Last Friday, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, the most powerful Republican legislator in America and Chairman of the upcoming Republican National Convention, threw a stiff, back-handed slap at Donald Trump, the winner of the race for Republican nominee for President of the United States.
After issuing the weakest plausible endorsement of his party's nominee one day prior, Ryan took the first opportunity available to attack Trump, parroting the latest dishonest attack on the Republican nominee from the liberal establishment and its allies in the mass media.
This was not Paul Ryan's first attack on Donald Trump, nor the first time Ryan exploited the dishonest narrative of Trump's left-wing enemies. Not long after Trump had solidified his position as the front-runner, Ryan repeated the media's most repeated and most buffoonish attack on Trump: that the violent mobs of left-wing agitators opposed to Trump are his fault for provoking.
It was disgraceful enough that the Republican Speaker of the House would inject himself into the presidential race to trash the front-running candidate for any reason. That it was done in defense of violent left-wing mobs was all the worse.
Ryan's shameful behavior continues to this very day. Anti-Trump mob violence hit a new low last Thursday with Trump supporters beaten bloody, but the Speaker chose not to condemn those perpetrating political terrorism, but instead to attack his party's nominee.
The House Speaker did not attack the Republican nominee alone. Joining him was the next most powerful Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and a predecessor of Ryan's, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who called what Trump said “inexcusable.”
Trump's supposed crime was questioning the impartiality of a judge presiding over a pending lawsuit against the Trump Organization. Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association, which last year called for boycotts against Trump, and La Raza Lawyers Association. “La Raza” literally means “The Race” and the National Council of La Raza is the largest illegal immigration lobby in the United States.
As Donald Trump stands to become the President of the United States and do everything in his power to stop illegal immigration in America, questioning the ethnocentric judge's impartiality is entirely reasonable.
There were many things Paul Ryan could have said to address the latest fabricated media scandal and maintained his own dignity, even if he didn't agree with Trump's remark.
Ryan could have undercut the attack, by exposing the liberal media's own double standard, by asking: “Would liberal media accept a white judge, under any circumstances, who was a member of a White Race organization?” This would have buttressed Trump's noble and important effort to alienate the public from the professional liars in the mass media.
He could have defended Trump at face value: “What judge could possibly be unbiased in a case that might affect the outcome of a race for President of the United States?”
Paul Ryan could have said how appalling it was that neither Clinton nor Sanders has condemned their supporters' mob violence.
He could have condemned the mass media for their inciting role, having spent the past year calling Trump the second coming of Hitler.
Paul Ryan could have taken the opportunity to counter-punch: “Hillary Clinton smeared a child victim of rape to a court to help a child rapist get a lesser sentence. Where's your story on that?” (This is true and I can't wait for Trump to play this card.)
Paul Ryan could have made any number of other defenses. Politicians, especially in leadership, have to defend colleagues from criticism all the time, right or wrong. It's part of the job.
Instead, Paul Ryan did the most damaging thing possible: he “disavowed” Donald Trump, vindicating the Left, the Democrats, the media, and the mobs.
It bears repeating: Donald Trump is the Republican nominee chosen by Republican voters, yet Paul Ryan took an opportunity provided by the mass media to amplify left-wing attacks on his party's leader.
It is now beyond doubt: Paul Ryan cannot be permitted to chair the national convention.
Any House Speaker understands it is his duty to support the party's nominee.
It is clear from Paul Ryan's conduct that the Republican Party establishment is planning mischief in Cleveland.
This is no surprise, if you are familiar with the history of the Republican Party. In 1980, the last time the establishment didn't get its way, party insiders attempted to hijack the presidency from Ronald Reagan.
As Phyllis Schlafly recounted in the updated edition of A Choice Not An Echo:
Realizing they couldn't stop Ronald Reagan's nomination, the liberal Republicans developed an extraordinary game plan, one of the most unusual grabs for power in the history of the American presidency. On Wednesday, July 16, the third evening of the convention, while delegates at Joe Louis Arena were plodding through the roll call that produced 1,939 votes for Reagan, thirty-seven for John Anderson, and thirteen for George Bush, Henry Kissinger was on the sixty-ninth floor of the Renaissance Plaza Hotel, a few blocks away, promoting an incredible deal under which he, not Reagan, would exercise the powers of the presidency. If he had succeeded, it would have been a complete restructuring of the executive branch of the government.
