I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!:

Al Franken - Giant of the Senate, and the man who should be out next president.

In an age of political correctness on the left, Al Franken was one of its victims.  I will not focus on his resignation from the Senate, nor will I focus on this man's comedic past.  Instead, I will focus on a man who won the respect of people, and is more qualified than our present president to hold that office.

- - - - - -

When Al Franken decided to run for the Senate, many people didn't take him seriously. Because of his previous career in comedy, they thought he'd be making fun of the Senate and its institutions. Even though many people didn't take his candidacy seriously, he won his first election by 312 votes - forcing a recount before he was seated.

During his first term, he barely cracked a joke.  When he did, it was not in public.  He was spending all of his time earning the respect of both his fellow Senators and of his fellow Minnesotans.  By the time the votes were counted in his second election, he won with 53.8% of the ballots cast.

An avowed Liberal, Franken favors a single payer health care system.  He has also addressed conflicts of interest in the issuance of financial securities, by creating an independent board to choose which ratings firm would be used to rate a given security. I could go on and on, but it would sound more like a rehash of a Wikipedia entry than a detailed list of things this man had worked on during his tenure as a Senator.

- - - - - -

Sadly, Al Franken was forced out of office by the puritanical wing of the Democratic party. Although he has showed remorse for his actions (unlike our president), the "Me Too" movement needed sacrificial lambs, and he was chosen.  Yet, he still has the respect of more people in the Democratic party than those who would keep him from running for office again. 

Franken's sense of humor (as a politician) can be summed up by two jokes about Ted Cruz:

1. When an average American thinks of a bad cruise, they think of Carnival.
   When a Senator thinks of a bad Cruz, they think of Ted.
2. I'm Ted Cruz's closest friend in the Senate.
   And I Hate Ted.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that if he knew how evil Adolf Hitler was when he filmed The Great Dictator, he'd never have made the film.  Mel Brooks takes the opposite tack. He tries to belittle and make fun of Hitler every chance he gets.  He feels that people that evil do not deserve respect.  As for me, I wish I could have told Chaplin to make the film, as all dictators need to be taken down, and the best way to do so is with humor.  Franken is the type of person who can and will use humor as a weapon if needed. And he is the only one who could burst Trump's bubble of invincibility with a well placed gag during a debate.

- - - - - -

Given the man who is POTUS now, we know that Franken is good enough to be president. We know that he is smart enough to be president. And he is still well liked by the majority of Americans.  Hopefully, he will throw his hat into the ring, and be elected our 46th president in 2020.

Al Franken for President - 2020

What scares me about Trump....

This is a real photo!!!  And Trump's disrespect for our judiciary and of our constitution is a big potential problem. Why is it that "Conservatives are the ones most wanting to change the constitution instead of achieving their goals within it?  Aren't they smart enough to show that their goals are in the best interest of the American people?  My guess is that they don't really want the rule of law, but instead want the rule of and by their tribe.  There is a clear and present danger to our society, and the Washington Post articulates that threat much better than I can do.

- - - - - -

I find it interesting that Ted Cruz (at the time of writing this entry) has not yet endorsed Donald Trump.  He may actually have a small amount of principles he can stand on. (Although he has not enough principles for me to show him any respect.)  But what's most interesting is how many of the GOP elite stayed away from the convention, using the flimsiest of excuses to stay away. Normally, I find political conventions unwatchable, as they are only meant to stir the passions of their associated tribe.  But this year is even worse than usual, because the quality of "entertainers" (yes, this is political entertainment - the serious stuff is still being done outside the public view) is so totally amateur.

Next week (at the time I started to write this entry), it will be Hillary's turn to entertain the public, and the Democrats will throw their quadrennial party.  And, like the GOP, their entertainers will take the stage, make a lot of contentless speeches, and stir up the passions of their tribe.  Unlike the GOP's convention, I expect the entertainment to be much better than what is on the TV now.

- - - - - -

It is eerie to many that Trump has the same kind of charisma that a certain Central European had 85 years ago.  People respond to him in a more primitive way. He appeals to people's feelings and not their minds.  And they are being led like sheep.  I'm not saying bad things about these people - many want a real change, and are disgusted with the political elite of both parties. 

