Terrible Tuesday if you are a Special Snowflake. Your Snowflake Queen just lost, for the third time! Faithless electors took seven votes from her, two from Trump, so the final tally will give Hillaroon 225, Trump 304. Oh, the HUMANITY!
From the stupidly-supersized crowd of 16 candidates, through the ridiculously-arranged debates which meant NOTHING, one candidate had the pizzaz to catch the eye of the GOP primary voters. Note that the GOP Primaries were NOT rigged to push one candidate as the Democratic Party Primaries were1. The GOP choices all broke down to either RINOs favored by the GOP Establishment, or not. The Not candidates were Cruz and Trump. Cruz IS part of the Establishment, being a United States Senator, but he tried to present himself as if he was the leader of a "Conservative Party". Of course, there isn't such a party now, nor is there likely to ever be one2. With Congress' miniscule 8-percent "favorable" rating3, and the GOP's rating just slightly better among it's own voters, the inevitable happened: the Establishment-backed candidates fell behind and were mostly gone in the first three months of the campaign. By April, the lone Establishment candidate, Gov. Kasich of OH. was teetering, running less than 10 percent in the last few primaries. The establishment kept him alive financially, and so in CA, the last big Primary, it boiled down to Cruz, "THE" Conservative (if you believe that bulltwaddle, I didn't), Kasich, Mister Establishment, falling somewhere between a Conservative and a RINO (I could never decide on the weak evidence presented for either case), and Trump, the "Maverick" candidate, who made a point to dump on the Establishment every chance he got, rightfully IMHO, because he had the polling stats to back it up.
Trump, The Dumper (of all things Establishment) took a BRILLIANT position as to self-projection. He took himself, already well-known via his TV personna, to the lowest level, knowing that the Establishment ALWAYS puts on the most "hoity-toity" airs that are possible. This set up CONTRAST4 with the Establishment candidates. It also lured them into chasing his language and style, instead of attacking his message, which would have shown him to be elusive and transitory on some issues. He used name-calling, a rubric of false-logic. His main challenger, Ted Cruz, was supposedly a "Great Debater", but for some reason, he got sucked down to Trump's level and never successfully pointed out the logical faults in Trump's speeches as they came and went. Trump more or less successfully marginalized Ted Cruz. Cruz himself was easier to marginalize than his supporters, who eventually tapped into Establishment money after they showed solidarity. Cruz, a loner in the Senate with few accomplishments of note, was propped up by the Establishment, who had never trusted him, from the end of the Primaries to the Convention. At the Convention, the Establishment tried unsuccessfully to mount a floor-fight by illegal rules-change which would have "relieved" pledged delegates of their pledges. Oregon's delegation, to their everlasting guilt, fully intended to violate State and possibly Federal law and lead this final act of #NeverTrump shame.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
HRC has been campaigning since the start of Obama's second term as President. Previously referred to as "The Smartest Woman in the Country", she has attempted for the past three and a half years to position herself as the INEVITABLE HILLARY. In other words, "Mr. & Mrs. America, get over it, I am your next President." Well, inevitability works sometimes. It has put some strange bedfellows in the White House before. The problem is, as revealed in the "Guccifer Dump V.2.0"1, HRC never really intended to rely on a purely political campaign, not unusual for her because she has put her finger on the scale in everything she has ever done. She used evasive talking points throughout the lead-up to her campaign against challengers Kevin McCarthy, former MD Governor, and Senator Bernie Sanders, (Socialist), VT. McCarthy, apparently a stalking horse, was dismissed by the liberal press before he got started. That same HRC-bought-and-paid-for media tried also to marginalize Sanders, but had zero success at that. Sanders soon developed a large following among the liberal youth of America, who, having been fed a steady diet of Socialism for decades in their colleges, found their "Marx-in-Shining-Armor"6 in the person of Sanders. It seemed to this pundit that 80-90% of the Democratic Party energy in the hustings went to Bernie. Interestingly, Bernie's message was almost pure Socialism, and fiscally irresponsible socialism at that. His kid-squad failed to grasp the fact that if his program was adopted, it would destroy what was left of the US economy. So much for those expensive college educations, eh? The damage was done though, because the "Bernie-Bots" as this "Children's Crusade" became known as, managed to remain cohesive, likely due to their Marxist indoctrination in college. Sanders continued to run up significant primary wins right to the end of the primary season, but because of the (D)-Party system of "super-delegates", pre-pledged to HRC, Sanders never had a chance5. The final result WAS as "inevitable" as the Clinton War Room could make it. HRC is the official candidate for President, and WILL stand for election, despite the mountain of Probable Cause of almost-uncountable election felonies she could be indicted on. Her corruption is totally protected by the present corrupt Administration of Barack Hussein Obama, the subject of the next Section of this opus.
