Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Monday, November 7, 2016
Every rational, logical and intelligent thinking person KNOWS Hillary Clinton is a criminal, a liar and a heartless human being who has used her and her husband's power and influence to build up their personal wealth by illegal means or by skirting the edges of legality for over 30 years. They have created and used the "non-profit" Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative to line their pockets with cash and corrupt global power. She believes she is entitled to be president of our great nation. Her record as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State have been dismal at best and has cost the lives of countless men and women across the globe. Her close ties to the Judicial Department are very suspect. Casting a ballot for her makes you an accomplice to all her crimes, felonies and misdemeanors.
If you like the status quo and enjoy keeping her kind of company and wish to have her rule over you for the next four to eight years then you have turned your back on the very foundational principles that have set the direction for this nation since its founding in 1776 and you will be found GUILTY by future generations as those who brought this country to its knees economically, militarily and morally. If that is a tragic burden you wish to tote on your back for years to come then cast your vote for Hillary Clinton and march blindly into the clouded mist of a certain future of UN control over your Constitutional rights so many have bled and died for, an economy totally directed by the whims and wishes of the global elite and a continuation of stagnation, war and want. This will be your and my future if you pull the lever for Clinton. Don't drag the rest of us down with you, we will continue fighting you and her until our dying breath.
For many of us the choice is very clear....What I described above or a vote for Donald Trump. What will the future look like under his leadership? We cannot know for sure but if he is able to do even a small 10% of what he hopes to accomplish for the nation and its people will automatically set the feet of the country back on its proper path of economic recovery, military strength, protected borders and jobs returning to American soil. We know without any doubt what awaits us if Clinton is elected. As Mr. Trump says, "what have you got to lose" by voting Trump? The choice this time is very very clear. The future for at least a generation is at stake. I suppose I am pleading in a way because I love my nation and do not want Hillary Rodham Clinton to destroy my beloved. VOTE TRUMP and ensure at least a chance at making America great, prosperous, strong and safe once again.
Take back what has been slowly slipping away since 1988.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Why are our political leaders, despite these facts, willing to expose the nation to such potential danger?—a danger that is surely greater than we now imagine. One only has to observe the results of the refugee crisis in Europe to see what is in store for the American homeland. Yet the Obama administration, following Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government in Germany, is adamant that the number of Syrian refugees—and Muslim refugees generally—must increase substantially. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently named Merkel as her favorite world leader, has frequently indicated that acceptance of refugees is an important reaffirmation of America’s commitment to diversity. It is a reaffirmation of “who we are as Americans,” she has said, as if the American character is defined by its unlimited openness to diversity. To show the bipartisan nature of this commitment, Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has used the same phrase to explain his approval of the refugee program. In both cases, the clear implication is that America’s commitment to diversity outweighs considerations of national security. Indeed, in what can only be called a self-willed delusion, proponents of the refugee program seem to believe that their commitment to diversity makes us stronger and more secure as a nation, and that any opposition to the program is racist, xenophobic, and most particularly Islamophobic.
Consider what this means. Germans have been warned that it is their duty to accommodate themselves to newly arrived refugees and not to place politically incorrect demands upon them—that is, not to demand that the refugees adapt to German ways. Some have advised German women in particular that if they don’t wish to be harassed by male refugees, they should cover their heads and be accompanied outside of the home by a male. Will this be a part of America’s politically correct future?
Merkel, like Obama, bases her immigration policy on a globalist view of the world. Secretary of State John Kerry propounded this view in a recent commencement address, warning Americans that we must prepare ourselves for a “borderless world.” But a world without borders is a world without citizens, and a world without citizens is a world without the rights and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship. Rights and liberties exist only in separate and independent nations; they are the exclusive preserve of the nation-state. Constitutional government only succeeds in the nation-state, where the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. By contrast, to see the globalist principle in practice, look at the European Union. The EU is not a constitutional government; it is an administrative state ruled by unelected bureaucrats. It attempts to do away with both borders and citizens, and it replaces rights and liberty with welfare and regulation as the objects of its administrative rule. Constitutional government—to say nothing of liberal democracy—will not be a part of the politically correct, borderless world into which so many of our political leaders wish to usher us.
How did we reach such an impasse? The answer is simple, but no less astounding for its simplicity. It has been frequently observed by competent thinkers that Americans have abandoned the morality engendered by what the Declaration of Independence called the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration confidently proclaimed as its first principle the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among them “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As part of a created (and therefore intelligible) universe, rights cannot be something private or subjective; they are part of an objective order. The idea that every right has a corresponding duty or obligation was essential to the social compact understanding of the American founding. Thus whatever was destructive of the public good or public happiness, however much it might have contributed to an individual’s private pleasures or imagined pleasures, was not a part of the “pursuit of happiness” and could be proscribed by society. Liberty was understood to be rational liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was understood to be the rational pursuit of happiness—that is to say, not only a natural right but a moral obligation as well.
Over the past century and more, this morality grounded in the American founding has been successfully eroded by Progressivism. This erosion is manifested today in the morality of value-free relativism. According to this new morality, all value judgments are equal. Reason cannot prove that one value is superior to or more beneficial than another, because values are not capable of rational analysis; they are merely idiosyncratic preferences. In this value-free universe, the only value that is “objectively” of higher rank is tolerance. Equal toleration of all values—what is called today a commitment to diversity—is the only “reasonable” position. And note that it is always called a commitment to diversity. It is a commitment because it cannot be rational in any strict sense—it exists in a value-free world from which reason has been expelled. The only support it can garner under such circumstances is the simple fact that it is preferred.
With respect to the commitment to diversity, the tolerance of those who are willing to tolerate you does not earn you much credit—it doesn’t require much of a commitment or sacrifice. If, however, you are willing to tolerate those who are pledged to kill you and destroy your way of life, tolerance represents a genuine commitment. Only such a deadly commitment confirms that tolerance is the highest value in a universe of otherwise equal values. Only such a deadly commitment signals a nation’s single-minded devotion to tolerance as the highest value by its willingness to sacrifice its sovereignty as proof of its commitment.
The common-sense citizen is forgiven for thinking this train of thought insane. But what other explanation could there be for the insistence of so many of our political leaders on risking the nation’s security—in light of what we see in Europe, one might even say their willingness to commit national suicide—by admitting refugees without regard to their hostility to our way of life and their wish to destroy us as a nation?
Note that these leaders show no such enthusiasm for admitting Christian refugees from Middle Eastern violence, or even Yazidis, who have suffered horribly from the ravages of Islamic terror. These refugees, of course, represent no danger to America. Only by admitting those who do represent a danger can we display to the world “who we are as a people”—a people willing to sacrifice ourselves to vouchsafe our commitment to tolerance.
A rational concern for our liberties as well as for national security weighs in against such reckless policies. Security experts warn that we don’t have enough homeland security agents to monitor suspected terrorists who are already in our country. If we increase the number of refugees from terrorist-supporting nations, greater security can only be provided by closer cooperation between the various security agencies and closer monitoring of the private lives of all Americans. The consequent loss of liberty will be extensive and will impact all areas of American life. This, we are told, will become the “new reality” or the “new normal,” and Americans will have to develop a “new mind-set” to deal with it. Europeans are well on their way to accepting terrorism as a daily part of their lives—surely Americans, we are told, can adapt as well. But Europeans are used to sacrificing liberties to the administrative state represented by the EU. Will Americans acquiesce so easily?
