Skip to content

A Dissenting View: I’m Not a Libertarian for Trump

It appears the Clintons have cleverly “divided and conquered” the conservatives and libertarians toward Hillary’s long-planned and plotted climb to power. And I believe they have been using Donald Trump (and maybe even Bernie Sanders) to help them in their scheming.

This whole campaign has been thoroughly Orwellian, for sure.

The “Libertarians for Trump” people are supporting a liberal-left progressive who doesn’t mind biologically-male “transgenders” going into the ladies room, and a freedom of speech for me but not for thee, private property rights for me but not for thee candidate for President. Someone who favors affirmative action programs, an anti-free trade, welfare-state socialist who won’t cut anyone’s entitlements, won’t touch Social Security, and wants to expand Medicaid.


But the anti-welfare, pro-market libertarians who believe in rational arguments and reason still love Trump, the one who wants to impose policies based on “compassion” and “heart.”

Is this not Orwellian? Am I wrong about all this?

So I am perplexed by the “Libertarians for Trump” movement, which has consisted of some very prominent libertarians. However, I do feel a lot of reassurance from Ron Paul who has been critical of Trump, as have Robert Wenzel and Free State Project founder Jason Sorens.

Speaking of the Free State Project, can you imagine a President Trump approving of a state withdrawing from the union? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

Now, Walter Block does make some compelling arguments for supporting Trump over Hillary, and even possibly for supporting the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Dr. Block is promoting the same kind of political strategy as Murray Rothbard had done.

Dr. Block is concerned that Hillary is more likely to start World War III than The Donald. But I disagree, given Trump’s impulsiveness, his ultra-collectivistic and authoritarian mentality, his narcissistic ego, and his banding together with Jeff Sessions and Tom Cotton and other bloodthirsty warmongers.

But Dr. Block might be right, especially given who-knows-what prescription drugs the unhealthy Hillary might be on and the influence they could have.

Trump has stated that he would change libel laws to sue members of the Press who do not obediently submit to him as they currently do for Obama. So Trump seems to have the kind of personality, narcissism and disrespect for the First Amendment that as President he might pull an Erdogan (or an Obama for that matter) and have disloyal journalists not sued but arrested and jailed.

So that’s my take on all that. Now, I do have some conspiracy theories to add to all this.

I don’t know if Donald Trump is running intentionally on behalf of Hillary, but it might very well be the case. Many Independents and Democrats went into open primaries, or Democrats re-registered as Republicans, just to vote for the weakest GOP candidate to go against any Democrat in November, 2016.

Between now and November — over 3 months — we’ll be bombarded with videos of Trump’s many statements, his mocking a disabled reporter, and the media will cover up the Hillary email-server scandal, the Clinton Foundation alleged money-laundering ring, 30 years of suspicious deaths, and so on.

Unlike other possible GOP nominees, Donald Trump is very likely to take a whole bunch of other Republican candidates down with him, giving Hillary a rubber-stamp Congress. With another Republican, however, we would have at least had a Republican Congress to give Hillary gridlock and shut-downs.

Libertarians should love gridlock and shut-downs. They’re awesome!

Could any Republican (except for Ron Paul of course) have survived the Clinton machine that’s been built up for the past 25 years?

And Bernie Sanders. What about his possible involvement in acting as a stalking horse on behalf of Hillary? He was certainly promoting her and defending her in those debates.

Could Bernie have been a useful idiot to run against Hillary in these primaries? How convenient for the ultra-socialist Hillary to not have to utter her true views, and have someone else do that for her throughout the primaries. At least, that is my theory on that.

To make sure Bernie could not get the nomination, the Clintons’ Democrat National Committee had rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders. And then the corrupt sell-out Bernie endorses Hillary at the extremely upsetting disappointment of many of his supporters.

Hillary still has a lot of sheeple support in the polls. How convenient for her and how Orwellian that the FBI director declined to recommend criminal charges against her regarding her email-server issues after he thoroughly set up the case against her.

And I am suspicious of the GOP side as well, such as Ted Cruz helping the GOP to shoot itself in the foot. I’m not even totally believing in his sincerity as a Bible-believing Christian. Would a true Bible-believing Christian spend his whole adult life in politics feeding at the public trough? Cruz has also been a Goldman Sachs crony and a Bush insider. Given that the Bushes and the Clintons are so close, I am suspicious that Ted Cruz (as well as Donald Trump) has also been used by the Clintons. Donald Trump invited Cruz to speak at the Republican National Convention without any demand for an endorsement, Cruz speaks without endorsing Trump and is booed off the stage, after which Trump gives Cruz the thumbs up. Why would Trump give Cruz the thumbs up right after Cruz’s career-ending unendorsement speech unless Trump was pleased that Cruz didn’t endorse, like that was part of some plan? Like a longer-term plan to get Cruz out of the Democrats’ way in 2020?

And was it a Freudian slip when, in this interview (a little after 11:00) Donald Trump said he wanted to “beat the Republicans”?

And why would Trump say in his convention speech, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”?

Just kidding around? In fact, Hillary made use of that quote at her acceptance speech, like maybe it was a collusion of sorts?

Or am I just being overly suspicious and paranoid here?

Also, on the day of Donald Trump’s convention speech, Roger Ailes was run out of his own Fox News Channel. My, what timing.

If Hillary wins, get ready for the return of the “Fairness Doctrine.” It will probably include political websites and blogs, like this one. (But, given Obama’s going after news journalists, I’m sure President Hillary will have no problem jailing her critics as well.)

UPDATE (8/4/16): Only two weeks after Trump’s Republican convention, and to help support Hillary’s rise in polls just after her convention, now there is a controversial battle between Trump and a Democrat convention speaker, the father of a killed Muslim American Iraq War soldier. The soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, criticized Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. and stated that Trump had “sacrificed nothing.” Trump responded by belittling the killed soldier’s mother who was standing silently next to the father during his convention speech. This was followed by back and forth insults between Khan and Trump in interviews and speeches.

And also this week Trump refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan in his primary reelection battle, as well as Sen. John McCain and Sen. Kelly Ayotte in their primary battles, causing a stir in these areas as well.

It’s as though Hillary and Donald are coordinating things, like Hillary getting the Khans, who apparently have had deep connections to the Clintons, to appear at her convention to criticize Trump and Trump responding predictably to help him to lose more support, which is exactly what is happening.

Published inUncategorized