Trump Should Reform the Forfeiture Laws

Confiscating Our Property Can Be Un-American
by Lowell Ponte

In 2015, American law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture laws to seize more than $5 Billion from people.

This is “more money than was stolen in all burglaries, combined” that year, as Craig R. Smith and I document in our latest book, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age.

When Ronald Reagan supported the wide use of civil asset forfeiture, his aim was to stop letting crime pay by confiscating what its dirty money – especially illegal drug money – buys.

New President Donald Trump and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as defenders of capitalism and private property, ought to oppose the way civil asset forfeiture laws are now sometimes misused against innocent citizens by money-hungry governments.


In civil asset forfeiture, please understand, a police officer can confiscate a citizen’s cash, charge the money but not the citizen with criminal activity, and keep the money if that citizen is unable to prove that the money is legitimately his.

This process circumvents constitutional rights. You are not “innocent until proven guilty.” You are typically not even charged, so you have no right to a day in court. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your money or other property did not come from dealing drugs (and 90 percent of paper money in circulation has tiny traces of cocaine or other drugs on them) or other criminal activity.

The worst asset forfeiture law reigned briefly in the city of Helper, Utah, where individual lawmen could receive 25 percent of whatever money or assets they seized. All that an officer needed to confiscate someone’s million-dollar house or luxury car might be to find a fragment of a marijuana cigarette on or in the property.

Although almost all officers are honest, many police departments stand to keep all or most of the money or assets they seize. Officers might have incentive to pursue the richest, not the worst, members of society. In one California case, lawmen killed an innocent homeowner during a midnight drug raid, yet they found no drugs. Lawyers later found police notes planning all they would buy with the money from seizing his large property.

States such as California, Nebraska and Ohio now require conviction of a crime to justify civil asset forfeiture. Lesser reforms have happened in several other states. What is needed is to end the perverse incentive of law enforcement keeping what it confiscates. Imagine what Washington bureaucrats might do with such power. President Trump should spearhead wise reform to protect innocent people and their property.

A prime use of civil asset forfeiture laws is to intimidate people who carry significant amounts of cash, which government can often now seize on the thinnest of pretexts. Your bank is now required to notify the IRS of any large or “unusual” deposit or withdrawal in cash from your account, to spy on you for the government. Civil asset forfeiture grew rapidly during President Barack Obama’s two terms.

In the future “cashless” world desired by globalist elites, all transactions would go through computer connections monitored by the government and be fully taxable. Your new “cashless” money would be mere blips in a computer. Private transactions would disappear, and so would any remaining hope of restoring honest money.

For a fascinating interview with Lowell Ponte, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468.

For a media copy of Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte’s latest book, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age, contact: David Bradshaw at or call 602-918-3296.


1. Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age. Phoenix: P2 Press, 2016. Page 124.

2. ”Libertarians Split with Trump Over Controversial Police Tactic,” Fox News, February 13, 2017. URL:

3. C.J. Ciaramella, “Inside Mississippi’s Asset Forfeiture Extortion Racket,” Reason, January 5, 2017. URL:

Liberals AND Conservatives Prepare for Disaster, Escape – “Is The Wall to Keep Illegals Out? Or Us IN?”

“Some of America’s richest people are spending billions quietly preparing for a global Apocalypse,” reported the U.K. Daily Mail days ago. “What do they know that the rest of us don’t?”

These people include rightists and leftists. Peter Thiel, the libertarian billionaire who created PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, and supports President Donald Trump, paid $10 Million for an isolated 477-acre lakeside estate in New Zealand’s Southern Alps.


Others who see New Zealand as a safe place to ride out widespread economic and social breakdown are venture capitalist Sam Altman, billionaire hedge-fund pioneer Julian Robertson, and Hollywood film director James Cameron – who told the true story of disaster for rich and poor when a supposedly-unsinkable ship sank in Titanic.

In a single recent week “More than 13,000 Americans registered to buy a home in New Zealand – 17 times the usual rate,” reports the Daily Mail.

Billionaire Ted Turner seemed eccentric years ago when he built a giant survival estate in Patagonia near the southern tip of Argentina. But now the billionaire founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison, has bought 98 percent of a Pacific island, and megawealthy Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has purchased a 750-acre estate nearby.