The administrative state has not yet extinguished America’s love of liberty, although it surely has made significant inroads over the years as Americans have become inured to being bullied by bureaucrats of all stripes. The constant monitoring of citizens in the name of detecting terrorism will, if allowed, turn the nation into a security state where liberties will be easily and casually sacrificed to the constant threat of terrorism. Sacrificing liberty will be the price Americans pay to accommodate refugees—in other words, it is the sacrifice we must make on the altar of political correctness.
Remarkably, many politicians and pundits have argued that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion prohibits Congress and the president from banning the emigration of people to the U.S. based on religion. Thus they characterized the proposal to suspend the entry of Syrian refugees and others from terrorist-supporting nations as a violation of the Constitution. But we must surely wonder how those who are not American citizens or legal resident aliens—indeed, even those who have never been present in the country—can assert rights under the Constitution. By the terms of the Constitution, free exercise of religion is one of the privileges and immunities attached to citizenship; it can hardly be said to be possessed by all those who seek refuge in, or wish to emigrate to, the United States. As a sovereign nation, it is beyond dispute that the U.S. has plenary power to determine the conditions for immigration. Except in a borderless world, it can hardly be claimed that free exercise of religion is a right possessed by all persons inhabiting the globe or even those who are potentially asylum seekers.
One condition for claiming refugee status in the Refugee Act of 1980 is religious persecution. This necessarily means that any applicant for religious asylum would have to submit to questioning about his religious beliefs and (presumably) the sincerity of those beliefs. Also, it is not beyond reason that a sovereign nation would be allowed to inquire whether the religious beliefs of an asylum seeker are compatible with the American constitutional order. Should asylum be extended to the adherents of religions that do not recognize the free exercise rights of other religions? Should those religions whose adherents refuse to pledge or give evidence that they would support free exercise be ineligible for asylum? Religion—and inquiry into religious belief—has always been part of the asylum law, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars such inquiry on national security grounds. Indeed, a quick glance at Article I of the Constitution reveals that Congress has plenary power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has always been understood—by a necessary rule of inference—to mean that Congress also has plenary power to regulate immigration. Congress has wide latitude to choose the “necessary and proper” means to accomplish this end as long as it doesn’t violate some specific prohibition of the Constitution.
To sum up, only in the perfervid imaginations of the politically correct—those who reject the idea of borders—could the Syrian refugee controversy be confused with a constitutional controversy.
Our lax policies toward illegal immigration and the virtual open-borders policy of the Obama administration represent an attempt to move toward a borderless world as well as to aggrandize the power of the administrative state. It is now widely recognized that the Immigration Act of 1965 was intentionally designed to alter the racial and ethnic mix of the population of America. It has been an overwhelming success; demographers predict that by 2040 whites of European descent will no longer be a majority, having been displaced by people of Asian, African, Latin American, and Hispanic descent. For the most part—with the notable exception of Asians—these groups have supplied a significant clientele for the administrative state as it seeks to extend its reach and magnify its power. As such, it has redounded to the benefit of the Democratic Party—the party that favors the growth and extension of administrative state power. But make no mistake: illegal immigration has always had bipartisan support. Despite the fact that illegal immigration cuts against them politically, Republicans have always favored the cheap and exploitable labor of illegal aliens.
The Democrats, of course, have gotten the best of this bargain. After three generations, Latinos vote Democratic by more than a two-thirds majority. The Republicans cannot hope to compete for the Latino vote without becoming something very close to the Democratic Party, differing only at the margins. This is something that the Republican establishment would like to do, but it finds little support among rank-and-file Republicans. If the Republicans lose the 2016 election—if a party realignment fails—the party as currently constituted will, in all likelihood, no longer be competitive in future national elections.
Perhaps more importantly, America’s open-borders policy has allowed terrorists and criminals of all stripes to enter the country at will. In addition to Islamic terror groups, MS-13—a vicious Latin American gang involved in murder for hire, drug trafficking, human smuggling, slavery, and all other manner of crime—operates openly in the U.S. Even when illegal-alien criminals are deported, they easily return to commit further crimes. Surprisingly, this issue of illegal-alien crime has become an important issue in a presidential election for the first time this year. These criminals are aided and abetted by sanctuary cities—cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities in detaining illegal-alien criminals. This policy is the most baffling policy that can be imagined, as it results in criminals being deliberately released into the public where they continue to prey on innocent citizens. It is designed to show (what else?) our tolerance.
Securing our nation’s borders with a wall and by any other means necessary is favored by a majority of Americans, but the idea is considered vulgar and unacceptable by the progressive forces of History, forces which are clearing the obstacles to a borderless world. For these forces, the march of History is inevitable and any appeal to citizens and to the nation-state is anachronistic. It is not inevitable that these forces will have their way. But because of the demographic and political changes brought on by the open-borders regime, time grows short for the American people to reassert their sovereignty—that is, to stop the self-sacrifice which the political elites of both parties have determined is necessary to satisfy the gods of political correctness—those gods who are the guardians of the diversity which defines “who we are as a people.”
(Used by permission from Hillsdale College. Copyright © 2016 Hillsdale College. All rights reserved)
About the Author:
He has published numerous articles on constitutional topics in journals such as Interpretation, the Notre Dame Journal of Law, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
He was a member of the California Advisory Commission on Civil Rights from 1988-2006 and served on the California Constitutional Revision Commission in 1996
He is the author of The American Polity and co‑author of The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
I first want to address the most recent distraction that the mainstream media, including Fox News, has tied their wagon to. On the night of the final debate moderator Chris Wallace (who overall did a fine job - certainly better than the previous two debate moderators) asked one question that according to the press was quite telling. We all know the question - I paraphrase: “Mr.Trump will you accept the election results on November 8th?” That is a good question, however, it was only addressed to Donald Trump and not Hillary Clinton yet Wallace allowed Clinton to respond to Trump’s answer without actually answering the question herself. On Friday, when pressed by one of his own colleagues over at Fox why he asked Trump that question the response from Wallace was, again paraphrasing: “Because of all his talk over the last few weeks how the election is rigged.” Alright I understand. However, any reasoned person would have already knew what Trump’s answer would be, that is if Mr. Trump is a reasoned person. His answer? “I’ll let you know … I’ll keep you in suspense.” That may not have been a politician’s way of answering the question but it was a reasoned one? Why? Because only a fool or someone like a slick politician would have answered yes to that obviously baited question. He could have done what Vice President Al Gore did in 2000 when that question was posed to him and said “Yes, I will agree with the vote count on election day,” and then on November 9th file a lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court which dragged out the election results for an additional 36 days after election day. Also, in light of all the recent revelations from WikiLeaks, the FBI 302 reports and the undercover videos showing the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee actively engaging in voter fraud and election rigging, only a downright idiot and fool would have answered that question in the affirmative. Mr. Trump is not a seasoned politician. He is forthright, to the point, blunt at times but he always tells you want he really thinks and doesn’t filter it through the crooked mire of political speak. That job he leaves to professional politicians like Hillary Clinton. One thing Trump is not ….. is a fool.
