplify this, it means less money put into the economy by less spending on luxary items and food. So what does this do for people. It keeps them dependant on the system. Housing , food etc. All part of the lefts plan. Which is exactly what Trump has stated. So instead, he has developed a plan that can work. By us investing our money into ourselves. Like we are getting our pay check, and paying ourselves first. Right off the top. If you go back to his Facebook, in 2010. You can see he has always been against obamacare. Unless you watch TV. They don't mention this fact.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 4  · March 16, 2016 at 1:47am  Manage

Julie Egan-James Ethanol. So we want to depend on foreign oil? I'm with trump. It's time to keep our money here. But see, all the politicians get alot of donations from the oil industry! ! What earth does that do for us. We the people. Keeps us addicted to the system. The system that makes them richer and us poorer. That's all the establishment cares about when it comes to ethanol . Certainly isn't our wallets. Or jobs.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 1:56am  Manage 

Donald DonnieRay Perry I love you Julie.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:57am Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry Lol

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:57am Manage

Deborah Traichal Amen to that Julie!!

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply ·  3  · March 16, 2016 at 2:10am  Manage

Julie Egan-James High tariff. The simple conservative answer to this, is, China is ripping is off because we are stupid. Just like he says. It is NOT a fair trade. This again, keeps us dependant in foreign countries. How is this conservative again? He will bring jobs back here if he does this. It's the take no shit attitide he has. We HAVE to do this. Serverseperate the fact he made ties in China if that's what your defense is. He followed business laws that were available to him as a business man. We can't use that against him. We cant. It's What he does now as a politician that counts. Not the business man before. We move from here.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:20am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James I don't agree on the bank bailouts. I see how it kept money here. But not enough for us. I think the intention was sinister. But I don't think Trump was sinister about it. I think he was thinking about a quick fix. To be honest I don't know the ins and outs of this deal. The ramifications is all i am aware of.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:32am  Manage

 Julie Egan-James

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 5  · March 16, 2016 at 2:33am Manage

Julie Egan-James I think he knows what happened with 9/11. I think his friendship with Hilary is an added bonus. Now he knows her dirty secrets and can expose her. All his information. He has collected over the years. He knows what's coming. Thats why he jumped in. To save us and expose the corrupt. He's holding back. He has too. Once he's in. Look out. That's why they fear him. That's why they want him gone. Because he's going to talk! ! Trust him. He is trying to help, before it's too late. He is not bought and paid for. This means he is free to speak.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 2:36am Manage 

Julie Egan-James It's what he's NOT saying you should listen too. I hear him.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:36am  Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry Amen.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:37am  Manage

 Julie Egan-James Did I miss something. I know there is talk of his womanizing . He's a hot blooded male. He's not the first man to think between his legs. Sorry Donnie. Lol. But it is what it is. This has been going on since biblical times.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 2:46am  Manage

Julie Egan-James We put borders up for the same reason we lock our doors at night. To protect our family. This is not racist . It's loving.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  4  · March 16, 2016 at 2:48am  Manage

Deborah Traichal So true Julie!! I don't see him jumping interns in the Oval Office!! Lol

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 16, 2016 at 2:50am  Manage

Julie Egan-James I sure hope he doesn't when he's there. Lol. I'll be so mad at him if he does lol

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 2:52am  Manage

Julie Egan-James This is why the young people need to know about to he clinton scandals. They weren't around then. They don't know about this stuff. Therfore they can't make an educated vote in Hilary.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:53am  Manage

 Richard Launey Julie Egan-James, I get most of what said, except ethanol. You made a statement then jumped on to oil. Could you spend a little more time on his ethanol subsidy stance please.

Like Show more reactions · Reply  · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:55am  Manage

Deborah Traichal So true! They should read Clintons War on Women by Roger Stone!! He's worked with them for years & is telling everything that happened behind the scenes!!!

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:55am  Manage  

Donald DonnieRay Perry Julie for President!!!

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 2:56am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Richard Launey sure. If you mix ethanol (corn) with the fuel. That corn is grown here. (Iowa mainly) We add it to our fuel. At a cost. But it makes us less dependant on foreign oil which means our money stays here. Not all. But ALOT! ! We have to be self sufficient. We have too. Or we will never get out of debt with other countries. Us first! !

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 3:00am  Manage

 Julie Egan-James Deborah Traichal. I follow stone. Daily.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 3:02am  Manage

 Deborah Traichal He is a great man & honest patriot telling the true corruption that is going on in government!! He is one of Trump's advisers!!

