Tag Archives: president

Hail to the Chief

Ok, I can admit when I’m wrong. I’ve never had a problem with that. So, here goes. I was wr-wr-wr-wr—wr….ahem….I was wr-wr-wr-wr-wr….(I can do this)…uh, I was….not exactly right. (apologies to the Fonz).

So, Trump won after all. I didn’t expect that. But it’s all good. At least Hillary didn’t win and that was the real issue. All my concerns about her machinations to ensure her presidency are now moot. The good news is that America has a chance to have a conservative justice to replace Scalia and any judges who retire in the next 4 years, which was one of my biggest concerns with a Clinton presidency. That, and with a Republican controlled house and senate, we should have no worries about infringements on our second amendment rights for the next four years.

For these reasons, I am happy.

But now we have the Donald as president. That is…unpredictable. Granted, Obama demonstrated that the presidency can be shackled by a recalcitrant congress, so if Trump goes too far afield, congress should be able to rein him in, but the real concern will be his mouth and how he interacts with world leaders on that stage. He is used to making multinational business deals, but politics is a bit different. Hopefully, he will surround himself with competent advisors to council him on protocols for dealing with politics on a world stage and he won’t embarrass himself or the nation.

To those who bemoan this missed opportunity to have a woman in the Oval Office: please do not take this election as a reaffirmation that America won’t allow a woman to be president. This election merely asserted that America won’t allow Hillary Clinton to be president. By all means, select a more qualified candidate next time. If she is not completely crazy and an elitist, ultra leftist/neosocialist who cannot identify with mainstream America, she has a chance. Having a vagina should NEVER be a criterion upon which a president is chosen. The president should represent his or her constituency, not describe them as deplorable when they do not agree with him or her.

I am glad I was…not exactly right. It means that our election system is not totally corrupted and run completely by the media and businesses (Soros), and that citizens can determine their governance which is as it should be. That, my friends, is democracy in action, even if we don’t agree with the outcome. I was pleasantly surprised as the election results ticked in on my browser last night. I refused to watch the media’s reports as they worked feverishly to predict and direct a Clinton win.

Speaking of the media, they have been lamenting the loss of their golden child all morning, trying to explain Hillary’s loss in terms they can understand. One pundit said it was because many more white voters went to the polls that they anticipated. Another claimed it was “Whitelash” as white voters cast ballots against Obama, rather than for Trump. Really? Now it’s racist? The media spent way too much time and energy trying to sway voters to vote for Hillary, they are having fits trying to figure out how to go on in the wake of the Trump victory. If only there was a way Americans could vote the media out of office, that would be a true victory at the polls.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

The Fix Is Still In

Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary. How can anyone be surprised by this? Of course he did. His whole campaign was a farce from the get-go; just a dog and pony show to convince the democratic voters that they had a real choice in the election even though the Democratic National Convention had already chosen Hillary eight years ago. The only way she would drop out of the democratic primary in 2008 was if she got the party’s assurance that she would be the candidate this year. It was a done deal and all the media and all the commercials and all the hype of the Sanders’ campaign was smoke. I know the true Sanders supporter will rail at the suggestion that Bernie was not a real candidate and those supporters will trot out poll numbers showing that he did in fact have more popular votes than did Hillary, but that is irrelevant. Sanders was never going to be the Democratic Presidential candidate. I doubt he will even be the running mate.

The only reason Sanders did as well as he did is that Hillary is so damn toxic that even her party faithful can’t abide the idea of her presidency. Only the militant feminist block who would elect typhoid Mary solely on the fact that she possessed a vagina are truly supporting Hillary. Them, and the DNC financial backers, that is. The media will spend the next three months trying to convince us that she is the only person that can lead our country and they will spend millions on media to hide the truth of her misdeeds and minimize her scandals, much the same way they did for Bill in his day.

One interesting tactic that has made an appearance in social media lately is the notion that the media is anti-left. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. There is a headline where Hillary says that the media is undermining democracy, as if there is a machine driving the media against the democrats. The truth is that the leftist media recognizes the problems with a Clinton presidency and are doing the best they can to hide the crimes, but the truth is too big to whitewash over. It’s like painting a blue room white with one coat of paint. The blue is still obvious. So Clinton will smear the media to make it look like they are against her. This is lunacy. The media are the left’s lapdogs. The statement is actually true, but in reverse. Rather than undermining the democrats, the media is undermining the conservative right. Another story claimed that the democrats need to get more control of the media, because they don’t favor the left enough. This is the environment in which we the people find ourselves. We can no longer trust the fifth estate to keep government in check, especially with regard to elections.