Now let’s move on to the next new line you are and will likely be hearing about from the media pundits and spin doctors, and that is this little thing called “down balloting.” Basically what this entails are all the Congresspersons and Senators running for reelection. In the old days the leader of a party (the presidential nominee of that party) really pushes hard to ensure their fellow party members are reelected and help out with appearances on behalf of that candidate or sends out their surrogates to help while both the RNC and DNC shell out millions of dollars to those candidate’s campaign. That is still taking place during this election, but neither of the two top tier candidates are doing a lot of shilling for the down ballot folk this time around and leaving that job mostly to staffers and surrogates. Since the press is making out like neither candidate is liked much many of these down ballot candidates are concerned about their reelection chances and that includes both Republican and Democratic incumbents.
I’m not going to get into all the salacious news about Trump or the criminality of Clinton and those in her camp because in order to make a rant on those topics requires a degree of throwing rationality out the window. I will leave that for another time ….. or not at all. What I do want to address as an answer to the above scenarios and why nothing that is said or done this time around by either side seems to have any actual lasting effect.
The press, aka Mainstream Media (MSM) which includes mainly the television or cable news outlets and those still involved in the written word such as print or the corporately owned digital printed journalist; and the columnists, editorialists and opinion bloggers are now operating in a new medium that most of them (aside from the online internet folk) are totally unfamiliar with. They are still working from the old political model that no longer works and one that they are still quite baffled by. No real, everyday person actually reads the New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. Very few hurry in front of the TV with their dinner trays and watch the evening nightly news on ABC, NBC, CBS or PBS any longer like we did when I was younger. Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite, Huntley Brinkley Report, etc. The MSM is still living in the dark ages of news and editorial distribution. As a result of this and the fact that most of the MSM has been locked for decades inside the same Beltway Bubble as those who have made politics a lifetime job instead of a service to their constituents. The media, like the politicians, because they are so out of touch with the real world that surrounds their impermeable glass house, have been caught off guard and have been revealed for the collusive players they are. Thanks mainly to things like Facebook, Twitter and other social media avenues the average citizen have had their eyes slowly wedged open to the reality of the political world that surrounds them; one in which isn’t anything like they have been led to think it was.
We have been taught that politics, while down and dirty still retains of modicum of civility. Thanks to social media and the blunt truthfulness from an unlikely presidential candidate like Donald Trump citizens now have a first-look peak behind the royal curtain and have gotten a glimpse of what the politicians, their operatives and the MSM have always known and understood — Politics, regardless of the public facade, is a bloodsport and not for the civil-minded.
People, over the last 18 months, and particularly these last several weeks with all the thousands of WikiLeaks revelations and undercover video from Project Veritas the facade has been brought crashing down. Of course, each person who has this “come-to-Jesus” moment react in several ways. Some become so discouraged of the facts behind the revelations that they simply bow out of the whole process altogether returning by denial to their previous state of keeping their heads buried in the sand like a good little ostrich. Others simply accept the reality and fall into their ideological sheepfold on either side and march lock-step to the party line, being good little spin doctors for their candidate of choice.
Another group tries to find the best in each candidate who lays out a plan and policies that fit best into their emotional mold of how they view the world.
Finally, there is the group that, with reason, logic, a knowledge of the past and a hope for the future recognize that both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump are flawed human beings doing what they do for whatever the reason they do them which always includes the accumulation of political power to achieve their stated and sometime privately held goals for the nation and its people. This group will weigh the claims of both, thoroughly vet each candidates positions on those issues that will have the greatest impact on their lives and the direction of the nation; issues such as immigration, border security, national security, military preparedness, economy, jobs, jobs, jobs, bringing down the national debt while also rebuilding the declining infrastructure. They will logically, unemotionally and reasonably decide, based upon the candidates words, policies, actions and past accomplishments, failures and behaviors which candidate will best serve them, the nation and the Constitution of the United States of America.
What has changed is not the people or the political gamesmanship. What has changed, thanks almost entirely to the internet and social media, is how the people get their information about the game and their ability to affect the outcome of the game through massive online communication and sharing of data. The people are no longer dependent on the status quo and are saying as a result that for the most part they are sick and tired of that status quo created by the politicians and propagandized by the MSM.
There is a new sheriff in town and all the old bad players are scrambling to come to terms with this new political reality. In the future the candidate who know best how to manipulate this new media will dominate in the polls. This election is the first real test of just that paradigm shift. Get onboard or be run over by it left torn, shambled and bleeding on the tracks.
[NOTE: With ICAN soon to take charge of the global internet this whole model may be in for another earth shaking game change].
Monday, October 17, 2016
The bottom line for voters, as the world awaits with baited breath, is not Donald J. Trump’s sexual allegations or even the myriad of Hillary Clinton scandals that have plagued the nation for decades and the WikiLeaks revelation of those questionable actions, words and strategies put forth by the former Secretary of State and her staff. The real issue in this election is far removed from these obvious distractions.
The bottom line? Nationalism versus Globalism. Liberty versus a one world government formally known by many as The New World Order. That is at the heart and soul of these upcoming elections.
This New World Order has been in the making for quite some time but really didn’t get a good strong foothold on American soil until the year 1976 (200 years after the official formation of America in 1776) with the election of Jimmy Carter for president. He set the framework which built upon the foundation laid by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the late 1930’s and helped foster the plans for just such a move from a Constitutional Republic to the beginnings of a more socialistic, politically correctable institution in which the Constitution, while being paid lip service, was beginning to be relegated as nothing more than an antiquated documented to only be viewed under glass and not practiced by the ruling class as the founders had intended.
Over time both major political parties in the United States publicly appeared to be on opposite ends of just about every major issue the nation faced but privately strove to achieve the same goal of globalism built and created in their own image and idealism, however the ultimate goal of each remained the same — moving the country from a national agenda to a global one in which for the Democrats America would be simply one nation among many in their global initiative while for the Republicans a one world government being the goal it would be led and headed by The United States as the Top One Among Many.
What makes this election so critical is that for the first time since 1976 there is a distinct dichotomy between the GOP nominee for president and his own party. Mr. Trump is not a globalist. He is a nationalist. He is America first and foremost in all things. He is at direct odds with his own party elite who are moderate to conservative globalist and the Democratic nominee who, privately is more like the GOP elite than her own party, but publicly is carrying her party’s banner of a socialistic New World Order. Because Trump holds such old fashioned views of America’s greatness in its past and its possibilities for a grand future he has become an enemy of the powerful globalist within his own party, the opposition party and the corporate media machine that has chosen to be fully in the tank for Secretary Clinton’s Saul Alinsky vision of the future. It has put Mr. Trump on an ideological war on three fronts.
The nation and the world in general are now at a serious crossroads. What gets decided by the American people on November 8th will determine the direction of the entire world that will affect the lives of billions of people for at least the next 40 to 80 years due mainly to the kind of ideologues the next president will place on the nation’s Supreme Court which could be up to at least 4 new justices over the next 4 to 8 years. This is unprecedented.
Will the people decide to side with George H.W. Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton with their New World Order agenda? Or, will the American people go the way of BREXIT and keep America firmly the leader and champion of the Free World striving to continue the dream of their forefathers of independence who left the tyranny of a ruling class in favor of at least a modicum of individual freedom and liberty?
The answer to that all important question will be answered in just a few weeks. One can only hope that the average American voter is cognizant of just how important and life changing this election will be for them, the country and the world and will look beyond the mainstream media distractions being forced upon them and will keep their eye on the prize, that being their hard fought for Liberty.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Friday, October 14, 2016
From the Red Sea, in the region of Eilat today, to the Sea of the Philistines which would be the Mediterranean Sea near Gaza. This southern line was to a point called the River of Egypt, or the wadi of Egypt on the Great Sea – aka the Mediterranean. The coastline of the Mediterranean – [Numbers 34:6; Ezekiel 47:20].
