Saturday, April 09, 2016

Closed Primary

It looks like the presidential primary will come down to New York.

New York has a closed primary. Independents cannot change their party affiliation to vote in the primary.

Understandably, this situation has many independent New Yorkers feeling put off. Crazy people are in love with Sanders and the maladjusted simply can't get enough of Trump.

Considering that primaries determine the candidates for offices, there is a strong argument for open primaries.

But, even with open primaries, parties are parties. The partisan primary system still creates candidates that are partisan first and American second.

The fact that New York could seal the presidential nomination for Trump and Clinton might get people to question the inherent absurdity of our parties and foundational ideologies of these things.

The US Founders despised the factions of the King's Court and the partisanship which dominates modern politics is counter to the ideals of this nation.

This partisanship is at the heart of the erosion of our liberties.

Partisan ideologies might take a few ideas and images related to the ideals of liberty. But the partisan ideologies pervert the ideals and make them subservient to the partisanship itself.

So, while our candidates this political season are disappointing, perhaps the campaign might become a catalyst for people to start questioning the parties.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Yep, The Government Lies

How pathetic.

According to the New York Post, The Federal Reserve stopped using the unemployment rate published by the BLS.

Had the Feds been using the information published by the BLS, they would have raised interest rates quite significantly. Instead we find that, eight years into this recession, the Feds still have the interest rate stimulus running at full throttle.

It appears that the BLS is publishing information based on the effects that it wants to achieve and is not simply trying to accurately reflect reality ... which is what it should be doing.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Happy Easter Everyone

Happy Easter everyone.

For those following this blog: I have not fallen off the face of the earth.

I simply haven't been pressing the publish button after writing posts.

I've concluded that the way people are blogging, engaging in forums and tweeting is actually making the political problems faced by the world worse.

I don't want to be blogging unless I feel that I am making things better.

This, being Easter, one might ask: Would Christ be writing a blog?

I suspect that he would be reading other blogs, shaking his head and muttering: "They know not what they do."

The story of Easter is one in which all of the players in our community are engaged in their various mind games and end up executing an innocent man.

Christianity holds that, not only was Jesus innocent of the accused crimes, the Christian belief holds that Christ was the Son of God. The people didn't just execute an innocent man. They executed divinity.

I started this blog simply as a flow of conscious. The driving idea behind a blog is just to write out opinions for the sake of writing.

The idea behind this style of blogging is simply that if millions of people write down their observations, that the world might find a better path forward.

The actuality is that flow of conscious blogging seems to be leading to greater conflict and less understanding.

Notably, one of the most bellicose politicians of our age in on the verge of obtaining the GOP nomination. The Democrats are gleefully nominating the wife of an impeached president.

The activism on the left and right is leading us into a more dangerous world with the worst of both parties running rampant.

Until I can figure out a way to show that both sides in this partisan divide are wrong, I want to temper my writing.

Unfortunately, demanding compromise and bipartisanship is not a solution. The compromise between two wrong positions is an even worse wrong.

The term "bipartisanship" implies that one should proceed by advancing the factors that the parties have in common.

The factors that both parties have in common is a desire for concentrated power and intellectual corruption.

Bipartisanship only works when the common factors of the two parties are positive. When the common factors are simply the desire for power and corruption, the bipartisanship is an evil.

In the last decade, Americans have been acting like the crowd that called for the death of Christ.  While individuals may have good intentions, the shrill noise coming from us is leading to injustice.

While the political landscape looks bleak. I believe it is possible for people to find a positive direction.

The first step to finding this positive direction is for people to ask if their individual actions are helping lead people in that right direction.

Simply denouncing partisan opponents is not sufficient.

Obama rose to power simply riding on the deficiencies of Bush. Trump hopes to gain power on the deficiencies of Obama and Clinton hopes to regain power by riding on the deficiencies of Trump.

The result of this methodology is an overbearing government that is simply deficient.

The story of Easter shows that this type of political game has been played out since antiquity.

So, Happy Easter. It is the beginning of Spring and things might get better despite our politics.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Violence for Political Ends

Is it strange to see Barrack Obama in Cuba celebrating the life of Castro at the same time as the terrorist attack in Brussels.

The article Castro and Terrorism provides a timeline of Fidel's and Raul's ongoing support for international terrorism. Many of the groups funded by Castro have devolved into the terrorists that we see today.

The Castro Brothers trained terrorists in Northern Africa and Syria which are ground zero for the current round of terrorists.

In Latin America, the left wing terrorist groups devolved into drug lords.

Genocide Watch groups report that there were over 26,000 reported disappearances in Mexico between 2006 and 2012. Estimates of the victim count often reach 100,000.

It is hard to get good counts as the numbers include 80 journalists who disappeared for daring to report on the genocide.

(Doesn't anyone else find it strange that a neighboring country had a genocide during the Obama administration that was simply ignored by the left wing media?)

I understand the desire to whitewash Castro's terrorist history and to normalize relations. Unfortunately, the escalating terrorism that we see in the world show that now is not a good time for this course of action and that Obama's rush to arrange photo-ops with the Castro's is effectively a tacit approval of the use of violence for political ends.