So, Sanders is backing Clinton. No surprise there. He is actually on the short list to be her running mate, though I doubt he will get the nod. The only reason he is supporting her nomination is that she publicly stated that she will support his initiatives—free college, free healthcare, etc—on her platform, for what that is worth. Of course, it will only matter if the Dems can regain the house and senate. The scariest thing about a Clinton White House is the potential to fill not only Scalia’s seat, but others who retire from the Supreme Court over the next four years, not to mention her desire to gut the first and second amendments to the constitution.

Be scared America. We’re not out of the woods yet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Call Me Crazy

People cannot accurately parse what is happening around them anymore. It is like the apathy that has led to the current socio-political climate in this country is continuing its effect by making people unwilling to recognize the danger or take steps to prevent the damage. When I point out the situation and indicate the likely outcomes, people tsk tsk me as though I am missing some key mental faculty needed to function in society. I have heard some fanatical ranting over the years, and my ideas are not radical by any measure, but call me crazy if you must. Just listen first.070716_1756_1.png

It has been my position since the beginning of the primary season that Donald Trump does not want or expect to be President of the United States. Trump is a long time friend and ally of the Clintons. He supported Hillary’s ’08 campaign financially as well as campaigning for her in key states. It is my belief that Hillary, knowing that the Democrats are not in the best position to keep the White House given the shellacking they took in the mid-term elections and the debacle that is Obamacare, needed a ringer in the republican race to keep conservatives from rallying around a serious candidate. Trump—a long-time democrat—entered the race as a republican to be that ringer. At best, he was expected to split the vote, thus weakening the eventual candidate, at worst, create enough infighting that the candidates would dig up enough bad press to tarnish public opinion about all of them. The plan was brilliant and it worked better than anyone could have predicted.

The argument I get is that no one would spend the money Trump has spent just to lose an election. This argument presupposes that the goal was just to lose. No. Trump’s goal was to have a president that would favor Trump with financial rewards through government contracts or relaxed regulations or fast-tracking certain permits needed for Trump’s projects. Can I name them? No, of course not. But by his own words, Trump has said many times that he backs candidates that benefit his businesses. As President, he cannot enact any regulations that benefit his businesses. It would be a conflict of interest. As a losing candidate, he is not limited by conflict of interest, nor is Hillary. She can help him all she wants.

I also doubt that Trump spent that much of his own money. Creative financing can hide DNC and corporate campaign contributions, not to mention the Clinton Foundation is rife with graft and corruption. Trump’s personal funds have not really been used as much as the media would have us believe.

Before anyone suggests that such a deal would have been uncovered by the news, let me tell you that the major media outlets are owned by the same corporations that are funding the campaigns. The media has a part to play in this sham of an election, a huge part. Their job is to distract the public and to direct their attention to minutia rather than focus on the real issues. The news (both network and cable) have done an admirable, if insidious, job of making the public feel like Trump is a real candidate and the people are eating it up. They trot out polls that show this candidate or that candidate as being in the lead among certain voters in certain locations in certain states. This practice effectively forces people to vote for the candidate in the lead, since no one wants to vote for a loser. The media is also in charge of redirecting attention away from Clinton’s scandals. If a republican had faced similar circumstances, the fact that the FBI refused to proffer charges against a presidential candidate charged with a felony would have dominated the news cycle as all of the media outlets dug down into the evidence themselves and then castigated the candidate in the court of public opinion. With Clinton, the media celebrated the news as a vindication of their favored client.

Anyone who has studied psychology, sociology, or media relations should recognize these tactics. I have studied all of them. Look at how the Clintons managed to dodge an indictment on the email scandal. The very fact that the director of the FBI issued a press conference to publish their findings was unusual and indicative of corruption, especially in light of the meeting between Bill Clinton and the head of the Department of Justice. Obama has done everything he can to stack the deck in Clinton’s favor, including the amnesty and relaxing of immigration rules so that non-citizens can vote for Hillary. With the death of Justice Scalia, if the Supreme Court has to decide the outcome of the election, the bench is now more left-leaning, giving the edge to Clinton.

