Thursday, October 27, 2016
Actions taken by the Clintons during the primary and general elections have people questioning the integrity of our election system and the direction of our nation.
I suspect that many people are so frustrated with the election that they are thinking of staying home and not voting.
In some cases, not voting is the best course of action.
In this election, however, I believe that the best course of action for the frustrated, disenfranchised voter is to vote for a third party candidate.
I am voting for Gary Johnson as I would love to see the GOP discuss free market policies in the next election.
Polls in Utah say that a huge number of people are voting for Evan McMullin because he is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Voting for McMullin will show the world the size and depth of the Mormon voting block.
Some polls say McMullin will take Utah. I think that would be a hoot.
Some avid Bernie Sanders voters claim to be supporting Jill Stein, hoping to move the Democratic Party leftward.
In Utah, I suspect that Bernie Sanders vote will go to Hillary. Democrats here believe that if McMullin and Johnson split the GOP vote; then Hillary might win the day turning the state blue for the day.
Utah has too few electoral votes to matter, but, if the third party vote is large enough to deny the major candidates a clear plural vote then the major parties will notice and candidates might actually start discussing issues.
IMHO the best possible outcome for this election would be one in which the third party candidates actually denied the primary candidates a clear majority.
Such a vote would deny the next president a mandate and force a discussion of ideas.
So, as we head into the final days of the election, my position is simple. It doesn't matter who you vote for so long as it is neither Trump nor Hillary. The best hope for America is for the disgruntle Americans who are thinking of staying home this election to vote for a third party candidate to show our growing displeasure with the parties.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
I hate the idea of a second Clinton term. Hillary Clinton stands for all of the corruption and weakness that has been systematically bringing our nation to its knees.
If I were running against Hillary, I would drive the point that her husband Bill Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This is the crazy piece of legislation that created that derivatives that brought down our economy in 2008.
The dirivative market was created by progressive economists in Ivy League universities. This market, created by the Clintons, was supposed to be like a huge insurance policy for Wall Street. If the market were to start collapsing, the derivatives would kick in and salvage profits for Wall Street and allow to market to correct itself.
What happened is that bankers printed trillions of dollars in dirivatives stacked upon dirivative and when the market collapses the dirivatives proved to be a house of cards. Instead of creating a shield against market bubbles, the Clinton's dirivative market created bubbles within bubble.
Even worse, the Clinton's dirivative market transferred trillions of dollars of wealth from America's middle and working class into the pockets of the Wall Street elite.
Did I mention? The signature on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was that of William Jefferson Clinton and that the legislation that created the bubbles within bubbles that crashed the economy is also the reason that Wall Street lavishes the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Campaign with millions of dollars.
I am not a fan of the derivatives market. Dirivatives do not create wealth. They are pieces of paper that transfer wealth from the people to the ruling elite.
Considering the deep, deep corruption of the Clintons, one would think that 2016 would be a shoo-in for the GOP.
Somehow, the GOP nominated the one candidate that Hillary Clinton is best positioned to beat: Donald Trump.
Now, I care more about ideas than politics. I have not been able to get behind Trump because Trump has failed to communicate any sound policies and he has failed to engage in the deliberation of ideas.
Trump likes to issue provocative statements. Trump's policy statements often come out as a shopping lists of sound bytes.
Trump comes across as a type of person who likes to control people by issuing dictates. This was a popular style last century. The world took to calling people who rule by issuing dictates a "dictator."
There is merit behind some of Trump's broad statements. Our nation needs to do something about its broken immigration platform.
Since Trump never goes much deeper than issuing broad statements, Hillary Clinton is able to frame efforts to support immigration law as a police state with SS Troops rounding up children.
The GOP is such and incredibly stupid and pathetic party. If the GOP discussed ideas they would win.
The illegal immigrants either crossed the border illegally or failed to follow the contract of their visa. Enforcing immigration law is largely a matter of making sure that people follow the contract of their Visa and deporting people who fail to follow a written contract.
Simply saying that "I will deport people" comes off as a dictate from a dictator. Talking about the visa laws shows a person engaged in the act of deliberation.
We deport people who violate the terms of their visa or who fail to get visas because we love visitors and want a working visa system. That is not hatred. It is the act of a nation engaged in creating laws that allow extensive world travel.