Hillary represents the "Nomenklatura" of America's political elite. Leaders of both parties have their lists of people who are in power, and those being groomed for power.  Like the Mafia, people have to pay dues to the system before the system takes care of them. And I am just as disgusted with this group of people as most of the public is.  But at least, much of the system functions, albeit poorly.

Trump, on the other hand, buys and sells Apparatchiks. Even though he hob nobs with the high and mighty, he knows which low level palms to grease to get things done. Yet, whatever business he touches turns to lead, while his bank account turns to gold.  He has no idea of how to run a business for the long tern, nor does he have an idea of how to manage a large bureaucracy.  If he were to do even a small fraction of what he proposes to do, he will likely cause the whole system to collapse.  (Imagine what would happen if he were to start trying to expel illegal immigrants - how many legal residents and citizens would get caught up in the INS sweeps?  It's bad enough now that many American citizens fear the INS.  But what would happen if this part of the bureaucracy were given extra power?) But then, he speaks to the fears of the public, and not to their aspirations.

- - - - - -

In short, this is an election that indicates whether America is a nation who fears the world, or whether America is a nation who stands up to the world.  America can be a beacon that inspires the world or one that terrifies the world.  Acting out of fear will create terror for everyone.  Acting out of courage will embolden others to be more like us.  We have a choice, and I hope America can make one in line with its better qualities.....

Lucifer has been defeated!

Recently, retired Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said that Ted Cruz was Lucifer Incarnate.  Well, as I write this, Lucifer (Cruz) has just been defeated by Donald Trump.

- - - - - -

We're seeing rebellions around the world from people disgusted with the status quo.  In the Muslim World, ISIS is the latest metathesis of the plague from which Al Qaeda originated - people who want to impose a extremist view of their faith on the rest of the world.  Before anyone says this problem is unique to Islam, the Christian and Jewish peoples also have this same problem.

In the United States, we've seen a string of states enacting bathroom bills to harass transgender people.  In one state, they have effectively made it illegal for a trans person to go to the bathroom in a public facility.  This is ludicrous - and people like Cruz should be ashamed of themselves.  But then, these people think that their morality trumps both common sense and the rule of law.

As much as I dislike what Donald Trump stood for in this election season, I must respect him for one thing.  He respected the rights of transgender people to go to the bathroom and be unmolested.

- - - - - -

Now it looks like it will be a Trump vs. Clinton general election.  (Of course, California has yet to vote, and Sanders could receive a miracle.)  Will Trump tack to the middle and start saying things that make sense?  Stranger things have happened.

The other day, Hillary went to West Virginia and told idled coal workers that their jobs will never be coming back.  Although that's true, it's not the message these people want to hear. Yet, Hillary doesn't have a clue about how to bring these people into the workforce, as she's still thinking of bringing dead-end jobs to rural areas.  The typical employment problem "solved" by politicians is to bring low skilled work to rural and inner city areas.  This doesn't address the real problem.  Most non manufacturing work can be done anywhere that one has access to the internet.  Why aren't we looking to bring small scale businesses which require internet connections to these people, and tax the hell out of "American" businesses who serve the American market with labor from overseas?  If Discover Card is advertising "All American" call centers to service its customers, why can't we bring this kind of work back to the USA to be done by American citizens?

The tech industry says that it needs people, and uses a "lack of qualified American workers" as a reason to use overseas help.  Why not train people in "low rent" areas of the country, and use them for grunt technology jobs?  This would not be a complete or quick solution - it would take time to build up the skill sets to service our nation's needs using American labor, and we'd have to narrowly focus on which jobs we claw back, so that we don't completely disrupt business being done in this country.

- - - - - -

Of course, structural unemployment will be the idea whose name shall not be spoken in this election cycle.  If more people were working, no one would mind the rich getting richer.  But as long as people are being left behind, we'll continue to see the Trumps of this world dupe people who have lied to for years by our ruling elite of both parties....

None of the Above

The elite of the GOP wants anyone but Donald Trump.  They are afraid that he is both unelectable, and that his presence at the top of the ticket will affect the downstream races. But what will happen if Ted Cruz is at the top of the ticket?

