Understanding Trump

As someone who has worked in large corporations for twenty years, I have observed many senior executives in action. That experience has led me to recognize Trump traits that mirror those I have personally experienced. The first common leadership trait I see is the art of persuasion.  Trump is a master persuader, just as all senior executives and hypnotists are.  There are many campaign examples of Trump persuading folks to believe and follow a CEO/reality television star that had no political experience.

Much of this persuasion comes off as boastful. When he said he'd build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it, many were persuaded to believe he would indeed build the wall. Nobody really believed he will get Mexico to pay for it, but the bombastic thought of him demanding that Mexico pay for the wall persuades his followers that he will build the wall after years of other politicians saying they would but never getting it done (including Hilary Clinton). He also claimed to know ISIS better than the generals. That boast persuades many to believe that he is committed to defeating ISIS, even though they don't actually think he knows more than generals. By labeling Ted Cruz "Lying Ted" and Hillary Clinton "Crooked Hillary", he casts a mental image of his opponents faults every time he refers to them.  He didn't need to explain each time the reasons behind his names for both. Classic sales persuasion.

A second tactic Trump used to great success is called "Pace and Lead". It is a persuasion technique that is well documented and used by Trump.  The best example from the campaign was when he said that as President, he would stop all Muslim immigration.  He paced a large segment of his followers by taking an extreme position that he knew would resonate with them.  Once paced, he could then lead them to a more realistic solution - extreme vetting and build the wall. I believe he never had any intention of blocking Muslim immigrants.

Trump used pacing and leading on the larger immigration issue also. His original position was build the wall, make Mexico pay for it, deport all illegal immigrants, no exceptions. He was pacing a group of supporters he would soon attempt to persuade. Not long after this position, deport all became deport violent criminals (bad dudes), and revisit the rest of illegal immigrants at a later date once the inflow was curtailed. That is his current position and is no different than many of his republican primary challenger's positions. He successfully moved a large number of his base to a more reasonable position.

These two examples also gave Trump the "dangerous", bad temperament reputation. If you believe he was serious during his pacing phase, you may believe he is dangerous and doesn't have the temperament to be president. In actuality, President Trump is far less dangerous than a President Clinton would have been. Clinton's positions on Russia and Iran could lead to war.  Trump's pacing position is just his tactic to lead others to a better solution. Trump isn't dangerous and probably has a better leadership temperament than Hillary has.

Finally and before our very eyes, Trump has demonstrated why he is the best person for the job.  The primary purpose of a senior executive is to define a path for the organization they lead, and be prepared to do what he can to solve the immense problems that will arise as that path is followed. Think about Trump and team's accomplishments in the past 18 months. In the republican primary, his opposition consisted of 16 seasoned politicians that wanted the same thing he wanted.  Only one would get it. It is obvious that Trump had a strategy, surrounded himself with some of the best business minds he knew, and brilliantly vanquished each opponent to become the last man standing.

Then in the national campaign, Trump faced an electoral map that strongly favors democrats.  Needing 270 electoral votes with the largest states ( California and New York) and their 84 electoral votes already off the board left him with few paths to victory. Somewhere around the beginning of October, Trump pulled his team together and devised a plan that would result in 270 electoral votes. He then resourced the plan and executed his part in a stellar manner. Watching the Trump team thread the needle on Tuesday was the culmination of a brilliant plan to solve a complex, almost mission impossible problem.

That is the kind of brainpower and execution I want solving some of the problems facing America. We just might solve a few for the first time in decades.

The State of the Race, the State of the Country

After the democrat convention, Hillary Clinton's lead in polling surged to what some pundits called unbeatable levels. They said the race was over - the coronation of Hillary Clinton should begin. Then out of left field, Trump began to close the gap. Now, on Friday September 23rd, the race is nearly a dead heat based on traditional polling. Non-traditional polling mechanisms tell a different story.

New metrics based on YouTube views, social media messaging, party enthusiasm and campaign crowds are beginning to indicate a real chance that Trump will win in a landslide. These new "big data" analysis' have proven accurate at predicting outcomes of complex questions, such as the Brexit vote.  Both parties are beginning to pay attention to these non-traditional indicators. This could be the reason that even as she is slightly ahead of Trump in national polling, Clinton appears to be in panic mode. Her recent rants and name-calling appear conclusive proof of the anxiety building within her campaign. She may be one collapse, eye twitch, obvious lie or long winded answer/redirection from a precipitous fall in the traditional polling.

I can only hope.  Much of my personal persuasion regarding the presidential race has focused on how bad Hillary would be for America. She is a liar, secretive, unhealthy, unqualified, and unaccomplished. The fear of more racial and class warfare, more government, less freedom and the diminishing of sanctity of life, drive me to support a better alternative. But I have done little to communicate why I believe Trump would be better for America.

I will start by describing how I see the current state of the country. we are in a long post-recession period that has been more about maintaining the status quo and less about economic recovery.  Economic growth has been mostly positive, but barely.  All historic recoveries have been much stronger. Unemployment is still weak, and workforce participation is the lowest in decades, and regulations have suppressed confidence and growth. Racial strife is as high as the 1960's. Urban quality of life is poor and declining. Riots and protests are prevalent. Traditional values are no longer considered politically correct. The culture has degraded to a point where the police are considered racist, rioters are idealists, and LGBT are idolized for their abnormal behavior. Politicians spit on their constituents by overtly lying to them and doing whatever they feel is necessary to win the next election. We have come a long way in 8 years, but mostly down.

This is the Barack Obama legacy and it must be reversed. In my opinion, Donald Trump is well suited to be that change agent. First, he is the most outspoken opponent to the pervasive political correctness that has led to cultural rot and national security concerns. I don't see Trump ever phrasing his speech in a manner that doesn't offend. He is freer to speak truth than any politician on the national scene.

Secondly, as a CEO he is experienced in forming an all star team and getting their ideas on how to solve difficult problems. He is listening to Rudy Giuliani on how he made the streets safer in New York and plans to fix the problems in Chicago and other cities in the same way. Controlling immigration could also be solved if proven solutions are considered. Extreme vetting, or a suspension of immigration from certain countries would make American's safer, but history is not consulted to find this has been tried many times in the past.  Proven strategies will get consideration regardless of political correctness.

And finally, Trump's economic plan would solve so many of our problems. For the moment, consider only his plan to lure off shore profits back into America. An estimated 5 trillion dollars are parked in other countries today because a company would need to pay a 35% tax to bring the cash back into America. Leaving corporate profits off shore helps other countries, but does nothing for Americans. If Trump's plan to lower the repatriation tax rate to 10 % is successful, the impact in the United States will be immediate and phenomenal. Companies will invest.  They will build factories, expand and create new products and markets, and most importantly, hire employees. The impact of this activity will domino into other businesses.  Economic growth would explode.

And, oh yeah.  The U.S. treasury will benefit by 500 billion dollars, roughly the amount of deficit spending for an entire pre-Obama year. The exploding growth and increased government spending (you don't expect congress to save it do you?) would create an upward spiral that would last for years. This enrichment will solve other problems.  I can imagine a scenario where jobs outnumber candidates.  Basic supply and demand principles then kick in and wages increase to entice workers. Would we have seen the riots in Ferguson, Baltimore or Charlotte if the urban community was near fully employed with good paying jobs?  I think not.

Don't misunderstand.  Economic growth does not fix what is wrong in the human soul. There is still a lot of work that is needed there.  But a person with a good paying job, and who is supporting a family has the incentive to further improve the person they are. Strong family leaders are crucial to the intercity and general cultural healing that is sorely needed in America. I strongly believe that Donald Trump has a far better chance of creating that environment in America than does Hillary Clinton.