Call me crazy, but unfortunately I am predicting a Clinton win in November, and not my some small margin. If Trump is still a candidate, he will be blown away. Even if every person in the country votes for him. The fix has been in since 2008. But don’t fret for the Donald. He will come out of his loss just fine with some lucrative contracts and business deals to ease the pain of losing the presidency.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

Throwing The Vote Away

Politics in this country have always been divisive and contentious.  Who one votes for can be a big part of one’s identity.  With the presidential elections only two months away, there is a lot of discussion on who will win, and by extension who people will vote for.  Some people are fed up with the current administration and want someone–anyone else.  Some are still quite enamoured of the incumbent and wish his to remain for four more years.  Some are very supportive of the challenger and wish him to take over.  There are those, however, who claim total disillusionment with the two-party system, the electoral process and the system of government.  Some of these individuals are choosing not to vote or to write in a candidate.  This is wrong on so many levels: it perpetuates the current system that is causing their disillusionment, it risks keeping an official in power who is the cause of disappointment, and it only feeds more dissatisfaction and frustration.
The reason we have elections every four years is to ensure we have fresh ideas in the white house, new perspectives to tackle our problems and to ensure that one person cannot build an intractable power base in the federal government.  The founding fathers wanted to avoid having a king in charge of the united states, and created the position of president with the limitations in place strictly to avoid that possibility.  The person we elect to the office is limited to two terms, and has to be reelected to the second term by running against and defeating a challenger.  If he cannot defeat the challenger, he only gets one term.
This is how the American people ensure we don’t have to settle for incompetent leadership.  If an elected official fails at the job they were elected to do, they don’t get a second term.  It is a simple system.  The elected work for the people, and this is how the people can fire the incompetent.
The vote has two functions.  By casting a vote for a candidate, a voter is expressing support for that candidate, while at the same time expressing disdain for the opponent.  If a third party is in the mix, the vote becomes muddied.  A vote for one candidate is a vote against the other two.  But suppose that of the three candidates, one is favored, one is a long shot and one is a contender.  The third candidate may have a serious chance of winning, except that the vote that may have put him over the top went, instead, to the long shot candidate, thus giving the victory to the first candidate.
A write in candidate rarely wins an election.  There have been write in campaigns that were organized when a potential candidate couldn’t get on the ballot for some reason.  Some of these candidates did indeed win, but most of these cases were for primary elections and senate races; never for the presidency.  Even a write-in candidate has to have the most votes.  Those that win still campaigned, getting the word out to the electorate to write their name in the ballot.  Casting your vote for a write-in candidate that no one else is voting for is throwing your vote away.  It is taking the five dollars your mom gave you for school lunch for the week and giving it away because Monday’s menu was unappealing, then wondering why you can’t eat lunch for the rest of the week.
Skipping the election is no answer either.  Refusing to vote simply perpetuates a frustrating system.  The only way to change an administration is to vote against it every chance one gets.  The country is filled with people who are fed up with the government, but who refuse to participate in it.  The government is not some foreign entity, some untouchable authority with absolute control over the citizenry.  The government derives it power from the governed.  They exist because we put them there.  If we don’t like the job they’re doing, only we can get them out.  We do this at the voting booth.
I am no fan of Obama.  I didn’t like his candidacy four years ago and nothing has happened in the past three-and-a-half years to change my mind.  In fact, my opinion has only solidified.  Obama is bad for this country.  He cannot be allowed four more years to inflict even more damage on the constitution and the well-being of this country.  He must be defeated in November and the only way to do this is to vote for his opponent.  Some would call this choosing the lesser of two evils, and that might be an apt comparison.
Mitt Romney is not my first choice for the presidency.  He is not a perfect candidate and while I do agree with a lot of what he stands for, I disagree with several of his platform planks.  But I am voting for him for the simple reason that he is running against Obama and I would vote for a monkey on a rock before I would vote for Obama.  But a vote against Obama is not enough.  If I voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, I would just be giving the victory to Obama.  Johnson has zero chance of winning the presidency.  Ralph Nader has zero chance.  Ron Paul has zero chance.  The only way I can effect change in politics is to vote for a candidate that can displace the incumbent.  The only way I can try to get rid of Obama is to vote for Mitt Romney.  Writing in my uncle’s name on the ballot will not do that.  Refusing to vote will not do that.
We rarely get the perfect candidate that we want.  We have to select the candidate that most closely reflects our personal values and will provide the leadership that is closest in line with our vision for the future.  If neither candidate provides that, select the one that comes closest.  Vote in November; but vote smart.  Make it count for something.  Don’t throw it away in protest.

