text:
March 8, 2018 — buckeyerino
Oh no! A trade war! It will hit consumers! It will make investors nervous! Foreign nations will become our enemies! The damage we do to ourselves will be worse than we do to importers of competing products!
The sky is falling!
The sky will fall eventually, but not on account of this tariff.
It is so funny to hear MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and other media outlets sounding alarms practically in unison. I am beginning to think that all the media are becoming contrarians. If Trump says something decidedly unambiguous, then the right thing for any media outlet to do is oppose it, just on principle.
If you look at the stuff I've written about Trump in the run-up to the 2016 elections, then you know I supported candidates other than Trump in the primaries and urged voters to consider all the presidential candidates, not just Trump and Clinton, when voting in the general election. I distrusted Trump at the outset just by the fact that he is a casino tycoon (I have always opposed gambling). I have not written of Trump in flattering terms.
There are many troubling things that could topple our nation and the world. The financial system was not fixed by the 2008 bailouts. The bad actors in the financial sector implicated in that meltdown fiasco are still there, right? There will still be a huge financial disaster in our future. Count on it. Prepare your families for it.
But this tariff? In the bigger scheme of things, this is no big deal.
Trump is right. Steel and aluminum are strategic industries. If worse comes to worst, our nation does not want to be in a position of having outsourced all of our steel and aluminum production.
Also, those who insist that the government, by imposing tariffs, is picking winners and losers in what is supposed to be a free marketplace need to acknowledge that these proposed tariffs are small potatoes compared to many of the other government interventions in our economy that have distorted the marketplace. Consider the health care insurance industry, for example, and the lobbyist-bought legislation at state and federal levels that have led to a captive marketplace. Consider the telecommunications giants, especially ISPs, cable TV systems, and cell phone companies and the terrible, even predatory, customer "service" they provide because they do not fear new start-ups entering the marketplace in their industries. Lobbyist-bought legislation and executive branch administrative code regulation at state and federal levels has pretty much guaranteed that Comcast, CenturyLink, Time Warner, and their ilk will never be dislodged from atop the heap, no matter how deeply dissatisfied customers become. Obviously, the financial industry does not operate on a level playing field. We all saw that with the undeserved bailouts in 2008 of financial companies deemed "too big to fail."
Sure, a tariff my cause jitters on Wall Street. Free trade ideologues will denounce protectionism. But the government's most insidious protectionism is not embodied in these tariffs. The government is very protectionist when it comes to Wall Street.
Remember why Trump won the election? He flipped several states in the Great Lakes region from blue to red–Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin–in addition to carrying purple states like Ohio. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio all have robust Democrat Party organizations, but rank-and-file Democrats stopped taking marching orders from East Coast and West Coast elites within their party. The #MeToo movement has finally addressed some of the West Coast hypocrisies that sowed distrust among Midwest Democrats. The East Coast enjoys the protectionism of the federal government. The East Coast elites and West Coast elites atop the Democrat Party do not share as much common ground with Midwest Democrats as they used to.
The coastal elites drive foreign cars. On the roads of the Midwest, the concentration of American-branded cars is much greater than on the coasts. Midwest Democrats are faced with bread-and-butter issues that the elites do not face. Sales of American-branded cars put food on the tables in the Midwest. Why don't the coastal elites care whether Midwesterners have food on their tables? With all their wealth, why do they buy so many imports?
The coastal elites want to create sanctuary cities in the exact same locations where the minimum wage is being boosted to $15 an hour. The reason undocumented immigrants are shielded in the cities with high minimum wages is obvious to the average Midwesterner. The undocumented immigrants are being exploited–paid under the table at less than minimum wage–to create a mirage that steep minimum wage hikes are actually viable. "Who will scrub your toilets?" asked a celebrity–one I will not name here–in defense of encouraging undocumented immigration. In the Midwest, we scrub our own toilets. I, myself, worked as a hotel housekeeper and laundry attendant back in the day. I also worked agricultural jobs like picking strawberries in the summertime. But I scrubbed toilets and labored in farm fields in Ohio, not California. I am a white male, not an undocumented immigrant. Midwesterners WILL DO and HAVE DONE the kind of work that the coastal elites say that we are unwilling to do, but Midwesterners do not like competing with exploited workers being paid under the table. If there were no undocumented workers, employers would have to pay more for toilet-scrubbing workers' wages. The presence of an exploited undocumented class of workers totally undercuts any organic efforts at improving compensation for toilet-scrubbing work. Raising the minimum wage is not organic–it's artificial. And when raising the minimum wage occurs artificially at the same time that undocumented immigration is encouraged, then that only persuades employers to bypass the minimum wage and exploit undocumented workers for toilet-scrubbing duties. The Midwest does not want this coastal trend to infiltrate the Midwest, but that infiltration has already gained a foothold.