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 3:10am  Manage

Richard Launey Julie Egan-James, I'm oilfield trash, I know that part. Lol. I was referring to Trumps position on ethanol, as well as other, subsidies.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 16, 2016 at 4:18am  Manage 

Daniel Mcfarland Trump all the way

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 4:26am  Manage

Julie Egan-James His view in ethanol all blends in with my oil comment. He wants to increase the blending of it in our fuel. Which makes us less dependant of foreign oil. He wants us to not get oil from elsewhere and drill our own oil. I think we get some from canada are you asking if we will get a break if this is done? The cost of this will be high at first but I see it as a win win in the future. I don't know how it works with cars as of now. Or if you'd get a break for buying a car that runs this way. I can look and see if I can find a link where he speaks of it. The goal of his plan is to secure our independence. I can't imagine why anyone would want it any other way. If the end result ensures independence. I am on board. And the money would stay here and things could change. If the establishment wasn't around to fight it to the death.

Like Show more reactions · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 4:40am  Manage 

Richard Launey Julie Egan-James, the idea that we need ethanol to blend with existing fuel sources is the problem. This is nothing but a handout to corn industry. The ethanol causes more damage to engines, as well as being more harmful to the environment. The emissions produce toxins that are more carcinogenic than fossil fuels.

As for supply, we already have more petroleum base fuel sources within our borders and territorial waters than anyone else in the world. Three of the four largest deposits in the world are in U.S. territory, not to mention the shale oil and natural gas reserves. The only thing he could possibly do to help with this is a tariff on imports.
My problems with govt over the last 2 decades, as if there were time fir all of them, are the handouts (subsidies) to businesses. Govt should not be deciding who succeeds. Let the market take care of that. Of the top 2 candidates, I would have to go with Cruz's approach to subsidies, cut them all, let the markets decide. If the people want it, they'll find a way. The entitlement problem goes well beyond ebt and welfare, corporations have been robbing us as well, including corn and other farm products.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 4:53am  Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry Wow a debate with nobody being called racist? Nice.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 5  · March 16, 2016 at 5:01am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Anytime you want to keep everyone else In Control of our money we lose. I am not for goverment ever deciding who succeeds . And as far as toxic emissions. Our entire system is designed to tell you that. Sure there will have to be changes. But the best way to keep us addicted to others is to threaten us with bad air. I also think climate change is BS too. It's another way to sponge more money from us. We need to do whatever it takes to keep our industry here. To say that letting another politician fix it. Is a stretch. One who can't make a move on his own. They are not going to give up a cent to help us make money. I bet if we followed the money on this issue we be surprised to see it ends up in the government's wallet.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2   · March 16, 2016 at 5:04am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Amd Donnie Ray. It's because no one here is racist. Just concerned. Isn't it nice!!

Like  Show more reactions  · Reply ·  4  · March 16, 2016 at 5:05am  Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry I know. It's so refreshing to be judged by our opinions and not our color or ancestors.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 5:08am · Edited  Manage 

Donald DonnieRay Perry And I will vote Cruz if need be to stop Killiary

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 5  · March 16, 2016 at 5:06am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James I would too. Cruz I believe us more like me on this whole climate change debate. Thats a money pit too. Thats why you see planes manipulating the weather. Which is why they finally admitted it. But not for the reasons they say they are doing it. Such corruption. Uhg.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 5:13am  Manage

Richard Launey The reason for the climate change BS, as you so accurately put it, is Globalization. The purpose is to get control of ALL resources and power to the UN. This will be the global governing body. They have already begun embedding UN troops with ours, knowing that our troops are less likely to fire on its on people. Obama's EO making co2 emissions a regulated emission is further proof. The regulations would be enforced by the UN. Question, when you breath, what do you exhale? Getting the picture.

Our sovereignty as a nation is at stake. We have to get this right.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 5:28am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James I have a little conspiracy theorist in me. It's always been there. I just roll with it now. I think the whole system s rigged. She's already decided. But I also believe trump knows this and he's trying to stop it. I think the Bildabergs met their match with Trump. If he can take over, we will see just how rigged this is. I urge everyone on here to research this. There is alot on you tube. Some info that is. It makes sense. Everything makes scary sense.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 5:29am  Manage

Julie Egan-James I will go look at the ethanol more. But yes Richard I think we are on the same page. Just need to figure out how to get to the solution.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 5:30am Manage 

Donald DonnieRay Perry Exactly. Agreeing on the issues is what's important. Solutions can be reached then.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 16, 2016 at 5:34am  Manage 

Richard Launey What happens if Cruz goes to Trump, and says, hey, let's screw them all up. You be pres, I'll be vp. No brokered convention, no contested convention. No chance fir the Establishment to steal another one. A business man and a Constitutionalist.

