By Marcial Bonifacio

11/4/2020

Note:  The economic accomplishments are pre-COVID-19, and would be potentially more laudable otherwise.  However, given only four years of public service compared to Joe Biden’s nearly fifty years of public service, Donald Trump has proven to be more effective.  Consider the following:

• Almost 4 million jobs were created since Trump’s election.
• More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in history.
• New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.  Black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.  Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.  Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.  Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
• Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
• Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
• United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
• Trump supported legislation to open ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and approve Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines in order to keep energy prices low while creating more jobs.
• Trump signed Right-To-Try legislation, which permits terminally ill patients to consume newly developed drugs, hence bypassing the lengthy process of FDA approval.
• Trump signed the VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, which expanded tele-health services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care for veterans.
• Trump signed the First Step Act, which reforms the criminal/prison system shortening the sentences of qualified, non-violent drug offenders.
• Trump signed legislation imposing tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and chronically abusive trade practices.
• Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani (the second most powerful person in Iran) and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were assassinated and the caliphate defeated under the Trump administration.
• Trump has established a new branch of the military called the Space Force, which is engineered to weaponize space and to preclude China and Russia’s acquisition.
• NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
• Trump has nominated three justices to the Supreme Court, who will interpret laws in conformity to the U.S. Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

May 29, 2017

Dear President Rodrigo Roa Duterte:

I am writing you with the utmost respect and as a concerned citizen of the Philippines.  Like you, Mr. President, I only seek to serve the interests of our countrymen as well as protect the sovereignty of our country pursuant to the Constitution.  Therefore, I appeal that you keep an open mind and take no offense to my grievances and unsolicited recommendations.

Mr. President, many Marawi City residents have had their lives drastically disrupted and have been displaced as they have evacuated their homes, due to your declaration of martial law in Mindanao. Meanwhile, some foreign investors are losing confidence in the economy and the stability of the Philippine government as a result.  This may deter other potential investors and cost our country many current and potential jobs.  In fact, Philippine Airlines has already offered refunds to travelers fearful of flying to Mindanao.

For that reason, it is in the best interest of the Philippines to swiftly quell the terrorist threat, restore the rule of law, and draw an end to this period of martial law as soon as possible.  That is precisely why I suggest you request Pres. Donald Trump increase American troop presence in Mindanao.  Such a move would allow the police and military to continue fighting Islamic terrorists without compromising their focus on other priorities, such as the NPA (who have already announced they would utilize the current crisis to their advantage).  Since both the Philippines and the U.S. share a similar problem of having porous borders, thus enabling foreign Islamic terrorists to enter both countries (some of the killed Maute terrorists were from Indonesia and Malaysia), perhaps you can collaborate to find solutions.

Indeed, the U.S. would relentlessly curtail the escalation of Islamic terrorism.  In conformity with your desire to be “harsh,” Pres. Trump is willing to use practical, effective methods to counter the insurgents, such as enhanced interrogation techniques.  He is also willing to adopt Gen. Pershing’s method of using bullets dipped in pig’s blood, which quickly ended the war between the Americans and Moros during the early 20^th century.

In light of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s threat on your desire for the Philippines to extract natural resources from the disputed West Philippine Sea, that “if you force the issue, we will go to war,” I must invoke the authority of Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio.  He states that “the threat of China to go to war against the Philippines if the Philippines extracts oil and gas in the Reed Bank, or in any area within Philippine EEZ in the West Philippine Sea, is a gross violation of the United Nations Charter, UNCLOS, and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia to which China and the Philippines are parties.”

That is why, Mr. President, I implore you to discuss this issue with Pres. Trump.  After all, the U.S. also has a strategic interest in maritime security and maintaining freedom of navigation along the West Philippine Sea, which is one of the reasons Pres. Trump seeks to scale up the American navy.

Mr. President, it is indisputable that America’s military is the most powerful in the world, and wherein the U.S. refrained from full scale war, it has maintained a fairly stabilizing counter balance against hegemons like Russia and China.  In fact, just a few days ago, a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef unimpeded by China---a deliberate attempt to demonstrate that "Mischief Reef is not entitled to its own territorial sea regardless of whether an artificial island has been built on top of it."  Indeed, according to Justice Carpio, “the Philippines must strengthen its alliance with the United States, the only country with whom the Philippines has a mutual defense treaty.”  Even the astute patriot whom you called “President Gordon” concurs on utilizing the presence of American troops in order to develop a “strong and credible defense capability.”

