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.

Thank God for Middle Americ

By now, I’m sure most of you have seen the map of counties that went to Donald Trump. It looks like a map of America in red with blue brackets at both sides. Okay, in all fairness there are splashes of blue throughout the map as well – very small splashes.

Those red counties are the places Obama referred to as “clinging to guns and religion.” The people of those counties are the ones Hillary Clinton called a “basket of deplorables.” And taken by sheer acreage, it is the vast majority of our country. It is home to the hard-working people who have been hit the hardest by the recession and those who have failed to see the “recovery” touted by the Obama administration.

In this election, as in that of 2000, we see that wonderful constitutional instrument called the Electoral College come under attack. Well, of course, I would expect no less of a losing party. Had Trump lost he would have used the same excuse.

But is it fair? After all, every other elected post is determined by a popular vote, why not the highest position in the land?

Well, it is exactly because it is the highest and most important position in our government that the founding fathers decided not to entrust it to a popular vote. At the time the constitution was created, less populous states like Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia would have been easily out-voted by those more populous states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. To those founders, that smacked of tyranny and needed a better solution than popular vote.

Interestingly, a similar problem existed with congressional representation. Many of the voting populous were located in states that had few slaves. The solution of the time was to allow 5/9 of the slave population to add to the voting population for apportionment of representatives. History is mute on why this method was not used for Presidential election, but as things stand today, we are most fortunate it was not.

Why not simply use the apportioned and elected congressional representatives to select the President? Well, at that time, there was not much in the way of political parties, but there was still sufficient wrangling among cliques within congress to foresee the problems that would cause.

How the President would be selected was such a contentious problem that it was one of the very last additions to the Constitution, and once it was added, the actual duties of the President were entirely left out.

In the end, a suggestion that had been discarded early in the convention was resurrected and flushed out to everyone’s, albeit reluctant, acceptance. The college of Electors was born and inserted in the final Constitution. While based on the same apportionment as Congressional Representatives, it stripped any connection to those representatives and shielded the President from the politics of Congress.

It was basically a good idea. Unfortunately, like much in the Constitution, it was an incomplete solution. And since anything not specifically called out in the Constitution is left up to the States, the implementation of the Electoral College became inconsistent.

Electors are chosen by the political parties, and the winning party gets to have all the electoral votes for that state. Can you see the problem here? This is exactly what the founders tried to avoid. Some states, however, proportion the electors by the vote within that state. In addition, electors are not legally bound to vote as dictated by their party!

What a mess! Still, it has allowed the people of mid-America and those states with small populations from being dictated to by the likes of New York, California, and Illinois.

Do away with the Electoral College? First, that would require a constitutional amendment – try to get 2/3 ratification for that. Second, it can be fixed. But any attempt to change it would likely end up looking like election by popular vote.

Personally, I like the Electoral College and believe it was an enlightened solution to a very sticky problem. It is too bad it was not fully defined in the original Constitution. It could use a better implementation but works pretty well as it is.

More Campaign Fray

Yes, I watched both the Vice Presidential debate and this last Presidential debate. Talk about day and night, the two “debates” could not be different. Tim Kaine and Mike Pence were, for the most part, civil, even though Kaine merely parroted the Clinton campaign dialog. On the other hand, civility could never describe the “debate” between Clinton and Trump. A better description might be “brawl.”

I have to wonder if somehow, Jerry Springer might responsible for orchestrating these Presidential debates. Probably not, though, since there were no chairs thrown. Maybe next time.

So, how will I vote in this election? The fact is I am still in a quandary. One thing I do know is that my vote will not be for either candidate. It will merely be against one of them, and right now, that will be against Hillary Clinton.

On my score sheet for this last Presidential “debate”, Trump won on points. The first debate may have gone to Clinton merely because Trump failed to ignore the misdirection and softballs thrown to Clinton. None of her failings, scandals, and lapses of judgment came up in the first debate. This time, Trump was prepared. He ignored the “moderators’” efforts to push the tone in a more favorable direction for Clinton and hit her where it hurts.

The woman, by her own admission, has been involved in politics and government for more than thirty years. During that time what exactly have been her accomplishments? Has she worked for the betterment of the ghettos or any part of the Black community (e.g. jobs, education, or even infrastructure)? Has she done anything about illegal immigration or even worked to make life better for any immigrants? Did she help change the tax code to prevent billionaires from paying no taxes? Did she try to rein in Wall Street influence?

The answer is no, and these are the issues she is running on! As Trump managed to point out, several times, they are merely words for Clinton. Like most politicians, she talks the talk on the campaign trail but when it comes to walking the walk, she is absent. Wikileaks even revealed that Clinton believes in a public face and a private policy when it comes to the issues. Do the math, that’s two faces!