From there through what is Lebanon and Syria today to the Euphrates River in the north [Genesis 15:18; Deuteronomy 11:24; Ezekiel 47:17; Joshua 1:4].
From the Euphrates River in the north, extending south, past Damascus, along the slopes on the eastern side of the Sea of Kinnereth, what we know as the Golan Heights today. The Kinnereth is also called the Eastern Sea in Tanakh and is what we know as the Sea of Galilee. The Jordan River rises in the mountains of Lebanon and runs south to the Sea of Galilee. At the southern end of the Sea of Galilee the Jordan River flows out and along the Jordan Valley to enter the Dead Sea. The eastern side of the Jordan River, south of the Golan Heights, represents the boundary of the Promised Land [Numbers 34:11-12; Ezekiel 47:18].
This is our land, the Land of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaacov. It has been ours for nearly 4,000 years and we will never, never, ever give one more inch of it away because scum in the UN say we must. It is not the land of Muhammad and we need to take it back NOW!
Monday, October 10, 2016
People are worried about Trump's words that were not actions but reprehensible talk that had no follow-up works (He never grabbed the lady in question's genitals) --- so it was just lewd talk between two lewd men (one of them a Bush, so mystery solved how the audio got leaked).
Where is all the outrage over the real issues like why would we put Clinton in charge of our national security when she has proven by her ACTIONS and LIES to have placed our nation in a compromising situation when she mishandled classified information?
We are concerned over raunchy talk about grabbing female body parts and a fool's imaginings what that would be like. Donald hit on a married woman. WOW! I'm aghast (he joins the ranks of some of this nation's greatest leaders - Thomas Jefferson got his slave pregnant - FDR had several affairs in his 3 terms as President - JFK was a huge womanizer - Eisenhower had a mistress on the side before and while President -- man I could go on forever on this- yet none of their lewd and adulterous behavior inhibited their ability to lead with greatness in times of peace and war), but Hillary placing this nation's secrets and possibly State Department strategy for taking out ISIS, dealing with Putin, and who knows what else was in those deleted 33,000 emails; not to mention the over 100 classified emails the FBI found on her illegal, unprotected server in her basement. We have become so damn politically correct that we as a nation are losing site of the most important thing that is a real national priority right now - our economy, jobs, unemployment, border security, rush of unvetted immigrants from Syria, Iraq and other radical Islamic countries coming into America virtually vetted-free.
While the well intentioned, and those with ulterior political agendas, keep focusing on electing a completely morally upright citizen to the office of President (BTW: nobody like that is running in this race - and never have since the first President). We are not electing Jesus or Ghandi for President .... OK? We need someone intelligent (and Donald is that - IQ 156 - graduate of the one of the finest business universities in the nation - Wharton College, and early years spent in the discipline of a military academy where he excelled in military leadership and strategic thinking). Hillary Clinton has served as First Lady of a State and the Nation for a total of 16 years. Served as US Senator for 8 years and Secretary of State for 4 years .... and yet with all that time in positions of authority, leadership, policy making and Head of State Department actions and policies - tell me what she has actually achieved in those nearly 30 years? I can tell you -- Absolutely nothing of any real substance, change, accomplishment or do-goodery.
It is time to give someone else a shot. There are some who simply do not like Trump or some of his antics of private lewd conversations with other lewd actors so my advice for them is to vote for Hillary, Johnson or Stein or even a write-in .... but get over it already and for once do what is best for the nation as a whole and not to just placate your PC driven hyper-sensibilities.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Of the two main candidates running I find businessman turned politician Donald Trump far more capable of doing that than Hillary Clinton who has proven over the last four decades to not only be duplicitous but also may be directly complicit in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya, as well as, incapable of being responsible for the handling of classified information. She is so steeped in illegality and putting herself above and beyond what is best for the nation that, as a concerned American, I simply cannot vote for her.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have flaws. However, she goes beyond flawed and has purposefully compromised her integrity (if she ever had it) and is totally lacking in trustworthiness - the number one character trait necessary for the leader of the free world.
I DO NOT and CANNOT TRUST HER and that is the bottom line and the most troublesome thing Clinton faces in her campaign. I trust Trump more than I could trust her based solely on their history over the last 40 years, as flawed as they both might be.
America was an exception to Marx’s theory of social progress. By that theory, societies were supposed to move from feudalism to capitalism to communism. But the America of the 1850s, the most capitalist society around, was not turning communist. Marx had an explanation for that. “True enough, the classes already exist,” he wrote of the United States, but they “are in constant flux and reflux, constantly changing their elements and yielding them up to one another.” In other words, when you have economic and social mobility, you don’t go communist.
That is the country in which some imagine we still live, Horatio Alger’s America—a country defined by the promise that whoever you are, you have the same chance as anyone else to rise, with pluck, industry, and talent. But they imagine wrong. The U.S. today lags behind many of its First World rivals in terms of mobility. A class society has inserted itself within the folds of what was once a classless country, and a dominant New Class—as social critic Christopher Lasch called it—has pulled up the ladder of social advancement behind it.
One can measure these things empirically by comparing the correlation between the earnings of fathers and sons. Pew’s Economic Mobility Project ranks Britain at 0.5, which means that if a father earns £100,000 more than the median, his son will earn £50,000 more than the average member of his cohort. That’s pretty aristocratic. On the other end of the scale, the most economically mobile society is Denmark, with a correlation of 0.15. The U.S. is at 0.47, almost as immobile as Britain.
A complacent Republican establishment denies this change has occurred. If they don’t get it, however, American voters do. For the first time, Americans don’t believe their children will be as well off as they have been. They see an economy that’s stalled, one in which jobs are moving offshore. In the first decade of this century, U.S. multinationals shed 2.9 million U.S. jobs while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. General Electric provides a striking example. Jeffrey Immelt became the company’s CEO in 2001, with a mission to advance stock price. He did this in part by reducing GE’s U.S. workforce by 34,000 jobs. During the same period, the company added 25,000 jobs overseas. Ironically, President Obama chose Immelt to head his Jobs Council.
According to establishment Republicans, none of this can be helped. We are losing middle-class jobs because of the move to a high-tech world that creates jobs for a cognitive elite and destroys them for everyone else. But that doesn’t describe what’s happening. We are losing middle-class jobs, but lower-class jobs are expanding. Automation is changing the way we make cars, but the rich still need their maids and gardeners. Middle-class jobs are also lost as a result of regulatory and environmental barriers, especially in the energy sector. And the skills-based technological change argument is entirely implausible: countries that beat us hands down on mobility are just as technologically advanced. Folks in Denmark aren’t exactly living in the Stone Age.
This is why voters across the spectrum began to demand radical change. What did the Republican elite offer in response? At a time of maximal crisis they have been content with minimal goals, like Mitt Romney’s 59-point plan in 2012. How many Americans remember even one of those points? What we remember instead is Romney’s remark about 47 percent of Americans being takers. That was Romney’s way of recognizing the class divide—and in the election, Americans took notice and paid him back with interest.
Since 2012, establishment Republicans have continued to be less than concerned for the plight of ordinary Americans. Sure, they want economic growth, but it doesn’t seem to matter into whose pockets the money flows. There are even the “conservative” pundits who offer the pious hope that drug-addicted Trump supporters will hurry up and die. That’s one way to ameliorate the class struggle, but it doesn’t exactly endear anyone to the establishment.