If the globalist establishment would do this to stop Ronald Reagan from becoming President, they will stop at nothing to prevent a Trump presidency. (Henry Kissinger, incidentally, will be at Bilderberg this week, plotting this very thing.)
That Paul Ryan believes he can attack his own party's leader with impunity leaves no doubt: He would rather pass a globalist trade deal and amnesty with President Hillary Clinton (and raise money complaining about her) than work with President Donald Trump.
But if the Republican Party establishment chooses to make war with the candidate elected by their constituent voters, it will not just be the White House they lose.
The worst losses will be in state legislatures.
After countless past races, the party establishment has lectured the grassroots about the importance of unifying—after their candidate prevailed over an ideological insurgent.
And in fact, even when the ideological insurgent wins, the establishment supports the winner. Because it's their job.
Self-serving though it is, the self-preservation motive is legitimate. Losing the majority is a nightmare, for politicians and party officials most of all. In addition to letting socialists destroy our state and country, losing a majority means massive staff layoffs. Every seat lost is an agonizing defeat.
Michigan Republicans hold the state House by eight seats, and nine of them received less than 52% of the vote in 2014. The threat of losing the House in 2016 was as serious as a heart attack to House Republicans even before this circus of a presidential race was taken into consideration.
Michigan is not extraordinary. The situation is that fragile or worse for too many of the 30 Republican and 8 split state legislatures and 31 of 50 governors. 246 of 435 Republicans in the U.S. House. 54 of 100 in the Senate.
With those numbers, it's hard to go any way but down—unless more Republicans find imaginative ways to mobilize legions of new voters, as Donald Trump did. Republicans would be wise to make every effort to earn the votes of these new Trump voters.
Instead, establishment Republicans are being cold and often outright hostile to their own nominee.
Which is to say, they are being cold and often outright hostile to the voters.
Their pathetic pretext for sabotaging their party? It's for the sake of conservatism itself, they say.
How galling the hypocrisy that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney presume to lecture the grassroots about standing for conservatism. How sad that anyone could think the neocons, who mutated conservatism into an unrecognizable hodgepodge of globalism and statism, should be taken the least bit seriously.
How galling the hubris that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, who received fewer votes against Barack Obama and Joe Biden after four years of their rule than Sarah Palin and John McCain received in 2008, claim to know what is best for the conservative movement.
Everybody knows the truth. There's only one reason the party would take the extraordinary step of attacking their own nominee at the top of the ticket.
Trump defined himself as the strongest candidate on national security in general and border security in particular. He ran as an America-first candidate against a field of globalists.
And that's why the establishment hates Trump: because he's not a globalist, and he's not someone the globalists can control.
They will stop at nothing, including destroying the Republican Party, to preserve their agenda.
For the Speaker of the House to attack his own party's nominee is absolutely sufficient grounds for dismissal from the role of convention chairman.
It must be done. It's the decision between victory and defeat for the conservative movement itself. Perhaps for all time, if Democrats flood in enough new Democrat voters by opening our borders.
If the Republican Party gets its act together, 2016 could be its greatest year yet.
Trump won the primary race because he had broader support than his opponents, so much that he was able to overcome every disadvantage of being an outsider. In polls of almost every election, Trump won every demographic, or close to it.
Trump's political brilliance is remarkable. My political mentor once said there were levels of political intelligence: the highest was seeing a smart play and the steps needed to execute it; the lowest was failing to see a smart play even after it was pointed out to you that it worked.
Donald Trump's political intelligence discovers a new, higher category: seeing and executing a play that is so cunning your opposition takes it for a gaffe and promotes and amplifies it.
Somehow, Trump has managed to execute several such plays. The “illegal immigrant rapists” play. The name-calling play. Snubbing the Fox debate to hold a fundraiser for veterans organizations worked on more levels than anything I've ever seen.
Trump may beat Hillary Clinton easily, but she might not be the nominee.
Clinton may be indicted. Until the DNC makes it official, Sanders or even Joe Biden might well be the nominee. The national delegates have the power to change the rules however they see fit and nominate anyone they want.
The national delegates generally consist of party bosses, elected officials, and their loyal supporters. It's entirely possible—likely—that they figure out before the convention assembles that Hillary is a loser. A Biden/Warren convention play could easily work. Sanders supporters would be happy Hillary lost and Warren was on the ticket, and be fine with Biden, who is basically the same as Barack Obama, for all anyone knows.
