W R Collier Jr

Are Conservatives Losers?

W R Collier Jr May 23, 2017

Are we conservatives losers who snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by our constant navel gazing and self-critique even in the face of an all-out assault on our legitimacy by the Progressives? We see with the wanton and egregious attacks on Donald J. Trump that conservatives are ill-equipped intellectually and morally to stand strong.

The conspiracy theorists would argue, “The witch hunt against the duly elected President is nothing short of an effort to literally conduct a coup against the voters. The aim to is to place a globalist puppet in the White House to continue the globalist plan to dismantle freedom and use America’s resources to erect a ‘global superstructure’ with total control over your life.”

While that sounds sensational, the machinations of the Progressives and their media allies do in fact appear to evince of a design which could be described technically as a coup, although perhaps that is a stretch. The aim is to deligitimize the President and the Republicans and indeed the very ideas and values which underpin the original spirit and intent of our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Progressivism is an ideology that, upon exploration, is a utopian scheme to change human nature itself through direct control over the many by an elite few. Regardless of its slogans and constant virtue signalling, progressivism really does come down to that. Whatever the problem, the solution is always an elite few controlling the many for the sake of “progress”, which essentially requires the rewriting of human nature itself.

It is not an attractive ideology and Progressives seem to spend more time and energy denying and concealing their ideology than explaining it. Thus, in order to advance their agenda they must eliminate all competition. To create a scenario where the only choices are versions of Progressivism you have to deligitimize the other side, ideally by using the conservative penchant for moral and ethical purity to make them doubt the moral and ethical virtue of their leaders.

This is not about winning in the marketplace of ideas, this is about creating a marketplace in which progressivism alone has a monopoly, and all other ideas are illegitimate. By attacking leaders, whether the attacks have ANY basis in fact doesn’t matter, and then, once the conservatives turn on their own leaders, tarnishing all conservatives with the false accusations of corruption, you eliminate competition in the marketplace of ideas.

If indeed conservatives had a backbone, and most don’t seem to, this would not work. We would resist all progressive attacks, demand truth, and do the same right back to them. We would counter accuse, and Lord knows we would have no lack of material to work with. We would defend our leaders and our cause. We would vilify the Progressives, who deserve it, and we would seek to deligitimize them and their ideology at every turn.

In truth, conservatives have become a bunch of naval gazers with the weak conscious of the childish and immature. Too ready to abandon their leaders, too ready to buy into the opposition media’s lies, and too unwilling to turn the tables and launch their own attacks, conservatives look like weaklings and fools. The silly argument that we cannot blindly follow a leader, when nothing of the sort is required, is virtue signalling of the worse type.

If we are not careful, the attempt to delegitimize the President and us will have the effect of becoming a de facto coup, he would be forced to resign or something based on lies, and even as he is abandoned, the entire cause we say we believe in would be shamed and shunned. All resistance to the Progressives would be broken.

That is what is at stake.

There is a time for everything. There is a time to hold even our conservative leaders, even the President, accountable. But that time is not in the middle of a faux controversy being drummed up to change election outcomes at worse, or deligitimize the President and our cause at best. In the middle of a battle you don’t start an inquiry into whether you should support the generals. Do that later.

Conservatives had better wise up and stand strong, because if Donald Trump is delegitimized our whole movement will end up in the wildnerness. Defeat the Progressives, then let’s start talking about whether we can trust our own leaders.

The Blueprint To Save America?

W R Collier Jr May 19, 2017

Bill Collier- Democracy, Churchill claimed, was a terrible form of government, but all the other forms were worse. But if you consider such factors as longevity, stability, peace, and relative stability, democracy is in fact at least no better than other forms of government and probably worse in some ways. As HL Mencken said, every election is an advance auction on stolen property. The flaw of democracy is that it basically becomes the majority “eating” the minority and power is won by giving things away through excessive taxes and sent spending, which the politician himself of herself is not accountable for.

America is in crisis, but few realize that this is an existential crisis which will eventually result in a failed state, if history is our guide. There is not much good to say about our trajectory- we are being overrun by foreign IDEAS that fundamentally oppose our national identity and values, we are digging a debt hole from which escape may soon be impossible, we are morally and spiritually corrupting our children, we are destroying the fabric of society, which is the family led by a natural mother and father, and of course our political decision-making process is corrupted and torn, incapable of making hard choices with any kind of speed. History says that when a society reaches this point it must either rebuild a new foundation based on what it knows worked from its past OR it will be destroyed.

People like to claim that America is a republic. In 1913 America adopted structural changes to her republican form of government that rendered us a representative democracy, not a republic. We replaced State government appointed Senators with elected Senators, thus gutting the best check against Federal excess, as state governments would compel their Senators to resist centralization of powers. We instituted the direct income tax, allowing for massive wealth redistribution from people and states to the Federal power. We created a centralized banking system (Federal Reserve) that empowers global bankers and gives them control over our very currency. All these things ended our republic, though few understood that then and even now.

Representative democracy is not the path forward. Either it must end and some form of a republic be restored or the United States of America will end. I am not saying this will happen today, or very soon, though one can never be sure. The poison is still working its black magic on the whole body, it could take 30 to 60 years to kill the whole experiment.

There is a path forward. But it is not simple or easy, and it could take a generation to reach its highest goals. It runs the risk of being too little, too late.

The truth is that winning Federal and State elections can, at best, slow down the slide into the pit, but even winning an election doesn’t mean anything at all will happen- consider how the Republicans with everything they asked us to give them have basically spent their time attacking the President and offering lame excuses. They have not stopped catering to the radical leftist news media to win the approval of news room editors. And so, having taken over 1000 state and federal seats from the far left Democratic Party and having won the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Republicans have done nothing but continue to push America further down the drain.

While I propose that the path to save America should be clear and self-evident once explained, I am not certain a society in such an advanced state of decline will muster the resources and support needed to make this happen.

Saving America requires a three-pronged movement, or three movements that have the same end goal, which is to return power and wealth from the elite few to the people in their families and communities until most every aspect of your life is controlled by you and the people you choose to associate with or live beside.