The southern writer Flannery O’Connor once attended a dinner party in New York given for her and liberal intellectual Mary McCarthy. At one point the issue of Catholicism came up, and McCarthy offered the opinion that the Eucharist is “just a symbol,” albeit “a pretty one.” O’Connor, a pious Catholic, bristled: “Well, if it’s just a symbol, to Hell with it.” Likewise, the principles held up as sacrosanct by establishment Republicans might be logically unassailable, derived like theorems from a set of axioms based on a pure theory of natural rights. But if I don’t see them making people better off, I say to Hell with them. And so do the voters this year. What the establishment Republicans should ask themselves is Anton Chigurh’s question in No Country for Old Men: If you followed your principles, and your principles brought you to this, what good are your principles?
Had Marx been asked what would happen to America if it ever became economically immobile, we know what his answer would be: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And also Donald Trump. The anger expressed by the voters in 2016—their support for candidates from far outside the traditional political class—has little parallel in American history. We are accustomed to protest movements on the Left, but the wholesale repudiation of the establishment on the Right is something new. All that was solid has melted into air, and what has taken its place is a kind of right-wing Marxism, scornful of Washington power brokers and sneering pundits and repelled by America’s immobile, class-ridden society.
Establishment Republicans came up with the “right-wing Marxist” label when House Speaker John Boehner was deposed, and labels stick when they have the ring of truth. So it is with the right-wing Marxist. He is right-wing because he seeks to return to an America of economic mobility. He has seen how broken education and immigration systems, the decline of the rule of law, and the rise of a supercharged regulatory state serve as barriers to economic improvement. And he is a Marxist to the extent that he sees our current politics as the politics of class struggle, with an insurgent middle class that seeks to surmount the barriers to mobility erected by an aristocratic New Class. In his passion, he is also a revolutionary. He has little time for a Republican elite that smirks at his heroes—heroes who communicate through their brashness and rudeness the fact that our country is in a crisis. To his more polite critics, the right-wing Marxist says: We are not so nice as you!
The right-wing Marxist notes that establishment Republicans who decry crony capitalism are often surrounded by lobbyists and funded by the Chamber of Commerce. He is unpersuaded when they argue that government subsidies are needed for their friends. He does not believe that the federal bailouts of the 2008-2012 TARP program and the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest and quantitative easing policies were justified. He sees that they doubled the size of public debt over an eight-year period, and that our experiment in consumer protection for billionaires took the oxygen out of the economy and produced a jobless Wall Street recovery.
The right-wing Marxist’s vision of the good society is not so very different from that of the JFK-era liberal; it is a vision of a society where all have the opportunity to rise, where people are judged by the content of their character, and where class distinctions are a thing of the past. But for the right wing Marxist, the best way to reach the goal of a good society is through free markets, open competition, and the removal of wasteful government barriers.
Readers of Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose will have encountered the word palimpsest, used to describe a manuscript in which one text has been written over another, and in which traces of the original remain. So it is with Canada, a country that beats the U.S. hands down on economic mobility. Canada has the reputation of being more liberal than the U.S., but in reality it is more conservative because its liberal policies are written over a page of deep conservatism.
Whereas the U.S. comes in at a highly immobile 0.47 on the Pew mobility scale, Canada is at 0.19, very close to Denmark’s 0.15. What is further remarkable about Canada is that the difference is mostly at the top and bottom of the distribution. Between the tenth and 90th deciles there isn’t much difference between the two countries. The difference is in the bottom and top ten percent, where the poorest parents raise the poorest kids and the richest parents raise the richest kids.
For parents in the top U.S. decile, 46 percent of their kids will end up in the top two deciles and only 2 percent in the bottom decile. The members of the top decile comprise a New Class of lawyers, academics, trust-fund babies, and media types—a group that wields undue influence in both political parties and dominates our culture. These are the people who said yes, there is an immigration crisis—but it’s caused by our failure to give illegals a pathway to citizenship!
There’s a top ten percent in Canada, of course, but its children are far more likely to descend into the middle or lower classes. There’s also a bottom ten percent, but its children are far more likely to rise to the top. The country of opportunity, the country we’ve imagined ourselves to be, isn’t dead—it moved to Canada, a country that ranks higher than the U.S. on measures of economic freedom. Yes, Canada has its much-vaunted Medicare system, but cross-border differences in health care don’t explain the mobility levels. And when you add it all up, America has a more generous welfare system than Canada or just about anywhere else. To explain Canada’s higher mobility levels, one has to turn to differences in education systems, immigration laws, regulatory burdens, the rule of law, and corruption—on all of which counts, Canada is a more conservative country.
America’s K-12 public schools perform poorly, relative to the rest of the First World. Its universities are great fun for the kids, but many students emerge on graduation no better educated than when they arrived. What should be an elevator to the upper class is stalled on the ground floor. One study has concluded that if American public school students were magically raised to Canadian levels, the economic gain would amount to a 20 percent annual pay increase for the average American worker.
The U.S. has a two-tiered educational system: a superb set of schools and colleges for the upper classes and a mediocre set for everyone else. The best of our colleges are the best anywhere, but the average Canadian school is better than the average American one. At both the K-12 and college levels, Canadian schools have adhered more closely to a traditional, conservative set of offerings. For K-12, a principal reason for the difference is the greater competition offered in Canada, with its publicly-supported church-affiliated schools. With barriers like America’s Blaine Amendments—state laws preventing public funding of religious schools—lower-class students in the U.S. must enjoy the dubious blessing of a public school education.
What about immigration? Canada doesn’t have a problem with illegal aliens—it deports them. As for the legal intake, Canadian policies have a strong bias towards admitting immigrants who will confer a benefit on Canadian citizens. Even in absolute numbers, Canada admits more immigrants under economic categories than the U.S., where most legal immigrants qualify instead under family preference categories. As a result, on average, immigrants to the U.S. are less educated than U.S. natives, and unlike in Canada, second- and third-generation U.S. immigrants earn less than their native-born counterparts. In short, the U.S. immigration system imports inequality and immobility. If immigration isn’t an issue in Canada, that’s because it’s a system Trump voters would love.
For those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder who seek to rise, nothing is more important than the rule of law, property rights, and the sanctity of contract provided by a mature and efficient legal system. The alternative—in place today in America—is a network of elites whose personal bonds supply the trust that is needed before deals can be done and promises relied on. With its more traditional legal system, Canada better respects the sanctity of contract and is less likely to weaken property rights with an American-style civil justice system which at times resembles a slot machine of judicially-sanctioned theft. Americans are great at talking about the rule of law, but in reality we don’t have much standing to do so.
Then there’s corruption. As ranked by Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, America is considerably more corrupt than most of the rest of the First World. With our K Street lobbyists and our donor class, we’ve spawned the greatest concentration of money and influence ever. And corruption costs. In a regression model, the average family’s earnings would increase from $55,000 to $60,000 were we to ascend to Canada’s level of non-corruption, and to $68,000 if we moved to Denmark’s level.
In a corrupt country, trust is a rare commodity. That’s America today. Only 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time, down from 73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew Research Center. Sadly, that is a rational response to the way things are. America is a different country today, and a much nastier one. For politically engaged Republicans, the figure is six percent. That in a nutshell explains the Trump phenomenon and the disintegration of the Republican establishment. If the people don’t trust the government, tinkering with entitlement reform is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
American legal institutions are consistently more liberal than those in Canada, and they are biased towards a privileged class of insiders who are better educated and wealthier than the average American. That’s why America has become an aristocracy. By contrast, Canadian legal institutions aren’t slanted to an aristocracy.