10 Comments

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

But Is Reid Wrong?

Racism is generally considered a bad thing. If you poll most Americans, they will tell you that they do not support racism or racist views. If you consult leading media experts they will denounce racism as cutting the very underpinnings of a society based on equality for all. While there are many who do embrace a racial bias, whether because they truly believe in any racial superiority or simply because that is the way they were raised, most people do think that everyone should have the same rights regardless of the color of the skin.

Having said that, there is a difference in the color of skin.

We are not all made up the same way. We are not all carbon copies of one another and to ignore the differences that do exist is foolhardy. We all make decisions and judgments based on any number of factors, and yes, one of those factors is color. We may not want to—we may deny that we do, but all the same, there it is. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has been raked over the coals for remarks he made during the 2008 Obama campaign. He asserted that Obama only got elected because he is a light-skinned black man who does not speak with an ethnic dialect.

His actual words were: ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Horror of horrors! How dare he say that! Not about Obama!

How about the fact that every word he spoke was the truth? Barak Obama would not have gotten elected if he looked or spoke like Flavor Flav. But it is not just a racial issue. No person would get elected if that person did not speak with articulate eloquence that indicates intelligence. Even George W, who admittedly is not the brightest bulb in the pack, did not speak like a hick redneck when running for office. If you aspire to high public office, you cannot speak with any dialect that belies ignorance, whether you’re black, white, brown, yellow or purple.

Many black (African American) people have thrown their hats in the presidential ring over the years, but none of them managed to garner their party’s nomination. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson regularly attempt to run, but fail to get very far. Obama pulled it off because he did not speak with any hint of an ethnic dialect. During the campaign, some in the black community accused him of selling out—of talking like a white man in order to get elected. This is true—and not. He didn’t talk like a “white man,” but then again, he didn’t talk like many black men. He spoke the English language the way it was meant to be spoken. He used the language properly, something that many people have forgotten how to do. That is not denigration, it is a compliment. I do not like Obama as president—he did not have enough experience for the job (a fact that is being borne out by this mess of an administration)—but I like that he is intelligent and articulate. He speaks with purpose and clarity. He does not muddle his sentences with mindless rhetoric or inane colloquialisms. He is a great public speaker.

Not a great president, but a great speaker.

If he were not as good a speaker as he is, he would not have gotten elected. It is as simple as that. That is what Harry Reid said during the campaign and that is what he is apologizing for.

Now, I am a conservative Republican so it may come as a surprise that I do not think Reid should be fired. Of course, the GOP just wants a shot at filling his vacated seat if he were fired, so that is understandable. The democrats, however, are closing ranks around Reid saying that he didn’t mean any harm by his comments, that he meant it as a compliment. Obama says he didn’t mind the remark and he accepted Reid’s apology and wanted to put the whole incident behind him.

Should he have apologized in the first place? If so, why? He spoke the truth. What is wrong with stating the obvious?

There is too much emphasis on being “politically correct” and “racially sensitive” these days. People are afraid to speak their minds for fear of offending someone. Even the movie “Avatar,” a fantasy film set in the future in a foreign planet, has been targeted as being racially insensitive. Get a grip people! If you are not white, it does not mean that everyone is out to insult you. People are too sensitive these days. We need to develop thicker skin and let things slide. It’s not all about race. Heck, we have a black (almond mocha?) president, so stop playing the race card and focus on the issues and problems facing this country.

Judge Obama by his actions and his policies. He may be a bad president, but he is a great speaker. Look past the color of his skin and if you do, you will see Harry Reid was entirely correct. Obama is a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect.’

3 Comments

Filed under Media, Politics, Society