The first movement needs to be a self-reliance and autonomous living movement that empowers people to be materially and economically independent of the current system to meet their basic needs- this is a socioeconomic and cultural movement, or movements, with a major focus on local cooperation and collaboration between families. It must be rooted in families based on natural mothers and fathers with their children, because such families are the fabric of advanced civilization.

The second movement needs to restore citizen control at the very local level and win local elections for officials who adhere to the original spirit and intent of the Bill of Rights and who agree to obey Town Meeting style gatherings of their electors. Restoring solid leadership on as many locales as possible, and being prepared to assume whatever greater roles will be needed if and when Federal and State powers devolve is vital. The aim is to see that local people directly control their local government and that such governments maintain first loyalty to the original spirit and intent of the Bill of Rights as the basis of their legitimacy.

The third movement must be a citizen powered free press movement that can compete with and replace all the partisan leftist media as the most trusted news source and opinion shaper in each locale. This must be local, because at this level a free press can in fact win more loyalty and trust than all other news media at every level, but competing with the leftist news media on any kind of scale beyond the very local would be difficult.

So we see autonomous living based on the family unit of father and mother in marital union and in connection with other families, a local government that adheres to the Bill of Rights and obeys local Town Meetings, and a true citizen powered local free press that cooperates regionally and nationally as a more trusted alternative to the leftwing press are the three prongs of an attack that will destroy the global bankers and their minions. They will lose lower one heart, one home, and one community at a time, they will bleed from a thousand cuts.

Once these three things take root and most US communities are heavily influenced by autonomous family living, local freedom communities, and a real free press, then it will be impossible for the central powers controlled by the elites to impose their will and manipulate public opinion.

This is essentially the Freedomist’s long-term vision, to foster, promote, and nurture such a movement and imform, educate, empower, and equip people to launch such movements and activities where they live. While I propose to create Freedomist entities to promote these things, I also intend to work with and promote any existing efforts along these lines and seek alliances with them.

This does not mean we can forget about State and Federal elections. As a tactical matter, they matter. So I am proposing the Freedomist Party USA to both address those elections and promote the concept and practice of freedom communities. I am proposing the Freedomist Guard to create a local voice and ultimate a local free press for freedom. I am proposing The Freedomist Society, with member Societies, to promote autonomous living among families in communities.

To get this going we need to be able to produce content, advertise to an audience, pay for skilled staff, and hold events where we can impart these ideas and practices and people can either join a Freedomist group or form their own. This requires resources we do not have.

Therein is the rub. Unless and until we find supporters, the Freedomist can do little more than document the decline and fall of the USA. It seems that our present society, and the people who could easily support such an effort as I propose, is incapable of responding to such a call.

To return to the theme. We need an autonomous living movement rooted in families and communities; we need a freedom community movement that elects local officials who obey the Bill of Rights and the Town Meetings of their electors; and we need a local free press that has more influence than the leftist media. All the while we need news and information, training and resources, and a way to influence State and Federal elections as a tactical necessity.

There is no silver bullet. And we have to work in obscurity and in the wilderness, early victories will be hard to come by. Even as we start winning, the road is decades long. Many of us won’t be alive to taste the final victory, if it comes. Our battle is spiritual and then cultural and economic, and then it is political and broadly social. Merely getting an election win still leaves the apparatus of the leftist power structure controlled by the globalist freedom-takers in place. We have to destroy that structure and replace it at the local level, or we are fighting a losing war.

Self-reliant people who control their local governments directly and who control their own news media are far more powerful than some elite pencil pusher at a state capital or in Washington D.C. who works for the interest of the elite few at the expense of the many.

I have a blueprint to make this happen. In fact, given around $30 million per year and 5 years, I am convinced we would see at least 30% of all local communities firmly controlled by free men and women, and that will be the foundation for a national renewal that may takes decades to complete, but that will definitely see every day get better for us and darker for our political enemies.

As it stands, neither myself or anyone who may have similar ideas, with a track record to prove their veracity and skill, is getting anything like this in support. That is unfortunate and reflects the reality that already it may be too late, because anything less than such a plan with such a level of support will not do.

Until then, if you want to track the demise of the USA and see ways you can position yourself and your family to escape what could come next, stay tuned right here.

The Conservatives Lost- It’s Time To Fight Back

W R Collier Jr May 4, 2016

By Bill Collier- We are at a point where a conservative cannot win the Republican primary. The Republican Party has not favored conservatives ever and has never really been a conservative party, at least in modern history. The truth is the leaders of the conservative movement have utterly failed- that is an objective fact. The people who claimed to be leading the Tea Party, the people who led the legacy conservative organizations, and conservative politicians within the GOP have collectively failed to win the battles that they needed to win.

We cannot win with “the next Reagan”, that ship has sailed and that was a 20^th century reality. Our issues, especially social conservative issues, are losing issues even though our positions are generally more in line with most people. IN other words, while the things we stand for line up with most Americans’ beliefs, most Americans don’t hold those issues as a high priority at all. Given a choice between what the liberals and moderates offer and social conservatives who only offer the opportunity to earn your own success and prosperity, we lose.

These are the hard facts which confront us at this trying hour in which, for the umpteenth time, there is not real conservative alternative who can win the election in 2016- the two major parties are both, to varying degrees, hostile to the conservative agenda, especially the social conservative agenda. America has become a socially libertine nation and it isn’t interested in the right to life, traditional marriage, or anything along those lines.

But just as Americans won’t make voting FOR social conservative issues a priority, so too, I propose, that they will not make voting FOR social libertinism their priority. Notice the Democrats and the moderates in the GOP rarely RUN on libertinism, though they pursue it once elected, and most Americans just go with the flow. What people care about is money- their money. Whether they comes from not being raked over the coals every year by the IRS or getting access to some program or benefit at public expense, or both, the American voter today lacks principles and virtues. That is a fact of life we are going to have to deal with if we are going to win voters to our cause.