The steel and aluminum tariffs, if they pan out, will mostly aid the midsection of the country. Why should the midsection of the country be worried that Wall Street does not approve? The midsection of the country did not approve of Wall Street bailouts, but had to swallow them anyway. The tariffs would hardly turn the tables on the status quo, but it's a start. To the Midwest voter, Clinton was status quo and Trump was the only hope at turning the tables. One might further qualify that Midwest voter as being Midwest white voter due to the strong preference for Clinton among nonwhite voters, but one also has to acknowledge that the nonwhite voter turnout in 2016 did not measure up to nonwhite voter turnout in the prior two presidential election cycles, suggesting the coastal elites may have lost some ground there, too.
So the protests against the tariffs are loudest along the coasts. The Midwest does not have a problem with that.
In the GOP presidential primaries of 1996 and 2000, I voted for Alan Keyes. He was an ambassador, so he has some sense of international consequences of domestic policies. In terms of taxation, Alan Keyes favored tariffs over income taxes. Our nation's founders levied tariffs. They did not tax personal income. The US Constitution had to be amended to even allow for income taxes. Keyes made a very persuasive case that the national government should be leveraging trade for generating government revenue, and that income taxes erode the sovereignty of the people of this nation. I do not fear tariffs.
As for trade wars, they might be scary with another president at the helm, but I have to acknowledge that Trump is not your usual president. In fact, Trump has a level of expertise in negotiating deals that other presidents have not possessed. I actually feel quite confident in Trump's capabilities in the trade arena. There are things Trump is terrible at and there are things that Trump is good at. This is something Trump could excel at. I'm on board with the tariffs.
Posted in Donald Trump (R), economy, executive branch, industry, International Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, taxes, trade, Wall Street. Tags: aluminum, consumers, Donald Trump (R), economics, economy, industry, investors, prices, steel, tariff. Leave a Comment »
October 12, 2016 — buckeyerino
Early voting for the general election of November 2016 has begun.
Dear readers, especially Ohio registered voters, it is time to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, as we do every four years. The early voting period has begun. There is no reason to push voting off until the last minute, if you've done your homework and investigated the candidates and issues appearing on the ballots.
There are more than two political parties.
Oh, maybe you're holding off on voting until all the "October surprises" have been revealed. If you are, then you are probably still entertaining thoughts about voting for the Trump/Pence Republican ticket or the Clinton/Kaine Democrat ticket. I'm not. I'm so done with both of them. To be fair, I do think that Trump is wholly justified in remaining at the top of the Republican ticket. He won the party nomination fair and square. Fortunately, in our nation, we don't have to vote for a party slate. We can vote for individual candidates on an a la carte basis. Our voting system is so much better than the parliamentary elections held in so many other parts of the world. Also, the media tries to rigidly uphold the two-party system (Democrat and Republican) in the United States; but the truth is, there are more candidates to choose from than just Trump or Clinton. I'm glad of that. If I could only vote between the two of them, I would pull the lever for Trump, but I'm so happy that I don't have to (and I won't).
Your ballot will list more candidates for president than just Trump and Clinton.
Ohio's ballot also lists Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka as Green Party POTUS and VPOTUS candidates, Richard Duncan and Ricky Johnson as independent POTUS and VPOTUS candidates, and Gary Johnson and William Weld as Libertarian POTUS and VPOTUS candidates. Maybe you're thinking, "those other candidates are nobodies who couldn't possibly be experienced/skillful/prepared/savvy/qualified enough to be President," but, if so, you may be mistaken. For example, the Libertarian ticket–Johnson and Weld–features POTUS and VPOTUS candidates who have both been state governors. So I would urge voters to take more than a cursory glance at independent and minor party candidates this election cycle. You may find candidates among them that are superior to the ones that the two major parties have nominated.