We also learned just before the televised debate that Donald Trump is no angel. Surprise! In fact, he is more like most men when the women aren’t within earshot; he talks trash. No, it’s not pretty. It’s not meant to be. It’s just how we men are.

So, is this an issue? Because I kind of think that things like ISIS chopping off heads and burning people alive in cages might be more of an issue. I also think the Clinton foundation pay-for-play and foreign contributions might be an issue. Or how about our shrinking military and shrinking prestige on the world stage due to the Obama policies that Clinton wants to continue? There is also that issue of Chinese man made islands in international waters and the increased Russian aggression. Or maybe Nuclear North Korea in the hands of a madman should be an issue. And let’s not leave out Iran, who now has 1.5 billion dollars more -- thanks to Obama -- to proliferate their terrorism.

Somehow, I find the issue of Trump’s potty mouth very small, in fact, minuscule, potatoes compared to these larger issues. Yet, this is what Clinton and the mainstream media bring to the forefront as to why Donald Trump should not be President.

Well, folks, Donald Trump is running for President, not trying to date your daughter. Frankly, I could not care less what language he uses. I care more about what his plans are for bringing our economy out of the toilet. I care about his plans for bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country. I care very much who the next President will appoint to the Supreme Court. I also care about restoring our military might and prestige on the world stage – you can bet there will be no apology tours in a Trump Presidency. There are also immigration – both legal and illegal – issues that I care very much about. I don’t trust Clinton to be on the right side of those issues either.

No, I don’t think Donald Trump is the best choice for President. Unfortunately, I don’t see an alternative.

Light at the End of the Tunnel?

As the Obama years thankfully winding down, can we finally say there is light at the end of the tunnel? For over 7 1/2 years, we have been following the failed leadership of a man who was elected solely because of the color of his skin.

Not so? Well, can anyone name another attribute that might qualify him for the office of President? The only “job” he ever held was a community organizer – whatever that means. He was in the US Senate only a few months before being elected President, and during most of the time in the Senate, he authored no bills and was marked absent for votes. He had zero foreign policy experience, no management experience, had lost his law license, has no open college records, no one – even those he now calls close – can remember him in college, hung out with virulent anti-Americans and racists. Yes, sounds just the kind of person we would want in the White House.

Okay, it’s almost over. Let’s look at what damage electing a person merely to be the first anything gets us. The list of failures is long, so I’m not going to go into detail. Besides, you have already suffered through them and probably know all the unsavory parts. Incidentally, I copied these from Steven Martino’s website. It makes my head hurt too much to think about these long enough to make a nice list. Besides, the tears keep ruining my keyboard:

Scandals:

IRS targets Obama’s enemies; Benghazi; Spying on the AP; The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme; Sebelius demands payment; The Pigford Agriculture Department Scandal; The General Services Administration Las Vegas Spending Spree; Veterans Affairs in Disney World and neglecting vets; Solyndra; New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation; The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer; Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act; “I have a pen. I’ll Pass My Own Laws”; NSA Spying on American People;

Foreign Policy:

Lack of solidarity with Israel; Disaster with the Arab Spring; Crimea takeover; Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over; Handling of Syrian Red Line; Calling ISIS “JV”; Failing to Recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement; Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits; Lack of Confidence by NATO nations; Signing a Disastrous Nuclear Deal with the Mullahs of Iran; Paid $5 Billion & Released 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl; Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval; Allowed the building of Chinese bases in the South China Sea and off the coast of Somalia at the entrance to the gulf of Aden; Paying ransom to Iranian for hostages and using foreign currency in unmarked plane; Lying about paying ransom (which media ignored!); Pays tribute to Japanese at Hiroshima on US Memorial Day; Trashed America 18 times on Asian Tour.

Domestic Policy:

Failure to secure the Border; Illegals bringing guns, drug and diseases through the southern border; Passing on the keystone pipeline; 20 Trillion dollars more in debt; Vast expansion of government; Racial Division at all-time high; Inviting Bomb Boy Ahmed to White House; Disrespect for Cops; Failed economic stimulus plan; Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule; China overtook America as world’s largest economy; Housing policies failed to stop foreclosures; Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it; Education policies failed to curb college costs;Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid; Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working; Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%; Denying the notion of American Exceptionalism; Securing the Olympics for Chicago in 2016; Naming numerous Communists/Socialists/Progressives to Czar Positions; Mismanagement and cover up of Terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California; Mismanagement of Gulf Oil Spill; Disastrous Vetting Process of “Immigrants” from Muslim Nations; Refusing to Listen to CIA/FBI that there is no way to properly vet certain immigrants from Muslim nations; Fort Hood Shooting; Colorado EPA Disaster; Veto of 911 Crime Bill- which was overturned; Worst economic recovery since the depression with anemic GDP numbers; Over 94 million Americans out of the workforce.