Unless we can address their priorities and serve them and prove the success of our program, they will not support us. But if we serve the voters with a real agenda, not just a catch phrase, that lines up with their needs and priorities, then they will accept other aspects of what we wish to do, just as they do now for the liberals and moderates.

In the Republican Primary a socially libertine candidate won substantial support from voters who are socially very conservative because he was able to address their top priorities- number one seeming to be the economy and number two seeming to be a desire to overturn the current power structure within the Republican Party. The frustration conservatives feel is extremely high, especially for those who were excited by Ted Cruz’s candidacy. There is no candidate for the conservative, and that in part because, like most people, conservatives in large numbers voted for things they held in higher esteem than their own conservative beliefs.

I do not blame these people for doing what they did. We have to eat and survive and, sadly, while Ted Cruz had a great plan for addressing those core priorities, he spent little time and energy selling his commitment to those issues. I am not suggesting that conservative who run for office not set policy by their convictions. I am not suggesting Ted Cruz lost because of his social conservative values. I am suggesting that if you can’t prove that you will deliver good economic results for people you won’t win because people have to eat and keep a roof over their head. Trump did that. Now we’ll see if between he and Clinton which does that better- in the end that is what matters most.

I am not suggesting that a prof-life conservative stop being pro-life. I am suggesting that 90% of their campaign needs to be about what the voters care about and what their priorities are. They don’t really, in a general sense, care if you are pro-life or not, they care about what THEY care about. I don’t like it, I think it is shallow and short-sighted to be like that, I believe morals matters, but I also KNOW that voters place a premium on pocketbook and wallet issues.

The conservatives who are ready to bolt the GOP have had enough. I have been harsh in some comments to them, but as I am reflecting, I begin to see their perspective, and I have more sympathy, I myself have a visceral reaction to anything that support Hillary Clinton who will destroy our wallets and our culture! But as I step back….it becomes clear that conservatives who are ready to let the chips fall where they will have a point. Why keep trying to win on a battlefield where there has not been a real victory since 1984? The GOP has been an utterly fruitless field for the conservative movement.

But my counter argument is that the conservative movement has utterly failed on two counts- it has not farmed the field of the GOP and it has not set out an agenda and a program from action, beyond mere rhetoric, that convinces voters that we will deliver on their priorities. The Republican Party is a system.

Like all systems, self-perpetuation and maintaining the current leadership are built into the system- without these things you cannot maintain a system. So it is always an uphill climb to change the leadership and restructure the system. But conservatives have failed to even give that a good try- their time and money has not gone into moving activists into leadership from the precinct, up and they massaging has utterly failed to deliver voters on a consistent basis. Because they do not show up at meetings, participate in activities, invest money, and elect their own to local positions of authority within the Party they utterly fail.

To blame the GOP when the GOP is just a field to be plowed reminds me of the story Acres of Diamonds. In this story, the farmer sees only fallow land and trues everything but plowing the land- he tries all kinds of get rich quick schemes and none work. Eventually, he sells the farm. The guy who buys it then proceeds to plow in earnest to try and resurrect the fallow ground. He discovers that just a few feet below the surface are acres of tiny diamond fragments- he becomes extremely rich.

Conservatives have tried everything but the gritty and boring work of plowing the field. They have not focused on moving activists into the realm of local to national Party leadership through a demonstrated commitment to the Party they need to win elections. They gave not honed their message to give the People what the People want. And they have, as a movement, utterly failed to invest in the people who actually get things done, such as bloggers and local activists who work for free while consultants live large and accomplish nothing.

I am going to vote for the Party in November. I am not voting for Trump, I am voting for the Republican Party Platform, which I mostly agree with. And I am going to work to help build a prosperity movement founded on my social conservative values within the GOP that will move activists to places of real leadership in all levels of that Party, I am going to FARM THIS FIELD called the Republican Party, and in November I a going t vote to ensure that there is still a field to be plowed instead of letting the likes of Hillary Clinton ascend to the throne.

Now if, in the Convention, the Party so alters its platform that I cannot vote for it, that is a different matter. I will hope that those who have influence there will fight for a conservative platform, otherwise we would be giving away the farm to the progressives within who have been plowing that field.

The conservative rank and file have been following and supporting leaders who have failed to plow the field of the Republican Party, who have failed to move conservative activists into leadership positions in that Party starting at the precincts, and who have failed to provide a coherent message that earns the trust of voters for our candidates. A Hillary Presidency will make building a new and practically effective conservative movement nearly impossible as she may very well end our freedom to even openly operate as social conservatives or capitalists. Pulling down the whole house on our own heads is not a comparison to Sampson, it is a comparison to the kamikaze, it is kamikaze conservatism.

Social conservatives who believe in freedom, the free market, and America have to stop Hillary, farm the field of the GOP, and create a message and program that serves the People’s actual priorities and thus EARNS their support for our priorities.

Senator Cruz, Make America Prosper Again

W R Collier Jr April 28, 2016

Bill Collier- Senator Ted Cruz is a true blue conservative who has done a lot to push the conservative agenda. His platform and policy pursuits are, in my estimation, stellar. I want a Cruz win for the nomination and the White House.

I have been repeatedly saying that Senator Cruz needs to sell his main asset, his prosperity plans, and stay focused on selling himself as the champion of popular prosperity.

I believe that if Senator Cruz would get to a prosperity message, and truly inspire people, he can still win the nomination, though it is a tough mountain to climb. This transition is not difficult for him to make because his platform already closely aligns with a prosperity agenda.

If Senator Cruz can increase his overall poll numbers to 50% or more, pull off some big wins in the final days of the race, and forge alliances with the other candidates that have delegates they can swing his way, he has a chance.

There is a slim, but narrowing, chance for victory. Based on that slim chance, I hope he gets this message and takes it as constructive criticism from “family,” as opposed to an attack by opponents. The time to push forth a prosperity agenda is now…or never.

In short, Cruz wants to be President and I want the same thing and for the same reasons: to make America prosper again!