Like Show more reactions · Reply ·  1  · March 16, 2016 at 5:57am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James I think I'd be very happy. Very happy! I think it takes many shapes to complete the puzzle. I'd like them to add in Carson. To bring some Jesus in the WH also.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 16, 2016 at 6:00am Manage 

Richard Launey Carson has already been promised a position, thus the endorsement. As well as Christie, for what that's worth.

But, hey, we can dream.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 6:19am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Is that how that works if you endorse? My dad says this too?

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 6:20am Manage 

Richard Launey It's not how it's intended, but it is how it works. Palin should have a pretty good spot, she got in early. They expect Christie to be named AG and Carson something along the lines of head of Health and Human Services. That's politics.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 16, 2016 at 6:22am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James I am fine with Sarah Palin as long as she quits saying "you betcha " lol. It is so annoying to my ears.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 6:24am  Manage

Richard Launey That's that Scandinavian influence in be upbringing. Michigan and Alaska.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 16, 2016 at 6:25am  Manage

Julie Egan-James Yes and holy rollin lol. She s expressive. Can't knock her for that. I admire her values. So I can just wear ear plugs. That's The tolerant in me. ..

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 6:37am  Manage  

Deborah Traichal

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:14am Manage

Deborah Traichal Vote Trump!! God Bless America 🇺🇸🇺🇸

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:17am Manage

Julie Egan-James Eminent domain lol. Do you shop at Walmart? Do I really need to go into this one? Do you drive on freeways. Last I checked some were built (on ramps) Right in the middle of a mall or subdivision. And make no mistake. The land he took from people, to build, made them very rich. He didn't steal it. He bought it.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  4 · March 16, 2016 at 1:34am Manage

Julie Egan-James If they agreed that is. Some didn't. And he doesn't have it. Fact check. ...

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 1:34am Manage 

Mike Brittain He got NC I'm sure voting was heavy and Trump was the talk

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 5:27am Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Julie, your patriotic spirit and thought for your children’s future give you honor. I appreciate your choice in home schooling your kids. That’s what more Americans should do in order to avoid the liberal brainwashing of the youth. I also appreciate and understand all your points and sympathize with your negative experience. First and foremost, I’m a constitutional conservative, which is why Ted Cruz is my choice. Labels are not always precise, but they are useful in conveying information to others for clarification. Some things are irrelevant, but core principles as limited government, religious liberty, gun rights, free enterprise, state sovereignty, and original intent of the Constitution are key issues in defining conservatism. It is the metric by which I choose my candidates. Having said that, let me continue addressing your points.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 16, 2016 at 7:34pm · Edited Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Planned Parenthood. The 10th Amendment gives the states autonomy from the federal government due to the unenumerated powers not contained in the Constitution. The enumerated powers are limited to the federal government, such as defense, immigration, mail delivery, etc. Since the funding of PP is not an enumerated power, it is for the states to decide, not the federal government. The issue of abortion is secondary, and I think most conservatives make rape and maternal fatality an exception anyway. The other issue of Trump defunding the abortion part of PP is a moot issue because some Christians do not want any of their taxes going to an organization which violates their religious liberty. Besides, there are local women’s groups which fulfill the same functions as PP.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 16, 2016 at 7:06pm Manage

Julie Egan-James Agreed..I wish they distibute the funding to other clinics and shut that Hell hole down. But.... I do not forsee this happening. I am trying to decide what I can live with and what I cannot . Alot of people do not realize their options for other medical care. Sadly.

Like  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 9:39am Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Julie, Cruz would defund PP which would confine their continued existence to the states as is constitutionally mandated. We live in an information age in which even the poor can access the internet and find such local institutions without the aid of the federal government. Therefore ignorance is no excuse.

Like  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 5:00pm 

Marcial Bonifacio On the issue of Trump’s possible evolution, I do not know what’s in his heart in order to draw that conclusion. I can only look to his past of changing parties and positions at least 6 times since 1987. Cruz, on the other hand, has a record of being a consistent conservative. Even at the early age of 19, he had the Constitution memorized and discussed it in various conferences. To put it simply, Julie, would you want a reformed Obama (who claims to recently have became a conservative) or a Reagan teaching your kids history? 🙂 Whom would you trust the most? Indeed, Launey is correct to be skeptical of Trump.