Right now, the GOP is not a party which believes in anything that benefits the common person.  They want to destroy a healthcare system designed by a conservative think tank, taking away health care from people who'd never have access to it if the ACA had never passed.  They want to take away a social safety net from people who need it, saying the "sins" of a small minority of abusers excuse the punishment of all. They are are party who supports radicalism over conservatism, looking to restore a status quo that never existed.

When Joe Scarborough (a noted conservative) from the "Morning Joe" show openly states that neither party has bothered to address the needs of people earning under $50,000, something is very wrong.  To me, it is the very greed for power which causes most presidential candidates to such on the tit of Wall Street in order to get elected.  Once they accept any Wall Street money, they are owned by the big banks - and banks have no heart. Everything and everyone is just a number to them, and the poor are simply liabilities to be scrubbed from the balance sheet.

Sadly, it looks like Hillary Clinton will be the likely opponent of whoever the GOP selects. Trump offends me, but Cruz horrifies me even more.  Neither are fit to serve in this country's highest office.  Hillary is owned by Wall Street, and she can't be trusted to do much more than line her own coffers.

So....

Unless Bernie Sanders is nominated (and he has big flaws as well), I want none of the above.  Neither party deserves votes when they are trying to game the election to prevent the peoples' choices from being on the ticket.  One could argue that Bernie is not the choice of the Democrats.  But with the way the game was rigged to coronate Hillary, who knows what would have happened if the Democratic party had not shown such bias?  

I still have hopes for a Sanders vs. Trump election.  But the way it's going, we will never know which direction the people really want this country steered - and we will never have a chance to check and balance the power of Wall Street....

Why is everybody always picking on me?

Trump Steaks.  One of the many failed products sold with "the Donald's" name, for which he got paid for the use of his name.  Were they good?  I have no clue.  Given a choice, I'd rather spend the same money and go to either Gallagher's Steakhouse in Manhattan, or Peter Luger's in Brooklyn.  At least, in these two restaurants, I know I'd get a better steak than anything Trump could sell to me.

It is Trump's attitude of selling the sizzle and not the steak that worries me.  His followers know he's lying to them, and they don't care.  He has brought issues into public debate which the GOP elite would rather not address. And the elites are now trying to figure out a way to prevent him from winning the nomination, so that they have a chance of retaining some political power. As for me, I want to see him trash the GOP's structure and collapse the party.  Trump has no real plan.  Trump has no governing philosophy.  And Trump has no ethics.  He's dangerously close to winning the GOP nomination, and that poses a great risk to our republic.

With all this being said, the GOP gets what it sows.  They have given lunatic religious fundamentalists power, and these Christianists have used their bully pulpits to attack the GLBTIQ communities across the United States.  Strangely enough, Trump is a moderate compared to the rest of his party.  People know that he has supported Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, and other positions which are in conflict with the GOP platform. And they don't care. They want the sizzle, because they know they won't get the steak. And Trump is just the candidate who will give them that sizzle.

The GOP elite first wanted Jeb Bush, and then shifted to Marco Rubio.  The public rejected those clowns. However, it is a race between Trump and Ted Cruz to see whether one or the other will get the nomination.  Sadly, the elite will tolerate Cruz, even when he will do much more damage to their ticket than Trump will.  Can you see people voting for a theocracy, as Cruz would have (but would never openly say it)?  At least, Trump has a chance of winning against Hillary....

Sadly, Trump's lies are more palatable than Ted Cruz's lies.  It looks like the GOP may just self-destruct instead of figuring out a way to control Trump.  And I fear what is likely to happen if the GOP loses the election, as I expect they will....

What if these people were rich and white?

Flint, Michigan.  Not a place you'll hear mentioned in the "Pure Michigan" tourism spots. And it sickens me to hear that a Republican Governor who appointed Republican cronies to run a bankrupt city is still in office after poisoning the water of a city of 100,000 people by use of untreated Flint River water.

Would this disaster have happened if the people affected were rich and white?  Probably not.  One of the mantras of the GOP is mindless cost cutting - if one breaks with the orthodoxy of "no new taxes".  They have no compassion for the poor, and months after the water mains were contaminated by leached lead, neither the governor nor the government of which he is in charge has any plan on how to fix this problem.

