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.