Also, there are POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that you are able to vote for who are not listed on the ballot.
I'm talking about write-in candidates. You can only vote for one pair of POTUS/VPOTUS candidates, so if you intend to vote for a write in, you have to make sure you didn't inadvertently cast votes for one of the pairs already listed on the ballot. A word of advice: Don't just write "none of the above" as a protest write-in vote. It won't get counted. In order for a write-in vote to be counted, you must write in the name of a candidate who actually met the qualifications to be a write-in candidate as determined by the office of the Ohio Secretary of State. Please be aware that the workers at the polls are partisan (equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans at each voting location, ideally), so they have no interest in volunteering information about write-in candidates. If you directly ask them for a list of the names of qualified write-in candidates, then I think they would be obliged to respond, but you would be better off if you did this homework in advance and examined the write-in candidate list ahead of your visit to your polling place. This year, the POTUS and VPOTUS ticket I am voting for is among the qualified write-ins. Here is Ohio's list of qualified POTUS/VPOTUS write-in candidates for the November 2016 general election (POTUS candidate's name of each write-in ticket appears to the left of each "/" with VPOTUS candidate's name of each ticket appears after each "/"):
James Jerome Bell/Scheem Milton Hempstead
Michael Bickelmeyer/Robert Young
Darrell L. Castle/Scott N. Bradley
Cherunda Fox/Roger Kushner
Ben Hartnell/Dave Marshall
Tom Hoefling/Steve Schulin
Bruce E. Jaynes/Roger W. Stewart
Chris Keniston/Deacon Taylor
Barry Kirschner/Rick Menefield
Laurence Kotlikoff/Edward Leamer
Joseph Maldonado/Douglas Terranova
Michael Andrew Maturen/Juan Antonio Munoz
Evan McMullin/Nathan Johnson
Monica Moorehead/Lamont Lilly
Joe Schriner/Joe Moreaux
Mike Smith/Daniel White
Josiah R. Stroh/Paul Callahan
Douglas W. Thomson/Thomas A. Ducro, Jr.
Notice that the list of write-in candidates does not include any mention of party affiliations. This does not mean that all of these tickets have no affiliations to political parties. The Darrell L. Castle/Scott N. Bradley ticket, for example, is actually affiliated with the Constitution Party . . . a political party that some Tea Party voters might take an interest in due to shared notions of limited government and close adherence to the U.S. Constitution, yet more tolerant of the rule of law than, say, a number of Libertarians that might feel a little too restricted by laws in general. On the other hand, the Evan McMullin/Nathan Johnson ticket is an independent ticket, for McMullin has cast aside his former affiliation with the Republicans from the time he served as a Congressional aide. As far as McMullin, a former CIA operative, is concerned, if Trump personifies what the Republican Party currently stands for, then McMullin wants to make a clean break with that. So feel free to google and research the candidates listed here. If you find your favorite POTUS/VPOTUS ticket among the qualified write-ins, then I recommend you jot down your selection in a little note to yourself to take with you to your polling location to make it easier to cast your write-in vote.
No, you're not throwing your vote away if you vote for a ticket other than a major party ticket.
As long as you are casting your vote for an eligible candidate of your liking, your vote will be counted and it will have an impact. How large of an impact? I don't know. We'll have to see how the future unfolds. In my opinion, in this election year, we may begin to see some movement to break the stranglehold that the two major political parties have on our government, since the Dem and Rep nominees for prez this time around are not so popular. Or, perhaps the Republicans and Democrats may remain dominant, but undertake reforms if they perceive that they are each becoming too unpalatable to the U.S. electorate. If they reform, or if there is any other shake-up on the horizon, votes for candidates from outside the two major parties may very well influence those political shifts. Especially if you are unhappy with the direction that the nation is headed in, don't stay home. Vote.