A candidate rising in popularity with broadening support and fresh victories could win a contested convention and overcome the initial angst. This is especially true if his opponent is losing ground and people who voted for him have real buyer’s remorse. The key thing is narrative and messaging. And that has been Senator Cruz’s chief, and potentially fatal, weakness in this primary race.

Senator Cruz’s decision to announce his intention to run with Carly Fiorina as his VP choice (should he win the nomination) has caused no small amount of head scratching among friend and foe alike.

Here then are the main reasons why, in my estimation, this move does not necessarily advance Ted Cruz and does not inspire some of his supporters, such as myself:

1. It can be argued that it undermines Cruz’s chief argument that Trump is not a proven true blue conservative. In the eyes of many conservatives, including myself, Fiorina is not a proven true-blue conservative.

My own support of Cruz has been based mostly on his bona fides as a rock-solid conservative. His actual platform and prosperity policies are still, in my estimation, the best. By choosing Fiorina, Cruz is saying that she is qualified to be President. This implied assessment of Cruz can be seen by some to disprove his argument that we should choose only a rock-solid, proven conservative. After all, Fiorina would be only one heartbeat away from the Presidency if Cruz won in the general.

I have already seen this emerge among opponents who use it to neutralize arguments that Mr. Trump is not a proven conservative. This choice, once again, obscures the clear message that Cruz CAN win on, that he is the champion of popular prosperity. It shifts the discussion to raise doubts on his strength going into the race, that he was a tried and true, lead by example, true blue conservative.

2. The move looks bad and feels like pandering. These words didn’t come from Trump supporters. They are a common criticism I am now hearing from his own supporters.

To put this move into perspective, take into account that Cruz just lost five states, AND that his way beyond securing the nomination. What does a move like this look like to you, a move made from a position of strength, or a move made from a position of weakness?

Beyond that, it shows that Cruz is not focused on the key issues of this campaign. For instance, Cruz says he vetted her carefully. This takes personal time and energy, and that time and energy would be better spent on the campaign honing a prosperity message.

But the idea that he is only choosing her to get the woman’s vote is a further digression from the real theme of his campaign: which is freedom and prosperity, or, simply prosperity (which implies freedom in and of itself).

Bringing up old grievances and playing the “sexist” card doesn’t in one way prove you are the champion of freedom and prosperity. As a matter of fact, pulling the sexist card is seen by many as a tactic best deployed by the left, not a true blue conservative, his initial central theme of his campaign.

What is more, should Mr Trump become the nominee, a now likely outcome, you have provided grist for the liberal mill to be used to hurt our nominee and our party!

3. It is a pure distraction!

I have argued, on Freedomist.com, that Cruz has, so far, failed to sell his best asset, that he is the best prosperity champion. I voted for Cruz and I did so still hoping that Cruz can win. It is an uphill climb, to be sure. Preventing Trump from getting to the magic 1237 delegates is itself an uphill battle, nevermind the challenges of winning a brokered convention. But be that as it may, so long as there is fight to be had, we fight.

If Cruz wants to have any chance to win this fight, he is going to have to get back to basics and push his main selling point, that he is the true blue conservative, the champion of prosperity. Cruz has, I believe, sacrificed potential support and ceded the prosperity debate to Trump, who is selling it to get votes.

Cruz could have made a press announcement that he was pushing to have the gold standard added to the GOP platform or to audit the fed or some major prosperity initiative. He could have done a speech on that subject, and compared his plan to Hillary and/or Trump’s plans and made his case for the party to rally to his prosperity banner.

We have been talking about delegate legerdemain and now Cruz’s VP choice, none of which move his narrative and messaging about prosperity into public consciousness where it is certain to turn into popular support.

This is not necessarily to say I am criticizing the delegate legerdemain itself, nor that the VP pick is somehow going to doom the campaign. If I thought this was really all over, the point of this article would be moot and thus this article would not have been written.

The focus of my criticism is that we are not talking about the right thing- make America prosper again. If we were, we would be winning on all counts right now. If we focus on making America Prosper again, we might be able to win, even now.

I am imagining a Cruz speech in which he lays out why he is the prosperity champion, why Hillary isn’t, and why he is the party’s best choice to defeat her prosperity killing agenda. He can then explain why he needs the people, the voters, to support him, and why if people have already voted against him they should support him now. I am imagining a petition saying “make America prosper again, select Ted Cruz as our nominee” signed by hundreds of thousands of voters.

In the end, the only way Cruz will be able to legitimately win a contested convention is to be at over 50% of the popularity of GOP polls, showing he has won back people who already voted for other candidates. The only way to get there AND to start having some upsets is to inspire people with your narrative and promise, not by selecting someone as a potential VP running mate, someone whose own conservative bona fides are at least as uncertain as Trump’s, which Cruz has rightly pointed out again and again.

Regardless, if Cruz and his newly chosen running mate want to pull some upsets and grow his popularity, they need to hammer away at a simple prosperity appeal and Cruz needs to claim the mantle of the champion of OUR prosperity. He has the plans to make us prosper again, which is better than being great, if only he would sell those plans.

Being “great” is nebulous, but prospering is REAL, and will MAKE us great.

Of course changing the campaign focus and messaging this late is tough. Some might argue it is too late. But if Senator Cruz is still campaigning, regardless of what has already happened, I suggest he do it in a way that might at least truly give him a shot: win popular support for a popular prosperity PROMISE that his plans and policies can certainly deliver.

Senator Cruz, let’s stop the distractions and let’s work to MAKE AMERICA PROSPER AGAIN!

The Arc Bends In Trump’s Favor

W R Collier Jr April 27, 2016

Bill Collier- The media and others are convinced: Trump is unstoppable. But is this really the case given how we’ve seen unreliable polling and how things have twisted and changed so rapidly?

The key state is, or may be, California.

California ballots are mailed in two weeks. 80% of CA voters choose by mail. Therefore in a very real sense the CA primary, which is an open primary, begins in two weeks.

Kasich is relying on getting Democrats in LA and San Fransisco to vote for him, Trump is trying to get dems and independents to cross over and support hm, Cruz is focused on districts that are very conservative.