“[A]t least 50 percent of Silicon Valley billionaires have taken out so-called ‘apocalypse insurance’ by finding a refuge at home or abroad,” reports the Daily Mail, although many describe their fortified overseas property investments only as vacation homes.

Companies such as the Survival Condo Project have been building defensible, site-hardened luxury homes for $3 Million to eager buyers. The rich see danger in our fragile economy and troubled society.

A sudden passion for acquiring survivalist guns, grub and gold has, surprisingly, swept over liberals. Gun purchases fell by 500,000 in January, largely because conservatives no longer fear that former President Barack Obama and his party might confiscate their firearms. But many liberals have become frightened and started buying firearms for self-defense.

At the same time, riots on college campuses and in inner cities threaten to grow as leftists there react to President Trump’s policies. Ideological leftists appointed to our courts have blocked some of his policies, especially changes restricting immigration. Some worry that Mr. Trump’s proposal of a wall on America’s southern border to halt a flood of illegals is opposed by Republican as well as Democrat globalists and might never be built.

President Trump, meanwhile, is using carrots and sticks – tax and regulation cuts as well as tariffs – to persuade companies to bring investment and jobs to America, even as some of our richest citizens are preparing to flee abroad.

“Is the wall only to keep illegals out, or is it also to keep the rich in?” asks veteran think tank futurist Lowell Ponte. “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which many hope Mr. Trump will rein in, on January 25 asserted its power to revoke the passports of those the IRS says owe taxes.”

In their 2016 book Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age, Ponte and monetary expert Craig R. Smith warned of this. “This new Progressive rule,” they wrote, “declares that citizens who owe…tax…would not be permitted to leave the United States. These citizens would be required to pay the demanded tax and penalties to exit, or live out their lives without leaving the United States under a kind of nationwide house arrest.”

“A rich American might own a protected estate in New Zealand, but the IRS can instantly turn off his passport and keep him here until he pays a potentially huge amount of money to buy his freedom,” says Ponte. “We document 19 such risks that are a trap for the unwary, and we show people how to protect themselves and their life savings.”


For a fascinating interview with Lowell Ponte, contact: Sandy Frazier 516-735-5468

For a media copy of Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte’s latest book, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age, contact: David Bradshaw, 602-918-3296



Tom Leonard, “Apocalypse Island: Tech Billionaires Are Building Boltholes in New Zealand Because They Now Fear Social Collapse or Nuclear War. So What Do They Know that We Don’t?” U.K. Daily Mail, February 3, 2017. URL:

Shane Dixon Kavanaugh, “Liberal Preppers Stock Up On Guns, Food As Trumpocalypse Looms,”, January 17, 2017. URL:

Brian Wheeler, “Why US Liberals Are Now Buying Guns Too,” BBC News, December 20, 2016. URL:

Robert W. Wood, “Another Travel Ban: IRS Moves To Revoke Passports For Unpaid Taxes,” Forbes Magazine, February 2, 2017. URL:

Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age. Phoenix: P2 Books, 2016. Pages 122-123.


By Lowell Ponte

Chinese New Year, the “Year of the Rooster (or Chicken),” on Saturday kicked off more than two weeks of celebration across much of Asia.

It could, warn Chinese astrologers, bring economic and other major problems for President Donald Trump.

Few in the West believe in this ancient occultism – but our intelligence agencies should study it, because two billion people with historic links to China do in varying degrees believe. The portents of this new year can influence the investment decisions and other actions of almost a third of humankind.


The Chinese calendar is based on a 12-year cycle of a dozen animals, each with its own characteristics, and a 60-year cycle of influences such as fire, water, and gold. We are entering a lunar year of the “fire rooster,” shaped by earth and metal, usually gold. The year’s most lucky color will be gold, according to ancient Chinese divination.

The “Fire Rooster” influence is to be practical and plan carefully, while keeping its temper under careful control. President Trump will have a successful spring and summer, says Hong Kong Chinese zodiac diviner Priscilla Lam, who told CNN a year ago that he would win the 2016 election.