- - - - - -

The other day, I had the privilege of having a conversation with a "person of color" who is in my circle of acquaintances. I noted that thanks to the internet and our mass media, it is now impossible for an intelligent person to ignore the racism that has been built into the structure of society.  (Before we go too far here, I have to note that "racism" is only a partially correct word here.  Although these problems mostly affect people of color, they also affect poor whites in similar ways.)  We've seen how Ferguson, Missouri's law enforcement policies hurt the predominantly Black community.  We've seen how Chicago's police department has had a "hall pass" for many years, where police could easily get away with killing innocent people of color because of a "Blue code of silence" and institutionalized corruption in the police department. And now we're seeing the poisoning of the people of Flint - with no one having a clue about what to do next, because of the size, complexity, and cost of fixing this major problem.

- - - - - -

I don't like using the word "Racism", because it only talks about the problems that affect people of color.  The word doesn't talk about the structural problems that affect isolated poor whites in places such as Appalachia, many of which are associated only with people of color. For example, in many states, when a person is convicted of a felony (and has served his/her time), that person is disenfranchised for life - no longer is he/she able to vote in public elections. Many rights and privileges are never restored to the felon - even when none of them were abused in the act of committing the crime for which he/she was convicted.

Structural problems beset both the rural poor (who are predominantly white) and the urban poor (who are predominantly people of color). Jobs that pay a livable wage have left their communities. In Appalachia, coal mines have shut down, leaving large numbers of isolated towns to live on the government dole.  In the inner cities, the manufacturing jobs that once provided a leg up for the urban poor are gone, leaving only those service jobs that have salaries well below the poverty line for those lower skilled people looking to work.  (In both cases, higher education is unavailable to them, as both the local schools leave them unprepared for college work, and that the effective price of college (even with grants and loans) is way too high for many to afford college.  This leaves many of the poor (in both rural and urban settings) to do business in the "shadow economy".

- - - - - -

The "Shadow Economy" is one of great risk.  For some, it is turning what were once "Food Stamps" into cash by trading "food stuffs" (which in some states include sugary, carbonated beverages) for cash, goods, and services.  In one online article I read, the effective price of sexual favors in a rural shadow economy (net cash, after translation from food stamps) was as little at $13.50.  That's much cheaper than the price of legally provided sexual services in a Nevada bordello, where oral sex costs roughly $100, and Coitus costs roughly $200 - as of 2002. For others, it is the ability to participate in the drug trade - where one's criminal record has no standing on whether one gets hired or not.  With the exception of the drug kingpins, people on the low end of the drug trade (e.g.: street dealers) make less money per hour (according to the people who wrote "Freakonomics") than they would if they flipped burgers at the local McDonald's.

- - - - - -

So where do we go to fix this problem?  The rural poor see the people in the "big city" as the enemy.  How else could Ted Cruz have gotten away with slandering Donald Trump for having "New York Values"?  But one has to contrast this with the Reverend Al Sharpton's knee jerk defense of Tawana Brawley - even though her claims were discredited later on. His constituency has just as much disdain for rural areas of this country, as the rural areas help to perpetuate the racist myth that the poverty in urban poor areas is caused by the poor alone.

To me, the only way to answer this question is the way LBJ answered it.  Remove color from the equation and look at the problem as an issue of both socially and physically isolated communities which have been effectively alienated from the larger society.  My question becomes: How do we integrate both rural and urban poor back into the larger society. Hopefully, we can answer this question sooner, rather than later....

P.S.:  It looks like the Flint Water Poisonings may now be treated as a criminal matter.

You can't make this shit up!

As the title of this entry says - You can't make this shit up!  We have an admiral in charge of US Navy intelligence who has not been able to see military secrets for years.  Politics and institutional inertia has made it impossible to replace someone in his position, as a replacement must be confirmed by the Senate ....And the GOP isn't approving any of Obama's nominees these days.

- - - - - -

I'm a person who says that the larger the organization, the more inefficient it becomes. There are positions that must be filled - not because the person does that much real work, but is there to be nominally in charge of things.  In short, this position is the interface between the political side of the organization and the side that is responsible for the day to day operation of the organization.

