First, a caveat:

This is not a campaign speech to get anyone to vote for a particular political candidate. Obviously, the choice is yours. The purpose here is to inform, report and expose some of the things that I see developing.

We hear a lot of people talking about ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ politics these days and I would like to help sort out these concepts and ideas a little bit.

I don’t think these terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ mean what some of us think they do.

Both Cruz and Trump are successfully playing to the emotions of a certain growing group within our country that seeks less government control and less socialism. Their surge in popularity and the popularity of others like them is a natural reaction to forces which have been pushing us as a nation farther to the left politically. Those forces now comprise a large part of the Democrat Party and much of the Republican Party in America and factors in a large part of European socialist politics abroad. Let us not forget that most of the world is either socialist or tyrannical, rooted in monarchy, and those factions are the ones who control the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Bilderberg Group, World Economic Forum, and World Health Organization.

When you hear the words “progress” and “progressive” let’s understand that progressives only support progress toward leftist goals. Progress means breaking down society to replace it with a new leftist world order. Waiting at the end of the progressive rainbow is a pot of communist tyranny. Progressivism is merely a disturbing signpost on the road to serfdom.

As an acquaintance of mine, who was the economics minister to the EU from Greece told me once, “The real problem with the EU is that they are all Marxists!” Now, with Bernie and Hillary both running on some version of a socialist or progressive platform, and Obama having enacted 8 years of socialist policies in America, and Biden tightening the noose of government control and shipping billions of our tax dollars to countries most Americans can’t even find on a map, one might say the American Democrats resemble the EU leaders on their path toward government dependency and Marxism.

The success of Trump and Cruz in the polls is a clear, angry, emotional reaction to these leftist Democrats pushing America further and further toward socialism over the past 75 years, as evidenced by our inner cities and welfare and food stamps increases, bloating the socialist welfare state until it has reached a tipping point. This is a backlash. America is mad as hell and they won’t take it anymore. One visit to a Trump rally and you can see the fervor.

But, is this the direction our founding fathers and framers intended? Our founding fathers were far more aligned with what is today called ‘libertarian’ than any other political label we know today, and they advocated a very small and relatively powerless central government, with power in the hands of local people and local governments. Less government, low or no taxes, free enterprise, liberty, natural rights, less or no regulation. In a word, “Laissez-Faire” in a way that John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and Emerich de Vattel would recognize.

The founding fathers were certainly not ‘conservatives’. They were not conserving anything, as they were groundbreakers forging a unique new concept, never before tried in all the world. They were radical revolutionaries breaking down the existing system by violent revolution. They sought to establish a neoclassical republic based on ancient Greek philosophy and the Ancient Greek principles of Natural Law and Natural Rights, but tempered with the ideology of The Enlightenment. Their enlightened ideas called for distributed power among responsible citizens rather than vast, concentrated and autocratic power, wielded exclusively by some faraway government or monarchy.

Conservatives at the time of the founders were Tories, who were seeking to maintain and preserve the status quo of English rule under the monarchy.

To the contrary, our founders were European Liberals–libertarian republicans (small ‘r’), seeking to establish a new, neoclassical republic, based on REASON and rational self-interest, under a Rule of Law, with Natural Law at its core– in the style of John Locke, Edmund Burke, Montesquieu, and Vattel.

Libertarianism is based on REASON, not knee-jerk emotions. Libertarianism is the most free we can be without anarchy. European Liberals were NOT the so-called “liberals,” “progressives” and ‘democrats'” of today. Not even close! One only needs to read “For the New Intellectual”, by Ayn Rand to see the difference.

Now, one might argue that the constitution and the Rule of Law it established is worth conserving, and I would agree. In that case, we should conserve the liberty and freedom required to defend it against attacks from both the left and from one-world-government globalists who seek to weaken it and centralize power. We should thereby preserve and uphold and conserve our libertarian roots and values as a nation.

These people calling themselves liberals today are pure leftists and socialists; merely statist opportunists, who have hijacked the term ‘liberal’ when the world’s socialists, both fascists and communists, started slaughtering people in Russia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and China. In the wake of such carnage, American socialists took the names ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ to hide their strong affinity with fascists and communists, so they could continue their mission to destroy libertarian republicanism. Not afraid to break a few eggs or bust a few heads to reach their totalitarian, Machiavellian goals, most of them vote straight “D” in the voting booth.

Meanwhile, we have both political parties supporting a faction which continues to put forth intentionally defective and constitutionally ineligible candidates, sometimes running against each other. This is an effort to undermine the consitution and its Rule of Law. Some of these people call themselves ‘conservatives’ when in fact, they are constitutional liberals seeking to weaken the Natural Born Citizen Clause to make way for a North American Union an New World Order. Yes, they are Republicans, but in name only.

One recent example: John McCain vs. Obama, a carefully constructed race of ineligibles; two intentionally defective candidates. Neither of them were Natural Born Citizens, as is required by our Rule of Law under the Constitution, in Article ll, Section 1, Clause 5–a clause that factions in our own Congress from both sides of the aisle have sadly and deliberately sought to repeal or replace at least a dozen times in the past decade.

McCain was born in Colon, Panama, which was not part of the Canal Zone and Panama was not an incorporated territory or possession of the United States, so being born there did not make McCain a natural born citizen, just a child of citizens, born abroad. Anyone born abroad to one or two citizen parents is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.

Obama, regardless of his birthplace, was born to a British subject father, making him at best a British subject by his father’s citizenship, and a citizen of the United States by his mother’s citizenship, giving him dual citizenship. Obama’s constitutional problem was that no person born here on the soil of our nation to less than two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

Two citizen parents born on the soil of our nation is our rule of law as set forth in the constitution. And why SHOULDN’T we want that?

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (and Bobby Jindal) are also not natural born citizens and therefore defective candidates. If elected, their presidencies would advance us further down the line toward eventual foreign leadership of our country, by weakening the single key presidential qualification clause in our constitution, since all of them have some element of foreign citizenship, birthplace, or blood–regardless of the words they say.

The presidency is the sole office and branch or government that enforces and executes our Rule of Law. If the Eligibility Clause for that office is weakened by faulty candidates having potential foreign influences, it could severely impact the defense, upholding and execution of our constitution. Our founders made that point imminently clear.

But weakening our constitutional foundation and intent of the founding fathers is precisely what the globalists want, deliberately or tacitly– and they are supported by factions comprised of those seeking to merge the US into a multi-country union, like the European Union. Big banks (Goldman Sachs, DeutscheBank, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank), media conglomerates (FOX, CNN, NY Times, Time Warner) and huge corporations (GE, Google, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway) benefit from such a merger of nations.

Think for one moment how much money in new sponsor advertising Fox News—a network which is currently not broadcasting anywhere except in the United States—would gain, if they were broadcasting to a much broader, North American Union and eventually one world under one government. Now, you begin to understand why these corporations support open borders. They lead to no borders at all. And right out the window goes out sovereignty.

Think of the corporate merger possibilities from which Goldman Sachs could garner big investment banking advisory fees. Think of the corporate and federal and municipal debt refinancing deals possible when all currencies are merged into one new one.

So we have a battle against the left, and another against the globalists and corporatists.

Both are truly battles of good vs. evil. Of Liberty vs. Tyranny.

Choose wisely, fight hard for Liberty, Freedom and Justice, and follow the money.