But as the Year of the Rooster cools this coming autumn and winter, fortune teller Lam warns that President Trump will “run into difficulties.”

January-February 2018 will begin a new “Year of the Dog.” President Trump was born June 14, 1946, in a Year of the Dog. According to Chinese astrology, people born under a particular animal sign tend to have serious difficulties during a year of their sign. The final three months of 2017 and all of 2018 could be bad news for President Trump.

At the same time, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin – born October 7, 1952 – is a “Water Dragon,” extremely incompatible with “Dog” Trump. “Putin’s going to have a good year,” says Lam’s divination. “The element of metal in the latter part of 2017 means money for Putin – and for Russia. The Russian economy will prosper.”

At the same time, the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, is predicted to have a great Year of the Rooster. Xi, born June 15, 1953, under Western astrology, would seem quite compatible with fellow Gemini Donald Trump.

Both would be compatible with Putin, born under another air sign, Libra, the scales, which, as we discuss in our latest book Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age, is the origin of the giant “L” symbol for the British Pound, £.

But in Chinese astrology, Xi was born in a Year of the Water Snake – as was the founder of Communist China Mao Zedong, born December 26, 1893. Snakes can be dishonest, deceptive, untrustworthy, and brutal.

Xi in recent years began a major crackdown on human rights in China and continued his policy of seizing and militarizing islands claimed by other nations in the South China Sea. According to Chinese astrology, he is far more compatible with fellow reptile Vladimir Putin than with dogged Donald Trump, who may find Xi hard to negotiate with.

“China, under Xi’s leadership, is going to make a lot of money” in the new Year of the Rooster, predicts Lam, despite China’s current economic difficulties.

And how will you do in this New Year? China keeps buying gold, as do the Chinese to give to their children in traditional red envelopes on Chinese New Year. It is surviving wisdom that has led the Chinese culture to celebration of this, their Year 4,714.

For a fascinating interview with Lowell Ponte, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468.

For a media copy of Craig R. Smith’s and Lowell Ponte’s latest book, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age, contact: David Bradshaw at 602-918-3296.


Chieu Luu, “Year of the Rooster: What’s in Store for World’s Top Leaders?” CNN, January 26, 2017. URL:

Reiss Smith, “Chinese New Year 2017 Predictions: Year of the Rooster Could Bring War and Terror,” U.K. Express, January 27, 2017. URL:



President Donald Trump may save thousands of jobs, but such rescues are likely to be temporary.

The reason is that American jobs will soon be lost not to foreign countries but to domestic robots.

Robots with Artificial Intelligence could replace humans in up to 47 percent of today’s jobs, from hamburger flippers and factory workers to truck drivers, according to a report issued December 20, 2016, by the White House.

Many millions of people will be unemployed and in need of money. The government at the same time will lose trillions in revenue from jobless, broke former taxpayers.

This could devastate the world economy. Government will increase reckless printing of money out of thin air, destroying the dollar’s value. Taxes will skyrocket.

In their latest book, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age, Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte predicted that the European Union would turn to strange measures – and in early 2017 they have.

The EU, exactly as Smith and Ponte warned, moved in January to make robots “electronic persons.” It did this so that all kinds of robots can be made to pay tax – especially the steep retirement tax – that the robots, which never “retire,” will never receive as retirement benefits.

These robot taxes can be used to keep government fat as well as to provide part of a guaranteed “universal income” that all people could receive, whether they worked or not. A test of such “universal income” just got underway with thousands of people in Finland.

Few European politicians believe that taxing robots will deter companies from replacing human workers. Robots boost productivity so dramatically – working 24 hours a day without pay, strikes, getting sick or making human errors – that in 10 or 20 years a company, or country, without robot workers will be unable to compete. The robot revolution is inevitable.

A “universal income” for all citizens is surprisingly applauded by some across the political spectrum in the United States. Radical labor leader Andy Stern believes it “would make people more secure and give them more human dignity.”

On the right, Libertarian Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute calculates that giving everyone a basic income of $850 to $1,200 per month would save money if it replaced today’s welfare state.