In the case of the Admiral mentioned in the article, he is under suspicion because of a corruption investigation involving a foreign defense contractor and Navy personnel. The Navy had to suspend his access to classified material, but no one would expect that he wouldn't be cleared or indicted over two years later.  So the Navy has had to have a Kafkaesque situation of having this man perform the administrative responsibilities of his job, but have subordinates and colleagues perform ALL the tasks requiring classified information.

Given that we have deadlock between the Executive and Legislative branches of government, there is virtually no chance that we could get a replacement nominated by the President and approved by the Senate in today's toxic environment. So, we have a situation where politics is getting in the way of the Navy doing its job in keeping this country safe.

- - - - - -

What could we do to prevent situations like this from happening?  First, we could have a process developed where certain backup personnel would already be nominated and approved in advance to take over these responsibility while the person nominally in charge is indisposed.  We already have a constitutional amendment which provides for the temporary disability of a president, and who is in power and able to act when he or she is unable to perform his or her duties.  Why not do the same thing for many of these critical positions?

This doesn't address the underlying problem - Political Gridlock.  We are electing leaders in the Executive and Legislative branches who check and balance each others' actions. We are afraid of either party doing anything, so we do not let them do anything.  Neither political party is trustworthy. The success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the 2016 POTUS election cycle is a reflection of the public's disgust for the two political parties who promise the world to their bases, but do not deliver anything - except to the plutocrats who fund their political campaigns.

How can we change this situation?  To me, people have to stop "drinking the toxic Kool-Aid." When Ted Cruz's father, Raphael, says that Obamacare is a plot to bring ISIS terrorists over to the US as Doctors, why aren't the GOP loyalists shouting this lunatic down?  (One could have had many of the same criticisms of leftist extremists, but they have been mostly muted and ignored by the press during this election cycle.) That's because the political elite in the party no longer have much power to keep things in line.  They gave a seat at the table to extremists, and the extremists have since been allowed to bully everyone into submission.

- - - - - -

We have to stop giving the Wingnuts power, and force both political parties to again represent the center. When only one party represents the political center, we run a major risk that our political system will fail totally.  It happened in Central Europe in the 1930's. Can we risk having it happen here?

Yet another who is unfit to serve

A dog with good taste!  He shows this candidate the respect he truly deserves.

- - - - - -

If Trump is someone we could compare with Hitler, then Cruz would be a more dangerous version of Mussolini.  Cruz has said that he would Carpet Bomb ISIS - and then demonstrated his lack of sensitivity to the rules of war which prohibit attacking civilian targets.

The animosity shown towards us in much of the Islamic world has been caused by our actions over the past 60 years. Cruz even has the gall to state that the Middle East is a safer place than before our "War on Terror."  This does not jibe with objective reality.  How many people remember the role the USA played in overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran, and our actions, such as the Second Gulf War, that destabilized much of the Middle East?  Can we afford to have a bellicose, bombastic, bullshit artist running America?  I doubt it very much. 

Right now, Cruz is making sure NOT to publicly cause Trump any problems.  For the most part, Cruz is laying low, hoping to scoop up Trump's followers if Trump crashes and burns out.  For the most part, Cruz is playing the role of "Trump Lite".  But given Trump's statements in regard to the Middle East, does this bode well?  I doubt it. Recently, a retired 3 star general hinted at "Mass Resignations" if Trump were elected.  I'm pretty sure the same would happen if Cruz were elected.  This retired general went on to say:

“...The American military studies these kinds of things. They know the moral and the values implications associated with these kind of decisions. They will attempt to persuade their leaders the right approaches to take and the various options available. But they won’t do things illegally or immorally.”

In the past, I wouldn't believe this general, having been tainted by the reporting of the Vietnam War.  However, I have more faith in our military than I had 30-40 years ago, and I feel that many of our top military leaders would rather resign than allow America to make the mistakes Germany made in the 1930's-40's. But would enough resign (as a vote of "No Confidence") to make a difference, if a leader like Cruz was to be elected?  I'm not sure, and I don't want to take the chance. 

If I don't feel that even the military would be comfortable following Cruz as a leader, he is likely unfit to serve as President of this country.  Hopefully, most Americans will feel the same way in both the GOP primaries and on Election Day....