The paradox is that Canadians employ conservative, free market means to achieve the liberal end of economic mobility. And that points to America’s way back: acknowledge that the promise of America has diminished, then emulate Canada.
About the Author:
Previously he was a visiting Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and he has also taught at McGill Law School, the Sorbonne, and Sciences Po in Paris.
He received his B.A. from McGill University and his LL.M. from Harvard University
He is a senior editor of The American Spectator and the author of several books, including The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America and The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America.
(Used by permission from Hillsdale College. Copyright © 2016 Hillsdale College. All rights reserved)
In thinking about the kind of person who should take his seat on the Court, it is worth reflecting on Justice Scalia’s principles of jurisprudence. One of the chief principles he championed, as a scholar and as a judge, is that the law, whether statutes or the Constitution itself, must be applied according to its text. In other words, judges should not apply the law based on what is good policy or what they suppose Congress may have intended (but did not express) in passing legislation.
In addition, Justice Scalia believed that the words of the law should be understood as they were understood by the people when the law was enacted. For example, if you strike a bargain with someone, and later there is a dispute about that bargain, how do you interpret the words of your contract? Do you look to what the words of the contract meant at the time you agreed to them? Or do you look to what those words mean ten or 50 years after the fact? There are some who believe that the meanings of words change over time, untethered from any objective measure. Thus what is legal one day may be illegal the next without any textual changes to the law. Justice Scalia rejected this notion. He held fast to the idea that the meaning of laws is fixed by the meaning ascribed to their words at the time they were enacted.
These two principles, textualism and originalism, are rooted in a third characteristic of Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence: an unwavering respect for the idea of popular government. Laws, including the Constitution, receive their legitimacy from the people. The Constitution is not an autonomously evolving document that spins out new “rights” and obligations to which the people have not given their consent. Rather than discovering new rights in the Constitution, judges should respect the constitutional prerogative of the people to pass laws through their representative legislatures, limited by the restraints imposed by the Constitution—which was itself ratified by popular means.
Along with this opposition to creative interpretation of the Constitution, a fourth characteristic of Justice Scalia’s life work was a conviction that the rights actually guaranteed in the Constitution should be tenaciously defended, from the right of free speech to the rights of criminal defendants. Beyond these enumerated rights, Justice Scalia recognized that the Constitution’s primary protection of liberty is its structure of checks and balances between branches and its division of powers between the federal government and the states.
In short, Justice Scalia rejected the judicial activism of inventing law while embracing judicial engagement by ensuring that the limits on government are strictly enforced. Ensuring that the next justice appointed to the Supreme Court is someone in the mold of Justice Scalia is surpassingly important. Not since the New Deal has the country had a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. For 60 years, the Court has been either decidedly liberal or split between liberals and conservatives. For 25 years, the Court’s most controversial and closely-divided cases sometimes had a liberal outcome, sometimes a conservative one. At the time of Justice Scalia’s death, the Court consisted of four unwavering liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), three solid conservatives (Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), a fourth who votes with the conservatives much of the time (Chief Justice Roberts), and one swing vote (Justice Kennedy). Replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal would fundamentally alter that balance, creating a solid majority of five liberal justices that would ensure liberal outcomes to all controversial decisions.
Make no mistake: the liberal justices on the Court nearly always vote as a bloc. Whereas the conservative justices occasionally depart for reasons of judicial philosophy from what some might consider the conservative outcome—as Justice Scalia often did—one is hard-pressed to find decisions where a liberal justice’s vote is in question. To illustrate the point, in the Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term, the four liberal justices agreed with each other over 90 percent of the time—more agreement than between any two conservative justices. For example, Chief Justice Roberts agreed with Justice Thomas in only 70 percent of cases. If the liberal wing of the Court is given a five-justice majority, we should expect that no controversial decision of the Court will ever be in doubt.
Let me provide a survey of the important issues the Court might decide in coming years, once a ninth justice is appointed.
One of the issues coming before the Court will concern a basic liberty essential to democracy: freedom of speech. Under assault these days is the freedom to spend (or not spend) money on political speech. For example, before Justice Scalia’s death, the Court voted to grant review of a case called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which public sector employees wanted the right not to pay compulsory union dues. This case raises an important question about free speech: can the government force you to contribute money to a political cause you oppose? Without Justice Scalia’s vote, the Court split evenly, leaving the issue to be resolved by a future Supreme Court—the deciding vote to be cast by the future ninth justice.
On the other side of the free speech coin is the continued vitality of the Court’s Citizens United decision. Let me clarify a common misconception: Citizens United did not hold that corporations are allowed to give unlimited amounts to political candidates. In fact, the laws limiting the amount of campaign contributions to a few thousand dollars are still valid and in place. Rather, in Citizens United, the Court held that the government may not limit the amount of money spent—whether by individuals, unions, or corporations—on their own independent political advocacy. This case was decided 5 to 4, with Justice Scalia in the majority. If he is replaced with a liberal, Citizens United will likely be overturned, and the right to free speech will be greatly diminished.
The First Amendment also protects religious liberty, another of our endangered core rights. Before Justice Scalia passed away, the Supreme Court granted review in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, a case which will decide whether certain state laws called “Blaine Amendments” are constitutional. Blaine Amendments are provisions added to state constitutions during a time of anti-Catholic fervor—they date back to the 1870s—that prevent any state funds from being used to benefit a church or a religion for any reason. This means that states running programs that provide resources to private institutions must discriminate against religious institutions, even if the program being funded is not religious. In the Trinity Lutheran case, a Missouri program was providing scrap tires for flooring in playgrounds to make them safer for children. Because of a Blaine Amendment, the State refused to provide tires to church schools. With other attorneys general, I filed a brief supporting the effort to get these Blaine Amendments struck down. The new justice is likely to cast the deciding vote on whether to remove this legacy of legal hostility to religion.
Freedom of religious conscience also hangs in the balance. We have seen this in the Hobby Lobby case, where the Court protected the right of religious employers not to fund abortions. So too in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where the Court has, for now, narrowly avoided the question of whether Catholic nuns can be required to cover contraception in their health insurance plan. Other cases regarding freedom of conscience are on the horizon. The Court recently declined to review a case that upheld a Washington law that requires pharmacists to sell abortion drugs despite religious objections. Similarly, a case may soon reach the Court to decide whether civil rights laws can be used to force, for example, a Christian photographer to use her artistic skills to celebrate a same-sex wedding. Moving to the Second Amendment, the next justice will likely cast the deciding vote on whether to continue to recognize an individual right to “keep and bear Arms,” or whether to interpret that right so narrowly as to effectively do away with it. For example, just this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California held that the Second Amendment does not forbid laws that prohibit most people from carrying (i.e., bearing) a firearm in public. Without a justice willing to stand up for an effective right to bear arms, the Second Amendment might very well become a dead letter.
Other issues that hang in the balance include the death penalty, affirmative action, regulation of the abortion industry, and voting laws. But I want to focus on one final set of constitutional questions that have reached their tipping point in recent years—questions having to do with the structure of our Constitution.