Hillary Clinton is a loser, and everybody knows it, including the Democratic Party officials.
It's easy to see Trump defeating Hillary in November. Biden/Warren, not so much.
Republicans must unify behind Donald Trump and enthusiastically support him to win in November—for every race on the ticket.
The Republican national delegates are, for the most part, active members of their state parties. Many are state and local elected officials. If the elite are allowed to attack Donald Trump, it harms them directly.
Ryan has already proven himself unfit for convention chairman. He spat on the nominee.
That cannot stand.
He must be made to step down as convention chair.
Delegates, prepare for the fight of your lives. The heart and soul of the Republican Party, and the future of America, is at stake.
Thank you so much for the supportive letters so many of you wrote me after my last letter, in which I announced my departure from Rep. Bentivolio's office.
I was especially flattered by Gary Glenn's reply that evening, which included an offer to consult for his campaign for Michigan House of Representatives as Senior Campaign Adviser, which I accepted.
I'll be returning to Michigan tomorrow.
I could not ask for a better boss. Since I met Gary three years ago at the founding meeting of the Michigan Freedom to Work Coalition, Gary has shown himself to be a man of impeccable personal integrity, and one who has fought in the trenches for constitutional limited government for decades. He understands the challenges of controversial legislative projects and how to succeed.
He speaks fearlessly for individual rights, and knows how to defend them.
He is grounded in constitutional conservative principles, and always puts the Constitution first. I have no doubt he will be the next champion of liberty in the Michigan House of Representatives where Tom McMillin stands now and Justin Amash four years ago.
Gary is an extraordinarily rare politician: one who has run a campaign about something other than himself.
I saw it when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2012. He knew he did not have the resources to win, but it wasn't about winning; it was his effort to light brushfires in people's minds for the Right to Work. And those efforts paid off, that very same year.
When the battle was over, I described him on my blog as the unsung hero of the Right to Work effort in Michigan. I meant it.
This time, however, Gary is running to win. And I'm excited to be a part of his team.
I told Gary I'd be up there Wednesday, the day after my last scheduled meeting in DC. (For just about every campaign job, the start date is "immediately.")
But Gary, ever the gentleman, offered me the rest of the week to get my personal affairs in order.
So, I'll be home tomorrow, and in Midland next week.
It has been an exciting time I've had in Washington, and I will truly miss the friends I've made here. I'm sure we will stay in touch and work together another day; I will be back in DC now and again, too.
I'll definitely have to share some of my strange tales of life on the Hill. It is a silly place. (Nothing sensitive; don't worry.)
For now though, thanks again for all your kind words. It really is encouraging.
And of course, I would be irresponsible of me not to ask you consider making a contribution to Gary Glenn's campaign. His opponent is well-connected, the race will not be won easily, and the time to start is right now.
If you can make a generous contribution, Gary and I would be very grateful.
If you can chip in a tank of gas, or enough for a quick meal on the campaign trail, it's a great help--every little bit helps, and it adds up.
(Don't worry, I won't send campaign e-mails to my personal e-mail list--at least, not very often...)
Thanks again for all of your support, and for your efforts to defend and restore our Constitutional Republic.
Adam de Angeli
P.S. My DC apartment is available for sublet.
If you're interested in living close to the Capitol, you won't find a nicer, more convenient location for $550 a month, and it's pet-friendly, too. It is in Anacostia, but the nicest part of Anacostia, and I don't feel unsafe. 2.5 miles from the Capitol, you can get there in 15 minutes by bicycle or car, 30 minutes in rush hour, 45 minutes walking. Free washer/dryer and dishwasher, nice kitchen, fenced backyard. Month-to-month sublease.
At last, 2012 has come to an end. I suppose there is no sense cheering the passage of time, but it's hard not to be happy to be at the end of an long, hard-fought election season and a bitter lame-duck legislative period.
If there's anything that makes me more upset than politicians exploiting the death of innocent children and the suffering of their families to rob people of freedom, it's doing it at Christmastime.
The one time of year that the politicians usually lay off, just a little. Not one moment of 2012 was free of one political emergency or another. Is it much to ask, a quiet Christmas week?
Yet here they are, in the wake of the recent mass killing in Connecticut, doing it again. Plotting to steal our liberty, with no moral compunction for using the dead to push their agenda.