Like Show more reactions · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 7:07pm  Manage

Julie Egan-James If we see being real, we know he is so libertarian. Labels mean nothing to me nor do parties anymore. This doesn't affect me in the least bit. If he needs to jump over party lines to accomplish goals. I'm so okay with that.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 9:41am  Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry Did he just compare Cruz to Reagan? Lmbo

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:29am  Manage

Julie Egan-James Cruz is a wolf In Sheep's clothing. He has not participated in votes on matters he opposes. Not to mention what he did to Carson shows his true colors. He lied. Lying Ted . Why did he make that choice? Cause he's dishonest.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 20, 2016 at 10:31am Manage

 Deborah Traichal So true Julie

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 20, 2016 at 10:32am Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry I been staying out of it, but come on dude. Reagan only lied to the camera as an actor.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 20, 2016 at 10:34am Manage 

Richard Launey Julie Egan-James, the fiasco that was the nonevent concerning Carson was manufactured by the media. Within a few news cycles, even Carson asked his supporters to let it go. If there is one person the Establishment fears more than Trump, it's Cruz. He is the closest to Reagan we will likely find in thus cycle. While there are also similarities between Trump and Reagan, ideologically, Cruz is closer. Should they come together, it would truly be a sight go behold. And wouldn't that screw up the Establishments plan.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 20, 2016 at 12:07pm  Manage

Gary Lewis I had the same thoughts, Richard. That would really blow some minds.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 20, 2016 at 12:10pm  Manage

Julie Egan-James It wasn't. .. if you go back and read the timeliness of the tweets, the Cruz camp is lying. Not the media so much. Everything is time stamped. Yet no one looks, smh. This is exactly my point. Amd no the establishment fears Trump. Because he knows things, and will not sign away his rights to speak. Why do you think Bush ran away, with his tail tucked. One word.of 9/11 and he gone! ! With all that money.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 20, 2016 at 12:14pm  Manage

Richard Launey Julie Egan-James, keep in mind, this is pomitucs, and just as Trump referred to Carson as pathological, in the pedophile sense, as he said, this is how the game is played. I did believe, in a passive/aggressive sense, that Trump and Cruz are both trying to change the way the game is played, while still playing within the lack if rules the system allows. Confusing I know, but I think they are both trying to get to the same place in slightly different routes.

It isn't like Trump hasn't pulled a few stunts himself. At least judge them both by the same standard.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 12:46pm  Manage

Julie Egan-James He has pulled alot of stunts. Yes. He does it for a different reason though. He has to get there. If he doesn't, he knows we are in big trouble. Have you ever noticed how Trump speaks?. Compared to how he speaks in his books? He almost dumbs down his speech to reach us. As to not confuse us. Sadly. We understand his kind of talk more than Cruz. Because this is the shape we are in. Every man for himself. Cruz needs to step back. We have to get this right. Last chance. This is it! You want a puppet who's controlled by the Kochs, the IRS, Goldman Sachs, OR a man who makes his own rules. .it's so simple yet we make it about what it's not. Who cares who he calls a bimbo. I am more worried about Christians being beheaded in the streets.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 12:57pm  Manage

Julie Egan-James He took DIRTY Koch money. His hands are in it. Don't be fooled. Look into it! !

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 12:59pm  Manage

Richard Launey Julie Egan-James, you really need to spend some time investigating the Loch brothers brothers before you assume the hype the leftist media is correct. They aren't what Politic purports them to be. The same can be said of the hype surrounding Cruz. His speech hasn't changed, because HE hasn't changed. He is the same Constitutional Conservative Christian he has always been. He has continued to fight for us, in spite of opposition from his own party. One if the absolute few who came in as Tea Party Conservative, and proved it can be done. He doesn't win all the time, but that's not ready when you stand alone.

Trump may, or may not be what he says he us. That's changed so many times, its hard to keep track. At least with Cruz, he has taken the opportunity to demonstrate where he stands, and that he WILL stand. Trump has yet to prove anything other than being successful at business, and manipulating the media.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 1:20pm  Manage

Deborah Traichal Richard Launey sorry but Cruz is part of the corrupt establishment!

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 2:34pm  Manage

Richard Launey You mean the same Ted Cruz that exposed them for capitulating to Obama's budget demands? The same Ted Cruz that filibustered and took the blame for shutting down the govt? The same Ted Cruz that is more hated by the Establishment than Donald Trump? And you're gonna base that on the fact that his wife is employed by GS, and they bank there. That's really deep political logic. Good job.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:05pm  Manage 

Julie Egan-James You don't know that he is more hated. No one does. I do know this . He lied in Iowa. And when this happens, you wonder how much truth comes out of his mouth . Not just any lie. He cheated. I do know who he has taken money frim. The latest is the IRS. Now I'm not sure how this works. But I do know because of that he didn't show up to vote on the Audit. I don't like that one bit. That means what he says is political BS. Realizing he's a politician and needing the Money, I can set this aside. But I just know he's paid for now. That will affect every single decision he makes now. If you think it will not, you're sadly mistaken. I'm a realistic person. I see this for what it is. And that is not a stretch to say that.