Contrary to what many believe, the primary guarantee of our liberty in the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights. Rather it is found in the structure of government under the Constitution, which is designed to prevent accumulation of power and oppression of the people. The Constitution separates powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, and divides powers between the federal government and the states. Those who wrote the Constitution expected that members of the different branches would be zealous in defending their powers from other parts of government that attempted to encroach on them. They expected state legislatures to do likewise. These constitutional structures provide the greatest and broadest guarantee of liberty by limiting governmental power. And today they are under threat.
Since at least the New Deal, the executive branch has been accumulating more and more power, and the current administration has taken unilateral executive authority to new levels. President Obama has on numerous occasions effectively engaged in lawmaking—an activity strictly delegated to Congress by the Constitution—when Congress refused to pass laws that he desired. Last year, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency instituted a new “Clean Power Plan”—an attempt to put the coal industry out of business, in the name of combatting climate change—absent any authority granted by Congress. Oklahoma, along with 28 other states, sued to have this rule blocked. In his last act on the bench, Justice Scalia voted to put this Clean Power Plan on hold while it is being litigated, providing a good indication that five of the justices thought it to be unlawful. With Justice Scalia gone, his replacement will likely determine the outcome of this case.
Along the same lines, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers recently rewrote the definition of the term “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act to include almost every puddle and pond in the country, enabling a vast extension of federal regulatory authority at the expense of the states and the people. Again, this occurred without any grant of authority by Congress, which passed the Clean Water Act back in 1972. Again, Oklahoma and 26 other states have challenged this power grab.
Most recently, the President and his agencies have attempted unilaterally to mandate accommodations nationwide for transgender people by rewriting laws like Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. They are attempting to do so by redefining the word “sex” in the law—understood when Title IX was passed by Congress to refer to biological sex—to mean “gender identity,” which the administration defines as a person’s “internal sense of gender.” A new justice will likely cast the deciding vote on whether courts should check this type of executive overreach as well.
Another way President Obama has expanded his power is by refusing to enforce laws he does not like, effectively repealing them. He has done this with immigration laws by designating entire classes of people as having “legal status,” even though the law clearly states that they are unlawfully present. Similarly, his administration has effectively legalized marijuana in certain states by refusing to enforce federal laws prohibiting it. The extent to which presidents must follow their constitutional mandate to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” is a hotly contested issue on which the next Supreme Court justice might provide the pivotal vote.
The next Supreme Court justice will not only decide the outcome in pending cases, he or she will also influence the type of cases that make it to the Court in the first place. Businesses are less likely to challenge exorbitant or unfair rulings against them knowing there is a majority of justices hostile to their interests. Conservatives will be less likely to put their time and resources into defending the Constitution if they know the Court won’t enforce it. Meanwhile, liberal groups will be emboldened to bring cases that attempt to roll back First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms, among others. They will also bring cases attempting to establish new “rights”—to government welfare payments, to free attorneys in civil cases, to increased funding for public schools, etc.—as well as things like a prohibition on racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes, an exception to the First Amendment for so-called “hate speech,” and a prohibition on sex-segregated restrooms.
The appointment of the next Supreme Court justice could be the most legally significant event for our country in a generation. If the next justice is in the mold of Justices Ginsburg or Sotomayor, the rulings of the Court will shift dramatically to the left. If the next justice shares the principles and philosophy of Justice Scalia, the ideologically balanced Court that we have grown accustomed to in the last quarter century will likely remain. As someone whose job it is to defend the rights of the people of Oklahoma, this turning point is very important to me. But as I hope I have explained, the next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that touch on the rights of every American and that may come to define the nature of our government and our society for many years to come.
About the Author:
A past president of the Republican Attorneys General Association, he established Oklahoma’s Federalism Unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government.
Mr. Pruitt received his B.A. from Georgetown College and his J.D. from the University of Tulsa College of Law.
(Used by permission from Hillsdale College. Copyright © 2016 Hillsdale College. All rights reserved)
Monday, September 26, 2016
This “historic” event was one of the most anticipated (hyped) political/media events in memory for many and recent memory for others of my era. I do remember the JFK/Nixon first televised one, so “historic” might be a subjective term at best.
Back to this history making event. Like many viewers I too was wondering which Donald Trump might show up. Would Hillary Clinton last 90-minutes without a coughing spell or get one of those blanked-out moments where a large black man comes out to her and utters whatever hypnotically induced safe-word is downloaded into her 4-year old brain nano-bot. Just a reminder that in 2012 the Secretary fell, hit her head, got a severe intracranial blood clot.
First my initial gut feeling about this “debate.” Lester Holt did alright. Under the tight restraints placed on him by his colleagues as some kind of role model for all future moderators and pressure from both political camps as well as his big-wig media bosses I’d give Mr. Holt a B for effort.
Secretary Clinton was just as everyone expected her to be. Short, clip, loaded with information - factual or not is yet to be determined - and most importantly, she didn’t pass out. One thing became very obvious early on. Clinton was using some sort of teleprompter/info device from her insisted upon “special podium.” Her eye movement during her longer discourses were evident of reading prepared text. Her speech was well practiced as Mrs. Clinton is a well known debater who always comes prepared for every possible outcome, which is an excellent quality for any possible presidential candidate. Problem is her 30-year track record of using that positive quality for questionable self-serving ends is staggering. In the end she did as many thought she would. She held her own. Didn’t lose her cool and stayed upright.
Donald J. Trump was a different kettle of fish at this all-important debate. He wasn’t his really bombastic self. He didn’t do or say anything so blatantly absurd as to give the press, pundits or us online spillers of personal opinion any juicy meat to digest and spew out later distorted and maligned pool of vomit. And, one has to ask why?
I am a firm believer that Howard Stern is not the master of all media. That title is held tightly in-hand by one Donald J. Trump, Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States of America. Too much? Okay, moving on. What Mr. Trump did tonight was nothing short of mass media manipulation at its finest while at the same time reaching those he needs the most without making a big issue out of it. Mr. Trump already knows there are two groups whose votes for and against him are guaranteed. His supporters will vote for and follow him no matter what. He is their choice for the Oval Office. The other are those who will not vote for Trump even if he were to walk on water, heal the sick, allow himself to be killed by them and then rise from the dead. Trump will not spend one ounce of energy or one cent of money to win over this group. Most will go to Hillary Clinton, the remainder will stay home or vote for the remaining two candidates — who are they again?
The group Trump needed to win over at this first debate were those thin layer of non-committed independents and moderates (what use to be called Blue Dog or Reagan Democrats). As I watched him my emotional side was itching for him to tear into all the lies that Clinton was spewing on that very stage right in front of him, the world, god and …. well you get my drift. Emotionally I was upset that he passed on more than one open-ended opportunity to go after Clinton on her email server and cyber-security. Her trustworthiness factor. When she went after him over false allegations of racism and families devastated by his real estate dealings; why didn’t he mention the long line of loved ones that are fatherless, husbandless, motherless and childless because of those disastrous Obama/Clinton foreign policies while she was Secretary of State. I saw these and a couple of other more minor elements as missed opportunities and I felt he kind of blew it. But then I remembered who I was dealing with here. Mr. Donald J. Trump the Master and King of All Media and like a revelatory light it came to me in a vision. Again - too much?