Who has the ground game in CA and how do you get people to vote, considering 80% vote from home via the mail? Rallies, media, and internet ads are going to matter more than normal on the ground GOTV efforts. This favors Trump and Kasich but Cruz has shown himself to adroit online, just not great for rallies.

Polling may not be extremely reliable. But neither Cruz nor Kasich can win the state overall, Trump is going to get the most votes of the three, and may reach 50%…but that is iffy. This is a race on a district-by-district basis and one wonders if any of the campaigns are doing solid internal polling on such a basis. Trump has to focus on all the districts to both get his overall win and to get district delegates, while kasich and cruz, forfeiting the overall win, only have to focus on the districts they can expect to win. They are performing a blocking action whereas Trump needs a breakthrough.

Crossover votes from Democrats will be greater if Bernie Sanders drops out of the race before California because the Clinton campaign won’t need to sweat the election: but that voting begins in two weeks. The machinery that is needed to get those votes will be in high gear and cannot be easily reversed: all those ads, mailers, and phone calls are in process right now. Therefore, Kasich and Trump will have less crossover votes, but this cuts more into Kasich’s vote-getting than it does Trump’s.

Indiana may not be enough to stop Trump or to secure a win for Trump, unless he sweeps it. If Trump loses big in Indiana, he can still do so well in CA that he still gets to the right number. If Cruz loses big, he and Kasich could conceivably block Trump in so many districts in CA that he gets less than 100 of the 171 delegates. This is something they need to be spending money and resources on NOW before ballots start showing up in people’s mail in two weeks. In this latter scenario, Trump may limp into Cleveland with 1200 pledged delegates for the first round of voting.

The question then becomes a matter of the convention’s stomach for a contested process that puts someone with far fewer delegates and votes than the front-runner. The NEVERTRUMP crowd is convinced that stopping Trump from getting on the ballot is a higher priority than beating Hillary Clinton OR that anyone but Trump would be a better candidate to beat Hillary.

In the end, the nevertrump forces have an easier goal to reach, just ensure Trump doesn’t get to 1237. Trump has a harder goal- he has to get to 1237 or more. But the arc has bent in Trump’s favor and, while he has a higher mountain to climb, he is still slightly closer to his desired summit than his opponents are to theirs.

(NOTE- Credit is due Karl Rove who used the phrase “the arc has turned toward Trump” in his analysis last night, on the 26th of April, 2016.)

Why I Am Disappointed In Ted Cruz

W R Collier Jr April 25, 2016

This meme illustrates how the deal between Kasich and Cruz to bow out of different states looks to me...and many others..even though I have always wanted Cruz to win. — This meme illustrates how the deal between Kasich and Cruz to bow out of different states looks to me…and many others..even though I have always wanted Cruz to win.

By Bill Collier- From the start of the campaign I was excited for Ted Cruz. He made his announcement on March 15, 2015. Technically he had already announced via a Tweet, but his speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg VA was the starting point.

I followed his career as a Senator and was often inspired by his speeches. When I saw his actual plans….I was hopeful oh so hopeful, that we could get this man, the only rock-solid and straight down the line true conservative in the race, into the White House! No more backroom deals, no more insider baseball, oh, and did I mention the gold standard? Cruz supports SOUND MONEY and only gold can give us that. He supports the things he supports because they will make us all more likely to prosper!

He was quoted by the Washington Post-

“Today, I am announcing that I am running for president of the United States,” Cruz said, about 20 minutes into a speech to students here. “Ted! Ted!” students yelled.

“It is the time for truth. It is the time for liberty. It is the time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States,” Cruz said.

It was a moment of promise and hope and I was happy to count myself a TedHead. Cruz had proven he could and would fight, he had an exemplary public record, and he had argued liberal lawyers to a stand-still in front of the Supreme Court. His resume is a conservative fantasy come true, frankly.

But as the race proceeded it became all too clear. Ted Cruz was missing the plot.

Back in August of 2015, Trump and Cruz joined forces to protest the Iran deal. This was before they cordially loathed one another. (The cordiality is gone now, too.) The whole exercise was a distraction, it elevated Trump, and it didn’t do Cruz any good. It was such a total distraction from his main offering, his main selling point, which was and is PROSPERITY.

Art Laffer and Steve Moore, full disclosure, for whom I have built a website, were quick to note that of the candidates running in November of 2015, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had the best tax plans. His plan and his initial rhetoric in favor of his pro-prosperity plan were praised by Ralph Benko in his Forbes online column. In fact I have my own insider sources who re-assured me that Cruz had been told that his plan was the best plan for prosperity and that he could win by preaching a pro-prosperity message.

The sad irony for prosperity voters such as myself, Ted Cruz did not push a prosperity message, his theme was a mixture of conservative purity, outsider street cred, and Christian statesmen. None of these are bad things, but voters really mostly want prosperity. And, unlike anyone else, I think, Ted Cruz has a plan that will deliver that, but Donald Trump is the one who is promising that. (Clearly, a vote for Trump is NOT a vote for prosperity, regardless of the rhetoric).

So what has become of the Cruz campaign?

Cruz failed to win straight up. He didn’t get the popular votes needed to secure first round votes in the convention- Trump has more than 2.5 million vote than Cruz and almost 300 more first round guaranteed delegate votes in the convention. Cruz, a lawyer and a brilliant tactician in such matters, has figured out how to game the system to snatch away delegates, all legally I will add, to try to win on round two of the votes. He is spending money and resources, and lots of it, to get delegates.

Meanwhile, now it is announced that Cruz will cede Oregon and New Mexico to Kasich who will cede Indiana to Cruz in the hopes of stopping Trump from winning in those states. This is all perfectly legal and legitimate, and Trump complaining about it is laughable (as if he would not do the same thing). But it is a far cry from the opening lines of such a promising campaign.

