OK, here’s the truth about Donald Trump. He is a selfish bastard. Does anyone stop for even one second and wonder why this megalobillionaire wants to be president? Is it ego? I don’t think so. I think it’s pure fear. Who of us stands to lose more than Donald Trump?
Twenty years ago, Donald was asked whether he’d ever run for president. His response was that he would never want to the job. The only way he’d consider it is if the country became so bad off financially that he felt he would have to try to save it.
Now, you can say that it’s narcissistic to believe that only you can save a country. But is there any one of us among America’s political armchair quarterbacks that, given a chance, would not consider taking the job?
Trump may not be a man you want in your family. You may not want to compete against him in business. But I don’t know too many people who work FOR him who haven’t caught his success bug.
I don’t think the Donald Trump can save this country. But I think he’s the best man to try at this moment. In the next six months to a year, the Fed is going to either raise interest rates so discourage more borrowing on the national debt, or it’s going to have to cause hyperinflation with more money printing. One will kill anyone with debt, which is most of us. The other will kill everyone, period. The only way to avoid either is for the government to slash $1.5 trillion from the annual budget TODAY. That means no immigration, no welfare, no foreign handouts, no foreign entanglements of any kind, and kicking out all the illegal aliens that are sucking up welfare and jobs. THEN, if the lazy American people decide to WORK, we might come out the other end of this quagmire IN A DECADE.
I don’t believe Trump can do it because he has 535 people in congress, most of who are working against him. And he has the lazy welfare mentality of half the people working against him. And he has the PC coddling bleeding hearts working against him.
What the next president faces is a challenge to this country at least as big as the one Lincoln faced. Lincoln, guess what, was a big bastard, too. He had no choice.
It’s been a long time since I posted here. Watching the primaries unfold has been a painful distraction and has turned me off to politics in any form. Nevertheless, life goes on, and we will have to live with whomever we get as elected leaders. So one cannot but continue to educate in the hope that someone somewhere will gain some kind of insight, some kind of logical ability to cut through the jargon and distill the basic veracity of the concepts.
I can’t remember the quote exactly, but it goes something like this:
“Liberals push the agenda to make radical departures from constitutional government, and conservatives try to preserve those departures for future generations.”
There was a time when the whole concept of constitutional government and elected representation were truly radical concepts in the world. Back then, to be called a liberal reflected your support of the liberal application of the liberties granted by the Constitution. Such men as George Washington, who sought to educate and liberate the slaves that he had inherited, were truly liberal men. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, while overtly a champion of liberal constitutionalism, was covertly much more conservative, afraid to liberally apply these freedoms to all for fear that most people could not handle the responsibility.
In the end, it seems to bear out that Jefferson had a good reason to fear the unbridled liberal application of these freedoms to all. And, as time passed Jefferson’s reservations passed down to his spiritual children in the Democratic Party. They constantly sought hedges against unbridled freedom. Over time, they began to realize that there was great power to be had in restricting the flow of liberty, and they recognized in a new nationalist fervor, fascism, a way to institutionalize their methods of control.
In the meantime, Washington’s liberal advocates of constitutional freedom watched as those in the Democratic Party who tried to conserve power for the elite slowly, through legal subterfuge, were able to dupe the ever more uneducated masses into believing in their benevolent despotism. So the liberal descendants of Washington began, in a reactionary way, trying to conserve the constitutional freedoms for all people. Along the way, though, they began to try to beat the Democrats at their own game, proposing all sorts of bills to counteract the subterfuge of the Democratic legislation.
Eventually, as the economic boom created the new elite, and as these elite began to resent the old Democratic elite, a new Republican elite arose, whose goal was not so much to conserve the constitutional operation of government as it was to conserve their own ability to amass fortunes and conserve them. In time, they also began to sense the great power of the political machine and how covert appeals to fascist ideas could benefit their cause.