Making America Great Again

In a recent issue of "The Economist" there were 4 separate mentions of Trump's candidacy for POTUS.  One of them was an editorial piece where the magazine states that it doesn't want Trump for a candidate, because of his offensive nature.  The problem here is that they do not address the root of the problem - the political elite in much of the Western world (I should say its "democracies") has done little to address the need of the average citizen in these countries.  The rich are getting richer (especially in the USA), and everyone else is losing ground.  In short, the "Trickle Down" policies that the GOP has promoted has been shown not to work - on a worldwide basis.

Normally, I'd agree with The Economist.  But in this case, the "Angry White Men" supporting the Trump candidacy may be on to something.  Trump is financing his candidacy with his own money, showing virtually everyone else (save maybe, Bernie Sanders) to be political whores of the financial elite. Even the Bushes can't prostitute themselves enough to raise enough campaign funds to compete with Trump.  There may be only two or three Republicans who stand a remote chance for the long term: Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. And Cruz is trying to stay in Trump's shadow, hoping that Trump will self destruct after cleaning out most of the opposition, so that he can grab a ready made base.

The same forces at work that benefit Trump are also benefiting Bernie Sanders.  He is the true "Anti Wall Street" person (read: "Not Hillary Clinton") running in this election, and he is getting the Liberal equivalent to Trump's base - save Sanders' base is more educated and more aware of what is going on.  Hillary's performance is so lackluster, that an unannounced Joe Biden beats her in the polls against all GOP candidates.  (And Biden is being floated as a candidate for POTUS, because the people who fund the Democrats are just as afraid of Sanders as the GOP funders are afraid of Trump.)

Now, let's look at this in the context of world affairs.  Moderate Muslims are being pushed out of Syria and Iraq due to the growth of ISIS.  It is interesting to note that the wealthiest Muslim nations of the Middle East are doing nothing to help these refugees - it is the nominally Christian countries of Europe who are being forced to absorb these people.  And the problem is that most people may change their nationality and customs easy, but they do not follow a reworked adage: "When in Rome, Worship as the Romans do."  So many people become isolated, and tend to live in ghettos instead of being assimilated into the larger society.  

There is push-back coming from the "Angry White Men" of Europe.  In places like Denmark, the far right party runs the country, and says that no Muslims need enter. Even though Europe has a below zero population replenishment rate, the hard right rightfully worries about the changes to their societies that these uninvited immigrants bring.  No one from the traditional political elite is discussing the drawbacks to social change - so the "common" person is taking affairs in his own right, and voting a non functional elite out of office, replacing with people who may listen to their concerns.

A while back, Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It.  One review of this book notes:


Why has Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" been labeled "alarmist" by his opponents? Look at the title: America Alone. Its meaning is obvious, but concerning what? When the Soviet Union fell, America was left standing as the sole super power in the world. But that is not the meaning of America Alone. However, do you remember what Nikita Kruschchev said? America would fall from within, without one shot fired. America would destroy herself through societal softness and the Soviets would walk in and take over.

Steyn states that Muslims have adopted this concept of a country falling from within, beginning in Europe. Through immigration, Muslims are establishing themselves as a stronghold. Belgium, Sweden, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are on their way to becoming majority Muslim and geo-political. In fact, he says, Eurotopia is fast becoming "Eurabia."

Three events are rapidly leading to Eurabia:
1. Demographic decline
2. The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state
3. Civilizational exhaustion

Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.

...

With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare? Answer: incoming immigrants with high birthrates.

Therein, Steyn says, lies the problem. While people of Europe have abandoned their churches and religious beliefs, Islam immigrants bring with them "a religion, and an explicitly political one." In fact, if a European wants to marry a Muslim, he must convert, or as they call it, revert. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim--he/she must find that calling. And no one may leave the religion.

How pervasive are Islam and Muslims in Europe? "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles or Vienna or Stockholm. Look at women in headscarves or full abaya. That's the future"

...

In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, riots over equal rights have disturbed traditional peace. Women feel safer walking neighborhoods in Muslim garb in order to be left alone by Muslim men. When Muslims take over, they take the land and distribute it to Muslims, creating reverts out of the native people. Because the United States doesn't take land, Muslims consider the US weak and defeatable. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore said in 2004, " The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail".