I look at the 2016 presidential race and at a GOP that simply refuses to discuss ideas and issues dictates where there should be debate concede that, while Hillary Clinton numbers among the worst candidates in US history, the GOP deserves to lose.
While it is true that the Democratic Party and the Clinton Machine are corrupt to the core. History shows that one cannot solve such problems through dictates. We are stuck with a bad choice of continuing corruption or electing in a person who will try to solve the corruption by issuing dictates.
Unfortunately, continuing the corruption for another four years is better than electing a person who will fail to solve any of our problems.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Project Veritas offers videos showing left-wing operators set on infiltrating and inciting violence at Trump rallies.
Like mindless drones they are, the media and the professoriat parrot use the manufactured events to push the false narrative that Republicans are violent Nazi-like creatures.
The technique is not new. The left tried to pull this garbage during the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party was about ideas. To the fury of the left, Tea Party patriots politely confronted the provocateurs with ideas and efforts to label the Tea Party as violent failed.
Unlike Tea Party Patriots, Trump is bellicose in his rhetoric. Trump made attacking "politically correct" speech a fundamental principle of his campaign.
Trump's rhetoric appeals to a hard working middle class that wants to stand up against an increasingly corrupt political elite.
The Trump campaign is not a violent movement. The sad truth is that Trump's rhetorical style makes it easier for the left to frame his campaign as such.
The left does not deal in truth. The heart of the Alynskian/Marxian style of discourse is that intellectuals can create a new reality by framing stories and through the creation of false narratives (aka lying).
The left uses this technique because it works.
A case in point is the great success the left has had in convincing students that America's police force is a racist entity that kills black people for sport.
The long sordid history of Socialism is an uninterrupted string of such propaganda techniques.
Socialist groups (like the Nazis) would target a group for a nationwide people's struggle and rise to power on the discontent they manufactured. It creates unrest that can only be appeased by expanding the state.
Wait a second, you didn't know that the National Socialist Party of Germany (The Nazis) were socialists?!
Well, you must have gone to a progressives school. Progressives skip little tidbits like this as they manufacture history with false narratives.
Another juicy tidbit that few people today know is that the KKK was a left-wing group associated with the Democratic Party. Quite frankly, I see very little difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Black Lives Matter ... other than the color of the skin ... which is superficial.
One can find another great example of propaganda in the rise of Vladimir Putin.
There was a series of apartment bombings in Moscow in 1999. The bombers used high grade explosives that were available only to the Russian military. There is widespread suspicion that the FSB (the revamped KGB) were behind the acts.
Putin used these bombings to crack down on the Chechen people and to consolidate his regime.
It appears that the leader of the Communist world incited violence then successfully used that violence to rise to power.
I applaud Project Veritas for uncovering blatant attempts by the left to infiltrate and cause violence at Trump rallies.
The problem our nation faces with Trump is that Trump has inadvertently created a style where this type of propaganda can work.
If Trump wins, the left will amp up its anti-American rhetoric. Trump will attempt to counter by putting down the left.
Trump's top-down approach to economic reform is unlikely to lead to improvement in the lives of the working and lower class. This will create an opening for a much more radical leftwing movement in 2020.
If Hillary wins the following will happen:
- The left will try to put a muzzle on its attack dogs.
- Hillary is likely to move her positions to the right to position herself for a win in 2020.
- The Clinton have been involved in a huge number of scandals. These include Whitewater, mysterious deaths, Bill Clinton's impeachment for perjury.
- Wikileaks shows that the Democratic Party was complicit in undermining Bernie Sander's campaign and for manipulating the GOP primary and the general election.
The scandals of the Clintons are so blatant that the press will be forced to address the scandals.
The Nation will move right under Hillary.
Here is a video by Project Veritas:
We have a corrupt ruling class. Unfortunately, the style of corruption demonstrated by the Democrats this campaign season can be effective. Much as I hate the fact that Democrats and Hillary use such corrupt techniques to gain power. I believe that history shows that the best approach for us at this time to content ourselves with exposing the corruption of the left for this election cycle and for the GOP to find a nominee for 2020 who does not fall as easily into the socialist narrative for 2020.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Apparently, bellicose refers to people who are displaying aggressive behavior and belligerent refers to people actually engaged in aggression. Trump engages in bellicose rhetoric. If he acts on his rhetoric, he will become belligerent.
Trump appears to be having a tiff with leaders of the GOP.
Trump comes off as the type of person who likes to punish his enemies.