So, we arrive at politics today, where the terms have switched places but have also lost most of the original meaning. Today, liberal people believe they conserve American freedom by virtue of the benevolent police state that enforces the coddling of the underclass as truly compassionate. Meanwhile, conservative people continue to try to insulate themselves from the redistribution of their “hard-earned” wealth by the liberal use of legislation to “protect” their rights. Two seemingly different ideologies have therefore converged in the central thought that central government ought to fix everything. And one’s ideology is no longer a concern as long as there are pockets to line and favors to curry. The “new money” bootlegger Joe Kennedy was perfectly happy to align with old money Democrats when it came to elevating his children to power.
I, to this day, am a registered Republican. That is actually a lie. I actually should be registered as Right Wing. But there is no such registration. The closest I would get to that is Libertarian. But Libertarians are so Right Wing that they begin to look like Left Wing people. Why is that? I believe that it has a lot to do with the fact that truly aware people realize that everyone gravitating toward the middle ground has made any kind of real debate over ideological differences about the issues impossible. Also, I believe that the political spectrum operates a lot like the visible light spectrum.
Near my house, there is a drawbridge which is marked by very bright lights. These lights are LED and are operated by a computer program that continuously changes the color from one end of the spectrum to the other. As the spectrum reaches the indigo and violet end, it almost unnoticeably begins returning to the red end of the spectrum. In the same way, I believe that people who are really interested in fundamental change, by which I mean a switch from bureaucratic morass, tend to polarize on the left end (red) or right end (violet) of the political spectrum. A deep red can hardly be distinguished from a violet on many issues, and both seem to wildly contrast with the yellows, greens and blues in the center.
I give you some instances. I fully agree with Bernie Sanders that the pharmaceutical industry’s collusion with the FDA, AMA, and insurance companies is ruining the health care system. And yet I do not believe, as he does, that the answer lies in more government control. I fully agree with the far left that GMOs and synthetic fertilizers have killed our land and are the other half of our nation’s health crisis. I fully agree that hemp should be legalized to help rejuvenate our land. And yet I am not against allowing oil fracking, coal harvesting or ore mining. I think that every person should have a right to ingest whatever they want, be it cocaine or cheese burgers, without government regulations. And yet, I believe that anyone who does so should have no protection from being fired by an employer who disagrees with their way of life, nor do I want to have to pay for their bad choices (as I am forced to do under the Affordable Care Act.) I want to protect the environment, but I am not afraid of breathing or anything else that causes more CO2 emissions. I favor protection of animal species but am not against hunting. (I do chafe at trophy hunting, though. If you take a life, you should have a good reason, such as feeding your family.) I find it ironic that radical leftist tree huggers are called “conservationist”.
If I would have to boil it down to a label, I would say that a Right Wing person is a strict constitutionalist. As such, it is easy to see how that differs from today’s view of a conservative. I would boil down a Left Wing person as someone in favor of absolute government control, be that under a fascist, socialist or communist moniker. As such, it become apparent that most Democrats are decidedly left wing and that most Republicans are also left of center.
Both the true left and true right recognize that the center is headed for destruction. And this is why was chafe at those who call for “compromise.” Let’s face it, compromise almost never works. Let’s take an example from the evolutionist play book. It is hypothesized that bats came from mice. What cannot be explained is how this could have happen by gradual mutation, since the creature stuck in the middle with large webbed front feet would have had a decided problem surviving without the ability to nimbly run or to fly. Whether or not such creature ever made the evolutionary jump, we do see that there are bats and mice today, both of which survive quite well. But there are no “compromise” creatures extant.
The whole idea of socialism, as it appears in modern American law, is a kingdom fighting against itself. Free market capitalism made America the richest country, by far, in history. The country that continues to place the responsibility for success on the individual producer, while at the same time shackling that producer’s freedom to reap the benefits of labor, is basically built on a lie that cannot be sustained. Eventually, such producers will have no choice but to fold and let the government do it.
At the same time, a socialist system that must rely on revenues from outside itself, finds itself shackled to operate in the totalitarian method that it demands. “Compromise” is stifling and prevents its full utilization.