I might have waited until the coronation of Queen Hillary was over and done with, but since it is only a formality for the DNC, that would be wasted time. Without further ado, here is my take on the race for President.
Analyze the ideals and history of the parties.
Analyze the candidates.
Analyze the present Administration and it's effect on the election.
Tie it all up, exposing the logical gaps.
History of the Parties.
Republican Party: the Grand Old Party's ideal has always been Business First, prosperity follows, nothing bad happens during prosperous times1. This is an ideal which makes sense to most everyone who isn't what we call now a "social justice warrior", a fad amongst the youth mostly, which says if you aren't trying to upset the apple-cart, you ain't shit. SJWs aren't in the GOP, they are invariably found somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. The first and greatest (IMHO) Republican President of the post-WW2 era was GEN. Eisenhower, who oversaw the rebuilding of a robust post-war economy, the rise of major new technologies and his best work, improvements in continental infrastructure (the Interstate Highway system). Pause for the ugly Vietnam War period. Under the GOP, the USA recovered from the post-Vietnam recession and "malaise" of Jimmah Cahtuh by electing Ronald Reagan, who did all the usual GOP things - rebuilt the excessively-reduced military, let business have free rein, defeated the USSR in the Cold War. The next GOP Presidents were the Bushes, who showed us how BAD the GOP can get without a charismatic leader. Bush41 said he would cut taxes, he increased them. He engaged an Islamist dictator in war, defeated him in 100 hours, then let him remain a dictator. Bush43, the Texan who couldn't talk straight, had a little business experience, mostly as a MLB franchise owner (which doesn't count, professional sports are an engineered market). He ran up the most debt of any GOP prexy, let down his daddy's healthy watchfulness of the Jihadis, was attacked on 9-11-01 and responded poorly with our military assets. He only had one goal: kill Saddam Hussein, whom his daddy had left alive, because Saddam had "put out a contract" on his daddy's head. Bush43's war was very unpopular, and essentially gave rise to the SJW movement that plagues the USA today. Comes now The Donald, riding his particular wave of entrepreneurial talent. He has an excellent chance of interrupting the decline of the USA, but he faces huge opposition, see below.
Democratic Party: (Note that I don't use the word "Democrat". That would be incorrect) The Democratic Party is all Social Change, all the time. Take from the Rich, give to the Poor (raking off a healthy vig, of course), but most of the "Poor" are folks who have had the work ethic beaten out of them, or who have been to college in the past 20 years where they learned that work is NOT their primary goal in life, that would be Social Justice. The "Justice" in Social Justice means what the Democratic Party says it means, it is not derived from History, Logic or study of the workings of governance. Under the Democratic Party, post WW2, we have the last Democratic Party conservative, Harry Truman, most noted for ending WW2 with nuclear warfare vs. Japan. JFK was a milder form of Truman, but was assassinated in office. That gave us LBJ, unfit for office on Day One of his Administration, but who recognized that the Democratic Party's way out of major problems is to start a war, which he did, then set the US military up to lose it, also another D classic maneuver in the past fifty years. Then J Carter, who inherited the Nixon-Ford economics disaster and made it worse ("malaise") then Bill Clinton, who brought Mafia-style governance to the White House (see his list of dead bodies). Clinton inherited the Dot-Com Bubble, allowing him to claim the only National Surplus in the past umpteen years (then the bubble burst). Via smoke, mirrors and REALLY strong grips backstage, Bill, like a Deus Ex Machina, still sails along as an "economic expert" for some illogical reason. The Obama Collapse came next, but it will be dealt with in Section #3. Now Hillary waits in the wings for her chance to (save the country) (make herself rich) (screw everything up) (destroy the Constitution)/ Mark all which apply.