Steyn concludes in outlining America's exceptional nature and how it can prevent Muslim reversion of an entire country.

Sadly, there are many of us (including myself) who believe that Steyn is correct.  Although I have nothing against Islam, I do have something against the cultures of the Middle East where Islam has flourished - their core nature prevents people from looking at themselves and their culture critically, and stands in the way of progress.  (Please note that this is not an indictment of Islam as it is of tendencies in the Muslim world in the Middle East to enforce rigid conformity among the masses and subjugate those masses.)

So we go back to Trump's candidacy.  What do we do about it?  For me, I prefer to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as he is more "Liberal" than many of the wingnuts in his party.  (For example, some of his ideas about healthcare make sense - when he isn't pandering to the official GOP party line.) If Trump wins the nomination, it is possible that the GOP may undo its "Southern Strategy" and become a more moderate political party. And if both Trump and Sanders get their parties' POTUS nominations, meaningful campaign finance reform could take place, as the political whores may find that it is better to be freelancers than to be pimped out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.

Am I sure of this?  No.  But I see the signs of world turmoil, and we ignore the needs of the common person at our own peril....

And the race is on....

Recently, "The New Yorker" published this little satire about Ted Cruz:

A disturbed Canadian man wants to try to get into the White House, according to reports.

The man, who was born in Calgary before drifting to Texas, has been spotted in Washington, D.C. in recent years exhibiting erratic behavior, sources said.

In 2013, he gained entry to the United States Senate and was heard quoting incoherently from a children’s book before he was finally subdued.

More recently, he was heard ranting about a plan to dismantle large components of the federal government, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the nation’s health-care program.

Despite a record of such bizarre episodes and unhinged utterances, observers expressed little concern about his plans to get into the White House, calling them “delusional.”

Although I find this article amusing, it says one important thing - the race to the White House is now on.

Lately, I find myself politically leaning towards the left, only because the right has gone off the rails. In the past, being conservative only meant that one prefers a slower rate of social change, where being liberal meant that one prefers a faster rate of social change. Now, conservatives want to roll back change - in part because many people who label themselves as conservative have been sold on the idea that if we restore the values of the 1950's, everything else will fall into place, and a prosperous America will be restored.

In the case of Ted Cruz, he denies reality to stir up his base. How many of us really think it possible to dismantle the IRS? And if we did so (with the dismantling of the government that would ensue), we'd be left with a government in worse shape than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation.  Yet, the base cheers him on. But I wonder - Can any sane person take this person seriously? He is a serious risk to this country, but he's more of a bad joke being played at the expense of his base.

- - - - - -

Cruz is only one of a large field of GOP contenders for the office of POTUS. And each one of them is singing the song so popular among the GOP's base: "Repeal Obamacare." But what do any of them have to replace Obamacare? 

Obamacare is not the only issue. We also have "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life". It's hard to believe that at one time, Abortion was not an issue in our society. When "Roe vs. Wade" was being decided, it was the pro-choice side that offered a compromise that the pro-life side didn't accept. And SCOTUS gave the Pro-Choice side more than it ever dreamed of. And now, "Choice" is under siege in many states. Terrorism has been used to intimidate anyone connected with or doing business with an abortion clinic. The authors of Freakonomics have shown with statistics that there is a correlation that links legal abortion to a reduction in teenager crime in urban settings. Are we ready for the potential increase in the crime rate if abortion again is illegal?

Regardless of where one stands on these issues (and I can make good arguments against the positions I support), one should be looking at the degree of honesty between a politician's words and actions, as well as that politician's position before supporting him/her.

- - - - - -

You'll note that I painted the Abortion issue from a mildly leftist viewpoint. In order to understand the Right Wing of American politics, one has to come to it from the Left. And we're seeing a GOP (largely old and white) out of sync with America's long term demographics (largely young and people of color).

The GOP's base has some legitimate complaints. We did not bother enforcing our laws regarding illegal immigration. There are over 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens resident in the USA, almost 30 years after the blanket amnesty given during the Reagan administration. And the base is rightfully upset about successive GOP and Democratic administrations not doing anything these immigrants who (wrongfully) are seen as taking the jobs once held by white males. The reality is different and more damning - neither political party has a F'ing clue about what to do about structural unemployment. 

Fear motivates much of the base. There is a very high correlation between being religious and being an active member of the GOP - this being a result of Nixon's successful "Southern Strategy" which flipped the South from Democratic Blue to GOP Red. Many Christian fundamentalists are very fearful of the wrath of God - and internalize that fear. Tradition is extremely important to the base - breaking tradition is as much a cultural crime as it can be a legal crime, when it comes to maintaining  the social order. This is why the battle for civil rights is triggering religious lunatics to commit terrorist acts. 

When the base chooses news sources, it chooses sources that speak in the words of fear - whether or not this fear is valid. And the base is manipulated by fear. One does not have to go far to see (what should be) a small issue blown way out of proportion by lies that triggers fear in people without cause. For example, take the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). There is no proof that stable marriages between people of the same sex harms any traditional marriage. Yet, traditionalists are being manipulated: "SSM will lead to marriages between men and livestock", "SSM will cause a complete moral breakdown in America", "God will destroy the world, if we allow SSM."  The conservative media chosen by the base repeats the same messages, reinforcing fears, and stirs up hatred. And in fear and the hatred of social dysfunction, the base finds false comfort.

- - - - - -

So, what happens if we elect someone to the office of POTUS who panders to this kind of fearful person?  In the past, the political machine would listen to this person (and others like him) and give him lip service. But this person (and others like him) will not be satisfied with the usual broken promises. And here is the point where the left should be concerned. 

In the past, there was a ruling clique from both parties which knew how to get things done. People like Goldwater and Kennedy knew how to reach across the aisle and find votes to achieve things that benefited people on both left and right. When Johnson (a former US Senator from Texas) fought "the war on poverty", he changed the focus of bills meant to help poor black people, to laws which helped poor people regardless of color. Johnson knew that the South would never help black people, even though the whites there were directly responsible for the poverty of Blacks. But by refocusing the Southern electorate on poverty (instead of its hatred of Blacks), Johnson was able to make the electorate see that these laws benefited them as well. 

Today, things are very different. It is virtually a crime for someone to work across the aisle. The GOP's base will not broach compromise with the left - it is tired of compromises they see as not benefiting them. They want ideological purity at all costs. Only through purity can the results they want be achieved. Sadly, reality differs from that faith....

We are now seeing a lot of "potential" candidates looking to establish funding for the race to the White House. The lunatics are out, because they are stirring up the party base for funds and early primary votes. Thankfully, most are unelectable. But what would happen if one of these candidates actually wins? I doubt the base will get what it wants. Instead, I see something like the Iranian Revolution of 1979 happening here - the powers that be will enforce laws to maintain (or roll back to) a conservative cultural conformity we haven't seen since the 1930's, and will not show any restraint in harming Gays, Transgenders, Political Apostates, and People of Color. "Ozzie and Harriet" would be considered leftist by the new standards of the day.

- - - - - -

I am afraid that the Democrats have (mostly) selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee designate. She will not have to fight for her nomination, and as such, she will not be at the top of her game if an energized GOP candidate opposes her. Like many centrists, I will hold my nose if I have to vote for her, as she is someone I can't trust. There is too much history behind this person for me to feel comfortable with her (or anyone named Clinton). A Machiavel like her would make a good president - but only if the people who "own" her have a desire to benefit this country at their own expense. Otherwise, a person like Hillary will use the office of POTUS for her own gain at our expense.

Let's say that something happens to Hillary. Election day 2016 is still a long time away, and anything (such as a health issue) can take her out of the running. Who do the Democrats have on their back bench that can replace her and win the votes needed to keep 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Blue? I do not have a clue. Jerry Brown of California? Possibly - but he isn't running. But who can speak the "fearful" language of the South and gain its trust? Bill Clinton is no longer available, save as someone who can help Hillary. And Obama deserves the much needed rest that he will be required to have....

- - - - - -

It is a good thing that the office of POTUS has term limits. But I wish we had a better filter to prevent unqualified people from holding the office in the first place....