We know from recent history, Germany, Italy, USSR, Maoist China, etc, that totalitarian regimes never quite work properly because human self-interest never allows them to work anywhere near their potential. Nevertheless, America, both Democrat and Republican, keep pushing us in that direction. We have not learned our lessons from history and so we will repeat the same mistake. It is virtually inevitable. It is the consequence, ironically, of the greatest fear of Thomas Jefferson coming true–we created an uneducated populace. We have created at least one generation that believes it is purely socialist while it simultaneously drinks Starbucks lattes, drives expensive cars, funds the extravagant lifestyles of it’s higher-education and entertainment industry socialist gurus, and totally denies the inherent truth of it’s capitalist right-winged self-interest. As long as someone else must pay for it, then let’s be socialist. That is why they do not consider themselves left-wing. They somehow have this disconnect that they must sacrifice to the socialist machine. It is all about tearing down their parent’s capitalist pig ideas.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, within another generation, liberal will once again take on a new meaning. Once the socialist loop has been closed and the current clueless generation has had a chance to chafe under the true reality, another generation will come forth to rebel against it’s parents’ willingness to conserve Amerika. However, it will be difficult to overcome on their own, because eugenics will keep their number small. And, of course, that will only be the case if Amerika has not yet be replaced by Shariamerika. This new, young Rebellion had better hope that euthanasia has not wiped out the last of the Jedi. They will need help from inside, because the ones who have the guns have the power.
I met up with my friend the other day who wanted to know why I haven’t been writing. He loves my writing. And he reminded me of the first rule of being a good writer–you have to write.
So true, that. The difference between writers and most people is that writers also perfect the process of transmitting their opinions and ideas into some kind of organized script that can be read and understood by anyone, especially those who don’t happen to be privy to the daily stream of consciousness that the writer may utter with friends and in situations.
So, what does this have to do with haters? Well, haters have to also practice hating on a daily basis in order to keep their edge. And haters have difficulty responding the logical points of a well-written script, so that may cause them to avoid arguments with writers. So there are connections of sorts there. But, really, it just gives a familiar tag to the title because the phrase is used a lot today. People have to do what they do, because it’s who they are. If you stop hating, you cease to be a hater. If I stop writing, I cease to be a writer.
Yes, and preachers have to preach. I was trained to be a preacher. I often go on Facebook and want to preach ten or twenty sermons in a day. I have many pastor friends who barely say anything on Facebook. I used to think I was quite the windbag compared to them. But, I’ve begun to realize that they all have somewhere to preach already. So they don’t need to do much of it on Facebook. They still do once in awhile, and it’s usually good stuff to hear. I, on the other hand, only have my blog, on which I get little feedback that I’m actually preaching to someone.
So, here I am, in the busiest season of my work year, writing a blog. But, I have to write something somewhere. I’m trying to give my Facebook friends a rest. They have basically been reading my blog unofficially for the last six months and they probably won’t mind if I blow off steam somewhere else.
I gotta preach. It’s all been said before, somewhere, by someone, in some way. But that is the beauty of preaching. There is always a new way of looking at things. And every new perspective helps someone somewhere understand something better. I’m not going to be preaching a new Gospel. But people need to hear it, and I need to write it.
I am not Jewish (by religion), nor would I have ever been remotely Zionist or wanted a State of Israel in Palestine. That being said, it is foolish to wish the death of anyone or to boycott for almost any reason, since boycotts are akin to the little boy who says, “I’m taking my toys and going home!” whenever someone else hurts his sensibilities. Israel is there now. Let her stay if she can. As for protecting her at all costs, I can’t condone that, not believing, as most wayward Christians, that the Kingdom of God cannot come if the State of Israel does not exist. Let England and France, whose ill-conceived idea it was to draw the State of Israel and randomly divide ethnic and religious groups with arbitrary borders, now come to her rescue. Or let her survive on her own. Surely she will have enough support from elite Zionist money lords around the world to accomplish this without the USA pitching in.