Like  Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:19pm  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Richard Launey I do no get my info from tv. Nor did I get my info about the koch brothers from tv or the left. I do my research and am very and aware of who they represent. As far as teaching my kids, I will teach my kids. I will choose the curriculum. I want states to decide what we put out in schools. And have a chance to vote I don't depend on the village to raise my kids because I have seen the village. These are my children and I'll decide.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:23pm  Manage 

Richard Launey All we can go on, as far as who is hated, is the comments of those he has come against. Trump is partially correct about Cruz's relationship with his fellow Congressmen, they don't like him, and for good reason, he doesn't surrender to Obama for the sake of political expedience. Evidence indicates he is hated, their statements, so, yes, we can make that assessment. Just as we do concerning Trump. In Ia. , his staffer lied, he took the blame, as a leader should. He apologized twice in private, and twice in public. Unfortunately, some people can't get past that, despite the fact that it wasn't his offense, and the wronged party asked for it to be dropped.

As for the money, campaign contributions, unfortunately, not everyone has Trumps war chest, not everyone is a multi-billionaire. Just because a candidate accepts a contribution doesn't mean he is owned, or even owes. If that were the case, his largest contributions are from the people at a grassroots level, so he would owe them more than anyone else.
I don't know how your kids education got into this, but, from your post I assume you home school. Commendable. That would likely make them not only better educated, but better people in general. The education system is a farce. Homeschooled children tend to be better educated, moral, successful and contribute more to society in a beneficial way. I would suggest keeping them as close as possible, as long as possible. They grow so fast.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 11:24pm Manage 

Julie Egan-James I do homeschool. My curriculum is old school. I have two adult son's that went through public school and graduated with honors. Now that I see what is happening with my young sons, the difference, I decided to pull them out. I had too. One of my son's was at 2nd grade level Inn fifth grade, on an IEP program. I was devastated he was there. Now he is in 7th grade and at 7th grade level. My third grader, is doing 6th grade level. Our system is flawed. Big time and our teachers here in Oregon have failed them. As far as Cruz, I do have a problem with his donors. A man of ethics should question who they take from. Just like the grief Trump received from not dissing the KKK guy. Forgot his name at the moment . It's the same the Hong. Even though Trump was being lied about. Cruz did take this money. I don't feel good about that.

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply · March 20, 2016 at 11:39pm · Edited Manage

Richard Launey The KKK guy was David Duke, former Grand Dragon. The irony was he NEVER endorsed Trump as was reported. He said he liked a lot of what Trump was saying. The press misrepresented his statement, imagine that.

As for the donations, Trump has the luxury of being able to fund his own campaign, with little or no contributions necessary. Cruz, and others don't have that luxury. Beggars can't be choosy. As I stated earlier, accepting those contributions doesn't put him in anyone's pocket. Like Trump or anyone else, that remains to be seen.
To the need for homeschooling, thank Carter and his Dept of Uneducation for that. Since they took the responsibility from the states our system has gone into a death spiral. You were wise indeed to decide to homeschool.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 21, 2016 at 7:01am   Manage 

 Julie Egan-James Why is being rich, off your own hard work a luxary? My parents are millionaires, let me say this, my dad worked seven days a week, made good choices and earned w very penny. It's his blood sweat and tears. Not a luxary? ? I.feel like people hate him for his money. Thats not okay. I admire him for that. Which is the attitude everyone should have. I hope someday my husband and i can enjoy the good life we have worked for.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 21, 2016 at 7:45am · Edited Manage 

Richard Launey As far as the campaign funds go, it's a luxury in the sense that he doesn't need to seek financial help. A time consuming part of any campaign. I hold no envy towards anyone having what they earn. In my world, your father would get to keep more of what he earned. Why should the govt get it to misuse. They didn't work for it?

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 21, 2016 at 7:42am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Or anyone for that matter . I don't want to pay for other people's kids to attend college. I just don't. It's greed for them to ask. And Cruz isn't poor. So I'm not sure he needed all those donations. Just wanted to use other money rather than his. Another thing I admire about Trump.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 21, 2016 at 7:45am Manage 

Richard Launey His involvement with GS was part of that. He started his campaign with a loan on his assets on hand. Campaigns are running into the billion dollar range now. He may not be poor, but his available funds hardly come into the campaign worthy range. He sank nearly all his funds into this, on that score he simply can't compete with Trump without outside help, so, yeah, he would need the donations.

Like Show more reactions · Reply · 1  · March 21, 2016 at 9:14am Manage 

 Julie Egan-James It just goes to show you, it's not always about how much one spends. It's the message.

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · March 21, 2016 at 10:22am  Manage

Richard Launey Still gotta have it to spend to get the message out. While the media is spending all it's time going after Trump, and unintentionally getting him more support, they're ignoring Cruz. He can't get any air time in that vacuum. That's part of the strategy in declining the last debate, deny as much air as possible.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 21, 2016 at 10:43am  Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry Backfiring the Media,,,,love it!