While no formal numbers have been revealed, Ted Cruz’s campaign is said to be “well organized” to mobilize people on the ground and get his supporters nominated and elected, by local to state conventions, to be delegates. Even in states where Trump won, many of the delegates selected have pledged to vote for Cruz on round two if Trump doesn’t come in with enough to win in the first round. This is a credit to Cruz and demerit to Trump who should have known better!

Cruz became mired in responding to the latest outlandish Trump attack, he threw out red meat, he had near religious events with Glenn Beck, and now he is focused on getting delegates to secure a win…by what many see as a backdoor. It may be legal and fair, but it is hardly what I had hoped to be seeing this late in the game.

Cruz is not liked by the establishment types. Mitch McConnell, who loathes both Trump and Cruz openly, gleefully, predicted a contested convention. Karl Rove’s speculation of a “fresh face” emerging may not have been evidence of an evil plot on his part, but a learned analysis of what is quite possible- the GOP will try to put up someone other than Trump or Cruz in a contested convention.

The opening remarks of the campaign, which were so promising, have now devolved to this from an interview with Seam Hannity:

“Donald Trump’s campaign does not know how to organize on the grassroots, and so when the delegates are elected the real conservative activists show up, they elect delegates and we are winning those elections over and over and over again,” Senator Cruz explained to Sean. “I cannot help that the Donald Trump campaign does not seem capable of running a lemonade stand.”

This may in fact be true. But winning elections by the popular vote is the key to legitimacy in this society, a society long trained in the notion that every vote counts and that it is your duty to go out and vote. It is also a complete distraction from Cruz’s actual best selling point- that he has the plan that will make us all more prosperous.

It is a lawyerly response from Cruz- now it’s not the votes in primary or caucuses which are convenient and open to all registered party members, it’s the delegates. Technically, quite true, and yet, it’s sausage and now we are talking about all the ingredients of sausage instead of prosperity!

Ted Cruz being forced to rely on legerdemain to win, instead of good, clean wins at the polls coupled with such legerdemain to protect his delegates, is about as appealing as, well, the legal profession itself. The fact is. we are at this place because Ted Cruz could not muster enough of a plurality of votes to beat a New York liberal in a GOP primary. And the reason for that is not Trump, the media, Sean Hannity, or Drudge, all the people Cruz blames: the reason is that Ted Cruz had a brilliant path to victory through a prosperity message but he allowed himself to get distracted.

I am disappointed in Cruz because he allowed himself to become distracted from the only message that will work, prosperity, despite having the plan to back such a message up. He failed to win nice and clean by wining so much support that he only needed to use his delegate mining legerdemain to protect his lead in subsequent rounds if needed. I don’t blame him for fighting on, but I am disappointed that he could not win a clear MORAL victory, coupled with a legal victory, over his opponents.

If Cruz manages to pull this off and win by delegate mining legerdemain I won’t necessarily fault him. You can bet if Cruz was ahead and wasn’t so good at the delegate game he’d be the one facing a contested convention despite being far ahead. In other words, the other side would resort to these means in a heartbeat.

But even if he does win- if he fails to get on the prosperity train and stay there and not be distracted by anything or anyone, not even Hillary and her media sycophants, he will lose the popular vote and he will have no recourse to delegate mining legerdemain!

I do not mean to suggest I won’t vote for Cruz, I am simply disappointed, and I say that as someone who wants Cruz to win. If he manages to pull this off, and, again, nobody can convince me anybody else would not do whatever it takes, he has a choice. Push a massive prosperity message making big promises he can deliver- people will quickly forget and not care about the process that led to his COMING OUT as a prosperity guy.

In the end, we are all prosperity voters. Trump and the Democrats seems to be very good at talking that talk. Cruz can walk that walk, it’s only his messaging that I am disappointed in.

Why The Election of 1896 STILL Matters Today

W R Collier Jr April 19, 2016

By Bill Collier- Winning an election depends upon a mix of popularity, a well-run campaign built on sound strategy, and a willingness to do whatever is necessary. This must be coupled with a firm grasp of the best techniques, and technologies, to reach the right people at the right time. Finally, it depends on a mastery of narrative.

This has been the genius of “the architect”, as some call him, Karl Rove. With his ground-breaking book, The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters, we gain deep insights into Rove’s genius, an important episode in American history, and the fundamentals of modern politics

No doubt the book was written as Rove’s valuable contribution to the study of American history. But, for me, it is much more than that. It is practically a scientific manual any would-be “influencer” should digest deeply and thoroughly until the insights gained become instinctive reactions. I intend to read this book often, take notes, and encapsulate its ideas until they become enmeshed in my train of thought. I liked it that much.

I should note: I am no fanboy. I have never had a problem holding back my criticism of Mr. Rove or anyone. But I took this book at face value and my review reflects the merit of the work. However, I should also add, the book gave me insights into Mr. Rove which certainly raised his esteem in my eyes.

McKinley fought the duel for the White House, first against the party bosses in his party, then against the populist and charismatic William Jennings Bryan. Bryan being of “cross of gold” speech fame. The duel was not pretty and makes today’s politics seem utterly pedestrian by comparison. Instead of mean names tossed about on camera, men fought it out with fists right in the convention hall!

(That McKinley turned those same bosses and his former opponents into allies during the general election is also an important lesson.)

My attraction to this book began with reading another review, by my colleague and business associate, Ralph Benko, in his Forbes column. Benko compared the election of 1896 to today and his review is worth a read for its insights. Mr. Rove’s publisher graciously sent me a copy for review on The Freedomist upon my request: and from the first chapter I was hooked.

To read history by an historian is one thing, but to read a well-researched history by one who has mastered the arts perfected by the object of that history is quite another thing. One discovers a great American, President McKinley, whose most endearing qualities are lost on the minds of many Americans. While not covered in the book, McKinley is most well-known for being assassinated shortly after his re-election. But this man re-wrote the political handbook, as it were, and, aside from changes in electoral coalitions and technology, the fundamentals laid down by this campaign remain valid.

One also discovers the deep insights which, love him or hate him, made and make Karl Rove himself a fixture in today’s political scene. What is more, the writing style really feels like Rove is talking about this campaign, narrating for us, WHILE IT IS HAPPENING. I might be forgiven for feeling like I lived through that election myself!