Vacuum Tubes

I remember as a youth, having a vacuum tube radio in my bedroom.  Listening to that primitive radio I first heard Led Zepplin, The James Gang, and other classic rock bands when they were at the top. All this through a small, cardboard cone speaker that could not handle much volume.  But the radio brought its own mood.

When I used it, I wouldn't need to have a light on in the room.  The vacuum tubes in the radio would heat up and glow orange, casting their light against the wall and throughout the room. The nostalgic return of vinyl records completely escapes me. But, I suspect a real or simulated nostalgic return of vacuum tube operated radios and TV's are just around the corner.

Technology changes so fast.  How many things from my generation's childhood are completely foreign to our kids and grand children? Phone booths, rotary telephones, cassette players, phonographs, and other high tech gadgets from the 60's and 70's are now only found in antique shops and museums. For some unknown reason, I remembered my old vacuum tube radio this week.

The last mass produced vacuum tube was the cathode ray tube, or CRT, that was finally retired when flat screens were invented. But before the CRT was the vacuum tube that served as amplifier, power regulator, and signal processor for the now antique televisions and radios.  Back in the day, a general consumer could fix their electronics by replacing a defective vacuum tube.

That was a good thing since electronics built on vacuum tubes were very unreliable. My memory of the family TV was that it was rarely in good working order, and constantly needed vertical and horizontal adjustment to achieve a watchable picture. When was the last time you saw a modern TV exhibit the vertical roll of old TV's?  I don't know if I ever have.  I'm not even sure the new TV's have an adjustment for that picture problem.  Much of this reliability is due to the replacement of vacuum tubes with transistor and integrated circuits.

Vacuum tubes were user replaceable and made many fathers an effective TV repairman.  Grocery and hardware stores had a device where common vacuum tubes could be plugged in and tested.  When the TV set wasn't working, or the picture became unwatchable, my father would open up the back of the TV set and remove all the vacuum tubes. We would visit the store with a tube tester and one by one, plug each into the slot that matched the vacuum tube pin configuration, set the dials as instructed, flip the test switch, wait for the tube to warm up, and read the red-yellow-green meter to determine if the tube under test was the culprit.  If it was, replacement tubes were stored under the tester and could be immediately purchased.

Today, TV sets don't have vacuum tubes and contain no user replaceable parts.  When the TV stops working, we throw it away and buy a new one. Once there was a large number of TV repair businesses.  When did you last seen one?

25 Reasons to Vote for Hillary

1. You believe the Obama administration has brought peace and prosperity to America.
2. You are comfortable with selective application of the first amendment protection of freedom of speech and religion.
3. You think Hillary is a nice grandmotherly person.
4. You see no issue with a presidential candidate calling learning disable children "f***ing retards".
5. Defiling the white house by allowing a rapist to live there again does not bother you.
6. You believe what a person says is more important than what they do.
7. You are comfortable with politicians using their office for personal enrichment.
8. You believe our second amendment right to bear arms should be ignored or repealed.
9. You believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy.
10. You would hire someone who spent half of their time tending to a personal business during their last job.
11. You no longer notice the word "illegal" when discussing illegal immigration.
12. You believe Trump has raised your taxes, stole your money or ran up the national debt.
13. You believe that all politicians lie and that any one lie is no worse than another.
14. You believe a person prescribed the drug Coumadin is in good health and physically prepared to be president.
15. You believe the Clinton Foundation is a charity and not a pay for play money laundering enterprise.
16. You believe a Clinton administration would be tough on terror and crime.
17. You believe a country should not enforce its borders.
18. You think Hillary would have the knowledge and desire to control government spending.
19. You believe that a Secretary of State can do their job without a government email account and without exposing national secrets.
20. You believe that George W. Bush has been ruining the economy for the past 8 years.
21. You think it is acceptable for a leader to refer to Jews as "f***ing bast***s".
22. You think that Americans should blindly believe and obey what the mainstream media tell them. 
23. You believe abortion should be legal and available up until the natural birth of a child.
24. You believe a candidate who was found to be careless with confidential information can be trusted to see the most top secrets of America. 
25. You believe that you pay more dollars in taxes than rich people do.

I'm Sorry

I have been thinking about this post for several weeks, resisting it, believing that it might be too pessimistic. But I now believe it is more realistic than pessimistic so here it goes.  I am apologizing for my generation.  I apologize to my kids, I apologize to your kids.  My generation has blown it.  We are leaving the next generation a world much darker than what our parents left to us.

Throughout my young adult life, I cannot remember a time when it was more difficult to just get by. Jobs were easy, and although the pay was not high, neither were the prices of basic commodities. Today most jobs are in the service industry, and thus low paying. The cost of goods and services are high.  It's tough for young adults to achieve the quality of life my generation was afforded.

While I am not specifically to blame and neither are my friends, family or acquaintances, we are collectively to blame. We established the environment that led to the present. We made poor choices that created this world. My generation has created the current political, social and economic chaos that dominates modern life.

Politically, we demonstrated suicidal apathy by allowing politicians to lie to us, and to promise what they would do but never follow through. We did not demand honesty or integrity at any level. We believed the other elected officials are the problem, but the ones we elect are wonderful and we continued to re-elect them. Now we have politicians that blatantly lie and obfuscate, that are not transparent even as they claim to be.  Today's politician see no downside to unabashedly violating the laws they created for commoners, and they would never think of apologizing or repenting.  In short, our elected officials are criminals.

Our political parties are stubbornly ideological, and exist to breed polarization. If someone disagrees with you, they must be intolerant, racist or [fill in the blank]-phobic.  Our political tribes grow polarization in their members and foster hate and discontent. Their only goal is to win, regardless of the price in money or morale. The American political system is in shambles and I apologize to the next generation for what we hand them.

Socially, we have extended the 1960's mantra of "If it feels good, do it" and now reap the results. Truth and morality have become relative. If it's right for you, then no one should say it is wrong. Life is devalued. Purity has become a joke. Political correctness has replaced logic and reason. Civil rights have expanded to include deviant behavior. If you feel offended, somebody is to blame. Basic rights no longer come from our Creator, but are endowed by our government. The Constitution that served us so well for 200 years, is suddenly obsolete. No wonder the next generation is confused and wandering. We set that example and for that, I apologize.

The new normal economy features anemic growth to ensure that nobody can get more than their fair share. The lower production creates a downward spiral where government can no longer collect the revenue needed to finance entitlements used to purchase of votes of the dependent. Open borders dilute the earning power of young people just entering the job market, and create significant burdens on government funded safety nets. The affluent areas of the country are only those who can feed on the government largess.

And nobody seems to care. For the past few elections, I have hoped that something wonderful would happen. I had hoped the electorate would become very selective with who they choose to lead them. That we would hold elected officials to be true to their word, do what they said they would do, and act with integrity. And if they didn't, we would fire them. But we haven't and my generation is mostly to blame. I'm sorry.

The result is that we now have two horribly flawed candidates for president. Neither would have been acceptable for any political leadership position just a generation or two in the past, but now they both have strong followings. Coupled with an inept congress, the future holds more polarization, more social and economic decay.

The only hope is 2 Chronicles 7:14.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 

My pessimism is that I can do nothing to change America's course.  My optimism is that I know who can.

Why Trump?

The RNC ended yesterday, and I immediately began to become comfortable with the notion that Donald Trump is qualified to become president.  Until now, the main reason I have supported Trump is that he is not Hillary Clinton.  Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever run for the presidency. She is not a quality person of high character, nor does she have a stellar resume that would indicate she could effectively lead the country.  Instead, her resume indicates that she would continue to build her personal wealth and power, and make bonehead decisions that would not serve the country well. Why anyone believes with that resume she would suddenly become a capable president is beyond my comprehension.  But why choose Trump?