In order to aid the uncommitted and undecided from those Independent and more moderate-to-right leaning Democrats he could not come across as too bombastic. He allowed himself to stand firm on the issues that really will mean a lot in his first term: trade deals, returning commerce, manufacturing and industry back to American soil, building the wall - no mention of Mexico paying for it at this debate - tax relief for all income levels, immigration, the military, veterans and fighting ISIS and terrorism at home and abroad. He remained firm and at times argumentative in Donald-style on those issues. However, for most of the debate he was respectful of Mrs. Clinton (even when being wrongly attacked by her), eventually he counter-punched but each swing was calculated to appeal to his target voter. He looked like a Commander and Chief. Smiled, frowned appropriately without coming across like a Dukakis deer-in-the-headlight guy.
The best term to describe Donald Trump in this first debate was MEASURED. He weighed his words and responses for the most part. Kept on script without the need for Hillary’s computer/teleprompter enhanced podium and remained relatively calm, cool and collected which is exactly what he needed to be and do to assure those Independents and undecided Democrats that he is the right kind of leader and Commander and Chief for them. He landed one or two good punches just as Clinton achieved against him. For those supporting Trump - he won. For those who support Clinton - she won. In a few days we will know if either won over those all important undecided voters who watched the debate.
If Donald J. Trump is the Master and King of All Media I think him to be then on November 8, 2016 those Independents and undecided Dems will pull the lever for Trump.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Don't give in to the natural temptation to come out as overly aggressive and confrontational.
Pick your battle stealthily.
Don't respond to every punch delivered to you by the other side.
Learn, observe and calculate while on the rope of their attack and then choose your spot, and without hesitation, deliver that deadly blow!
While it is true Donald Trump is no spring chicken himself (age 70), however, by appearances he is so much stronger and healthier than Clinton. In fact, campaigning seems to invigorate him while it is destroying Hillary's health who will be turning age 69.
If Clinton is elected it's likely she will never survive her first term in office. Voters really should seriously consider this reality before casting a vote for her even if she is preferred by them over Trump. We simply don't need the high percentage chance that the next president will die in office when it could be avoided by simply casting a vote for one of the other 3 candidates currently running.
Monday, September 12, 2016
First they said it was the heat (only 78 degrees at the event with a nice late summer breeze). Now they claim it's pneumonia. There is no way you treat pneumonia on a 69 year old person by taking them to their daughter's apartment. The elderly (those above age 65) are very susceptible to pneumonia. It can kill. If she truly had this respiratory condition then she would have been taken to a hospital to be checked out as to what kind of pneumonia it was ... viral, bacterial, etc. and been placed on a course of treatment that would take weeks for recovery. You certainly don't release them onto the general public or have them embrace a young child for a photo-op just 2 hours after the health-breakdown episode.
Based upon all the visual thus far, and without having seen her actual health records my best guess is she suffers from parkinson's disease. Everything we have been a witness to over the last year with the former Secretary's health is textbook parkinson's or some other yet undisclosed similar neuromuscular disorder. All the symptoms are there and visible for the trained eye to see.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Egypt has gone through a major transition in the last five years. The demonstrations that began in Tahrir Square led to a chaotic situation in the streets, followed by the ascendency of the Morsi government and the Muslim Brotherhood. The subsequent destabilization of the country precipitated a military intervention later followed by the election of current President Sisi. As horrific as things are in the Middle East, it is hard to imagine the consequences if Egypt had lapsed into a spiral of chaos and power struggle. The traditional seat of culture and learning in the Arab world, Egypt has the largest population in the Middle East. It is home to Al-Azhar University—a center of Sunni Islamic learning—and a sizable Christian minority of around ten million. There is significant need of renewal of this important relationship.
My visit with President Sisi lasted two hours. We had an extensive dialogue about security, economic stability, and the value of pluralism in a region where minority rights are under siege. The President emphasized the importance of our military to military relationship and the vulnerability of his country. We talked about Egyptian operations in the Sinai to combat the local brand of ISIS. Egypt also faces severe security issues along its border with Libya. Another unique dynamic in the Middle East is Egypt’s security cooperation with Israel. The peace treaty between the countries has lasted nearly 40 years.
President Sisi attended the United States Army War College as have many other Egyptian military personnel. He has a strong attachment to that experience. When he inquired as to my thoughts regarding a developing problem with another country, I said: “We don’t like spit in our face.” He respected that response.
In light of Egypt’s economic situation, I asked President Sisi about a somber speech he recently gave to his people on the subject. He is clearly laying the groundwork for the absorption of coming difficult economic reforms, a necessary antidote for regaining better economic opportunity. One point of important progress is a major recent expansion of the Suez Canal, funded by the Egyptians, that has largely escaped international recognition.
One of the principles of the United States is to uphold the value of human dignity as the necessary preconditions of an orderly, just and, secure society. When President Sisi was first elected, one of his early public actions was to appear on Egyptian television with the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Christian Church, and the Grand Imam, a prominent Muslim leader, where he stated: “We are Egyptians.” This simple declaration shatters the default mode of so much of the Middle East where sectarian and tribal allegiance overcomes a healthy national identity.
None of this should gloss over the internal troubles within Egypt. There are plenty of criticisms—the stagnation of the system, the progress on rights, the mayhem of the media, and a host of other difficulties. As in any relationship with a foreign power, there are differing perspectives and points of tension. We will not get everything we expect. But we should also recognize the necessity of this new stability as we progress toward better conditions.
At home we are justifiably anxious about security dynamics here and around the world, especially in the Middle East, where chaos and violence continue to metastasize. The key to resolving this threat, a threat to civilization itself, lies both in tactical military efforts with other nations but also the ongoing development of authentic strategic friendships when possible. Egypt is critical in this regard—and in some ways is a forgotten friend.
About the Author:
He is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for the expenditures of the United States government
He serves on three subcommittees with importance for our national and economic security: Energy and Water, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and State and Foreign Operations.
In Congress, Jeff serves as co-chair of the Nuclear Security Working Group, co-chair of the Caucus on Religious Minorities in the Middle East, and co-chair of the Congressional Study Group on Europe.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
I want someone to explain why everyone gets so upset with Donald Trump or any other candidate because they are tough on immigration.
The Republican nominee may be rough on illegals (notice I'm talking about ILLEGAL aliens not LEGAL immigrants). The United States has countless immigration laws on its books that are NOT being enforced and whenever Trump or anyone concerned about this issue makes a tough statement many loud and obnoxious folk get their panties in a bunch. What has Trump actually said about ILLEGAL immigration that isn't true? Are not many of those who come across our southern border drug mules? Are not many who illegally come across our borders rapists, murderers? Are not ALL ILLEGAL immigrants coming across our borders LAW BREAKERS? I don't give two shits if they are coming here because life is hard for them in Mexico and Central America. There is a LEGAL PROCESS. All Trump and others want is for the U.S. government to enforce its existing immigration laws and for everyone wishing to enter the United States to get in line and do so LEGALLY.
So what is the fucking problem dipshits? Oh ... just one more thing airheads
- If you came to this country ILLEGALLY then yes, you are a fucking CRIMINAL under our laws. Just like any American entering Mexico ILLEGALLY is also a fucking CRIMINAL under Mexico's laws.
Since the day that Donald J. Trump officially announced his candidacy for the Office of United States President back in 2015 his qualificati...
Is the HBO series The Newsroom a liberal program or is it a conservative show? That is the burning question on the political hearts and min...
What do the terms Liberal and Conservative mean? Have they always meant the same or like so many things in life has their definition change...
Those on the ultra right - people like Mark Levin ( who I do greatly admire ), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others are enraged over the n...