The book is accessible to anyone who enjoys history, biography, or politics. For those who want to understand politics, especially those trying to get their head wrapped around the role of delegates or how campaigns are run, this book is required reading as a primer. It is true that in 1896 there were no primaries or caucuses which informed the votes of delegates. But there was dependence on a combination of popularity among rank and file voters and the ability to recruit and elect YOUR delegates.

As Rove notes on page 95,

“In politics, it pays to be lucky. But to win, Hanna and McKinley would leave nothing to chance. They would insist on instructions for national delegates. This meant using their grassroots majorities at district and state conventions to vote to direct their national delegates to support McKinley as long as he was in the race.”

Party participation was much more intense and widespread back then. For this reason the multiple conventions by which delegates were chosen tended to reflect the “grassroots consensus.” Lining up your support to the delegate choosing process has long been a staple of politics. McKinley took it to a whole new level of mastery.

I might argue, in 2016 we see a master of dominating a strong plurality of grassroots supporters dueling with a master of managing the delegate selection process. This explains the sudden confusion as voters consider that how delegates vote may disagree with who won the greatest plurality of votes in their state. McKinley’s lesson from 1896, so aptly discerned by Rove, has somehow been lost on modern politicians in both parties.

More than the process, McKinley managed the narrative, and he did so against a worthy opponent in the general election. While it took him some time, eventually McKinley got down to confronting his opponent’s key issue, but on McKinley’s terms.

That issue turned out to be the economy. In particular, the right currency for the economy. Bryan was pushing for “free silver”, to debase the dollar and use the printing press to infuse the economy with cash. This would also make American exports more attractive, it was proposed. It was a populist notion aimed at “the rich.” It was designed to paint the Republicans as the party of the rich. As Rove notes on page 315, the answer was to open mills, not mints. McKinley went on the attack, undermining the very premise of Bryan’s argument. McKinley also went for the very workers and farmers Bryant was courting. McKinley said, “No one suffers from cheap money so much as farmers and laborers.”

In short, McKinley matched wits with a powerful narrative weaver by launching an equally powerful narrative of his own. This was not a narrative versus a counter-narrative, it was two opposing narratives, both offering prosperity as the final goal.

McKinley didn’t just argue “Free Silver won’t do what Bryan says it will do.” He didn’t just argue that the gold standard was superior. He argued: Gold will make YOU prosper and “free silver” will drive you to poverty.

The battle, if not explicitly stated in these terms, was between prosperity versus poverty. Bryan argued for what we could call “fairness” and “equality” and tried to make McKinley look unfair.

McKinley argued for prosperity, simple and clean and sure: Sound money would beat cheap currency and naturally rising income would beat socialist schemes. For every Utopian promise, McKinley offered a better answer. For every stereotype deployed, McKinley responded without holding back. (He painted Bryan as un-patriotic and divisive.)

The book itself is filled with these stories. One is left wondering how much better the GOP itself would be if every member of the Party read and understood what is contained in this book.

I would urge the reader to get this book and spend a lot of time with it. I would urge Karl Rove to consider digging much deeper into the general election. Perhaps with volume two? The book is more focused on the primary battle than the general election. But it was not found wanting.

I already knew from reading Benko’s review that this book would surprise me. If you watch Rove on TV expect a far more approachable style in plain language than might be possible in the brief segments in which he is featured. Rove comes across a storyteller and an historian. You will kick yourself if you don’t read this book.

Find the book HERE- The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters

US Under Threat Of Saudi Economic Attack

W R Collier Jr April 18, 2016

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, joined by the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia, shake hands with members of the Saudi Royal Family at the Erqa Royal Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on January 27, 2015, as they, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other dignitaries extended condolences to the late King Abdullah and call upon and met with King Salman. (Photo by State Department) *** Please Use Credit from Credit Field *** (Newscom TagID: sipaphotosfive183721.jpg) [Photo via Newscom] — President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, joined by the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia, shake hands with members of the Saudi Royal Family at the Erqa Royal Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on January 27, 2015….[Photo via Newscom]

This problem has been illustrated in profound ways by the American President’s trip to Saudi Arabia on April 20th. He is expected to try to mend fences with the despotic salafist kingdom despite its possible role in sponsoring terrorism which may have benefited those who attacked Americans on September 11, 2001. At issue is an effort, and an unfulfilled promise, to release 28 pages of the 911 report which spell out suspicions that Saudi officials aided the 911 hijackers. This would be a crippling blow to Saudi prestige in the US and abroad and would sour the public even further against the despotic salafist kingdom.

The timing of the President’s trip is disconcerting to many who see kowtowing to the Saudis at play here. This has been an ongoing problem since well before President Obama took office, but the President had promised to release the 28 pages. Those who felt that President (GW) Bush was too cozy with the Saudis have been let down by President Obama whose rhetoric has not matched his actions.

The Saudis have been rather bald and open in their response to the mere “threat” of exposing possible terror ties. Adel al-Jubeir, their foreign minister, has literally threatened to unload as much as $750 billion in US assets, securities, and other holdings. He claims it would better to unload these assets rather than face any possible forfeiture of such assets if victims of Saudi-sponsored terror are given the green light to sue the despotic salafist kingdom. Congress is considering legislation that would pave the way to sue any foreign government which might have even indirectly sponsored terrorism resulting in harm to Americans. With those 28 pages as proof, 911 families might have grounds to sue the Saudis and seize parts of their US business empire as compensation.

The key threat is Saudi Arabia’s intention to liquidate its US dollar holdings. This would amount to economic warfare aimed at punishing the US by attempting to cause a collapse in the value of the dollar. But nobody knows how many treasury holdings the Saudis possess- unlike the figures for other nations, the figures for Saudi are kept secret.

Saudi Arabia holds around $500 billion in US dollars. China, by comparison, holds almost $3.5 trillion in US dollars. While analysts focus on Saudi Arabia’s threats, which some assert would hurt the Saudis, the greater issue is the policy that allows foreign governments to directly or indirectly control vital US assets.