Whew! I’m sure Steve Martino probably missed a few, but with about three months of this king’s reign left, I’m sure the list will grow.

But again, I’ll ask, can we see light at the end of this dark and dreary tunnel? Next month will answer that question. Hillary Clinton has already praised Obama for his “accomplishments”, although I can’t imagine what those might be, and stated that she intends to carry forward his policies and use them as a template for her own agenda.

If you are expecting light at the end of this miserable tunnel, don’t expect Hillary to provide it. She is looking to extend the tunnel and maybe even make it darker and more miserable. Maybe she’ll even put a few skeletons from her closet in it.

American Sovereignty at Risk?

The United States was founded as a sovereign nation. We fought two bloody wars for that sovereignty. The United Nations designates the US as a sovereign nation. But how much of that sovereignty is real?

Our constitution allows the President to make treaties with other nations with the advice and consent of Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give any of the three branches of government the authorization to abdicate any portion of our sovereignty. We have borders – no matter how porous they seem at present – and we have laws. No other country or entity can exercise power over our citizens.

Well, that is exactly what we are led to believe. Do you recall ever hearing the phrase “money talks, BS walks”? It is true. Money – and especially today, foreign money – does indeed talk. It also controls.

Nothing is quite so powerful as the money invested in political candidates, and none are as powerful as those financial giants that donate millions to our election process, even if it is from foreign sources.

Hillary Clinton would have you believe that the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with her candidacy or fortune (estimated to be upwards of  $110 million). After all, the Clintons were dead broke when they left the Whitehouse in 2001. ("We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt."— Hillary Clinton on Monday, June 9th, 2014 in an interview on ABC)

So somehow the Clintons managed to go from “dead broke and in debt” to multi-millionaires in fifteen years. I’m sure they worked hard for that wealth. But let’s look at who is contributing to the Clinton Foundation: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Dubai, and various other foreign nations. Remember, money talks.

Now look at who the big contributors are to her campaign. Well, looky there! George Soros is at the head of that list.  That’s right, the same George Soros who spent $27 million trying to defeat George W. Bush. The George Soros who compared Donald Trump to the Nazis. The George Soros who founded and runs the Open Society Institute. You know, the one that advocates for a one-world society with no borders. Yeah, that’s the one. Also, the George Soros who makes politicians ask how high when he says jump.

This is the very same George Soros who reportedly donated $650,000 to a group of thugs calling themselves Black Lives Matter to stir up the racial divide in the country and maybe incite a few riots. Soros also supports Moveon.org and a list of other leftist organizations.

Does Soros hate America? George Soros wrote in The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”

Here’s another interesting quote: Referencing the state of the world following the collapse of the Soviet empire, Soros said, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.”

Both quotes are from In His Own Words: An Examination of Some of Soros’ Socioeconomic Philosophies, The Blaze.

It’s not enough for President Obama to say that the Constitution is an old and outdated document. Now, we have a candidate that could very well follow him in office that is deeply beholden to both foreign interests as well as those who would work for the demise of American sovereignty and free market.

Could she sell our sovereignty? Well, remember the next President will appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice and may even be able to appoint another four during the term. Couple that with a Democrat Congress and folks, anything could happen. And with these people, you can bet it won’t be good.

Under Siege

On September 19, we witnessed four bombing incidents in two states – all perpetrated by the same bomber, all in the name of radical Islam. Two improvised explosive devices (IED) were set off in a New York City and two pipe bombs exploded in garbage cans along a route set for a Marine Corps charity race in Seaside Park, New Jersey. The bomber, Ahmad Khan Rahimi was born in Afghanistan in 1988 and first came to the United States in 1995. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan many times.

That same day, another “Soldier of the Islamic State” stabbed 9 people in a crowded Minnesota mall. St. Cloud Police Chief Blair Anderson said that suspect, Somali immigrant Dahir Ahmed Adan, made at least one reference to Allah and asked one person if they were Muslim.

Last June 12, Omar Mateen shot up a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida killing 49 and injuring 53 people. In a 911 call, Mateen voiced his allegiance to ISIS.

In our own backyard last December 12, another devout Muslim couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, pulled a Bonnie and Clyde and shot up the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, killing 14, and injuring 17.

I could go on – and the list is long, 78 attacks in this country alone since 1972. There have been 48 attacks since 9-11.

But Islam isn’t just at war with the United States. In August – just one month – jihadists killed 1637 people and injured 1734 in 203 attacks on 33 countries. Alone this month 43 attacks in 14 countries have killed 191 and injured 228.

Many of those murders – women, men, and children – were of the most horrific and brutal type imaginable, slow and agonizing beheadings with a hunting knife, burning victims alive in a cage or with a flame thrower, even tossing victims off tall buildings.

We are told that Islam is a religion of peace, charity, and tolerance. Our own President – raised with Muslims, whose family are Muslims, and whose closest advisers are Muslims – has expounded the contributions made by Muslims over the centuries. This same President cannot bring himself to label these atrocities the acts of Islamic extremists.

We are under attack folks, and it’s not from Quakers, rednecks or doomsday preppers. We are being attacked by a growing doomsday cult of psychotic killers who have hijacked a religion and perverted the words of the holy Quran for their own unholy purposes.

Until our government can at least recognize the cause of this abomination and pronounce the words Islamic Terrorism, they will never be able to effectively combat these attackers and provide a safe, secure environment for its citizens.

They can outlaw and confiscate guns, knives, ammunition, explosives, chemicals, pressure cookers, and pipes until they amass a mountain of items to dwarf the Rockies, but they will never be able to secure this country or any other until they understand that they are fighting an ideology. Radical Islam is a cult. It must be dealt with as one would a cult.

We can kill their leaders, bomb villages, fight armies, and jail individuals, but we cannot win this fight without attacking the root cause of this radicalization.

Our world is under siege not by armies, not by individuals with workplace violence issues, not by people radicalized by an accepted ideology. We are being attacked by a cult of psychotic killers who have subverted and perverted the teachings of Mohammad and the word of God as relayed to him by the Archangel Gabriel (Jibrail). And they attract recruits into their cult by using their perverted dogma.

These people have violated the teachings of hadith and the Quran and will be punished by God. Driving this point home to these jihadists is the only way to combat their atrocities and put an end to this cult.

None of this will happen, though, until our leaders recognize that we are fighting a dogmatic cult and can say the words Radical Islamists.

Our Ambivalentocracy

In the 2000 presidential election, an episode of the Today show on October 30, 2000, displayed a map of the United States with States colored according to the potential Electoral College delegate vote. States that were likely to vote Republican received a red color, while those expected to vote for the Democrat candidate were colored blue. Several states, where there may be a questionable outcome, got shades of pink, light blue or purple. Today this color scheme has become the accepted standard for election talking points.

If one looks at the map of the last four elections the immediate thing that stands out is that almost the entire heartland and most of the Southeast is red. The Northeast and West Coast are mostly deep blue.

Interestingly, those blue states are all centers of urban population; New York Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, California, and Washington are invariably deep blue. Rural states like Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, the Dakotas, and Montana are deep red. Most Southern states and Alaska are also red, while several less populous states, notably, New Hampshire, Vermont, Michigan, Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Mexico seem to run blue. The rest are those “Toss-up” or “Battleground” states where most of the Presidential campaigning takes place.

Why is this? Should we blame the Electoral College? Should we blame the Founding Fathers? Well, maybe.

There were two highly contentious issues at the Constitutional Convention in 1887. The first was how representatives should be elected. The industrial states and agrarian states didn’t trust each other. Each was concerned about unequal representation. If the elections were based fully democratically, the more populous industrial states would receive far more representation than the rural, agricultural states. The solution at that time was to give slaves 5/9 per person count in allocating representatives.

Today, there are no slaves to tilt the scale toward equal representation in rural states, so once again the agricultural states get far less representation than the more urbanized ones. One look at the red state – blue state map and that inequality will stick out like Shaquille O’Neal in a jockey convention.

But whoa, isn’t that a map of the presidential elections? Yes, it is. And that brings us to the other big point of contention in the 1887 Constitutional Convention … the Presidency.

We had just fought for independence from the tyrannical rule of a monarch. The last thing anyone at that convention wanted was another monarch – although there were a few that pined for the rule of a king, they were well in the minority. But the Articles of Confederation were completely devoid of any executive authority, which made them totally ineffective. That was the main reason for the Constitutional Convention.

So, they relented to having a chief executive. Unfortunately, none of those learned men could define precisely what that executive could or should do. So, it was left mostly blank in the finished constitution – sort of a TBD job description. Until George Washington filled in those blanks by example, no one seemed to know just what the President was supposed to do.

When it came to deciding how this President should be selected, there was even more contention. It took four days to sort out the details and it still wasn’t definite. In the end, a cumbersome method of election by Electors was agreed upon, and those Electors could be determined by the individual states and allocated according to the number of legislators from each state.

That was probably a good idea at the time, but by now that method has become nearly a de-facto election by population representation. And again, the rural states have little or no say in the matter. But because of the large number of rural, “Red” states and the few “Blue” states, even though those “Blue” states have a greater number of Electors, the numbers force the election to be focused on several battleground states.

Folks, we are delegating the future of our country to a minority of people who can’t make up their minds! Our nation will neither be in the hands of a monarch nor will it be a true democracy, it is in the hands of the ambivalent. Yes, we are doomed to live in an “ambivalentocracy”.