The events unfolding in San Bernardino show us a different threat. Not an unknown threat, just a different one.
We have been used to seeing various formats of homicidal/suicidal Jihad here: 9-11, the various Jihadi gun attacks since then, etc. All these attacks had one common characteristic: the Muslims involved were all determined to kill members of the Western Civilization, but pretty much stuck to methods which left their shock troops dead with the event. One-way attacks. Don't "pass go", Get your 72 raisins immediately.
With San Berdoo, we have just seen an attack in which the Jihadis had trained and prepared to strike with force and effect, but moved on quickly to, presumably, strike again later. Far from the normal homicide/suicide attack, this is more like revolutionary attack. This resembles what we used to refer to as a "partisan" attack. Similar to the tactics of the French or Yugoslavian partisans who attacked the Nazis during WW2. What we just saw could have been very successful for the Jihadis, and the only reason it wasn't, was better training and discipline/communication on the part of the police authorities.
My purpose here is not to figure out how to defeat this different flavor of Jihad, but to prepare the average citizen to survive it. Methods of defeat for the Muslim Jihad will have to wait for a National Command Authority determined to defeat Islamic Jihad itself, and we don't have such leadership now, we have the opposite. We have political and command leadership determined to NOT face down islamic Jihad instead of the other way around. The effect for John Q. Citizen is that he will probably have to face the shock troops of Jihad alone, possibly with the help of local police.
A personal note: I am trained in various aspects of public safety, and as events unfolded and were reported yesterday in San Berdnardino, I evaluated the events as if they were the result of criminal gang activity, since, to me, the events more resembled the activity of, say, Mexican drug cartels or the criminal gang MS-13 (both very active in San Bernardino), and both are orgs not unwilling to create mass murder to get their point across. I was wrong in that analysis, mostly because I applied the usual standard of homicide/suicide Jihad, then rejected it, and this event did not fit that model.
So, how to prepare?
Arm up. The protected citizen will be armed at all times, with handgun(s) within hands' reach at home and away, and a long gun close by as well. You will have to figure out how to conform to "safe storage" laws to accomplish this in your home and in your car (presumably, your "away" long gun stays in the car). At home, I have quick-reaction pistol safes (plural), and the long gun goes back in the big safe when kids are present, so I comply. In the car, I carry on my person as I am permitted to do, and my long gun is a Kel-tec folding rifle with internal lock, carried in a locking gun case, kept in the locked trunk of the vehicle.That complies with local law as well (it would NOT comply in CA or several Eastern states though).
Train up. At this point, if you have not already done so, join a local gun club or commercial firearms practice facility. Your preference should be one which has practice facilities for handgun (any caliber), rifle (any caliber) and shotgun. With the exceptions of no 50BMG and no full-auto, my club fits these requirements. You will need to allot sufficient funds for ammo, and/or begin to reload your chosen calibers. You will need to allot sufficient time to practice, probably a minimum of once per month in the training phase, and four times per year with all defense firearms as a maintenance-of-training effort.
Smarten up. Apply some common sense as to your selection of events to attend, particularly if you will be responsible for others' safety. Large outdoor events are Jihad targets of opportunity, as are crowded shopping malls. Organized athletic events in arenas and stadia are probably safer to some degree, but the Jihadis wouold love to target one for the kill ratio that they could achieve. Consider applying a sliding scale of risk to your life and it's chosen events. Yeah, that's a bummer, but we are at war, dude! You are probably safest at home, relatively safe out and about in your vehicle, safe enough doing shopping that is NOT done in large, crowded venues at peak predictable times. You are less safe in any public crowd, on mass transportation, at any outdoor event which has been heavily advertised as to attendance prospects. The training and/or dedication of your local policing authority is a factor in your relative safety also. Evaluate it.