You might think I'm talking about Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, MoveOn.org, and the anti-rights, victim disarmament lobbyists. Those whose goal is nothing short of a total government monopoly on force.
And I am. They make my blood boil. Before the young victims were even buried, these people were exhuming them—to use them as a club to beat pro-rights politicians over the head with. To ram radical new gun control schemes through Congress and numerous state legislatures as well.
That it was gun control itself, which allowed the killer to safely assume that nobody in the building could have stopped him from committing his murders and left the victims defenseless to be slaughtered, makes it all the more obscene.
They clamor to ensure nobody anywhere, not just in a gun-free school, can defend themselves in a deadly emergency.
But I'm not just talking about the state-supremacists and their hoplophobic followers.
I'm also talking about the National Rifle Association, Dick Morris, and a few other supposedly conservative voices seeking to exploit the tragedy for their own "Constructive Republican Alternative Proposal": ratcheting up the already severe police state environment in schools across America.
The National Rifle Association has long held a reputation among serious, informed patriots as a leading anti-gun organization in America—especially because it poses as just the opposite.
Nobody has any illusions about what Barack Obama's agenda is. But few gun owners understand that the NRA acts as a gatekeeper for anti-gun legislation.
The NRA brokered the deal that allowed the Brady bill to become law. The NRA happily supported the DISCLOSE Act to silence political speech, once an exemption was carved out just for them. And any time the NRA stands to make millions through its training and certification programs, licensing and sanctioning is on the table.
So it should come as no surprise that the NRA not only refused to state all-out opposition to Barack Obama's gun ban, but they are openly calling for a massive "mental health" database—which would surely be used by gun grabbers to strip law-abiding Americans, especially veterans, of their gun rights.
That's right—state-sanctioned "experts" would decide whether or not you can own a firearm. How positively monstrous, and what a complete betrayal of the very cause they claim to defend.
They also took time out to attack the free speech rights of the makers of movies and video games.
But the NRA doesn't even stop there, and in fact, these suggestions were made only in passing. The thrust of the NRA's plan to stop gun violence is to place armed guards in every public school.
Some conservatives, even some Ron Paul supporters, like this idea. This worries me.
Those who champion liberty and limited government should be immediately suspicious of any plan to hire hundreds of thousands of new government workers with guns. If the essence of it isn't enough of a tip-off, here's another: far-left Barbara Boxer wants the same thing.
They're also both talking about more metal detectors, more mental health screenings, and generally speaking, more government. Always more government.
Is this really the best we can do? Send our children to an even more regimented, police-state environment under the authority of government-licensed strangers?
What are we really wishing for?
For some perspective, let's hear from the leading police-state scholar of our time, William Grigg. Grigg writes:
There is a sense in which Boxer’s proposal is redundant, since armed "warriors" are already deployed in countless schools nation-wide: They are called "resource officers," but they are taught to perceive themselves as front-line troops on a combat footing.
"You've got to be a one-man fighting force," self-styled counter-terrorism "expert" John Giduck exhorted police officers at the 2007 National Conference of School Resource Officers in Orlando, Florida. "You've got to have enough guns, and ammunition and body armor to stay alive.... You should be walking around in schools every day in complete tactical equipment, with semi-automatic weapons.... You can no longer afford to think of yourselves as peace officers.... You must think of yourself [sic] as soldiers in a war because we're going to ask you to act like soldiers." [Grigg's emphasis.]
"Resource Officers" are not present for the protection of children; their mission is to intimidate them, and – with increasing frequency – make criminals out of them. A detailed story published by The Guardian of London points out that in 2010, police deployed in [American] public schools issued roughly 300,000 "class C misdemeanor" citations to school children, most of them for trivial disruptive behavior, such as "inappropriate" dress and excessive use of perfume. Those infractions can result in fines, community service, or even time behind bars – and an arrest record that can ruin the student’s future educational and employment prospects. This is a splendid illustration of the "school-to-prison pipeline" in operation.
Although horrific mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School are vanishingly rare, "lock-down" drills in which SWAT teams conduct training exercises involving hostage or terrorism scenarios are increasingly commonplace. Many of those "hostage rescue" drills are better described as hostage-taking exercises, since they are used as pretexts for warrantless searches of lockers and student property.