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 21, 2016 at 10:55am  Manage

Richard Launey Yep! In their haste to take him down, they are becoming the reason he's been building up. Silly Wabbits.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 21, 2016 at 10:59am Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Julie, labels are significant to me because you can either support the Constitution or oppose it. That is the basis of conservatism. Anything else is subsidiary and cannot last long without such a foundation. Even Cruz, notwithstanding core conservative principles and the Constitution, said he is willing to compromise on certain issues. For example, he may not be able to get an exact 10% flat tax. He may have to compromise with 12% or tweak it some other way. That is reasonable.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·1  · March 24, 2016 at 5:03pm Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Julie, the myth you have raised about Cruz cheating in Iowa has already been debunked. Here is the timeline: http://constitution.com/ted-cruz-didnt-lie-entire.../

Anyway, Cruz was not responsible for the misinformation that CNN publicized. Even then, he has terminated his communications associate for his negligence.

Ted Cruz Didn't Lie: The Entire Carson/Cruz Fight Timeline ⋆ The…

CONSTITUTION.COM

 Like Show more reactions · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 5:08pm Manage

Donald DonnieRay Perry No need to cheat when ya psycho wife works for Baby Killer number one. Losing more respect for him everyday.

Like Show more reactions · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 5:23pm  Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Julie, on the issue of the Koch Brothers donating money to Cruz in order to influence him, there was a crime bill in the Senate. The bill was heavily pushed by the Kochs and was opposed by Cruz due to its leniency on violent offenders. They even condemned him publicly as being anti-Bill of Rights: http://www.aim.org/.../ted-cruz-breaks-with-koch.../

That just shows you that Cruz can't be bought.

Ted Cruz Breaks With Koch Brothers on Crime Bill

Before Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) electrified…

AIM.ORG

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 5:23pm  Manage 

Donald DonnieRay Perry He's already paid for.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 5:25pm  Manage 

 Marcial Bonifacio Donnie, what do you mean by "Baby Killer number one"?

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 6:34pm  Manage 

Marcial Bonifacio Donnie, present an example of how Cruz has deviated from fulfilling his promises.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 6:36pm  Manage 

Marcial Bonifacio Obamacare. I’ll take it for granted that Trump opposes it, though he has praised it and socialized medicine in other countries in the past. However, he does not oppose the mandate requiring people to unconstitutionally purchase it. He has indicated that in the last few debates and has only presented one plan, which is insurance portability from state to state. Cruz also proposes that along with medical savings accounts and medical insurance retention for those who have lost their jobs.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 16, 2016 at 7:08pm Manage

Julie Egan-James We need to enforce medical care. Sadly. It has to be a law. Like car insurance. Because without it, who pays, we do the employed and small business owners like my husband and I. Sometimes we need big brother. And I hate to say that because I'm not fond of control.

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 9:43am  Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Julie, I wonder how James Madison or Thomas Jefferson would feel about needing "Big Brother." Anyway, car insurance is mandatory only if you own and drive a car (which is not mandatory). Obamacare is mandatory by virtue of merely being alive. Also it is the states which mandate auto insurance, not the federal government. That's the big difference.

The solution is to take measures which will lower healthcare costs and make it more affordable. You have said that we should not have to pay for other people's schooling. I would add food, smart phones, and mortgage to your list as well as healthcare. If healthcare is mandatory, then at least the states should decide. Massachusetts is an example.

Like  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 5:41pm 

Marcial Bonifacio Ethanol. You’re quite right about energy independence from foreign countries, at least from the ones which are hostile towards America. However, there are alternatives (natural gas, fracking) to the unconstitutional ethanol subsidy as Launey pointed out in addition to renewable resources as wind, solar, etc. At any rate, private enterprise and the free market (which will lead to competition, lowering prices) can resolve that issue, which is precisely why Cruz was the only one who opposed the subsidy in Iowa.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 16, 2016 at 7:08pm  Manage

Julie Egan-James Technology has advanced. Why can't our cars. Etc. This is a useless debate. We know we have the brains to move past where we are with this issue. Who's going to admit we are in this for money, is the question.

Like  · Reply · March 20, 2016 at 9:45am  Manage 

Marcial Bonifacio Cars have advanced. There are solar powered and electrical ones. There are even driverless cars.http://www.bbc.com/.../20160321-seven-ways-the-driverless...