I have been extremely impressed by his children. Some in the press have said that what we may have seen this week is the birth of a new political dynasty - add the name Trump, to Bush and Clinton.  Maybe.  They seem to be fine young people who have the pedigree we may want as future leaders.  But we aren't voting to groom his children for future office.  I believe that what his children tell us about their father goes directly to Donald Trump's character.  Great parenting can produce slugs, but it would be extremely rare for slug parents to produce great kids. Donald Jr. and Ivanka (I missed Eric's speech) both emphasized how their father took the time to include them in the business and teach them what he knows.  Trump sounds like a father that was present in his children's lives. He also made sure they had the education to reach their dreams. These are the marks of a great leader. We are not voting for Ivanka, Donald Jr. or Eric but they give us important clues to who the person Donald Trump is away from the cameras.

Leaders of large businesses must set the direction that solves short and long term problems facing that business.  Trump seems to be approaching his potential presidency as a CEO.  His platform centers solidly on better trade deals and reducing over-regulation.  The desired outcome of these efforts are more jobs.  Not government jobs, but private sector jobs produced by organic growth in the American economy. Economic growth and more good jobs solve so many of America's problems. The deficit becomes manageable, discontent in impoverished cities is reduced, crime is reduced, and fathers remain in the family.  Each of these benefits brings their own benefits.  A strategy centered around more, better American jobs is a strategy that solves much of what is going wrong in America.

Trump has been called a populist.  The definition of a populist is a person who seeks to represent the interest of ordinary people. How refreshing would that be? Trump does seem to have the knack for identifying what concerns ordinary Americans, and setting priorities accordingly.  His pledge to be the law and order president, his tough stand on borders, illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism are all examples of addressing what ordinary Americans are concerned with.  He should wear the populist title as a badge of honor.

Donald Trump is an executive from a substantial business he built and leads. This may be the best time to turn to a problem-solver from the private sector to execute on the problems facing America. Politicians and lawyers have proven their ineffectiveness, so why not try a business leader?  I have experienced first hand how an effective executive can completely turn around a business with their ideas, energy and persistence.  I think it's worth a shot, especially when considering the alternative.

Why are We Being Lied To?

Politicians and press lying to the American public is nothing new, but the increased frequency and the kinds of lies told are new. Why have these institutions made a conscience decision to prolifically mislead those they claim to serve.  Here is what I am referring to:

• On November 5th, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 and wounded 30 people that he worked with at Fort Hood Texas. During the shooting, he shouted Allahu Akbar, "Allah is Great". On his business card appears the acronym SoA, Soldier of Allah. The shootings at Fort Hood were officially classified as workplace violence, not Islamic Terrorism.
• On September 11th, 2012, the United States embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and resulted in the deaths of our ambassador and 3 CIA contractors. The Obama administration crafted a false narrative that blamed the attack on an internet video that ridiculed The Prophet Mohammed. Evidence mounted until it was acknowledged after the election of November 2012 the attack had been an act of Islamic terrorism. 
• In an environment where American opinion of Iran was 8% favorable, 88% unfavorable, the Obama administration negotiated a nuclear agreement they claimed was a strong deal that ensured Iran would not develop nuclear weapons for an extended period of years. Later, it was admitted by Ben Rhodes, an Obama administration staffer, the press had been deliberately misled in order to gain public support for the deal. Recently, binding side agreements have disclosed that Iran will be able to build a nuclear bomb much faster that stated by the administration.
• On June 17, 2015, Dylan Roof killed 9 Black members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina. The press and politicians immediately recognized a tie between Roof and white supremacy.  They used a picture of Roof posing for a picture in front of his vehicle that included a Confederate flag on its license and forever associated the flag as a symbol of Roof's racism.  Since then, the Confederate flag has essentially been eradicated from the public.
• On December 2, 2015 Syed Farook killed 14 and wounded 22 co-workers in San Bernadino California. Initially, the press reported this was a result of workplace disagreements that led to violence. The name of the attacker was withheld for hours because it was a middle-eastern sounding name.  Politicians leaped on the news story as evidence that guns were too easy to get and that stricter gun laws are needed.
• On Friday November 13th, 2015, a massive coordinated attack in Paris, France, killed 130 and injured 368 at several locations. The attackers immediately claimed the attacks were a response to air strikes in ISIS controlled locations, however certain politicians and press organizations tried to cite availability of weapons as a root cause.  This line of reasoning quickly failed as it was acknowledged that France has strict gun laws and ISIS claimed responsibility.
• On June 12th, 2016, Omar Mateen opened fire on patrons at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.  Even though Omar pledged allegiance to ISIS during the attack, the response from politicians and press alike was this was a hate crime against the LGBT community. 
• On July 7th, 2016, Micah Johnson ambushed and killed 5 police officers in Dallas, Texas. The murders occurred within days of 2 cop on Black killings that prompted the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement to protest. Many of the protesters called for the killing of cops in retaliation. Before he was killed, Johnson acknowledged that he was mad about the recent shooting of black men.  Regardless, the press and politician were not willing to link Johnson's actions to the BLM movement.  Some even justified the killings.  A new narrative that links the killings to Johnson's past military experience has also been mentioned. Johnson was killed with a robotic bomb, which led to some calling his death a lynching.
• On the evening of July 14, 2016, Bastille Day, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel murdered 84 and injured 303 people by intentionally driving through the crowd gathered to watch fireworks in Nice France. Within hours, the press was reporting that Mohamed had recently went through a difficult divorce, and that he may have been expressing his frustrations. It was later discovered that he had been in contact with radical jihadists, and may have recently self-radicalized, however 3 days later, CNN  continues to report that no ties to ISIS have been found.
• On July 18th, 2016 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Gavin Long killed 3 and wounded 3 police in an ambush attack. Long, from Kansas City Missouri, had left social media messaging that indicated he was irate over the shooting of the Alton Sterling.  He also was a member the Nation of Islam organization that fosters a message of black superiority. Two days later, the press reports that Alton was a former marine with anti-government beliefs, and may have had PTSD. No linkage with BLM or Islam was mentioned.

They Dylan Roof example is the exception that proves a rule. Our politicians and press have taken political correctness to an extreme.  This extreme requires that no criticism can be made against a minority.  To do so might might cause a group of uneducated, politically incorrect majority to react with discrimination or profiling.

In practicing this form of reverse discrimination, the prophetic writings of George Orwell in Animal Farm have become more real than ever.  All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal.

Accepting BlackLivesMatter

I'm an old white guy that has seen the incredible progress made by minorities over the past 50 years. When I was 10 years old, segregation was firmly in place in the Johnson County "colored hollers", and minorities were not represented in the Shawnee Mission Public Schools district.  Now minorities live in virtually all neighborhoods and work at nearly every business.  It all culminated in the election of a black president in 2008, and his nomination of minorities to cabinet and justice positions.  Eight years ago it seemed that America has moved past color and race.

That is why I am having so much trouble accepting the BlackLivesMatter movement for what they claim to be. I have listened hard to BLM movement leaders explain why they are not a racist or terrorist organization. I hear them say that BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean that white or blue lives don't matter. I understand their position that BlackLivesMatter means they need the attention in areas that other races don't.

 BLM exists to bring attention to police hunting of black men for execution.  I hear my BS detector going bonkers.  All studies that normalize data to a logical anchor, tell a far different story. Whites are more likely to be shot by police than blacks.  The police are 18 times more likely to be shot by a black man, than is an unarmed black man being shot by a cop. These statistics normalize the data to the number of white and black police contacts (opportunities), not the percentage of whites and black in the population base.  Normalizing to population is not a statistically valid comparison, but is the basis of many of the mainstream media delivered "facts'.