Posted in 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, Republican Party. Tags: 2016 presidential campaign, Ajamu Baraka, Barry Kirschner, Ben Hartnell, Bruce E. Jaynes, Cherunda Fox, Chris Keniston, Daniel White, Darrell L. Castle, Dave Marshall, Deacon Taylor, Donald Trump (R), Douglas Terranova, Douglas W. Thompson, Edward Leamer, elections, Evan McMullin, executive branch, Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton (D), James Jerome Bell, Jill Stein, Joe Moreaux, Joe Schriner, Joseph Maldonado, Josiah R. Stroh, Juan Antonio Munoz, Lamont Lilly, Laurence Kotlikoff, Michael Andrew Maturen, Michael Bickelmeyer, Mike Pence (R), Mike Smith, Monica Moorehead, Nathan Johnson, National Politics, Ohio, Paul Callahan, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, Richard Duncan, Rick Menefield, Ricky Johnson, Robert Young, Roger Kusher, Roger W. Stewart, Scheem Milton Hempstead, Scott N. Bradley, State Politics, Steve Schulin, Thomas A. Ducro Jr., Tim Kaine (D), Tom Hoefling, voting, William Weld. Leave a Comment »
Syria is a place where the Islamic State thrives but where the USA has been unwilling to go. There are even rumblings, purportedly from Foreign Service officers, that the USA ought to change strategies in Syria, including ousting Assad as ruler of Syria along with taking the fight to the Islamic State. VP Biden has said that we don't dare do that because no one has a crystal ball to show how such a story would end. It could end quite badly, with a failed state (chaos) in a strategic location. Nonetheless, with the Islamic State taking credit for violence in Bangladesh overnight, and an airport bombing in Istanbul just a couple of days ago, and a mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub, on top of still-seared-in-our-memory attacks in Brussels, San Bernadino, and Paris, the USA's actions against the Islamic State confined to just Iraqi territory, do not appear to be bringing an end to the terror. Russia has taken some actions against terrorists on Syrian soil, but Russia is also interested in protecting Assad, a useful pawn, just as Iran has, for many decades, been a useful proxy for Russia.
I ran across a video clip from MSNBC's Morning Joe on Friday, July 1, 2016 wherein the pundits just acted bewildered over the Obama administration's ineptitude in countering the Islamic State. The plan appears to be to leave all Syrian-territory campaigns against the Islamic State in the hands of the Assad government (which is allied with and militarily aided by Russia and Iran). The pundits on Morning Joe, in their bewilderment, surmise that the Obama administration is too risk-averse to do what needs to be done in Syria: Extinguish the Islamic Stand and depose Assad.
Click the following to open up the Morning Joe segment referenced above:
http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_mj_burns_160701
I'm not at all bewildered. Russia has all the leverage. They are blackmailing the Obama administration. How do I deduce that? I think if I just connect a couple of dots for you, I think you'll be able to connect them with other dots so that you can see a bigger picture emerging.
When Syria crossed the red line of using chemical weapons, instead of punishing Assad, Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated with the Assad regime so that chemical weapons would be dismantled. This is a clear signal that the USA did not envision anyone leading an independent Syria other than Assad. So, despite the various factions jockeying for power in Syria, and despite the fact that we may feel sympathetic to one or more of the factions fighting to topple Assad, Kerry's agreement reached with Assad underlines that the Obama administration will not seek regime change in Syria. I am not surprised by this. As for the reason why I am not surprised at this stance, it flows from a postmodern ideology (which I don't agree with). I don't plan on delving into the ideology in this blog post. It is sufficient to merely connect the dots to show Obama had no intention of toppling Assad or mobilizing our military in Syria.
But I will go further to say that not only does Obama have no intention of intervening in Syria, the Russians will make sure that Obama does not change his mind.