Welfare gives the poor as little as 19 cents of every dollar spent in their name – the rest being taken by social workers, political appointees, and other government retainers who make their living by keeping others in poverty.

What about making robots into “electronic citizens”? Smith and Ponte ask if robots will acquire other human rights: “The right to vote and elect robot lawmakers? Free speech? Marriage? Choice of gender identity? … Freedom not to be fired when they become old, slow, and obsolete?”

“Will robots have the right to move and work anywhere…?” ask Smith and Ponte. “Have maximum daily work hours? Vacations? A guaranteed minimum wage? The right to keep and bear arms?” No, say Smith and Ponte, “Nobody in the EU has that right….”

For an Interview with Lowell Ponte, contact: Sandy Frazier 516-735-5468

For a free media copy of their book Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age, contact: David Bradshaw, 602-918-3296


Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, Money, Morality & The Machine: Smith’s Law in an Unethical, Over-Governed Age. Phoenix: P2 Press, 2016. Pages 159-175.

Executive Office of the President, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy. Washington, D.C.: The White House, December 20, 2016.

The Democratic National Convention’s New Hammer Is the Mayor Who Wrecked Baltimore

By Lowell Ponte

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz lost her gavel and did not open the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia Monday.

Schultz and her fellow party leaders were terrified that she would be booed on national television by supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders following the release of secret emails showing that Schultz had rigged party processes to guarantee the nomination of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


But look who the Democrats gave the gavel to on Monday from their inner circle to symbolize what their party stands for – Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the outgoing mayor of Baltimore.

In spring 2015 Baltimore was ablaze, as Craig R. Smith and I recount in our book We Have Seen The Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream.

Rioters had unleashed volleys of stones on the police. The Mayor’s response was to order police to fall back and not interfere with the rioters, lest this further inflame the anger of people over the death of local heroin pusher Freddie Gray.

After more than 60 years of continuous Democratic rule, Baltimore – where Nancy Pelosi learned strong-arm politics from her father the mayor — has become the heroin capital of the United States. One in every 10 residents is an addict. Welfare addiction has produced despair and widespread drug addiction.

With police retreating, the rioters took to looting and torching stores while government officials standing only feet away did nothing to stop them.

Two law enforcement officers joined in the orgy of robbery, later identified from surveillance cameras.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake explained her Progressive Democratic view of this to reporters:

“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well,” she said, “and we work very hard to keep that balance.”

Instead of police, she asked local criminal gang leaders to protect local stores.

As The New York Times reported, these gang leaders directed looters and arsonists away from black-owned stores by pointing out which stores were not owned by African-Americans.

Rawlings-Blake then applauded a Stalinist-like show trial intended to satisfy the mob by lynching six police officers involved in the arrest or transport of Freddie Gray.

The officers were not granted a change of venue in a city where any juror who found an officer not guilty risked violent retaliation.

Despite this, thus far a jury did not convict one officer, and an African-American judge has acquitted three others. If all six officers go free, Baltimore may face more rioting and looting.

The local police force, now reluctant to do pro-active policing lest they be sent to prison, have created a city where arrests are down by 30 percent and murders are up by roughly 60 percent.

Thanks to Mayor Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore now has as many murders as New York City, which has 13 times more residents. Perhaps the American Dream has vanished in Baltimore because residents are now too frightened to sleep or dream at all.

This is who her comrades sent before the American people to show what Democrat control could do for their town. If this is the America you wish to live in, then vote for the party of Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Hillary Clinton.


To schedule an interview with veteran think tank futurist Lowell, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468.

For a media copy of Lowell’s latest book, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream, co-authored with monetary expert Craig R. Smith, contact Bronwin Barilla at 800-950-2428.

Great Britain Voted Thursday to Exit the European Union, This “Brexit” Could Unleash Global Chaos…

(Or the Start of Worldwide Independence)

by Lowell Ponte


On June 23, the British people voted in a national referendum to declare their independence from the European Union.

The ruling political establishment, right and left, had joined to crush this populist uprising with a campaign of fear and authority.



But a majority of voters, sick of the European rot that has been destroying the Great in Great Britain, pushed back – and history changed.

