Observations from a recent Foundation for Economic Education Column

A few weeks ago, Jeffrey Tucker, writing for the longtime Freedom Philosophy organization, F.E.E., posed the question, “Why should it matter who the president is?” Then described the administrations of presidents Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881), James Garfield (1881), Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885), and Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893). Remarking that these presidents are often cited—especially by leftists and progressives—as poor ones because they didn’t do anything really BIG or ambitious, Mr. Tucker states:

“These were not the presidents who “made history,” and good for them. Hardly anyone remembers them, which is to their credit. They are usually listed among the “worst” presidents, which is to say they didn’t cause giant upheavals. They inhabited the office at a time when the private sector was growing at incredible rates while the government was playing a relatively diminished role.”

Tucker’s well-taken point being that even if they had all been scoundrels, the federal government vis a vis the ‘private sector’ was like a grain of sand in one’s shoe—it had insignificant resources and Constitutionally proscribed (virtually no) legal power or authority. IOW, the average fellow could ignore the Washington mob with impunity. Not like today, when unconstitutional power-spewing chief executives have become a boulder in our footwear and a sledge hammer over our collective heads.

Lessons for the 2016 presidential campaign

Let’s look at one of my major issues with ‘the Donald,’ for instance: building a wall to keep out immigrants who lack the proper legal permissions to be on this side of the border, particularly the southern border. Some say Trump also would seek to deport all the 10 million+ individuals who don’t have official US government legal authorization to be here. I’m going to refrain from any deep analysis of immigration or citizenship policy here… except to argue the classic libertarian ideal of a stateless, borderless world where each individual may voluntarily contract with whom he will without being pummeled by the state.

Note: We do not live in such an ideal world. In fact, the West is run by a global oligarchy of financial interests whose objectives appear to be homicidal to the 99.99% of the human species. [Ref. my Threat Matrix and my book on libertarian grand strategy, Leaving the Sandbox.] To pursue their full-spectrum domination, this cabal commits murder, mayhem, and chaos—mainly via contrived wars, creating waves of refugees—all designed to foment hatred among peoples, as the cabal steadily loots everyone, creating a universally impoverished prison planet. [This context often yields forced immigration, which libertarians abhor as well.]

My point now is if Trump becomes president, unless he wants to be a dictator like all the other Republocrat candidates (and the current president) ruling thru executive orders, a) Congress will have to appropriate the funds to build (actually, finish) the Wall, b) any deportation en masse will also certainly require Congressional approval, and c) this is most important, what kind of nut—an allegedly pro-business one at that—is going to remove the millions of people doing the immense amount of productive work these ‘illegals’ do? [A week after ‘Le Grand Eviction,’ the states of California, Texas, and Florida will turn into vast Brazilian jungles and a Big Mac at Mickey D’s will cost you $50.]

In modern times it’s the entire government that has exceeded all rational bounds, not only the president. Further, the presidents who cross the line the furthest are the so-called ‘internationalists,’ lap dogs like Bush and Obama faithfully carrying out instructions from their New World Order masters. The internationalists are committed, to a man, toward empire and global collectivist dictatorship. Our objective as voting citizens, in keeping with Jeffrey Tucker’s observations, should be to dramatically reduce the power of Washington, period. Presidents, more than anything, are symbols of that power.

Historically, Trump comes from at least a major branch of or schism within the New World Order. Which is why the George Soros crowd and the Rockefeller-Rothschild-controlled finance and media machinery are freaking out at the prospect he may become president. He’s unpredictable, and they don’t like surprises. Further, the general, popular Gandhian truth-seeker movements of the world have established a substantial beach head; the days are numbered for the criminal syndicate that is the Western Cabal. [And it’s a small number.]

In rides Donald Trump, a decided traditional American nationalist. My own judgment is that if the Donald can shake the AIPAC lobby’s Weltanschauung (worldview) [and its all out assaults on peace and civil liberties worldwide]—comments he’s made regarding the 9/11 attacks suggest an opening here—he can conceivably end the globalist-internationalist Death Star empire. While he may not be aligned with the Gandhian Satyagraha, he’s the only candidate of all of them, really, who is not virulently antagonistic toward the broader truth, justice, and liberty ideals of a VERY significant portion of the 99.99%. In fact, occasionally, he’s receptive.

So as a symbolic gesture, as a pro-liberty voter, you may wish to consider Donald Trump as the considerably lesser of the evils. I know it’s not much of a slogan: “Some Hope vs. No Hope.” And if, as an idealistic libertarian, you want to combine lukewarm support for a duopoly presidential candidate with something truly principled, go to my Snowden-Manning site and take part in the 10-Point Program for remediating the current coercive government Leviathan.