Vote up. National elections are close at hand. Regardless of your political affiliation, you need to vote for your own safety. Safety is personal, and politicians and political parties which refuse to recognize your personal safety as their Job #1 should NOT get your vote. This is not about flavors of morality, this is about survival. See my note on National Command Authority, above.
Again, we are at war. The war has been brought to these shores by Islam, and it's not going to get "wished away", even though this seems to be the primary "combat strategy" of the current political Administration. YOU are responsible for your OWN safety, so make safety happen for you, NOW!
A final word. Religion. Your personal religious creed should give you the mental strength to survive the mental rigors of mortal combat. It is NOT required for that purpose, but if you hold to a creed, it will pay you to increase your attention to it in these anxious times. Your creed is your business under our Constitution. Your survival is a natural AND Constitutional Right under our system. You MUST consider anyone who attacks you for your creed or attacks your Right to survival as your enemy. Islam is attacking/denying both.
The GOP has dredged up the Ayn-Randian commerce-raider Carl Icahn to battle with Trump.
Really? And the talk is about jobs? Really?
For those not in the know, Icahn is one of the biggest junk-bond dealers ever, he is one of the biggest industry-wreckers ever, and the mere mention of his name in ANY house of business causes work to stop while the entire managerial staff revises their resumes and figures out how to live on no income for a while. He has personally killed hundreds of thousands of jobs.
There is hardly an industry in the US of A which Icahn hasn't meddled with. Any time Icahn "acquires" businesses, huge numbers of folks lose their jobs and any cash assets of the acquired companies evaporate. Similarly, any debt the acquired companies owes magically gets "converted", that is to say, it is traded for pie-in-the-sky Icahn securities so that the real creditors have to write it off. Remember the banking credit-swap junk-derivatives disaster of 2007-8? That is Icahn's game.
Icahn does happen to be a very good commerce-raider though: anyone of lesser talent rots in prison for pulling off the crap he pulls off as a matter of course. For the life of me, I can't begin to think what advantage Icahn might derive from being Reince Priebus' hired Trump-killer, though.
This article is fashioned around a claim by Oregon's junior Senator that the mere discussion of Congress shutting down the government via failure to approve a higher borrowing limit will cause the US Dept of Agriculture to have to stop reloading the Free Shit Army's S.N.A.P. "food stamp" cards*.
Last I checked, the October 1 expiration of the borrowing limit is a hard and fast date, and spending may continue right up to September 30, at eleven-fifty-nine pm. The "threat" of Congress failing to do anything carries no weight, only the actual carrying-out of such a threat is cause for concern.
Merkely, you are an asshole.
By the way, Mister Senator-Jerk, your use of the term "food insecurity" carries no weight, either. For those who have had to miss a meal, actual hunger is a real bother, but the "feeling" associated with "worrying about hunger" has no effect on a rational, self-disciplined human being. You either eat or you are hungry. If you are eating, you aren't hungry.
Note that the article says that the Jerk is the Democrat's honcho on food issues. I have a litmus test for Mister Jerk: if you ARE the honcho, how about writing some rules so that S.N.A.P. cards can only be used to buy actual nutritious food? No Twinkies, no McDonald's fat-bombs, no sodas, no candy bars, just real food, like economical cuts of meat, poultry, fish and blocks of cheese, to name a few basics. There are probably no more than 50 items in a grocery store that ought to be on S.NA.P., the rest of it can be classed as un-necessary to a survival assistance program.
* The S.N.A.P. card replaced Food Stamps a decade or so ago, but severe "mission creep" has set in with this supposedly-basic welfare program. The program was designed to simply fill grocery bags for impoverished persons, and fill them with nutritious food, much of which was USDA surplus food back in the '60's when the program started. Today, you can eat at restaurants on S.N.A.P. This is wrong. The program needs to be returned to it's original mission.
...and all it is is socialist talking points. One tiny statement about terrorism, but not pinning it on Islam.