However, as we await the fortification of that alliance, Justice Carpio advises that the Philippines “bring China’s threat of war to another UNCLOS arbitral tribunal, to secure an order directing China to comply with the ruling of the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal that declared the Reed Bank part of Philippine EEZ.”  He added that the “Philippines can also ask for damages for every day of delay that the Philippines is prevented by China from exploiting Philippine EEZ.”

In following Justice Carpio’s lead, I also recommend that you persuade the U.S. to declare Panatag Shoal (universally known as Scarborough Shoal) as part of Philippine territory, which would protect it under the Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty.  Such action would add clarity for legal ramifications, since the shoal was known to be under Philippine jurisdiction as early as the American colonial period.  The Japanese did precisely that with their Senkaku islands , which the U.S. declared as part of Japan's territory for purposes of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty.

Meanwhile, Mr. President, you can send the Philippine Navy to patrol Panatag Shoal.  Should China stage an attack on any of our vessels, you can invoke the Mutual Defense Treaty, since it covers armed attacks on such vessels.  Of course, that would prompt the U.S. Navy to intervene.

I also recommend, Mr. President, that you express to Pres. Trump your gratitude for America’s contributions to our country’s welfare, including being an old, reliable ally whose troops fought alongside our troops against the Japanese invaders during World War II, providing foreign aid (in the form of funding, disaster relief supplies and manpower, and military assets and training), and U.S. legislation that currently supplements the income of our World War II veterans (in addition to their compensation by our own government).

Mr. President, Gen. Douglas MacArthur is one of Pres. Trump’s favorite commanders.  That is why I also urge you to give him a tour of the Leyte Landing Memorial Park, which is adorned by the American icon’s statue next to Pres. Sergio Osmena’s.  Perhaps such a setting would be appropriate to even hold a press conference wherein you can announce the fortification of Philippine-U.S. relations.

I recommend the announcement be made on June 12, which is shortly upcoming and a historical date.  Indeed, it is the day Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo declared our country's independence from Spain in 1898, for which a war by both Americans and Filipinos was fought.  Such a chosen time for the announcement would certainly send a chilling message to imperial China on their limits vis-á-vis a powerful, ironclad ally.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I welcome you forging new alliances with other countries.  However, new and dubious allies are no substitute for a single, loyal ally, especially since that ally according to Justice Carpio, is the “only one power on earth that can stop the Chinese and that’s the U.S.”  With that said, America is our greatest ally and an invaluable asset in combating Islamic terrorism and keeping China restrained.  Moreover, the world will respect us, and our enemies will fear us.  Thus, it would serve our country’s best interest to take full advantage of this opportunity.

Mr. President, I appreciate your service to our country and to our countrymen and look forward to the day when peace and order will be restored, federalism will take effect, our economy will grow at record levels, and our country will reach first world status.  May you have a successful presidency.

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

Marcial Bonifacio

Facebook Comments :

Evangeline Mejia I definitely agree with this Marcial, this is better than criticizing duterte
LikeShow more reactions  · Reply ·  2  · May 29 at 9:29pm Remove

Marcial Bonifacio Nagagalak akong malaman iyan, kaibigan ko. I must admit I was  pretty restrained dahil sa directly addressing Duterte. 🙂   Marahil his surrogates may  read it and bring it to his attention.
LikeShow more reactions  · Reply · 1  · May 30 at 1:28am

 Marlene Damolo Howe I agree with Pres. Duterte's declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao in order to bring back law and order for the safety of the residents. The president has been fighting enemies from all fronts, both foreign and domestic. So Martial Law is sometimes necessary. Your suggestions are sensible and doable. But I can also understand where Pres. Duterte is coming from as far as working diplomatically with China and Russia, the two other superpowers adversarial to the United Sates. It doesn't mean that he abandons the country's alliance with the U.S., but only to explore diplomatic relationships with the other two since the Philippines is in a precarious situation and having very little resources for defense. The U.S. has a vested interests in the Philippines geographical location to keep navigation passage free in the West Philippine Sea or South China Sea, and China's interest in the Philippines is for its agressive "expansionism" agenda. China claims that ALL of South China Seas is hers, regardless of the UNCLOS provision of 200 nautical miles EEZ.