On Turkeys and Brussel Sprouts

The terrorist attacks in Brussels have received a great deal of media attention.

The truly scary attacks, however, are taking place in Turkey which has seen about a dozen attacks in this last year (wikidpedia).

Turkey has taken in the bulk of refugees displaced by ISIS.

Turkey has been seeking membership into the European Union, which the US supports.

That the terrorist attacks are coinciding with the refugee crisis indicates that something I've feared may be true.

My fear is that immigration has become radicalized.

I am a fan of immigration, But when political groups seek to change an area through immigration, immigration becomes radicalized and turns from a positive force into a negative force.

If it were feasible, I would support open borders. But in an age of radicalized immigration, I believe that the best alternative is to create clear immigration laws that our nation enforces.

Although it sounds harsh, deportation is the correct response to an immigration violation.

Unfortunately, the reality is that our Federal Government needs to show the people a willingness to support immigration laws before we can have any sort of liberalization of immigration policy.

The terrorist attacks which have dotted the EU this last year show the dangers of radicalized immigration. The first line of defense against terrorism is well defined immigration law which are enforced.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Utah Caucuses

The Utah Caucuses are tomorrow. I am not sure if I am going to attend.

The Republican Caucus appears to be the most interesting vote tomorrow. I hesitate to attend the caucus because I am not a member of the party.

The GOP in Utah has made it abundantly clear that me and my kind are not welcome in their ranks. I really don't think it is fair to barge into someone's political event and voice opinions when the opinions are not welcome in the party.

It is common sense and common courtesy to say that people who are not welcome in a party have no business attending the primary election.

Accepting this position, however, means that the people who fundamentally reject the partisan approach to politics, are excluded from the most important vote of the year. (Caucuses and primaries determine the names on the ballot).

The Party system is not part of the Constitution. The US Founders routinely voiced disapproval of the warring factions that dominate European politics.

This game where parties control the government by controlling who gets on the ballot is fundamentally opposed to the spirit of the US Constitution.

I believe that the US Founders wanted an inclusive mechanism for selecting leaders.

This factional system, left/right was created by the enemies of freedom.

Notably, Conservatism was created in the 1830s by King William IV of England as an effort to rebrand the Tory Party for the modern age (Wikipedia Conservative Party).

The Conservative Party has existed continuously since 1834. The conservative game is for candidates to use free market rhetoric (along with put downs of liberals) to gain power.

Once in power, Conservatives pass laws that favor economic centralization.

Partisan conservatives present the public with free market rhetoric. The Republican Party has no plans in the works to promote economic decentralization.

The Party is intrinsically corrupt.

At least the Democrats have some integrity. They might say Vote Hillary and you will get a free phone.

Sure enough, there are government programs to give out free phones, free health care, free t-shirts, free education, free pamphlets, free food, free grants, and other free what nots.

Who knows, one might find a cute young thing at a Democratic caucus so smitten with all the free stuff, that she'll give out free sex (followed by a free abortion if the free condom fails.)

The Democratic promise of freebies will be followed by propaganda about how business is evil and that we need to counter evil business with greater government centralization.

Both parties are built on the same structure. They use different connotations of the word "free" to gain power. They both promote economic and political concentration in power.

Regardless of whether or not I attend the caucus, the general election will simply be the choice of the lesser of two evils.

So, I am still left with the question: Should I march into the GOP caucus when I know perfectly well that I am not a conservative. I dislike King William IV and much as I dislike King George III or should I follow my conscious and take a political stand outside the party?

Either way. It doesn't matter.

The left and right and simply mirrors of each other. Both conservativism and progressivism came from a rejection of the ideals of freedom that lie at the foundation of this nation. The only real way to save this nation is for more people to reject the left/right split as a false dichotomies and to reject the two parties as the primary source of corruption in our age.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Silent Sunsets

I learned the other day that one cannot say "It's a pretty sunset" within earshot of a Democrat.

In the modern mindset every word must be measured for political effect. Saying, "hey it's a pretty sunset" must be matched by a political diatribe aimed at spreading hatred of a progressive's enemies.

The haze that appears in the Salt Lake Valley is due primarily to a large amount of moisture on the ground trapped between two mountains. I know this because mountain valleys with few people develop the same haze.

The haze traps in pollutants.

So, saying it's a pretty sunset on the same day in which there is haze means progressives must spill forth with all of the hatred in their dark hearts.

Anyway, if you are near a Democrat, you need to learn to internalize statements such as "it's a pretty sunset."

Vocalizing a thought does not enhance a view. Spewed hated diminishes it.

In modern America one must learn to enjoy beauty without vocalization.

Progressives control the schools. Progressives teach that every word must be measured for political effect. This is our world. But is is kind of sad to live in a world where we cannot say "it's a pretty sunset."

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Filed Under Irrelevant

This just in: While in Illinois Obama gave a speech in which he "calls for improved tone in U.S. politics.:"

Sorry, Mr Political Activist in Chief, the tone of politics in America today is the result of your actions.