Brexit’s victory unleashed a shock wave around the world that for a time halted stock trading in Asia, sent Dow futures plunging by more than 700 points, drove the 10-year Treasury bond yield to modern record lows, and sent gold surging upwards by more than $80.

Our Fourth of July fireworks now take on new meaning. This is our celebration of declaring and winning Independence from the British Empire.

It has taken 240 years, but the United Kingdom is at last “a nation again,” asserting its freedom from an even larger oppressive empire. We salute them as a fellow free revolutionary people.

In the U.S., this same populist impulse can be seen in the popularity of anti-establishment politician Donald Trump, who backed Brexit.

The presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama urged those in the United Kingdom to submit to the socialist collectivism of the European Union.

We Americans will have our chance to exit such values this November, to renew our own American Revolution.

How did Britain and the world come to this historic transformation?

In the last national British referendum, in 1975, two of every three voters approved their country joining the European Community, a bloc then devoted mostly to trade. But two decades later this creature, now called the European Union, turned political.

In today’s Great Britain, more than 60 percent of its laws and regulations originate not in the Parliament in London but in Brussels, Belgium, from an army of “Eurocrats” and members of the European Parliament. [1]

How would it feel if we were in a binding union with the nations of Latin America, which outvote us and can impose their laws and rules in the United States. Imagine, says one pro-Brexit member of Britain’s Parliament, that a worker from any of these Latino countries has an automatic legal right to move to the United States and, if he fails to find a satisfactory job, is entitled to welfare that American taxpayers are required to pay him.

The EU imposed a $1.5 Billion fine on Poland for refusing to accept vast numbers of Muslim refugees.


Member nations in many ways lose control of their borders, sovereignty, laws and revenues. Nations such as Great Britain that once colonized others are being turned into colonies of the European Union megastate.

Come to think of it, this is close to what President Barack Obama has been imposing on us. No wonder that Mr. Obama recently visited Great Britain and spoke out against Brexit.

But Americans can at least still pretend we are a sovereign nation, not the pawn or serf of a globalist union of foreign nations with the power to replace our laws with their ideology.

And as the Brexit debate brought to light, the European Union has routinely lied to the people and lawmakers of the United Kingdom. The Brits in April learned, for example, that the European Union has secretly been preparing an EU military capable of imposing its will on member countries and potentially preventing them from escaping its imperial grasp. [2]

The force behind this “stealth” EU military is Germany, which attempted a similar “unification” of Europe 75 years ago.

Germany is also behind the new pan-European currency, the Euro, which is its attempt to rule Europe by economic power, to do what it failed to sustain by military power in World Wars I and II. [3]

Our brother Brits who fought so valiantly in alliance with us to win those wars must have felt pain to see their nation being taken over and its sovereignty being erased by a European Union run by Germany.

Britain’s exit from the European Union was opposed by Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron through a barrage of scare tactics. Among these claims: Brexit will cost every British family thousands of pounds by denying Britain access to European markets, that it will cause economic chaos, and that Britain returning to its independent sovereign status of 45 years ago might even lead to “the end of Western Civilization.”

Cameron and others are serving business interests that have enriched themselves via European Union trade with Europe. But more than 40 pro-Brexit Tory members of Parliament oppose ousting Cameron, in part to deal with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in part because Cameron kept his promise to call such a referendum. Despite this, Cameron announced that he will leave office by October.

Despite a vote of the United Kingdom’s people to leave the EU, this process under EU rules will take at least two years of negotiation and making new trade and other arrangements

Opponents of the Brexit rightly fear that England’s vote to leave will encourage voters in many other places to demand their right to vote for secession. On Friday, French populist leader Marine LePen called for such a national referendum in her country. This could begin the unraveling of collectivist Europe.

Scottish voters two years ago came close to voting for independence from Great Britain. With Britain leaving the EU, will Scotland vote to separate from the United Kingdom and then join the European Union as its own independent country? Northern Ireland, which voted against Brexit, might likewise secede from the United Kingdom and join EU member Ireland.

(Few countries are rushing to join the European Union, with its crushing regulations and other high costs of membership. Days before the June 23 referendum, Switzerland withdrew its application to join the EU.)