So what does a Philippine president has to do? Pres. Duterte is a smart strategist. He has a history of outsmarting his detractors being street smart and pragmatic. After previous American president (Barack Obama) tried to undermine his presidency, Pres. Duterte moved to seek "diplomatic" alliance elsewhere. Hence, the two other superpowers, Russia and China. It puts America on notice! But Pres. Trump is NOT Barack Obama. He is not an ideologue but a PRAGMATIST that only wants to do what's best for America. And that means, WORKING WITH ALLIES and gain their trust. Under Barack Obama, OUR ALLIES NO LONGER TRUSTED US AND OUR ENEMIES DIDN'T FEAR US. Presidents Trump and Duterte have the same goal for their respective countries, to make it a better place where people are free to live their lives as they see fit and in peace. They had a good rapport when they talked while the opposite is true with Barack Obama.

So I hope that President Duterte will get your message and take your suggestions in consideration. We all want peace and better Philippines. So I hope that the self-serving obstructionists and disruptors will cease in their undermining the Duterte presidency and instead, help the president succeed in his efforts to combat the BAD ELEMENTS befalling our country; corruption, war on drugs and terrorism.

Like Show more reactions · Reply · 3 · May 30 at 11:00pm Remove

 LenDante Clarino Hey Marlene...long time... looks like your age is just like that of pretty Adaline. What's the secret? Btw, i agree that u agree with #PDu30 here. ????
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 1  · May 31 at 12:05am Remove

Marlene Damolo Howe

LikeShow more reactions  · Reply · 1 · June 1 at 4:43am Remove

Marcial Bonifacio Magandang punto, kaibigang Marlene! Notwithstanding your     points that Duterte is a smart strategist, I concur with everything else. Naisip ko impulsive at short-sighted si Duterte dahil he forged ties with Russia and China before consulting  with Trump or Clinton tungkol sa paksang Panatag Shoal and their economic policy. Even before the U.S. presidential election was over in November of 2016, he could have ascertained both candidate's proposals. If Obama were serving longer, then I might have some sympathy for Duterte's decision. Gayunman, even then, it seems that Duterte may have been bent on forging new alliances just to spite the U.S. I have pointed out his anti- American inclination sa huling paliwanag ko titled "Digong is no Dick":

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  “20th-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.           ”https://www.marcialslaw.com/digong-is-no-dick-dick-gordon.../

Gayunpaman, sana Duterte will heed Carpio's advice. Gayunman in so doing, he will have to strain ties with China to some extent, but he will regain some credibility for finally defending Panatag Shoal.

Digong is no Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is
Updated 3/26/2017 By Marcial Bonifacio My…
MARCIALSLAW.COM

LikeShow more reactions · Reply · June 3 at 2:03pm  Remove

Jocel Mendoza I am one with the President. If the people who actually live in Mindanao support the declaration of Martial Law, why complain when we are not the one caught in war? Peace talks didn’t work and the enemies here are terrorists, we cannot talk sense to these people. Those who are against ML fear of power getting abused, but that is why the 1987 Constitution imposes limits to prevent it from happening. Martial Law then is different from Martial Law now.

Turning to Russia and China I think is the President’s way of bringing balance to Asia and neutralizing the tension in the region. We are not in the best position to declare war. Why would we fight China when even the US won’t. The most viable solution in the sea conflict - joint exploration.
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2  · May 31 at 2:00am  Remove

Marcial Bonifacio Kaibigang Jocel, sang-ayon ako sa punto mo ng martial law---that the 1987 Constitution has safeguards which differentiate it from the previous one. Gayunman, Duterte did not make such a distinction. Sa kabilang banda, sabi niya, "Martial law is martial law. So to my countrymen, you have experienced martial law. Ito, it would not be any different from what the President Marcos did. I’d be harsh.” Fortunately,  Duterte's surrogates have attempted to walk such statements back and make the distinctions which you made. Aside from using martial law for quelling Islamic terrorism, he should do so to neutralize the NPA as well, since peace talks with them have also failed.

Tungkol sa paksang bagong alliances, Duterte is not helpless in defending Panatag Shoal.  The Mutual Defense Treaty obligates the U.S. to engage in war should RP's navy vessels get attacked by China. SC Justice Antonio Carpio has even stressed that sa sulat ko.  Gayunpaman, Duterte would set a good example for the other ASEAN members with similar disputes dahil RP's sovereignty is legal sa pamamagitan ng ruling ng Permanent Arbitration Court.

LikeShow more reactions · Reply · June 3 at 2:46pm 

Updated 12/20/2016

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.

By Marcial Bonifacio

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?

Updated 11/03/2016

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

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