Vista Grande High School in Casa Grande, Arizona, held a lock-down drug sweep on October 31. As had happened before in other schools across the country, the students were confined to their classrooms, then led in small groups to another room where they were forced to line up against a wall and be searched with the help of drug-sniffing dogs.
This exercise introduced a new element: Among the four law enforcement agencies involved in the search was a group of prison guards employed by the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest for-profit prison contractor.
Notes Caroline Isaacs of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee: "To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is perhaps the most direct expression of the `schools-to-prison pipeline’ I’ve ever seen." Clearly, the similarities between government-run schools and prisons are not limited to architecture. Posting National Guard troops around government indoctrination centers, as Boxer proposes, would destroy any residual pretense that there is a material distinction between "schools" and "prisons" in what is becoming an undisguised garrison state.
Like most contemporary liberals, Boxer is a passionate militarist who swaddles her enthusiasm for lethal force in rhetoric about compassion and equality. She can call for armed troops to patrol "gun-free" school zones without perceiving any contradiction, because she simply assumes that the rest of us exist only to serve the interests of the political class and its enforcement arm. It is their privilege to compel, and our duty to submit to whatever they choose to inflict upon us. This is what Boxer and her comrades have in mind when they invoke "national security."
The NRA, which will doubtless rake in millions in solicited
donations from its members who hope the lobby will defend their
rights, is every bit as guilty of exploiting the memory of the
dead, for attacking liberty and for profit, as our enemies on the
The pundits got everything wrong as always (generally speaking), but most of all, they missed that what happened in Lansing yesterday was utterly unprecedented.
Big Labor's officially acknowledged campaign expenditures represent just the tip of the iceberg of union electioneering, as pro-forced unionism commentator John Tasini, a union consultant and former union official, acknowledged in a February 20, 2005 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Tasini reported that several "union political experts" had admitted to him that "unions spend seven to 10 times what they give candidates and parties on internal political mobilization."
Federal reports show that, in 2009 and 2010, Big Labor contributed $58.9 million in cash to federal candidates and another $61.7 million to Big Labor-affiliated PACs.
Following Tasini's formula, Organized Labor spent up to $1.2 billion dollars, mostly force-dues money, "on internal political mobilization" in 2009 and 2010.
|This website is under construction. Please check back soon.
In the meantime, feel free to sign up for my e-mail list. I will send out alerts, opinions, etc. every week or so if you are interested.
06/07/16: Step Down, Mister Speaker
The Republican Party cannot allow a hostile Speaker to chair the convention to nominate Donald Trump.
02/11/14: Returning to Michigan
I'm returning to Michigan from a year in Washington to manage Gary Glenn's campaign for Michigan Representative
12/31/12: Cheers and Farewell
Final thoughts on 2012 and 2013 on my last day in Michigan.
12/24/12: The Exploitation of Murder
Our enemies on both the Left and Right commit this, perhaps the most heinous act in politics, without a thought.
12/12/12: Rarest of the rare political phenomenon: Michigan Passes Right to Work
How the heck did we pull this off? Who is to thank for this?
12/10/12: Union bosses still have time to kill Right to Work in Michigan
Put away the champagne; your action is needed now more than ever to ensure passage of freedom to work in Michigan
12/06/12: A Question of Leadership
Why Romney's loss vindicated the liberty movement, and some lessons about the collapse of the pro-life movement.
11/30/12: Sign the petition, send the letter
It matters a lot more than you've been told to think...
11/15/12: The Lesser of Two Evils?
Carrying water for the lesser of two evils is a sure-fire way to ensure your agenda gets nowhere.
11/02/12: Six Michigan Ballot Proposals In A Nutshell
1, 5, 6 YES. 2, 3, 4 NO.
10/20/12: Syed Taj's economic kookery: comparing debt to national wealth
In a TV interview, Syed Taj (candidate for Congress, MI-11) reveals he is an economic idiot and a socialist.
09/23/12: Constitutionism v. Constitutionalism
What happens when bad principles are applied to a good idea?
09/20/12: Ron Paul's Greatest Rally
Adam's first blog post, on the greatest moment of the Ron Paul 2012 campaign, where Dr. Paul proved to the Republican party and to America that he would have been President.
12/31/10: A Time For Cheer
Things may seem bleak at times, but 2010 was a great year for the liberty movement, with greater times to come.