Around Europe are dozens of secession movements. Many Venetians want to become a nation independent of Italy. A likely majority of Catalans around Barcelona want independence from Spain.

The successful Brexit vote will fuel many such movements around the world.

Donald Trump is not a secessionist, but his anti-establishment populist rhetoric is part of a global phenomenon whose activists are winning votes in France, Germany, Italy and many other countries. People are simply fed up with old-line oppressive political leaders.

“The world has decided the old status quo is not acceptable,” says monetary expert Craig R. Smith. “People want to be heard, and they are tired of politicians, crony capitalism and big business elites calling the shots.”

In North America, independent socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has led a surprisingly successful rebellion to move the Democratic Party even farther leftward. And a movement in Vermont continues to call for separating from the United States – and perhaps becoming a province of Canada. Many in Quebec, meanwhile, still want to separate from the rest of Canada.

And in the United States, independence movements in Alaska and Texas [4] want their own Brexit-like referendums.

Historically, politics around the world involve forcing things together under bigger governments, or forcing them apart into smaller nations. The British people’s Declaration of Independence vote will help roll back the globalist government direction of the European Union and similar Progressive collectivist entities.

A vote against Brexit could have made Britain’s decline permanent, because the people would never again have been allowed to regain their freedom with a ballot.

“Government regulators and central banks such as the Federal Reserve might ‘step in,’ in the wake of the Brexit vote, to manipulate markets and protect the old order,” says Smith. “They did this in 2008 and created the longest recession in American history.”

“They should let the free market work without political interference to restore genuine health and growth to our economy.”

“The world wants change,” says Smith, “that will bring back freedom, personal responsibility and individualism, and will end collectivism. People are hungry to return to small government, free markets and honest money.”

“British voters have taken a brave and noble step to push back against those who are trying to turn our nations into conquered provinces of their socialist empires.”

For an amazing interview with Lowell Ponte about the British referendum and secession movements here and in Europe, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468

For a media copy of Lowell’s latest book, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream, co-authored with monetary expert Craig R. Smith, contact Bronwin Barilla at 800-950-2428.


[1] Justin O. Smith, “For God, Country, Family, and Queen,” American Thinker, June 13, 2016. URL:

[2] David Maddox, “Secret Plot Exposed: EU in Stealth Plan to Set Up Army by Merging German and Dutch Forces,” London Express, April 20, 2016. URL:

[3] Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream. Phoenix: P2 Publishing, 2015. Pages 193-194; Professor Alan Sked, “How a Secretive Elite Created the EU to Build a World Government,” London Telegraph, November 27, 2015. URL:
; Christopher Booker, “The EU’s Architects Never Meant It to Be a Democracy: The Rise of a ‘Technocracy’ Was Always Part of the Plan for Europe,” London Telegraph, November 12, 2011. URL:

[4] Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream. Phoenix: P2 Publishing, 2015. Pages 146-147; Tom Dart, “’Why not Texit?’: Texas Nationalists Look to the Brexit Vote for Inspiration,” The Guardian (UK), June 19, 2016. URL:

Was Hamilton America’s First Donald Trump?

Do Liberals Know Who They Are Cheering?

On Sunday, June 12, the Broadway stage play “Hamilton” won 11 Tony Awards, including those for Best Musical and Best Book and Original Score for its creator Lin-Manuel Miranda.


How odd that liberals who despise Donald Trump’s alleged authoritarianism are paying $1,000 per seat to see a Hip Hop and Rap glorification of this least-liberal, and in some ways most Trump-like, of America’s Founding Fathers.

The blockbuster musical focuses on the immigrant energy and genius of Alexander Hamilton, who rose from an out-of-wedlock birth in the Caribbean to become aide to General George Washington and America’s first Secretary of the Treasury.

Miranda deserves credit for seeing the dramatic potential in Hamilton, from his battlefield courage at Yorktown to his adulterous, scandalous affair, to his quarrels with Thomas Jefferson, to his death in a pistol duel with Jefferson’s “Progressive” Vice President Aaron Burr.

Hamilton’s vision of an urban, industrial America has in our time triumphed over Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of a rural republic of farmers.