Seven ways the driverless car will change your life

Autonomous vehicles will bring about an age of…

BBC.COM

Like  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 6:03pm

 Marcial Bonifacio High Tariff. First and foremost, globalization itself is not antithetical to conservatism. It is excessive regulation which makes it unconservative. Free trade is what’s favorable, and some things are better produced and cheaper if done by other countries. There’s an excellent article on this very subject and about Trump’s 45% tariff, which is worth reading:http://thefederalist.com/.../almost-everything-donald.../

Basically, such a high tariff could cause China to impose retaliatory costs on the U.S., which would simply be passed on to American consumers. Think of buying things for double or triple the price from retailers like Walmart or Target. Besides, most of the job losses in manufacturing are due to automation, not outsourcing as Trump would have you believe. His idea is one of those which sounds great on paper (like communism), but is scarcely practical. Most jobs are in the service sector and in the knowledge or information sphere.

Everything Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong

Donald Trump’s China trade plan would make…

THEFEDERALIST.COM

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 16, 2016 at 7:10pm Manage

Julie Egan-James I will read this. However, deals can be made. There's always wiggle room. You can make it worth while to use humans over robots. I have many opinions on this. So I will read it before go on.

Like  · Reply · March 20, 2016 at 9:49am Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Julie, humans will always be necessary for some jobs. However, automation is necessary in a free market economy. Otherwise, we would all be living in the horse and buggy era. This is simply an issue of upgrading one's knowledge and skills in order to adapt to ever changing economy and technology.

Like  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 6:06pm 

Marcial Bonifacio Conspiracy Theories. I’m a man of facts, so I’ll have to refrain from that issue. 🙂

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 16, 2016 at 7:11pm · Edited   Manage  

Julie Egan-James Conspiracy theory is a term made up to prevent people from digging to see the facts. Such as 9/11. You will hear the live broadcast that building seven was going to be detonated. Then, they say your crazy for thinking this. When the info is still out there and the footage. No one looks. Why? Because they call us Conspiracy theorist and that's enough to stop some in their tracks. Sandy hook. False. Not all school shootings are false. That one was. Dig in. Have a look. Public records are still available.

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 9:53am

Marcial Bonifacio I'll have to check in to that.

Like  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 6:06pm  

Marcial Bonifacio Eminent Domain. This was originally confined to government projects for public use. However, it was expanded by the progressive Supreme Court in 2005 to include private projects, something the founders would have frowned upon due to their intent to secure private property rights. Compensation was usually pretty low due to the perception that property owners felt compelled to sell. However, if private developers were freely allowed to make their own offers via the free market, as was the case with Koch Industries, compensation would be higher. Here’s an interesting article on the subject of Trump and eminent domain:

http://www.nationalreview.com/.../trump-eminent-domain

Trump and Eminent Domain

In Saturday's debate, Donald Trump made a big issue of the importance of eminent domain. He neglected to…

NATIONALREVIEW.COM

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 16, 2016 at 7:12pm  Manage

Marcial Bonifacio This was a civilized debate or discussion, indeed. I appreciate all of your views. Since some of you mentioned your approval of Cruz (who is my choice), I have listed 10 reasons why conservatives should support him:

https://marcialslaw.wordpress.com/.../why-conservatives.../

Why Evangelicals and Conservatives Should Cruz with the Best and Trump the…

MARCIALSLAW.WORDPRESS.COM

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 16, 2016 at 7:12pm Manage

Marcial Bonifacio By the way, I congratulate all of you for Trump's wins yesterday!

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  3  · March 16, 2016 at 7:45pm  Manage

 Deborah Traichal

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · March 20, 2016 at 9:34am Manage

Deborah Traichal Bought & paid for by special interests!! Another puppet in our corrupt establishment

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 9:36am Manage 

Julie Egan-James Also let me add Marcial Bonifacio. The IRS just donated a lot of money to clinton and Cruz. Why? He is now unable to make a move on the audit. He just signed that deal so to speak, with them. Which explains why he didn't show up to vote on that issue. Ouch. Not good. Very sketchy. Trump is a free agent. You dont take their money, you don't take their orders. Don't get your facts from MSM. We know who owns them also, this too is a fact.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1   · March 20, 2016 at 9:57am Manage   

Marcial Bonifacio The reason Cruz didn't vote on the Fed auditing bill was due to a shortage of 7 votes. Therefore, his vote would not have mattered. Anyway he committed to a large gathering of voters in New Hampshire at that time: http://www.glennbeck.com/.../from-the-horses-mouth-why.../

From the Horse’s Mouth: Why Ted Cruz Missed ‘Audit the Fed’ Vote

I wrote to Ted last night to ask about his missing…

GLENNBECK.COM

Like  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 6:14pm  Manage

Julie Egan-James Nah! Not sure on this one. But I'll look.

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 24, 2016 at 10:03pm

Julie Egan-James Cruz also took money from the dirty Koch brothers. Who are heavily involved with segregation in schools and dirty flint water. Fact! Please look into it. Before Tuesday.