It is not possible to stop anyone from holding dollar reserves, which are bought on the open market, but actual US properties, businesses, and treasuries could be used by foreign governments to hold US policy hostage. US policy is being held hostage by this despotic salafist kingdom because of threats of brutal economic warfare against the American people.

At the very hour in which the American people want answers about the possible Saudi ties to the 911 hijackers so that our people can obtain justice, the American President is flying off to that same despotic regime to “mend fences.” Instead of supporting the American people, the US President, like so many before, is caving in to Saudi economic blackmail.

This all comes back to the core problem. Nations such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia see no separation between economic and political activity. They have no hesitation in using economic activities in the global market to pursue political aims. The US has officially turned a blind eye to this. Our government allows foreign powers to have so much control over vital US economic assets and resources that political policies that are beneficial to the US could be jeopardized.

Will the Saudis follow through on these threats if Congress passes the 911 bill and if those 28 pages are released? This is not the real question. The real question is: will President Obama listen to the American people or Saudi threats of brutal economic warfare against Americans? Few predict President Obama will do anything different than any other President has. Even fewer would predict the US will rethink its myopic policies of allowing foreign powers to control vital economic assets.

Salafist Jihad In Brussels

W R Collier Jr March 22, 2016

W. R. (Bill) Collier Jr- The Salafists affiliated with the Sunni Salafist group known as ISIS have struck the main airport and in the subway in Brussels, both the capital of Belgium and the EU. The attacks, as of this writing, have killed at least 28 people and injured other. Multiple explosions at the airport and 3 explosions in the downtown metro occured outside of the security zones in a coordinated attack.

The open borders policy in Europe, pushed especially by Germany’s Angela Merkel, and the influx of millions of Salafist leaning Muslims from the Middle East and Africa have led to a situation that is untenable for security. The population streaming from places like Libya and Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq leans heavily toward a Salafist version of Islam aligned with groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. There exists no credible way to screen these migrants to ensure that those who harbor Salafist views do not slip across the border where, instead of them becoming potential resources for terrorist attacks or the cause of crimes such as the mass assault on German women in Cologne during New Year’s Eve when 900 Salafist-leaning Muslim men sexually assaulted dozens of German women.

Salafism, not Islam of which it is a bastardized derivative, is the bane of civilization and the failure of most Western Governments to differentiate between Salafo-Islam and modern Islam cripples an effective response. A failure to appreciate that in places like Iraq, Syria, North Africa, Afghanistan, Palestinian areas in Israel, and Pakistan Salafo-Islam is in fact dominant has blurred the lines between jingoism and common sense security. In other words, those opposed to Salafism but who do not differentiate it from modern Islam tend to want to shut all Muslims out. On the other hand, those who presume ALL or most all Muslims are like the Islam we might see in the UAE or Jordan cannot fathom the threat of Salafo-Islam and its adherents when they come across their border.

The pure hatred, the apacolyptic vision, and the penchant for violence against infidels and women shared by Salafists is WIDESPREAD in certain populations. This is especially true of Syria, and denial of this fact is, quite simply, suicidal. The failure to even NAME Salafism and therefore divide it from modern Islam has also caused a backlash against Muslims who have to Salafist leanings and who pose a threat to nobody. This is not Islam or “radical Islam”: the Shia Salafists of Iran and Hezbollah and the Sunni Salafists of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan are a threat to non-Muslims and to Muslims. Indeed, Salafism has slaughtered more Muslims than all its other victims combined. Salafism is the IDEOLOGY of these deadly killers and everyone who does not wish to recreate the 7th century Islamic caliphate in its most brutal interpretation is “fair game” for their end-times jihad against human civilization. Imagine an apacolyptic cult that believes that it must bring the end of the world about through violence against the civilized world to recreate it’s interpretation of a 7th century brutal empire. Now, that is Salafism, and among certain populations Salafism in some form is in fact the DOMINANT view. And yet it is not named nor engaged in a battle of ideas and some of its chief progenitors, namely Iran’s Shia Salafism and Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Salafism, are coddled and even welcomed by the Western powers.

The first attacks occured at the airport and 79 minutes later three explosions ripped apart the downtown metro. This attack was made possible by an unwilligness to prevent Salafists from coming to and freely moving about Europe and by a failure to tackle Salafism head on through an ideological counter-attack against its fundamental assumptions.

I Am The Prosperitist!

W R Collier Jr March 18, 2016

Bill Collier Jr- I am the Prosperitist. Are you a Prosperitist too? A Prosperitist is someone who believes prosperity for everyone is possible and that creating an environment where people are free to prosper is a moral and ethical obligation incumbent upon all who hold a public trust. Prosperity is not “being rich”, it is being free to pursue your God or your conscience’s BEST for your life without dependence upon or subservience to others. Prosperity is huan dignity respected and advanced by ennobling people instead of holding them back or making them by artibtrary and unfair rules of rendering them dependent on other people.

Prosperity has four pillars- economic growth in excess of population growth, peace and security at home and abroad, a sound money supply that is stable and isn’t easily manipulated, and good government that is both fair and efficient in every way. So we have economic growth, peace and security, sound money, and good government as the four pillars of prosperity. Prosperity levels inquealities naturally, giving all a chance to rise without artificial hindrances. Prosperity removes social and economic injustices: self-reliant people are not a prey to bigots and exploiters. Prosperity leads to freedom: self-reliant people won’t crave more government control or benefits when they do fine without both.

It is for all of these reasons that the reds on the left and right oppose true prosperity. They don’t want everyone in such a state that 95% of their needs and wants can be met without government being involved. Indeed, for inner city poor who face discrimination and exploitation to rise up on their own without the “benefit” of government dependency would be a blow to their basis of power!

So I am a Prosperitist. I focus on building Prosperity for all- and this requires a growing economy, peace and security, sound money, and good government. All of these things are threatened by the lefist anti-prosperity and pro-bureaucracy policies.

Become a Prosperitist.