The reason I am opposed to the Alinsky style of Community Activism is that this Marxian style not only leads to poor decisions. I creates a feeling of disenfranchisement and sharp political division.

Obama spent the first seven years simply stomping on his opponents and shutting down discourse in our nation, then feigns surprise that his administration led to division and shrill politics.

I suspect that Obama's speech was well delivered and sounded. But, at this stage in the presidential game, it is irrelevant.

It is the actions that Obama took at the height of his political power and not the apologies given in lame duck speech that defines the Obama Administration as one of the most divisive administrations in US history.  Today's speech should be filed under "I" for irrelevant.

Monday, February 08, 2016

Occupy Malheur

The left and right are simply mirror images of each other.

The Tea Party movement out here in Mormon Country was largely hijacked by Clive Bundy style extremists who are driven by an ideology that demands privatization of Federally owned lands in the Mountain West.

Followers of the Bundy's engaged in an Occupy Malheur event in which Conservatives, many from here in Mormon Country, took control of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Lake Malheur just South of Burns, Oregon.

Tensions grew as roving militias from the Mountain West converged on Burns.

The event ended with someone named LaVoy Finicum being shot after driving through a road block and reaching for something (which the FBI says was a loaded gun) from his pocket.

Apparently, some people are wanting to make LaVoy Finicum's funeral in Kanab, Utah a media circus. I simply hope that people watching the aftermath of Occupy Malheur note how the Left and Right are simply mirror images of each other with both sides of the divide using conflict to advance questionable ideologies.

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Deportation and Visas

This last GOP debate was much better than I expected.

Before jumping into my post. I want to counter a meme put forward by Trump. Trump claims that he is the most likely to beat Hillary Clinton.

I say the opposite is true. The Left is adept at exploiting wealth envy in campaigns. It is what they do best. As Trump's claim to fame is his ability to amass wealth and power, he is the candidate that the left is most likely to beat.

As for this post. I liked the direction that Rubio, and others, were taking with immigration debate. The salient point is that the US government must prove that it willing to enforce existing immigration laws before we can pass more lenient laws.

The United States is in a horrible situation where we have to deport millions of people.

Deporting millions sounds draconian until one looks at the numbers. Adding up the columns on the statistics page by the Bureau or Transportation Services indicates that over 250 million people entered the US in 2014.  Most people entering the US are on a passport waver program which allows stays in the US for up to 90 days.  The State Department issued about 10 millions of visas last year.

Both references bring up many unanswered questions. However, they establish that International Travel involves hundreds of millions of people.

Unfortunately, deportation is a necessary component of a smooth running international travel system.

A visa is a contract between a visitor and a host country.

Deportation is the primary mechanism for enforcing the contract.

Yes, I know, deportation is harsh. I would be against deportation except for the fact that it is intrinsic to a working visa system.

When one is dealing with hundreds of millions of travelers. It is not unreasonable to engage in millions of deportations each year.

I am for streamlining the deportation system because streamlined deportations allow for a more robust international travel system. When people follow the laws. We can actually increase travel.

To repeat my argument: A visa is a contract. Deportation is the enforcement mechanism of the contract. We have hundreds of millions of international travelers each year. A one percent fail rate means that we have to deport millions of people each year.

When the context of the argument is understood, the argument for deporting a million people is not harsh. It's simply a necessary part of making an international travel system work.

As for "sanctuary cities." The people who declare sanctuary cities feel great. However, these clowns are disrupting a system that involves hundreds of millions of people simply to make a feel good statement.

Standing against the clowns is largely a matter of showing the harm that they are doing to the hundreds of millions of legal travelers.

I do not believe that the US is going to end up deporting everyone whose violated their visa agreements since the last general amnesty.

However, the United States simply has to get a robust system of deportations in place to safeguard our current robust system of international travel. The last amnesty shows that the US government will not engage in reform after an amnesty.

Families and Immigration

One of the most persistent arguments against enforcing immigration laws is a belief that immigration laws break up families. Looking at the State Department Data, the vast majority of immigration visas are given to immediate and family sponsored immigrants. Over 90% of immigration visas are given for the purpose of keeping families together.

The statistics show that our laws favor the reunion of families over other concerns.

As for the breaking up of families. This is the result of international travel and not American laws.

When a person chooses to move over long distances (crossing national borders and all). That person is engaged in an activity that breaks familial bonds.

It is the individual's choice to emigrate that breaks up the family and not American law.

Yes, it is true that we witness the results of a decision. But the break up is not caused by our laws. The fact that we witness a drama does not mean we caused the drama.

I've noticed that all humans have human connections. People from a region are often related to a huge number of people. Developing the idea that immigration should take place in huge packs limits our nation's ability to accept immigrants from a diversity of places, because we can't just look at the individual who wants to immigrate, but all of the people attached to the individual.

The statistics show that our current system favors relatives of immigrants over all others.

It is really sad that moving abroad breaks up families, but I find it foolish to blame our immigration laws for breaking up families as some break of family must occur whenever people move abroad.