Summary: this Pope continues to march Leftward, and continues to fail to stand in the breach FOR Christianity and AGAINST Islam. In my book, he has abandoned the mission of the leader of Christians. He embodies the "Saint Peter Principle" to the max - promoted too many stations beyond his level of competence.
...and the door WILL hit him in the ass, but not soon enough to keep him from caving the House in to Obama on the Planned Parenthood de-funding vote. He was going to be unable to resist a vote on his speakership, which he would have lost.
The only thing we have left is our determination to make our own way in life, but we are increasingly told that we are no better than equal to those who refuse to make their own way, but instead force us to support them.
I opened my local blatt today, and found this article. You really don't need to read more than the first couple of paragraphs to get the idea, it's another "freeloaders are just unfortunate, they can't help their condition, so we must feed, clothe and house them." At least this one didn't claim the lofty perch of Christian Godliness, but plenty such articles do.
I've had quite enough of this idiocy, thank you.
I replied to the op-ed:
UPDATE: 09292015:This letter WAS published in the Gresham Outlook today. Interestingly, the Editor then asked readers to take shots at it. I presume I will get the opportunity to reply to those taking potshots, because aside from the religious argument, there are NO winning arguments against my point of view in this letter. The religious argument of Charity is not even part of this, either, although I will bet right here that most of the pot-shottists will take me to task for my lack of Charity. I will counter the Charity argument by simply saying that it is for private people to be charitable, not governments.
I write this letter to express a contrarian viewpoint on the subject of "homelessness", one which is almost never seen in print, but, I can assure you, is considered by solid citizens every single time this subject is discussed.
It is simple: cities have problems with homelessness and transients in inverse proportion to the effort which the city leaders spend pursuing proper efforts to discourage the presence of such persons.
A case in point: In 1969, the Air Force transferred me to Westover AFB, MA. The closest city to the air base was Holyoke, one of the first PLANNED industrial cities in the USA. The hot topic of local discussion in Holyoke then was all the vagrants (a legal term then) who had recently come north from New York City. Those vagrants had come to Holyoke because they were attracted by new forms of welfare that Holyoke instituted, but which were not available in NYC. Holyoke had attracted the seeds of it's own demise.
Flash forward 46 years to today. I was leaving my residential block and needed to drive West on Powell Valley Road. My passage onto Powell Valley Rd was blocked for a time by a procession of eastbound vehicles, the lead vehicle of which was a van from a food bank which said "Sanctuary" in big letters on it. Behind that vehicle drove a convoy of beater-mobiles, mostly full of passengers, most of the passengers being rough-looking men. My neighborhood is attracting them to a local church, no doubt.
I pose this question to Mayor Bemis and the City Council: Have you even LOOKED at what might be legally done to discourage all these unfortunates from coming to Gresham? Have you? If you have, I haven't heard of your efforts. Instead, I have endlessly heard that "we must feed them" and "we must house them".
This taxpaying, self-supporting citizen says that our efforts in placating these supplicants should end, replaced with a spirit of determination to keep Gresham for the producers, those who have learned to make their own way in life without the handouts, and especially those who have learned to make their way without the encouragements of the freeloading lifestyle.
It's time to raise this flag, folks. It's time to challenge the freeloader lifestyle every time it raises one of it's Hydra-heads. It's time to slay this dragon before it finishes the producing class off.
The LA Slimes goes into full attack mode on the US culture, going right back to the Founders and attacking them personally. History modification doesn't get much more stark than this.
The way THIS culture warrior sees things, if they are going after the very foundation of our society to bring it down, it's time to take the culture war into the next level, say, at about 2500 feet per second.
In the Second Republic, it WILL be a crime to bring such talk using history modification. History will be accepted in the spirit of the time during which it was made, not with the hindsight of people whom the Founders wouldn't have given the time of day to. The Founders, of course, WERE upstanding men of their time. The fact that time and custom has changed (for the worse!) does not alter the fact that the Founders held the respect of their fellow men (and no, the respect of the women did not count in those days).
The days of this Republic are numbered, and so are the the stylings of today's writers who feel free to believe that they are time travellers.