Adding to the confusion, minorities have been told for years by politicians, media and leadership that they are profiled. They say minorities are singled out for traffic stops.  Minority loan applications are rejected.  They can't get into good colleges or hired into well-paying jobs. Minorities don't get a fair shake at good housing in quality neighborhoods. Rightly or wrongly, minorities have had a constant stream of this message for years.  I, as a white man, have not been told that.  Even though I have been pulled over by the police, I have been rejected for loans (it's been a while), and I have not been selected for certain jobs.  It never crossed my mind that my misfortune was because I'm white.  I can't relate to the minority experience, so I do acknowledge their perception is their reality, even if it is not accurate in every instance.

So maybe BLM is exposing valid concerns and/or perceptions of minorities.  And maybe that's okay and I should accept it for what it is. I could easier accept BLM if they would only coordinate their message with their following.  They must acknowledge that "hands up, don't shoot" was completely false and cannot be the basis for their movement.  They must control their demonstrations to avoid chants of "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" or "What do we want? Dead cops.  When do we want it? Now!".  If they don't, BLM will never be accepted with old white folk like me.

What If? Part 2

Almost seven years ago, I blogged about the possibility that a foreign power could install their agent as a leader in our politics, and then speculated on what that politician might do to weaken and eventually defeat our country.  I reread that blog recently and decided to elaborate on the possibility,. updating it with recent events.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

What If?

I am not a believer in elaborate conspiracy theories. When the far left wackos tried to make the case that George Bush was intentionally ruining America, I laughed. I also laughed when the far right wackos accused Bill Clinton of outlandish intent. I am confident that Clinton would have pulled the trigger when he had Osama in the crosshairs had he known what was to come. Bush was not a conservative president. His decision to push for TARP1 was a disappointment. Both of these presidents made mistakes. I believe that each came to work each day with the intent of doing good. Neither approached their day thinking of how they could screw up the country. Intentions were pure. Approach, strategies, and sometime their decisions were flawed.

I am having an increasingly difficult time maintaining this mindset under the current presidency. Obama’s programs and decisions are very difficult to explain. While I would agree that he is doing nothing that he did not communicate during the campaigns, the totality of his spending and certain decisions that border on the irrational make his intent hard to square with the well being of America. So if his intent is not to improve America, what is it? Let me pose a hypothetical.

Let’s start with Gulf War 1, Desert Storm. Despite Hussein’s threats of how, if invaded, he would turn the country red with American blood, the truth was far different. The Iraqi army was decimated. The short-lived war was a clinic in proper battle strategy, planning and execution. The American losses were in the low hundreds (even lower except for a lucky SCUD strike), while Iraqi losses were in the hundreds of thousands. Trenches dug to slow American armor became mass graves for the Iraqi army. Aircraft pounded, softened and demoralized a poorly equipped Iraqi army that surrendered in mass. It was a turkey shoot for the better trained and equipped coalition forces.

Militant Islamic, such as Osama bin Laden and his fanatic ilk, certainly would have notice the vastly superior military might of the USA. It no doubt became apparent that battling America head on would never be a successful strategy. So without a military option, they would only have individual terrorist acts as a tool to defeat America. America is an expansive country with millions of people. They would never be able to inflict significant damage to American civilians on American turf. Even if they tried this approach, the resilience of the American people would have risen to defeat them. They were left with no feasible strategy to defeat America through violence. So what if they moved in a completely different direction, such as attacking the US economy? How could that be done? After all, America’s military might is a product of its economic might. Just as American defeated the USSR during the cold war, if you cause the collapse of the American economy, you defeat the military. You would also demoralize the American people as their wealth and way of lives evaporate.

The attacks of 9/11 were definitely terrorist attacks, but what if the true intent was not to generate terror, but instead to collapse the US economy? The twin towers were the hub of our capitalist system. The actual damage from the attacks did close our markets for a week. The architect of 9/11 may have thought their attack was enough to cripple the US economy. However the behemoth economy, largest in the world, could recover. While personal wealth did suffer, (and continues to), the markets rebounded and began a slow recovery. The 9/11 terrorists had vastly underestimated what would be required to kill our economy. So they went back to the drawing board.

Next they decided on a play taken from the communist playbook. The USSR had long worked to place their agents into high positions within the US government. The CIA had Aldridge Ames, and there were others. During the cold war, rumors of communist congressmen and other high ranking officials abounded. McCarthyism was a product of these rumors. The damage caused by a single communist agent in a prominent position would be massive. If Islamic terrorists could recruit a rising star in American politics that also happens to be Muslim, they would have a weapon that would potentially bring down the US economy. What if Barrack Obama was that politician they found and recruited?

Beyond their wildest dreams, this Chicago community organizer gains an important ally in the mainstream media and begins a climb to the state house, the Senate, and finally the Presidency. The potential of this attacker could be greater that a nuclear bomb in every major US city. As president, the strategy is developed. First, relieve the pressure overseas by pulling troops out of the country the terrorist use as home base. Second, disembowel the intelligence community by removing every tool (Patriot Act, Guantanamo) that has proven successful in identifying Al Qaeda members and their plots since the attacks of 9/11. And finally, take the kill shot by running the US debt load to unsupportable levels. With a quadrupling of the yearly deficit and a doubling of the overall debt, this one act has the potential of bankrupting US credit. If we cannot get loans, we cannot fund the military. Without the military we are venerable to many outside enemies.

And we're back.

Looking back on the past 7 years and bringing actual events into the theory makes the speculation more compelling.  The debt and deficits have continued to climb and led to an Obama-inspired forced austerity policy (sequestration) that severely crippled the military. Our military is in sad shape with army, navy and air force personnel and hardware at historic low levels. 

And worse, our economy has never fully recovered from 9/11.  Executive policies that seem intended to restrict business growth have done just that.  Without growth, a solution to our debt and deficit problems is elusive. Without growth, our military will continue to become weaker. Score one for the enemy.  America is weakened with little hope for strengthening in the short term.  

What would the enemy do next?  Here is a checklist:

• Remove US military presence from countries used by the enemy to train, plan, organize and direct terrorism.  Allow the enemy safe haven.
• Polarize the American citizenry.  Turn blacks against whites against Hispanics against gays against republicans against democrats against the rich and the poor.  Make it virtually impossible for these synthetic divisions to allow unification against a common purpose.
• Disarm the populace.  Buy up all surplus ammunition. A disarmed population has little protection from its own government.
• Create safe passages into the country for enemies of our country. Open the borders and halt immigration enforcement.  Accept unvetted refugees from countries that share ideology with the enemy. 
• Intimidate the domestic police force. Make local law enforcement difficult and more hazardous.
• Use political correctness to provide cover for obvious harmful actions and policies. Shame common sense solutions such as profiling those who are most likely to be our enemies by claiming this is not reflective of American values. Encourage Americans to "become better" and treat our enemies with respect and tolerance.
• Never name the enemy as this might serve to galvanize an opposition.
• Give the enemy cover inside America. When the enemy has success, blame the NRA, guns, homophobia, xenophobia or Americans.
• Gut the ability of federal investigators to proactively identify enemies within US borders using fairness and American values as arguments.
• Sign a treaty with the central country of your enemy's ideology. Fund their efforts and clear the way for development of weapons of mass destruction.

If an inside agent could accomplish this, they just might ensure the defeat of America.

You Know You've Been Duped If ...

It is a confusing time in America.  Statement of fact and Blinding Flashes of the Obvious (BFO's) are met with charges of racism, xenophobia or homophobia. The mainstream media are willing participants, providing favorable coverage of their message, and trash anyone who conflicts with their bias.  Many people have been deceived - are you one?  Take the simple test below to see if you are among the duped.

1. The only major religion to teach that non-believers should be killed is:

a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Judaism
d) Global Warming

2. The only major religion to sentence homosexuals to death is:

a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Judaism
d) Republican party

3. The only major religion to condone the beating of wives and raping of women is:

a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Judaism
d) Democrat party

4. The only commonality between the Orlando, San Bernadino, Ft. Hood and Paris attacks are:

a) Islam
b) Christianity
c) Failed background checks
d) The gun show loop hole and illegal guns

5. If you were in charge of Homeland Security, to promote safety and security, additional scrutiny would be directed toward which group:

a) Muslims
b) Christians
c) Jews
d) Conservatives

If your answer to any question was not "A", then count yourself as one of the deceived.  A good suggestion would be to start getting your news from sources other than ABC, xNBC, CBS, or CNN. Start by reading a number of news articles on the internet, applying critical thinking skills and sticking with sources who don't have an obvious bias toward one position or another, but rather publish both sides. It takes more effort, but is highly successful at discerning truth from the fog of nonsense that bet describes the mainstream media.

Lest You Consider Voting for Hillary

Hillary Clinton may be the most flawed politician ever to run for the presidency. If she isn't, Donald Trump is. But there is a substantial difference between Trump and Clinton's flaws. Trump is not a competent politician and many of his blunders are precisely related to this. Clinton is a seasoned politician and her blunders are the result of character flaws or intentional action.  In other words, Clinton is not a good person.  She would not be a good leader.

She lacks a sense of personal responsibility. You don't need to dig deeply to find multiple examples of Hillary not taking any responsibility for her personal deficiencies. Early on, "the vast right wing conspiracy" was the cause of her and her husband's bad press. Just in the past few months, additional evidence that Bill was a epic cheater has come to light. It wasn't a fabrication by the vast right wing.  It was truth of which Hillary was very aware, and quite possibly an enabler.

Remember the "what difference does it make?" line uttered during the congressional investigation into Benghazi?  She was deflecting blame for the death of 4 Americans, including her employee the Libyan ambassador, claiming the entire fiasco was caused by a YouTube video that disparaged Mohammad.

The entire email episode is peppered with Clinton quotes claiming that what she did was no different that what other cabinet members had done. While most Americans see the difference, Hillary claims there isn't any. She claims her personal email was a "mistake", however that does not amount to taking responsibility as she has not face any consequence.

She lies obsessively.  She no longer knows what truth is. Hillary has this personality disorder that is common in politicians.  She rarely answers the question she is asked, but when she does, it is usually a lie.  Politifact, a left leaning fact-checker, has two pages of Hillary lies just from her recent candidacy. An entire blog post could be dedicated to the lies she tells in a single speech, so I will simply recount a few of the golden oldies.

When she and Bill left the white house, Hillary claimed they were "dead broke".  Interesting how they were able to put a $855,000 down payment on their home during this period.

During the 2008 campaign, Hillary claimed that during a trip to Bosnia, she and her posse came under sniper fire and they had to run with their heads down to their awaiting vehicle.  She must not have known that press camera's were taping the event.  The fact was their arrival was stress free, with no gun fire. The sniper fire was either imagined or completely fabricated.

Clinton claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first to have climbed mount Everest.  The problem is that Hillary was 6 years old when that climb was made.  Facts are difficult for a pathological liar to avoid.



Benghazi is the best evidence that lying comes natural to Hillary. Early on she became aware the deaths of 4 Americans was the result of a terrorist act,  Yet she felt she needed, or was directed, to cover up that fact during an election year when her boss was claiming that Al Qaeda was in retreat and terrorism on the decline. She sent her State department minions out to the talking head shows claiming the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video, then told the families of the victims that she would make the film maker pay for what he had done.  All lies.  All in the open now without the help of HRC.

Then there are the possible and probable lies about her $100,000 cattle futures profit, or the Whitewater paperwork that suddenly appeared in the white house residence after the scandal had died.  In short, she lies about everything. Barack Obama agreed.

She is unaccomplished. It is amazing to hear her supporters answer the question "What has Hillary Clinton accomplished in her many years in politics?".  Most are speechless.  A few ramble about her time as first lady, Secretary of State or Senator from New York.  But mostly, her accomplishments can be summarized as marrying Bill and being a woman. The left will claim the following are accomplishments.

• Sanctions on Iran that brought them to the table. Actually, there were sanctions on Iran before HRC and bringing them to the table ultimately led to John Kerry's disastrous nuclear agreement that does nothing for America while paving the way for Iran to develop nuclear arms.  
• Nearly every foreign policy "victory" of Obama's has HRC's fingerprints.  I struggle to find the foreign policy victories.  I guess that means the peace we now find in the mid-east, the decline of ISIS, and the horrible trade agreements now in place.  
• Rebuilding America's leadership and prestige after the Bush administration's failures.  I guess that means that HRC was instrumental in developing the apologetic "leading from behind" foreign policy of the Obama administration.
• HillaryCare. Republicans and democrats united in opposition and a bill was never delivered for a vote. It was a complete failure, just as Obamacare has been.

She has brought candidate hypocrisy to a new level.  The best example is her constant blathering about how Wall Street has walked over the middle class to gain their wealth, and how she will stop it. All the while, she has collected millions of dollars in speaking fees from the same villains.

Maybe it is evolution, but you don't need to go far back into history to hear HRC claiming that she believed marriage was between one man and one woman. She pivoted quickly when it became political expedient to do so.

She is crooked. Trump has a knack of naming his opponents in an effective way.  In this case, the name could not be more perfect.  It started with Whitewater and cattle futures, but has become perfected with the Clinton Foundation.  The foundation is based on quid pro quo and pay for play.  It began during HRC's term at the state department and has expanded in the years leading up to her candidacy. The foundation has accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in donations in return for favorable rulings, inside information and "future considerations" once she becomes president.

If HRC is to be stopped, this may be her downfall as information drips almost daily on shady decisions, appointments and favors after a significant donation - many from foreign governments. This is the reason Clinton had a private email server, and why she tried to wipe it, "like with a cloth?".  If the FBI was able to recover a few of those wiped emails that indicate pay for play, she faces prison time or the need to phone a friend for a pardon.  All other Clinton scandals pale in comparison.

She is evil. As a Christian and a believer in the sanctity of life, any pro-choice candidate cannot be supported.  But HRC is not the typical pro-choice candidate.  HRC believes there should be no restrictions on abortion, none. And while the president does not directly rule on issues such as abortion, they do appoint the judges who do.  With the next president appointing 1-4 supreme court justices during their term, can we afford to let HRC make those choices?



During a recent interview on "The View", HRC said that an unborn child just hours away from birth has no constitutional rights. Earlier she said that unborn children simply do not have constitutional rights, including the right to life. Weeks before she related her husbands veto of partial birth abortion claiming these decisions should be made using the mother's own conscience.  Simply put, HRC would object to any restriction on abortion right up until the moment of birth.  This can only be described as evil.

So Much Ado Over Bathroom Usage

I have hesitated to share my opinion on the recent transvestite bathroom usage "right", manufactured by the left.  My hesitation is mainly due to the significance of the problem.  With a poor economy, Obamacare, open borders, class envy, racial tensions, and executive over-reach brought on by the election of the worst president of all time, who uses which bathroom seemed comparatively unimportant. But I do have an opinion.

The entire issue (if there really is one) can be synthesized down to one thing - somebody must feel uncomfortable somewhere. Either the tranny must feel uncomfortable using the bathroom that matches their genitalia, or the rest of us must feel uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a person who has non-matching junk. My logical mind immediately moved to a solution resulting in the least uncomfortabilty.  Let's see, approximately .1% of the population are sexually confused, leaving 99.9% who are not. By my calculation, the least uncomfortabilty would be produced by requiring everyone to use the bathroom constructed to accommodate their girl or boy parts.

Is that a violation of civil rights?  Not hardly.  Nobody has the right to never be uncomfortable.

Discrimination? That solution does not discriminate.  Everyone, all 100% of us, gays, straights, confused and unconfused are held to the exact same standard. We all do bathroom selection based on whether we have a pee-pee or a nina.  Anyone who is confused or forgets, can sneak a peek and immediately be reminded.  The standard is equal and non-discriminatory in its application.

The first time I tipped my hand on how I feel, a acquaintance asked why I was concerned that a tranny would mess with a person in a bathroom, and the gigantic chasm between liberal and conservative critical thinking skills hit me.  The liberal view is that we conservatives are afraid that allowing trannies in public restrooms would facilitate sexual attacks by trannies on normal folks.  Never crossed my mind but was enlightening on the shallowness of liberal thought.  I politely responded that I wasn't concerned about trannies being in the wrong bathroom, but was concerned that by holding no bathroom usage standard, we allow every pervert in the world an avenue to enter the wrong one.  The liberal response?  None.  It was obvious he hadn't thought of it.

I have to admit, you really have to hand it to the progressives. They are uncanny at manufacturing a non-issue and leading the press on to cover it as a civil rights issue.  Then they get a substantial portion of the useful idiots to parrot how unfair it is to deny others their "rights".  Using this mechanism they continually chip away at the standards and principles that society is built on. Their ability is my greatest fear.  A Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the white house would enable the left to stack the Supreme Court with leftist judges for at least one generation, and probably more. The LGBT community could stock up on special rights never intended by the constitution, or required to remedy discrimination.  In a heartbeat, we would realize the famous Animal Farm quotation, that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal".

We cannot allow democrats to win in November. Liberalism is how we get such unnecessary confusion.

How to Vote for President

So you're not too happy about the choices?  Yeah, me too, my guy didn't make it either. How many times will we hear that we must select between the lesser of two evils.  I disagree.  We have to select the lesser of four evils.  Our choices are candidate A, candidate B, not voting or voting none of the above.

Anyone who believes they can't choose the lesser of evils based on morality is deluded.  We do it every day and there is nothing wrong with it.  We choose to cut off the car to our left to avoid crashing into the car stopped in front of us.  We choose a salad with that cheeseburger to avoid the extra fat and calories from an order of fries. These are examples of choosing the lesser of two evils.  It's easy, sometimes automatic.  Making those choices are principled because we end up with a selection that is ... duh ... less evil.  Less evil is always better than more evil.

The principled petulant may take what they believe is the high road and not vote, or select none of the above, but that choice is actually the greater of the evils. Not voting would be the same as walking into a McDonald's and asking the person behind you in line to order your meal because you don't want to order unhealthy.  It's evading a personal responsibility, and not taking personal ownership of an important decision.  Not voting is ignoble - it is cowardly, meek and dishonorable.

Deciding to vote for a third party candidate (none of the above) is no better.  Keeping the restaurant analogy going, it's like ordering lobster bisque at a McDonald's. Ordering something you cannot get accomplishes nothing. It is fruitless and substantially no different than not voting at all.

Our menu this election has two realistic choices, candidate A or candidate B.  Not voting, or voting third party doesn't make you more honorable than those who order from the menu.  In fact, you risk fostering the evil you attempt to avoid. You wasted your chance to determine the next 4 years for yourself and your family, and leave that decision for others to make for you. It's the behavior that victims exhibit.

This year, the lesser of evils would be the choice between candidate A and candidate B.  It is imperative that our country make the best decision and choose the lesser of evils.  So much is at stake.  Between three and five Supreme Court Justices will be named by the next president.  The Supreme Court determines the course of our country more than any other branch of government. The impending choices will dictate our course for the next 30 years. This year's election will impact the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Roe v Wade is a perfect example of how the Supreme Court can steered the country toward evil. Knowing what we now know, would we have any trouble voting in presidential elections leading up to that court?  We are at a similar point in history. Candidate A claims to be pro-life, and has pledged to only name conservative Supreme Court nominees. Candidate B believes that abortion should be legal up until birth, including partial birth abortion. Candidate B's Supreme Court nominees will have the same position. Who knows how either candidate will act once in office.  Our only consideration can be what they say now.

Is it that hard to choose the lesser evil between candidate A and candidate B?

Empty Nest Part II

The Farr's have left the building.  They have been living in temporary locations for a year, starting in their Parallel rental house and then in our basement for the last 10 months.  Over that time, Terri and I were able to really get to know our grandkids in a way that most grandparents don't. It was good. Really good.  

We had a front row seat to watching Madison transform from the annoying Madditude into a young lady (Madditude makes occasion encores), her increased interest in boys, guitars and music, and witnessing her love of God and family. 

Coleton transformed from the little monkey boy, to an intense grade schooler who loves to play in the dirt, chase snakes, ride four-wheelers, and play video games. I will never get enough of those mornings he would come upstairs and start distributing hugs. 

But my strongest memories will no doubt be getting to know my first grandson Clay.  That kid has a personality that will serve him well in later life. He will be one of those people that others are drawn to. He is intelligent, articulate, warm and interesting - far beyond his 11 years.

I learned that Clay and I share much in common, and this led to weekend habits that will be hard to break. Sunday morning became donut day, and he would set his alarm to get up in time to go with me to fetch them and be back before church.  Saturday mornings were Perky's day.  Perky's is a local breakfast place that open recently and became our breakfast favorite.  Even Nana would tag along occasionally. 

Last Saturday, over scrambled eggs, bacon and a cinnamon roll, we acknowledged this was probably our last regular Saturday morning Perky's visit.  The conversation took a very serious tone as we discussed his interest in women that will no doubt be followed by courtship and marriage. Soon, he will need to beat them off with a stick. I took the opportunity to relay my vast knowledge of finding and holding a good women. Well one for one is batting 1000, right? I'm sort of an expert.

We started with a discussion of appearance. Who would he find attractive?  We decided his target demographic would be a brunette, with brown eyes and short in stature.  Eerily close to describing his mother, don't you think? 

Since there are literally millions (maybe billions) of short brunettes with brown eyes, it became imperative that we create screening criteria to alleviate the hordes of women that will soon be competing for his attention.  I helped him decide on these. 

1. Are you a Christian?

       Required answer: Yes.

2. Would you restrict web site access from your husband or set a daily time limit using electrics? 

       Preferred answer: No! (Apparently this is a problem with one specific short brunette with brown eyes)

3. Do you prefer a tidy or messy house?

       Preferred answer: Somewhere in the middle. Not as messy as Cole, but not as tidy as Nana.

4. Do you play Clash Royale?

       Preferred answer: Yes, here is my gamer ID.

5. Ford or Chevy?

       Preferred answer: Ford. (He's not perfect, so his women needn't be either)

6. Do you like hamburgers?

       Preferred answer: Yes, especially when cooked on a Big Green Egg.

7. Are you home schooled?

       Preferred answer: Yes.

8. Do you carry a leatherman or pocket knife?

       Preferred answer: Yes, with an integrated flashlight. (Yes, his does)

9. What is the muzzle velocity of a Nerf Rival blaster?  

       Preferred answer: 70 mph. (The woman must know her Nerf guns)

  

There will be more, but this should cull the herd.  By documenting the criterion, he can now select the chosen one by email or other electronic communications. This is the kind of functions that grandfathers were invented for. I am glad I had the time to help him.

The Farr Compound

More Scenarios

It looks like Donald Trump is the republican nominee, however I still believe there are many twists and turns to play out before we head to the polls.  I believe the ballot will not be a simple Trump -Clinton choice.  It is looking more likely that a third party candidate will emerge on the republican side.  And there is still the possibility that republican bosses will make an attempt to de-throne Trump at the convention, however that has become less likely as a first ballot win is now possible.

I believe this election has the possibility of becoming a near 50 state rout.  The interesting point is that rout could go Clinton's way or Trump's way.  That is odd, so an explanation is in order.  Currently, both parties are deeply fractured and must spend considerable time in healing internal wounds and wooing the base.  This election will boil down to who can consolidate "us" better than "they" do.

Scenario #1: Assuming Clinton survives the FBI primary, something I am doubting, she could win in a landslide by naming Bernie as her VP.  This would result in instant democrat  unification, and is the scenario I fear most.

Scenario #2: Clinton doesn't survive the FBI primary and Biden or Warren step in at the last minute. Normally, late entry into an election would not be successful due to a lack of organization, but this year democrats and republicans are craving someone, anyone else.  Many doubt that Clinton will be indicted because Obama will protect her with his inJustice department.  Throw that out once Clinton starts to slide in the polls.  Politicians love power and will do anything to retain it.  Once convinced she may lose to Trump, there will be no protection for Clinton.

Scenario #3: Trump can will in a landslide too.  His path would be shaped by his VP pick.  The common thought is that he would pick someone popular in a swing state to help with the electoral college.  I don't think so.  Trump is the most non-traditional candidate of our lifetimes and I would not be surprised if he did something oddly strategic, such as select Bernie. Before you laugh, consider this.  He and Bernie have few overlapping positions, and share the "establishment is working against us" narrative.  By selecting Bernie, he takes Clinton's most powerful move (see scenario #1) off the board. He also opens up the possibility of drawing up to half of the democrat #NeverHillary base to his side. There isn't much of a downside since the VP position is a harmless role with little power other that what the president delegates.  Trump could assign him a few minor tasks where he couldn't do much damage.

Scenario #4: I wrote about this a few weeks ago and believe it is still possible. This scenario leads to the election of a "none of the above" candidate. Someone with positive name recognition places their name on the ballot in a few states. In an atmosphere where the electorate craves someone else, it is entirely possible they win a state or two and make it impossible for either Clinton or Trump to garner 270 electoral votes.  The election then goes to the house of representatives, the current lame duck one not the newly elected one, who can then select anyone to become president. It can happen and would be constitutional.

Happy Earth Day!

It is also Vladimir Lenin's birthday, and there is more than a little irony in that fact.

Being Earth Day, I am subjected to so much tree-hugger talk, especially this year as the Paris Climate Change Accord is signed. So much hoopla over a myth, a hoax, a theory so flawed you don't have to dig deep to see it. In fact, you can use scientific argument to expose the deep flaws in this "settled science".  Start with a review of the Scientific Method used to set up experiments and prove in or out a hypothesis.

The Scientific Method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The theory behind anthropogenic climate change is that man creates carbon dioxide at levels high enough to create a greenhouse effect in the earth's atmosphere.  Their hypothesis is this effect traps sunlight, and thus heat, warming the climate, melting the polar ice caps, and incrementally increasing the global median temperatures each year. The famous hockey stick graph was produced from their model based on the hypothesis.

Then came a monumental problem.  The measurement and observation part of the scientific method returned results that did not support their hypothesis. If true science were employed, the scientists would reformulate and modify their hypothesis, create a new model and get back to measure and observe.  

Instead, they changed temperature data from the early 1900's so their model would appear correct. And they also doubled down on claiming their hypothesis was scientific fact, peer reviewed, and settled science, expertly using the Joseph Goebbels maxim:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Those who do not believe the state fostered myth are called deniers, and some have discussed criminalizing this speech (following the Goebells blueprint). When true scientific principles are applied to anthropogenic climate change, you begin to realize the theory can only be taken as a religious theory and not a scientific truth. 

The Land of Monkeys and Woodpeckers

My family is quite aware that I like monkeys. Whenever a monkey is included in a TV show, movie, or even a commercial, I pay attention.  Monkeys are comical, entertaining and downright cute.  I know that some think that monkeys are disgusting, filthy and aggressive, but those folks watch too much Naked and Afraid.  Real monkeys are fun.  I like monkeys so much that I nicknamed my youngest grandson Little Monkey Boy.  I like him too.



I also like woodpeckers.  Any animal that is designed to beat their head on a tree and survive, is special.  My family tell me it's not their head, it's their beak.  I consider the beak to be part of the head, so I am right again.  Whenever -T and I are walking around the neighborhood and I see or hear a woodpecker, I stop to watch and listen.  They are amazing creatures.  Recently, a woodpecker has started appearing outside my office window.  Can't get any work done while he is there.



-T and I are beginning to discuss where we might want to retire. Options include Basehor, Florida, the Farr basement or the Wilson's beach house. No decisions have been made.

Belize is now in the running since the habitat supports both monkeys and woodpeckers. My ideal retirement would be waking up to the rhythm of woodpeckers beating their heads on trees, and the melody of the growler monkey.  I dream big.

We are a Long, Long Way from Selecting a President

Every 4 years, we follow the constitutionally prescribed method of selecting a president.  In recent history, that process involves primary campaign, followed by a party convention, leading to nominees from each major party.  That's when the national campaigns begin.  Up until this year, we thought that a third party candidate was the only deviation that could create chaos. Boy were we wrong.

This election year is not normal. The traditional thought would be that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would be the major party candidates and would now be running national campaigns based on their delegate leads.  I am still one who believes that a Trump Clinton contest for president is still less likely than some alternative.

First take the democrat race.  Crazy Bernie is persistent even though he is almost mathematically eliminated from getting a majority of the delegates.  I believe he is counting on winning the FBI primary big, and finding an open playing field after Clinton is indicted.  Could happen, but I doubt if the party would allow a geriatric socialist to become their nominee.  I would expect plan B to install a Warren or Biden as the democrat nominee if Clinton can't run, or can't win.

The republicans seem bent on ensuring their delegate leader is replaced at the convention by anyone not named Ted Cruz.  Since the party selects the nominee, I like their chances of ignoring the primary voters, and installing their person as the republican nominee.  But another intriguing scenario could come into play if Clinton and Trump are the nominees.  That scenario uses the electoral college and rarely used constitutional prescription to elect someone not named Trump or Clinton.  Here is how that would work.

The electoral college consists of 538 elector apportioned by state, and based on population.  In order to win the presidency, a candidate must receive a majority, or 270 electors.  The scenario that could come into play this unique election year would be the very late entry of a candidate onto a few state ballots.  That new candidate need not win 270 electors to become president.  All they would need to do is win enough states, maybe a couple of medium sized states to avoid Trump or Clinton from reaching the magic number of 270.

For instance if this mythical late entry was able to win 25 electors and Trump/Clinton split the remaining 513, nobody would reach 270.  This is a very plausible scenario given that both Trump and Clinton do not have the devoted support of majorities.  So what would happen next?

The constitution would then place the responsibility of selecting the next president with the house of representatives.  Assuming the republicans still have control of the house, their choice would be between Clinton (not going to happen), or Trump (not going to happen either), or the mythical late entry candidate (could happen).

This may be the angle under consideration by Ryan or Romney.  Get their names on a few state ballots "just to keep the possibility open".  Then use the constitution to become elected without ever entering a primary. It could happen.  You see, we are still a long, long way from electing a president.

Defining Racism

DISCLAIMER: I am not an avid Trump supporter.  Ted Cruz is the candidate I would most like to see sworn in come January 2017.  However, if Donald Trump is the last man standing, I would vote for him over Hillary or Bernie, believing that choice is far better for America.

It is especially ironic how the definition of racism has become any disagreement with a person of color or different ethnicity.  If you disagree with Obama, racism has become the explanation given by the liberal progressive, i.e. democrat. Never would they consider that policy disagreement may be the root cause of the criticism.

Democrats running for national office have become very adept at labeling their opponents with names.  Remember how Sarah Palin was labeled as a stupid bimbo?  The label was a result of an effective impersonation by Tina Fey (and her uncanny resemblance) on a recurring Saturday Night Live skit. But democrats and liberal media replayed the skit often, and soon the democrat followers believed that Sarah was a dolt.

Now they are at it again, this time labeling Donald Trump as a racist.  The genesis was his speech given when announcing his candidacy. A sound byte, repeated thousands of times by the mainstream media and highlighted by democrat candidates, sounds like he is calling all Mexicans rapists and murderers.  He was not.  Reading his comments in context results in a far different message.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. [pointing to hispanics in the crowd] They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Trump's point was that Mexico is dumping their criminals on America.  Whether factually correct, or elegantly stated, the message is far different than what was reported by media and repeated by democrats. Yet, the label sticks.  Every time Trump mentions building a wall along the southern border, liberals shout racism. They no longer even refer to his remarks. They just call him a racist and it has stuck.

The irony is that democrats have a long legacy of racism.  A favorite quote from Dinesh D'Souza encapsulates the democrat party's history and hypocrisy.

“The Democrats want us to believe they're the party of equal rights and human rights and civil rights. The truth is the Democrats are the party of slavery, and Indian removal, of broken treaties and the Trail of Tears, they're the party of segregation and Jim Crow and lynching and the Ku Klux Klan, they're the party of Japanese internment, and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Bill of 1968.  This is their actual history so what they do is they try to cover it up.”

Instead of labeling others as racists based on out of context quotes or simple disagreement, racism should be defined as the overt favoritism for, or bias against, one race to another. Using that definition, the irony expands to most of the democrat party.  BlackLivesMatter intones that only blacks are targeted by police, a theory that cannot be backed up with fact.  La Raza (The Race) inherently operates to lift up one race over all others. National democrat candidates sell their soul to these groups and others, (NAACP, National Black Caucus), who precisely fit this definition of racism.

My initial response to any politician who calls his opponent a racist or compares them to Hitler, is they really don't have a good argument to make for themselves.  Unfortunately there is a large percentage of Americans who hear the name-calling and mentally hang the racist label around a candidate's neck. To my disappointment, it seems to work.

Kansas City E-Tax

One negative from my new job is that I work at an office in Kansas City, Missouri. The city levies an earnings tax on all people who work inside their city. Next Tuesday, the E-Tax comes up for a vote to renew it for 5 more years. Those in favor and against are spending vast sums to convince citizens to pass or defeat the tax.

The earnings tax really irritates me. Not just because it is a tax and all taxes are irritating. This one is special. The city claims that since everyone who works in the city uses public services such as fire, police and roads, it is fair to levy the tax on everybody.  No. It's not.

Residents of cities in Kansas and Missouri somehow manage to fund their public services without charging non-residents who work within their city limits.  Why can't Kansas City Missouri do the same? Simple. The city is run by democrats.  Has been for years. Democrats cannot spend wisely, and fritter away money on failed TIFs, unneeded street cars, multiple arenas, and entertainment districts that continue to require assistance to remain viable.

In short, the city needs an earnings tax to continue crony spending. Then, when the tax comes up for a vote, the city threatens citizens to lay off police and fire to offset the revenue loss. Wow. What a crock.  There is never a thought they could balance their budget by becoming thrifty, and spending the money like it was their own.

As a Kansas resident, the tax is even more irritating. I don't get to vote on whether it is renewed. Not only do I not get to vote on a tax that I pay, each day I see the pro-earnings tax advertising state that 50% of the revenue is paid by those not living in the city.  That's me! Talk about flaunting it.  Not only is taxation without representation unfair, it is also used to encourage residents of Kansas City to pass it!  Tax Kansans to pay half of the city's expenses!

Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, and other major cities are suffering under the failed leadership of democrat politicians.  Imagine what they could do for America if elected in 2016.

Permission to Vote

Dinesh D'Souza: “The Democrats want us to believe they're the party of equal rights and human rights and civil rights. The truth is the Democrats are the party of slavery, and Indian removal, of broken treaties and the Trail of Tears, they're the party of segregation and Jim Crow and lynching and the Ku Klux Klan, they're the party of Japanese internment, and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Bill of 1968.  This is their actual history so what they do is they try to cover it up.”

Rush Limbaugh: "I believe that liberalism, Democrat Party, whatever you want to call it, is the most destructive force in America, outside of weather calamities that are acts of God.  It is an organized force.  It has an active philosophy with a multiplicity of objectives, and together they are oriented and aimed at destroying and tearing down this country."

I believe both quotes are factual. I also believe that my vote or non-vote can help a democrat become president. 

As a conservative, Cruz is my choice to return America to traditional values. He has the ideology and intellect to become a president in the mold of Ronald Reagan.  I voted for Cruz in the Kansas caucus.  He has little chance of becoming president. The press and the republican party will destroy him.

I can vote for John Kasich,  Marco Rubio, or Donald Trump. I have given myself permission to vote for someone who does not share my ideology, because I cannot be part of electing a democrat president.  Refer to the quotes above.

Taking My Toys and Going Home

In 2008, an attractive candidate, Barack Obama, beat an old school republican, John McCain.  The margin of victory was comfortable for Obama, as almost all blacks, and many whites felt that by electing the first black president, racial animus in America would finally end.  During the first two years of his first term, Obama had majorities in both houses of congress.  During that time Obama was able to force through what is believed to be his legacy legislation, the affordable care act, Obamacare.

The mid-term elections of 2010 and 2014 punished Obama and democrats for the direction they were taking the country.  The democrats lost control of the house of representative, and lost seats and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and then in 2012, their senate majority.  The carnage continued down ballot to state houses and local governments.  The country sent a strong message - we don't like the new direction.  Most of the election winners won by promising to reverse what Obama and the democrats were doing.

Leading up to the election in 2012, Obama continued to be unpopular.  Obamacare was negatively impacting families that could not obtain crony-based waivers, the economy was struggling, and Obama's job approval was underwater.  Obama was ripe for defeat by Mitt  Romney.  Romney was a seen as a country club republican and out of touch with the middle class.  After a harsh campaign, Romney lost to Obama.

Analysis after the election found the reason Romney lost was not Obama's popularity.  Obama did not get as many votes in 2012 as he did in 2008.  If Romney had simply convinced the same number of people who voted for McCain in 2008 to vote for him in 2012, we would be nearing the end of president Romney's first term.

Why couldn't Romney pull as many votes as McCain?  Many conservative republicans felt that Romney was not conservative.  As ridiculous as it sounds, some evangelicals could not bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. It may be happening again.

I have heard conservative pundits, friends and family members say they cannot vote for certain republicans that may be nominated, and may even vote for Clinton or Sanders. Their attitude defies logic.  While I am sure they believe they are being high-minded and principled, in fact they are being petulant and childish.  Their actions are analogous to a child saying that since they aren't getting their way, they will take their toys and go home. The country's future could be at stake.

It is difficult to believe conservatives would allow a socialist to spend an addition 19 trillion dollars, or an inept former secretary of state to continue the policies of a failed presidency, just so they wouldn't have to hold their nose and vote for someone they feel isn't the best choice.  In this context, their choice can only be considered selfish and illogical.

After 8 years of progressive liberalism that has polarized the country, forced us into a recession that is frustratingly slow to recover, brought us gay marriage, Obamacare, open borders, increasing entitlements, and so many other negatives, the thought of another 4 years could be catastrophic.  Three supreme court justices may be nominated during this term, and tip the precarious balance toward activist unconstitutional rulings for the next generation.

The stakes are high. This is no time for childish behavior.