Now, there is another issue in the Muslim world-view. Any history shows that Muslims operate in a totalitarian mode, meaning they are a threat to all things non-Muslim. For this reason, we have a common ground with the State of Israel to prevent the forceful advance of Islam. However, Islam recognizes that, in order to kill Israel, all they have to do i erode the base of support Israel has in the Western democracies. This it will do by turning us into Muslim countries first, leaving Israel on an island. Already, I somewhat think, this is why France and England have lost their backbone. Soon the USA will follow. Certainly Obama has done whatever he can in that regard.
Certainly Israel is in a pickle with no easy way out. As I see it, Israel has two avenues of recourse with some hope of success. One would be to sell the land back to Turkey (or whoever else has legal claim as the one’s who sold it to them in the first place, because I recognize they bought it fair and square, no matter what Muslim propaganda says). The other would be to screw the UN, annex the Palestinian land and throw out all the squatters. And while you are at it, make an agreement with Syria and Jordan, (and perhaps Russia if you could pull it off) to take out ISIS in exchange for redrawing new, larger, more easily defensible borders. OK, I know one plan ends Israel and the other probably would turn the world even more against Israel. But the looming threat of nuclear annihilation isn’t much of an alternative either.
In closing, let everyone beware of grandiose promises made by snake oil salesmen (like the Zionist movement). “We Are the World” plays well in a fairy tale. But, in the real world, with lots and lots of evil people who aren’t about to “live and let live”, not so much. We have another fairy tale knocking on our gates, now, calling themselves “innocent refugees”. Check their world-view. Look at their 1400-year history. When they and their liberal sympathizers attack and slander Israel, consider the source. Lying to the infidel is how they make brownie points with Allah. We will never be the World. We will always be self-interested countries. Only two things could change that–Zionism or Islam. What the state of Israel represents at this time is Gog holding off Magog. What Islamic “refugees” represent is Magog’s flanking maneuvers.
70% of the internet is porn. That must mean that the other 30% is gambling.
The ultimate conclusion is that, unless sex is kept to the marriage bed and kept in private, everyone becomes lonelier, less fulfilled and less happy. Free love becomes an act which is even beyond animal instinct to the point of being sociopathic. Is it any wonder that we live in a society that treats people worse than animals.
I wish I could say that the video was shocking, but I have seen worse on European broadcast TV. Even in “prudish” America we have flirted with full nudity for some time now, even as we have sought to give the least restrained of society their fifteen minutes of fame.
If God is really gracious to America, the great EMP will hit us, knock us all off the internet for a few months, so that we can all suddenly wake up and see reality again, and see that it ain’t so bad. In fact, it’s quite a bit better than fantasy, once you go through detox
In the centuries of immigration and other forms of matriculation to US soil, there have been many cases of hyphenated expressions of nationality. Sometimes these were an innocuous affinity for the fatherland and the plight of those still living there. Sometimes these were derogatory terms that sought to single out one or more ethnicities as problems or as something to be avoided or controlled. And, finally, hyphenation became a way of procuring special favor as an underclass. But, only in the last few decades has hyphenation become a force in creating rifts in the America culture.
Before the United States of America raised its unified head on American soil, European powers all had colonial interests in the New World. But one wasn’t inclined to speak of hyphenated people. The colonists were English, overall. Those that had immigrated from other countries were absorbed into the English colonies and not considered to have allegiances elsewhere. Yet they were called what they were, Dutch, German, French, and the like, as a reference to whence they had come. Except for a few that purposely worked on behalf of their home countries, motives for being in the colonies were not in question.
After 1781, all within the boundaries of the new United States, outside of ambassadors and the like, were considered American citizens. Never was any thought given to the land from which they might originally have come and in which they might have had loyalties. There was, of course, one particular group who did not have equal citizenship. It was to take another 80 years to remedy this situation, so that all people, regardless of ethnicity, could simple call themselves, which no strings attached, American citizens.
Once the great American mistake was fixed, and America began to come to prominence, the numbers of immigrants swelled. During this time, one’s country of origin became an issue, and the hyphenating of Americans created a chain of events that would work toward the downfall of the America ideal.
It started with the Irish. For some reason, the Irish were considered to be black and were subject to the same prejudices of American blacks. But, the Irish were not going to acquiesce to such treatment, especially as their ranks swelled and they fought their way (often literally) into political prominence. To help there cause, and also to protect their new-found base for much of their employment, the West, the Irish had to come up with another ethnicity on which to blame societal problems. Along came the Chinese.
The Chinese were wooed to America as America’s Manifest Destiny began to spread out over the Pacific in search of new trade routes. As China was then languishing in the aftermath of the Boxer rebellion and the Opium Wars, promises of good jobs and pay lured many of them to America. Some of them were hired to replace lost black slaves in the South, and treated pretty much like slaves. They subsequently revolted and thus ceased the majority of agrarian Chinese labor. In California and the West, however, they proved to be tireless workers just as the railroad was being stretched to the Pacific. However, they worked too well, which didn’t leave jobs for the Irish. So, the Irish lead the way in halting Chinese immigration. This made the Chinese-America a miniscule minority indeed until the mid 1900’s found us allied with China against Japanese aggression.
It was during this Japanese agression, linked, of course, with Germany in the Axis powers, that German-Americans ceased to worship in German, talk in German, and promote their German heritage. Suddenly, Germans who had been in America for generations, were suspect to be sympathetic to Hitler’s Germany. Of course, that was hardly ever the case. Nor was it the case the Japanese-Americans were suddenly going to rise up en masse and help the Japanese Army defeat America. But, the Japanese could not disappear into the mass of America as the Germans could do. Most of them were stripped of their possessions and placed in camps for the duration of the war.
Italians were also singled out when they started coming to this country. Their response was a lot like the Irish. They fought their ways to respectability. Many of them did so by taking over. It’s called the Mafia. They still have their fingers in everything, including having elected at least two presidents.
Then there are the Jewish Americans. Oi y’veh, wouldn’t they just love it if everyone just let them be Americans already. And yet the Jews are peculiar. Although they don’t practice the same religion anymore, they all still talk of being the chosen people. They are one of the few ethnic groups that retains a nationality despite not having a homeland for 2000 years. They have one now, but hardly any of them want to live in it. Yet they haven’t assimilated as well as they might have hoped over the years. They didn’t just because Russian, Polish, English, German, etc. And they aren’t particularly united in calling Palestine their homeland, since most of them have never lived there. But, when the American flag is raised and the National anthem is sung, they sing right along with the rest of us.
Finally, let’s get back to the blacks. For 100 years after they gained full rights of citizenry, most black only wanted to be Americans, like everyone else. Unfortunately for them, it wasn’t so easy to blend in. In the 1960’s just as the blacks were about to finally integrate along with everyone else, along came black power and drove the other way. Even that couldn’t stop most blacks from assimilating until the new segregationists of the 60’s rose to power and demanded that we all re-hyphenate. The American Indian benefited to some degree and is now more correctly labeled a native-American. This, of course, is confusing as well, though. After all, I was born in America, of American citizens, which thus makes me a native American too, even though I am German-American and probably a little Jewish-American as well.
As an American of German descent, I appreciate my German heritage. And yet I have no desire to repatriate nor do I have any affinity for Germany in German-American affairs. I just like bratwurst. I don’t go around calling myself German-American, because I’m not longer German at all. I pledge allegiance to the the United States of America. Only. I think it’s cool that America has so many ethnic groups all thrown together, adding diversity to our culture. I also think it’s cool that we all speak one language and follow one set of laws. I don’t think it’s cool that we make laws that try to separate people into factions. I don’t think it’s cool that, since the 60’s we have tried to tear down our culture in favor of multi-culture. After all, we are not the Divided States of America. Although all this hyphenating (pro-choice, pro-life) is certainly taking us there.
In conclusion, not much good ever comes from hyphenating Americans. It causes brutality, divisions, persecutions, confusion, distraction, and general malaise. It’s where we found ourselves in the 70’s. Then we crawled out of it in the 80’s, only to have spiraled back down into it 20 years later. I hope we can get past hyphenated America again soon, before there’s no America left to hyphenate.