We admire Jefferson, but as George Will wrote, we live today in Alexander Hamilton’s America. So why should liberals love Hamilton and hate urban builder Donald Trump? Consider:

(1) Alexander Hamilton fought patriotically for America’s independence from King George III, but he then urged George Washington to become ruler for life. Hamilton favored lifetime appointments for future Presidents and Senators as well, and argued that the President should appoint the governor of each state.

(2) Hamilton supported the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, which put tight controls on immigration. These laws also made it a crime to criticize the government and its high officials, which our second president John Adams used to imprison several members of Congress and dozens of journalists.

Had Thomas Jefferson not won the presidency in 1800 and halted enforcement of these Hamilton-backed laws, the United States might have slid into permanent dictatorship like the Soviet Union.

(3) Hamilton was an elitist who looked down his nose at working people and merchants. He devised government policies designed to favored the rich while denying the same subsidies and tax breaks to Middle Class business people and small farmers.

Hamilton saw democracy as mob rule. When asked if, like Jefferson, he wanted government by the people, Hamilton snapped” “Your People, Sir, is a great beast.” He favored rule by an unchanging aristocratic elite…an odd position for someone who rose solely by talent and the luck of gaining Washington’s personal favor.

(4) Hamilton favored high taxes and heavy-handed enforcement. When small farmers west of the Appalachians distilled their crops into easier-to-ship whisky to sell in the East, the federal government imposed heavy taxes on distilled spirits. When farmers rose against this tax in the “Whisky Rebellion,” Hamilton helped lead a crushing military show of force to compel their submission. He also advocated an armada of government cutters off the coast to crack down on tax evaders.

(5) Hamilton favored a large standing military with himself as one of its leaders. Most Founders distrusted this because such militaries in Europe were used to put down and keep down the People.

(6) Hamilton strongly supported a European-style central bank to manipulate money and credit, which thanks to Jeffersonian president Andrew Jackson was unable to take full control of America’s economy until 1913, when Democrat Progressive Woodrow Wilson gained the power to create the Federal Reserve because of a Republican Party split between President William Howard Taft and former President Teddy Roosevelt.

If Hamilton’s plans for a central bank had prevailed, corrupt government interference with our economy might have doomed our young Republic from the start. On the other hand, Hamilton’s tax and credit policies gave Jefferson’s Administration enough credit to make the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon.

The musical “Hamilton” reportedly persuaded Jack Lew, our current Secretary of the Treasury, to keep Hamilton’s image on America’s $10 bill….and instead to remove President Andrew Jackson’s image from the $20 bill.

Perhaps liberals love the musical “Hamilton” because it depicts this Founding Father opposed to slave-owners such as Jefferson. Truth be told, however, Hamilton did little to end slavery – and may have helped his relatives buy and sell a few slaves.

More likely, liberals applaud Hamilton as an advocate of a powerful central government who worked to become part of the ruling elite. They do not even know that Hamilton was eager to restrict immigration and impose trade restrictions.

Exactly the same could be said of Donald Trump, who at some not-too-distant future time will doubtless be the central figure of a successful broadway musical like “Hamilton.”

Too bad “Hamilton” does not tell the whole truth. It might have created an even better teachable moment.

Lowell Ponte’s articles about Thomas Jefferson have appeared in The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

To schedule an interview with Lowell, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468

For a media copy of Lowell’s latest book, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream, co-authored with monetary expert Craig R. Smith, contact: David Bradshaw at or 602.918.3296


Jason Frank and Isaac Kramnick, “What ‘Hamilton’ Forgets About Hamilton,” New York Times, June 10, 2016. URL:

Nancy Isenberg, “Liberals Love Alexander Hamilton. But Aaron Burr Was a Real Progressive Hero,” Washington Post, March 30, 2016. URL:

Samuel Biagetti, “Why Did Everyone Hate Alexander Hamilton? These Elitist Policies Made Hamilton the Most Despised Man in America,”, January 13, 2016. URL:

Jackie Calmes, “Success of ‘Hamilton’ May Have Saved Hamilton on the $10 Bill,” New York Times, April 15, 2016. URL: