A Promise is a Promise

Politicians are terrible at keeping campaign promises. I think we have actually grown to expect that from politicians. Donald Trump is no politician. We knew that when we elected him. We also knew the promises he made to “Make America Great Again.”

So why are so many people surprised that he is actually doing what he promised? Sure, the Democrats didn’t like his campaign. They didn’t like his stands on issues like immigration, trade agreements, the XL pipeline, energy policy, climate change, plans to defeat ISIS, accepting refugees, and national security, to mention just a few.

That was not what the campaign was about, however. The campaign between Clinton and Trump was mostly lacking in debate about issues and devolved into a campaign of personalities and the need to elect a woman as President. Why the Democratic Party chose to run one of the most untrustworthy persons available is a mystery that may never be revealed. In classic Donald Trump style, he managed to push her buttons and shift focus from his bombastic statements to force the campaign into a battle of personalities.

Were Clinton’s campaign advisers listening when Trump would blurt out promises that were completely anathema to their “Progressive” platform? If so, why did they not force debate on those issues? Instead, they seemed to think that no one would ever accept such outrageous position in a President, and simply let those statements pass with only cursory acknowledgment of them.

Now, yes only now, do they amass in protest at the actions our duly elected President takes on those “outrageous” promises he made on the campaign trail. That those promises were made completely devoid of detail was never brought to the attention of the public. The sound bites and hollow promises had an appeal to those fed up with “Progressive” platitudes and political correctness.

We knew Donald Trump was not politically correct when we voted for him – probably why we voted for him. Why, then, is it such a surprise that he is keeping those hollow promises? Why are there such protests now? It’s too late folks; Trump is our President!

I watched on television when President Trump signed his executive orders. They appeared to be written on a single sheet of standard sized paper, in large font, with very few words. Well, that might be expected from a man whose campaign and public announcements are mostly limited to 140 characters on Twitter.

Unfortunately, orders of that size are bound to leave out much in the way of detail, and, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Can we simply chalk this up to the act of an inexperienced Chief Executive? Maybe, but Trump is not an inexperienced Chief Executive. He has managed a huge, successful enterprise for a very long time. Perhaps this is just his management style. Not being familiar with the Trump company, I can’t say with certainty, but perhaps his style is to issue top level orders and let those under him flesh out the details. I call this focusing on the big picture and is common in top-down leaders. This seems to be what he has done with his recent Executive Orders.

Sadly, focusing on the big picture alone is not focusing at all. An executive – any executive – must understand the minutia of the details before placing a stamp of approval on the idea. Sound bites and  “tweets” do not make for good Executive Orders.

While I wholeheartedly approve of the principal Trump’s orders are based on, the development and execution of those orders leave very much to be desired.

Obama sowed the seeds of discontent and racial divide. Grown in poisoned ground fertilized by long decades of progressive socialism, those seeds are now growing into monstrous trees ready to bear evil fruit. The slogan “Make America Great Again” is about chopping down those evil-fruit trees and removing that poison ground. Those who voted for Donald Trump believe he can and will reverse that evil trend toward progressive socialism.

Can Trump get that job done? I dearly hope so, but he’s not off to a very good start. Let’s hope and pray he can get things turned around. After all, a promise is a promise, and it is obvious President Trump intends to keep his promises.

Cry Me a River

I am writing this on the day before Donald Trump’s inauguration as out 45th President. According to news reports, some 65 Democratic members of Congress will not be attending the event. I’m sure that has the President-elect heart-broken.

Actually, our tweeter-in-chief said he is relieved they won’t be there; he needs the space for the thousands of supporters that will be attending.

This all started when race-baiter and Georgia Representative, John Lewis called Trump an “Illegitimate President” and declared his intention to boycott the inauguration. In usual Trump style, he shot back that Lewis should stay in his district and maybe fix some of its problems.

Well, gee; Lewis didn’t attend the inauguration of George W. Bush either. Look, how well that turned out. I doubt anyone missed him.

I guess the boycott virus must be going around. Our own Mark Takano won’t be attending either. I’m sure that news made Trump’s day. At least he won’t have to listen to Takano’s whining during the celebration.

In 2009, Barrack Obama was sworn in as the country’s 44^th President, yet I don’t recall a lot of bellyaching and crying at this event. Many Republicans were saddened at the prospect of a socialist being President, and even at the time, it was not clear whether he could be a legitimate president because of a questionable birthplace. Do you remember the massive protests and boycotts? That’s right, there were none. That only happens when a Republican wins.

Oh yeah, there are reports that thousands of protesters will attend Trump’s inauguration. Several news outlets were actually paid to advertise the gatherings. Paid by whom we were not told, but is that the stink of Soros money I detect in the air? Why not? He funds Black Lives Matter and Move-on.org, among other subversive activities. This seems like just the sort of thing he would jump at the opportunity to stir up.

Let’s see, who else won’t be attending this inauguration? Right, 95-year-old President George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush won’t be there. He has pneumonia and she is not well either. But President and Mrs. George W. Bush will be there with bells on. I haven’t heard whether the Clintons will make the event. That should be interesting. If they do come, I would love to be a photographer and catch the expression on Hillary’s face as The Donald is sworn in.

Ever since the election results became official, there have been some really strange goings on. College kids have been traumatized by the outcome; Democrats have tried to coerce electors to change their votes; Californians started a movement to succeed from the Union; Illegal aliens all over the nation are bracing for massive deportations; California’s one-Party government is bracing for cuts in federal funding; Disenchanted Clinton supporters are blocking roads and freeways. And you can hear the wailing of the left as they cry like newborn babies. That’s rich since all this comes from the very same people who insist that Donald Trump will drive the nation into deeper division. Yep, the same people who berated the prediction that Trump wouldn’t accept the result of a Clinton win. Go figure!

I think I’m going to look into investing in crying towel companies stock. There’s going to be a run on them.

The Big Hack Attack

The Russians are hacking our computers; the sky is falling! Such hysteria over nothing.

I don’t know who actually hacked the DNC email server and sent John Podesta’s emails to Julian Assange  . . . and I doubt the best minds of our intelligence do either. Frankly, I doubt it even matters who did the hacking. What matters – and not much – is that Podesta and/or the DNC didn’t bother to place sufficient safeguards on their server to prevent hacking. It doesn’t matter much because most of the 20,000 emails were just run-of-the-mill day-to-day minutiae of a normal campaign. I tried going through those emails until I became bored out of my skull.

Voila! Someone actually did find some juicy tidbits, though. The BBC reported there were 18 interesting emails that cast light on some questionable dealings of the Clinton campaign. They must have had dozens of people poring over these emails on overtime to actually find these tidbits, but what they did find is moderately interesting.

Some of the emails did reveal a bit of infighting in the Clinton campaign. But those looking for a smoking gun on the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation weren’t going to find it here, although I did find many emails relating to the Clinton Foundation.

Podesta’s emails did show that Hillary did receive the CNN debate questions in advance from Donna Brazile. The emails also showed New York Mayor Bill De Blasio was having a hard time defending Hillary’s refusal to release the contents of her speeches to Wall Street bankers.

While these are not real scandal quality, they do give some insight into how Clinton and the DNC ran their campaign. I’m not saying Trump did any better, but we will never know because his emails didn’t make it to Wikileaks.

Did the Russians do it? Well, if they didn’t the Chinese would have. Here’s an excerpt from Politico of one of the leaked emails:

Chelsea Clinton confessed to John Podesta that her technology was "compromised" during a trip to China, according to a hacked email published Monday by WikiLeaks.

According to the message, Clinton in late 2011 wanted Podesta — formerly Bill Clinton's chief of staff and currently Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman — to meet with her mother's inner-circle the week of Thanksgiving.

After a couple of days corresponding, Podesta didn't respond to the former First Lady's daughter for about a week, according to an email chain released as part of the latest batch of purported messages from Podesta's Gmail account that WikiLeaks has been dumping each day.

"Sorry for the delay. I was in China and not accessing this account for security reason," Podesta replied on Nov. 20.

"That makes good sense to me," Clinton replied.

"Our technology was all compromised while we there (if we've time, I'll regale you with rather hilarious anecdotes of our tour guide cum spy). Hope you had a great trip."

The “technology” they were referring to is obviously email.

I’m not defending Wikileaks or Julian Assange. In fact, I believe Assange may be the devil incarnate. He has proven repeatedly to be highly anti-American in his dealings. What cannot be contested, though, is the accuracy of his leaked information. Even though neither Podesta nor anyone from the DNC will verify the contents of these leaked emails (surprise), they do not deny the accuracy.

So, someone hacked the DNC server and got John Podesta’s emails – 20,000 of them! We do know, because of these same emails that Podesta opened a Phishing attack email. Phishing is a fake email used to obtain your email password. Supposedly, he changed his password after this was revealed.

Did the Russians send the Phishing email; was it the Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, or some 14-year-old in his mother’s basement with his laptop? Does it matter?

What should matter is the contents of those emails more than the fact that they were hacked. Did these emails have any effect on the Presidential campaign? Given the contents of these emails, it would be asinine to believe they might have.

Then too, this was not some super sensitive government server or our power grid. It was a private email account on a private server – exactly like the ones Hillary used as Secretary of State.

Calexit or not Calexit

Yes, I live in the “land of fruits and nuts”, or as former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls it, “Caleefornia.” It is a place where Republicans are high on the endangered species list. And conservatives, well, have you ever seen a video of salmons jumping up a waterfall . . . only to be eaten by a bear at the top? Yep, that’s how it feels to be a conservative in this state at the far left of the US, geographically and politically.

If this state were a person, psychologists would declare it neurotic or maybe even schizophrenic. Well, maybe, but what is certain is that California is not like any other in the nation. Besides the climate, the state is, at present anyway, far more left politically than any other. It is a true one-Party state with Democrats being in the super-majority since 2013. I remember one Republican deciding not to run for re-election saying to the effect, why bother, the Democrats are going to do whatever they want.

But is it a true one-Party state, or does it seem that way because Republicans mostly live outside of the two largest cities in the state, Los Angeles, and San Francisco (including the Silicon Valley).

Ever since 1859, when State Assemblyman Andres Pico introduced a bill to create the state of Colorado out of the counties of California south of Big Sur, there have been attempts to break up the state. Understandably, that bill was dropped when the Civil war broke out; it seemed that there were a few more pressing issues at the time. But that was not the end of discontent with the size and makeup of the state. There have been reportedly over 200 attempts to partition the state. The latest came in 2011, when then Riverside County Supervisor, Jeff Stone suggested a six-way split. Personally, I thought a six-way split would be a great start. Unfortunately, that idea too seemed to peter out.

Why is there this constant fragmentation drive? The answer is simple, politics. Those living outside of the three major metropolitan areas don’t like being driven by policies of San Francisco or Los Angeles politicians. The third metro area, San Diego, seems to mostly be in accord with the more rural areas, or maybe it’s just that they aren’t in lockstep with those in the other two metro areas.

The 2016 Presidential election, arguably the most contentious in US history, left the Democrats with mouths agape. How could Donald Trump have possibly won the election when Hillary Clinton got a whopping 61.7 percent of the votes in the state and even won 55 electoral votes? Trump only got 31.6 percent of the votes!

Never ones to be counted on as good losers, Democrats and “Progressives” have decided to just leave. “Trump isn’t my President”, is the saying on protest signs. Apparently, there are those who would take it even further and say the United States isn’t my country. A group calling itself “YesCalifornia” is circulation a petition to secede from the United States. Supposedly they have some 12,000 members and plan to get the initiative on the 2018 ballot. If passed, California would become an independent nation in 2019.

Just how this new country is to survive without the support of our federal government is not something YesCalifornia is saying. At one time, I read that if California were a separate country, it would have the 7^th largest economy in the world. Well, maybe, but all of that would depend on the free trade we now have between states. If the US imposes import and export fees on California goods, where would that leave this booming California economy?

Here’s another big factor. How can this new country survive under a socialist government? Oh, yes, that is very much what California government would be following secession. That is largely what our state government is today. Since Jerry Brown has driven out most manufacturing, what will be the economic basis for the new California? The major portion of the California state economy is based on shipping through the state ports. If Trump’s administration imposes import and export fees on goods to and from the new California, what will be left for the economy?

Of course, this state does have maybe more rich people than most other states. Maybe the new California government can confiscate, er  . . . tax, their wealth? Right, like that would ever happen. Even if it did, it would not likely produce enough revenue to maintain this new country.

Although, I am sure, most of the other more reddish colored states wouldn’t mind losing the far-left, whacked out, influence of this land of fruits and nuts. Good riddance Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris. By-bye Governor Moonbeam, Gavin Nuisance, San Fran Whacko, and Hollyweird. Asta Lavista, babies. Al least those Hollyweird celebs will be able to keep their promise to move from the US.

Me? Well, there are still 49 states that will maintain the American dream. I’m sure I won’t have trouble fitting into a nice red one.

Obama’s Parting Shot

Keeping true to his legacy of socialism and anti-American sentimentality to the very end, President Obama could not resist the opportunity to poke his fingers in the eyes of the legal system. And I think those were his middle fingers to boot.

Every President exercises their right to commute sentences and grant pardons. While they can and do exercise that right at any time during their tenure, it seems they often leave the most controversial ones to the end of their term.

Take for instance the highly controversial pardon by Bill Clinton on his very last day in office of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich was on the lamb in Switzerland at the time of his indictment for tax evasion and making controversial oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. He never returned and eventually died in Switzerland.

Oh, but that was merely the wound, Clinton then couldn’t resist rubbing salt in it by commuting the sentences of 16 members of the Puerto Rico terrorist organization FALN. Congress condemned this action by President Clinton, with votes of 95–2 in the Senate and 311–41 in the House. In all Clinton commuted sentences of 41 people and pardoned 151.

During the terms of both Bushes, daddy Bush granted 71 pardons and only 3 commutations. The son pardoned 190 people and commuted the sentences of only 11 people.

During the last eight years, Obama has been quietly undermining the sentencing prerogatives of the courts. He has granted 1,176 commutations – including 395 life sentences – and 148 pardons. Most individuals granted executive clemency by Obama had been convicted on drug charges, and had received lengthy and sometimes mandatory sentences at the height of the War on Drugs

Obama has said he has been motivated to exercise his clemency power by a belief that the sentencing system in the United States was used to lock up minor criminals — often minorities — for excessively long periods of time.

On this December 19, Obama granted 153 commutations and 78 pardons, making that a record for the largest single-day use of the clemency power. He still has until January 20 to go. I have to wonder what other pardons or commutations could come.

The big questing on many minds is whether he will pardon Hillary Clinton for her email indiscretions and outright lies. If he doesn’t will President Trump keep his pledge to jail her?

And what are the odds Obama’s final parting shot might be outright pardon for Black Panther and cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, or the deserter Bowe Bergdahl for whom he traded five high-level terrorists held at Gitmo to the Taliban? 

Makes you ask why we even bother having laws and sentencing.

Sour Grapes

To the complete dismay of a preponderance of California voters, Donald Trump won the Presidential election. With a solid 61.5 percent of the votes, Hillary took all 55 electoral votes for this winner-take-all state. It was not enough, though, to offset the Trump electoral votes of Middle America. Trump is our President Elect and will be sworn into office January 20 of next year.

Ah, but Californians – at least the left-leaning Californians – aren’t content with that outcome, after all, California does have a Democrat Super Majority in the statehouse, a Democrat Governor, and two Democrat Senators. How can they possibly cope with a Republican President, especially one with Donald Trump’s personality?

Problem solved, they say, we’ll simply secede from the Union. They call it CalExit after the now famous, or infamous, British fiasco of Brexit. Whoa, hold the train. Didn’t 13 states try that in 1860? And wasn’t there a bloody war fought to keep those states in the Union against their will? Maybe those CalExit people might want to rethink this whole idea.

So, Californians are a bunch of sour grapes. But I remember Texas threatening to secede if Clinton won the election. When I heard that, I actually thought about buying land in Texas. I might still look into Texas real estate if CalExit succeeds.

It has been said that if California were a nation it would have the 7^th largest economy in the world. Although, it would likely be far less of an economic powerhouse if Silicon Valley were carved out. The Democrats in this one-party state have consistently driven manufacturers and business out of the state. It has been at the bottom of the list of business-friendly states for many years and is likely to remain there much longer. It would be interesting to see just how they would cope with being a separate nation.

What would they call California following secession, the independent nation of California, the Peoples Republic of California, How about Mexifornia? Maybe California could remain a possession, like Guam or Puerto Rico. Or perhaps Mexico could annex it. After all, the Hispanics already make up a majority in the state, and nearly everything is labeled in Spanish. Would President Trump build a wall around California then?

And what about all those Hollyweird celebrities that threatened to move if Trump was elected? Just think, they could all cancel their moving vans and stay in their own left-wing country.

Here’s an idea, maybe those other “Blue” states could join California. Losing Illinois alone would decrease the murder rate in the US significantly. And who needs Washington and Oregon anyway. Wouldn’t that be “progressive?”

Alas, I am stuck in California and just have to accept the fact that I’m surrounded by, ugh, Democrats. Thanks to the snail-paced economic recovery in Southern California I can’t yet afford to move to, say, Texas. So here I will remain.

It is sad that the CalExit crowd and all those distraught college brats can’t cope with reality the way I have. I do take solace in the hope that perhaps some of those celebrities will stay true to their word and leave. Maybe that’s too much to hope for. I would be glad to help them pack.

Optimism v/s Pessimism

 I used to have a computer screen saver that floated a saying across it. You could write anything in the marquee so I put: Optimism is the Curse of the Uniformed. It seemed appropriate since the recession was killing businesses right and left and mine was sinking faster than most. There was not much to be optimistic about in those years.

Does that make me a glass-half-empty person? Actually, no, I am an engineer by profession. I don’t think the glass is half empty or half full. Engineers believe the glass needs to be re-engineered.

And so it is with government. Many viewed the Obama years optimistically, perhaps an equal number view them pessimistically. Apparently, enough people viewed Obama’s legacy with pessimism and voted for Donald Trump. Trump vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington DC, and that note struck a resounding chord with voters who were fed up with politicians and government intrusion into their lives.

While Trump goes about filling key positions, we see a lot of criticism from the left and some praise from conservatives --yep, pessimism v/s optimism. But this time it is reversed. The left and far-left leaning cities are perhaps beyond pessimistic, while those in Middle America finally have something to be optimistic about.

If the stock market is any indication, optimism for the new administration is well in order. After all, The Donald did vow to bring manufacturing back to this country, cut the red tape for startups, and remove the onerous taxes and regulations imposed on businesses. That means more opportunity for new business and more private sector jobs.

What a breath of fresh air! Had Clinton won, there would undoubtedly have been a continuation of Obama policies that saw the slowest recovery from a recession ever. There would have been more regulations, restrictions, and taxes on businesses, thereby resulting in more manufacturers leaving the country in an effort to be competitive and fewer private sector jobs. The traditional big-government response would have been to pour more tax dollars into make-work projects to artificially reduce the unemployment numbers. Since we are pretty much maxed out on our borrowing, the only way to pay for those make-work projects would be increased taxes.

Well, there you have it, optimism versus pessimism. Donald Trump has given us the hope and optimism that the glass will be filled, while Hillary Clinton gave us the doubt and pessimism that the glass was being drained much faster than it would ever be filled.

So now, Mr. President-elect, it’s time to show your hand.

So far, most of the Trump selections for key government positions have been Washington insiders and politicians, and a few of the better Generals also made the cut. The big question could well be, how does this drain the swamp?

Frankly, I had expected Trump to tap the managerial dynamic of the private sector more than he has. I do applaud his addition of proven military men for some key positions, though. It is high time for our military to be represented by people who know the trade.

I am optimistic, though. I fully expect to soon see lobbyists circling the drain as the swamp begins to dry up. We already hear the cries of professional politicians and lobbyists in Washington as they scramble to remain afloat in the swamp. Maybe the glass is only half full after all.