If he does this, we might see a complete fracturing and dissolution of the Republican Party.
This actually happened once before. Thomas Jefferson, who preferred local governance and small business to big business had created a Party which he called "The Republican Party."
Andrew Jackson was a pro-slavery populist. Jackson's organization captured Jefferson's party and renamed it the Democratic Party. The Jeffersonian contingent created a new party called The Whigs as many of the US Founders were members of the Whig Party of Great Britain.
The Whigs compromised with the Democrats on the Kansas Nebraska Act. This compromise would have would expanded the institution of slavery in the Western US. A group including John Fremont and Abraham Lincoln created a new party which they called "The Republican Party" after Jefferson's Republican Party.
Anyway, one likely outcome of a Trump presidency is the presidency would disenfranchise the current GOP leadership leading to a complete break up of the Republican Party.
This happened once before. Jefferson's Republican Party favored limited government. Andrew Jackson was a populist who took control Jefferson's Republican Party. The former leaders of the GOP left and created a new party.
The problem with this scenario is that the populist Trump will create an re-invigorated left and that by destroying the GOP, there will be no effective force to counter the Democrats for the foreseeable future.
The people matter more than the president.
It is true that when a nation has a popular president, the people will follow the presidency.
However, when a nation has an unpopular president, the nation will move in the opposite direction of the president.
Obama is a popular president who was weened on the ideals of the socialist Saul Ailinsky. Obama's presidency moved our nation leftward. Obama's politics stifled our economy and made the world a more dangerous place.
Clinton is a corrupt technocrat who is emblematic of the entrenched bureaucracy created by the socialist mindset. The Clinton platform is simply that we should take a failing government and make it bigger.
The Clintons have been involved in a long series of scandals including Whitewater, an Impeachment for perjury, a truly failed foreign policy in Iraq and Syria along with overt Pay-to-play schemes in the Secretary of State Office and with scandals involving corruption in the selection of the Democratic nominee for president.
The scandal sheet is so egregious that the press cannot ignore it.
Donald Trump is a populist candidate whose primary campaign theme is protectionism and desire to renegotiate deals. Trump has a history of throwing aside the ideals of liberty to get his deals through.
I fear that Trump will not only be an unpopular presidency. I fear that Trump will be so desperate to prove his merits by building things that he will throw our remaining liberties under the bus to make deal.
The likely outcome of a Trump presidency is that the left will up its anti-American rhetoric. Trump, desperate to make deals, will sell out the ideals of the Republican Party and moving our nation leftward.
In four years, we will see a invigorated left, a fractured GOP and a weakening of American ideals.
Realizing that the people will move in the opposite direction of an unpopular president, I feel that a Clinton presidency might be better for this nation than a Trump presidency.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
This phrase is not a commitment to truth or integrity. It is simply a reactionary strategy.
The term "reactionary" means that one's actions are determined by the opposition. Clinton is saying: "We are taking this approach, at this moment, because our opposition took that approach."
In a campaign where both candidates have huge negatives, this approach is simply disingenuous.
In some ways the strategy of exchanging barbs for barbs is more honest as it openly puts the weaknesses of the candidates on display.
Hillary Clinton has had decades of experience deflecting criticisms in the wake scandals. The scandals include Whitewater, Bill Clinton's impeachment for perjury, accusations of intimidation, mysterious deaths and an apparent pay for play scheme at the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State.
I know many people who admire Hillary for her ability to sit through hearings without flinching, but the weight of the scandals might someday come crashing in on the Clintons.
The strategy of "going high" when people are investigating a scandal is also called "deflection." Parents should know that a child's putting on a good face after stealing a cookie doesn't mean a cookie wasn't stolen.
Sunday, October 02, 2016
The approach that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders take to the lack of jobs is to raise taxes and create a new Federal give-away programs that would make college free.
Bernie Sanders adds that he would like to see students raise up in revolution.
I want to point out of the foolishness of this approach. If there is a mismatch between our education and jobs, then taxing employers to pay for more of the same would only increase the disparity.
Personally, I look at the failure of the education system to deliver desired returns and conclude that we need to engage in a fundamental restructuring of education to align education with our needs.
I would start by challenging the education system itself. I would start by asking if a massive socialized education system is the best way to education the people in a free society?
The answer to education is huge and multifaceted. So I will leave this question hanging in the air for now.