Like Show more reactions · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 9:58am Manage

Julie Egan-James I homeschool my kids so they know the truth about our history . It's more than math for me. It's about them trying to erase the past, and implant garbage in my kids's mind. But then there's the whole math thing which is just so insane. I can't handle it. I felt so appalled I pulled them as fast as I could.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:01am  Manage

Deborah Traichal Well said Julie E James!! Common core education is a joke!! They don't want our kids to know the true facts in history!! Learning our true history is how we keep from repeating it!! Makes it easier for them to push socialism on the younger generation!! You did the right thing to home school!!

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:05am  Manage

Julie Egan-James Yes. It makes me sick to see what required reading is now. I was so shocked and scared to go on. This was two years ago and now it's worse.

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:06am  Manage

Deborah Traichal So true Julie James!! The government wants to dumb down our youth, like some cult, just brainwashing them!!! They don't even require them to read the diary of Ann Frank anymore, I was shocked but they are teaching them about sympathy for Islam!! It's insane!!!

Like  · Reply ·  1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:11am  Manage

Julie Egan-James And white privilege. I know it's crazy how they took all the books away and made everything digital. That way our kids have no access to the history that they took away.

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:18am Manage

Julie Egan-James Before I caught on. My son and I had to read "The Cay". That's when my eyes popped open. A rich white boy saved by a poor black man. And how he was a bad boy for not realizing his privilege. Sick.

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:20am  Manage

Julie Egan-James My kids will never be racist. Against others or themselves. It completely pushes racism ..

Like · Reply · 2  · March 20, 2016 at 10:24am Manage

Deborah Traichal Amen to that Julie!! I was so lucky to know my Grandfather who fought in WWII & he told us all the history of the evil this was happening in Europe!!

Like  · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:24am  Manage 

Julie Egan-James Yes you are lucky. I wish I had more to tell my son's. I am learning right along with them .

Like · Reply · 1  · March 20, 2016 at 10:27am Manage  

Julie Egan-James Who you take money from says alot more about character then who you give it to in business. We have it all wrong there. It's what they don't say that people need to research. Donald trump gave money so people would do him favors. The koch brothers gave cruz money so he would do them favors. That's how it works.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 3  · March 20, 2016 at 10:03am Manage

Marcial Bonifacio I think what you do after receiving money is more important than who gives you money. Money itself can't penetrate the will of a person, though it may help. Anyway, Trump is not self-funding. Even his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has stated, "He's no longer self-funding his campaign, and will need to be well-funded by donors in order to defeat Hillary in the general election."

http://www.fox-nation.com/?Dkt_nbr=11550-1...

By the way, there's nothing wrong with that as long as Trump fulfills the mandate of his supporters. My point is that accepting money from whomever is the donor is less important than for the candidate to honor his word to the American people. So far, Cruz has not deviated.

Like  · Reply · 2  · March 24, 2016 at 6:47pm · Edited  Manage

Marcial Bonifacio Speaking of character, Trump's dodging of 2 debates and CPAC does not reflect well on him. I have written about them in my commentary titled "When Will Donald Stop Quacking?"

https://marcialslaw.wordpress.com/.../when-will-donald.../

 

When Will Donald Stop Quacking?

3/21/16 By Marcial Bonifacio My friends, “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and…

MARCIALSLAW.WORDPRESS.COM

Like · Reply · 2  · March 24, 2016 at 6:45pm

Julie Egan-James I will read both these articles as soon as I can.

Like  · Reply · March 24, 2016 at 10:17pm

Julie Egan-James There are absolutely no fact that we have seen that proves Sandy Hook was a real tradgedy. If you are basing facts on tv, I urge you to look into it. There was no Adam Lanza. He was made up. The shooters were those men that were dressed in army digs that several people reported before they wiped it off the news. Which explains why none of the neighbors knew who he even was. The. Magically, everyone was gifted the pay off on their mortgage. In that town. And so much more.

Like Show more reactions · Re ply · March 20, 2016 at 10:16am Manage

Mary Ann Del Mundo I am actually enjoying this challenge, big time. What I love so much about this forum is the battle of ideas and convictions without attacking the persons. This is very relishing and respectable. True benchmark on how online forums should be. What will give me extra pleasure is seeing the response of Mr. Bonifacio.

Like Show more reactions  · Reply · 2  · March 20, 2016 at 5:38pm Manage

Marcial Bonifacio I'm pleased you are finding the discussion amusing.

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 24, 2016 at 6:32pm Manage  

Marcial Bonifacio Belated congratulations for Trump's win in Arizona, my friends!

Like Show more reactions  · Reply ·  1  · March 24, 2016 at 6:33pm