Remember that Clinton email server controversy? Oh, yeah! It's all over the news! The FBI has been investigating it! Right? But oftentimes, when key witnesses have been deposed, not only do the witnesses lawyer up as they head into these depositions, but the State Department and Justice Department have also, from time to time, sent their own lawyers. Why? To limit the scope of what questions the FBI asks. So, connect this dot. What does it mean when the State Department and the Justice Department (of which the FBI is a part!!!) see to it that the FBI inquiries are very narrow? It's one thing when questions go unanswered (and some witnesses have pled the 5th Amendment). We, the public, are only permitted transcripts, so even our window into whatever little answers there are is a very narrow window. It's entirely another thing when question after question that the FBI would like to ask is considered out-of-bounds. I say that the dots connected here are that the integrity of both the State Department and the Justice Department could be compromised if all questions could be asked and were answered. If all facts came to light, it would devastate more than just Hillary Clinton. State and Justice have skin in the game.
Hillary Clinton, for her part, wanted to be sure that any personal communications were to be safeguarded on the private server. Never mind the classified top secret government information, for concern over leakage of that would be secondary to leakage over Clinton's personal communications.
The mainstream media, for the most part, have been downplaying the Clinton's private email server as a mistake. The server could have been successfully hacked, but we don't know that, so says the MSM. So as long as we don't know if the server was hacked, this mistake is forgivable and no harm has been done?
What if, on the other hand, the server was successfully hacked and Russia possesses ALL of the information that was on it, not just the top secret classified stuff, which might include troubling info about State and Justice, but Hillary's personal stuff, too. Since the Reagan administration, the Bush family, the Clinton family, and the Obama family have safeguarded each other's White House secrets. Though Republican voters had very little interest in a Jeb Bush POTUS candidacy, I think the Obamas and the Clintons were very much depending on a Bush nomination. If Bush had been the presumptive nominee, his interest would have probably been confined to winning, not exposing Clinton or Obama, for they could expose two former Bush presidents. If Russia possessed ALL of that information, Bush would probably suppress as much of the information as he could. The mood of the electorate, though, has been for outsiders to oust the insiders. If we, the voters, could trade places with an "outsider" candidate, like Trump, and we, as the outsider candidate, became dimly aware that the Russians possessed ALL of that information, would we want it? Somewhere in that information that Russia would have is something that is "Kryptonite" to not only Hillary, but to the Justice Department, and to the State Department, for that's what we can infer by all the lawyering up and the narrow limits placed upon the FBI inquiries. So, if we as the outsider candidate, were aware that records exist of scandal and corruption, would we, unlike a Jeb Bush, have an appetite to expose it? Such a scenario, then, would strengthen the hand of the Russians, for Clinton and Obama are in a more precarious situation than if they were running against Jeb.
The only way to wipe out the Islamic State is to get Russia and Iran to do it, for the Assad regime is not powerful enough to repel the Islamic State, nor will Russia allow anyone to interfere with Assad or Iran. They have blackmailed the Obama administration with all that they know about our government's corruption and scandals at the highest levels. Obama cannot change course on Syria even if he wanted to (but he doesn't).
How bad could the corruption, the scandals, possibly be? For now, I leave those dots for you, the readers, to connect. You've been hearing bits and pieces of things, haven't you?
By the way, Saudi Arabia: For all the influence that you think you bought by donating to the Clinton Global Initiative, you are not as protected from Iran as you think you are. Russia poses an existential threat to Clintonian power, so that means Iran has more leverage than you.
Posted in 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, Hillary Clinton (D), International Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, terrorism, Uncategorized. Tags: Barack Obama (D), Bashar al-Assad, Daniel Jack Williamson, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, FBI, Hillary Clinton (D), International Politics, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Jeb Bush (R), Joe Biden (D), John Kerry (D), National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, terrorism, US Department of Justice, US Department of State. 3 Comments »
A common theme appearing in coming-of-age tales is one of a youth who becomes disenchanted with a hero. The youth discovers the hero has flaws. The youth becomes a bit cynical. The youth feels disillusioned. The youth doesn't look at the hero the same way again. It's just a part of growing up.
But then one is not all the way grown up at that point. One has to grow up a little bit more and not only be forgiving of flaws, but giving permission to others to be flawed. Why? Because no one is perfect and because no one ought to coerce another to give up their flaws. We have to respect agency–people making choices about their own lives . . . and if someone doesn't make any wrong choices, then that somebody isn't making choices, period. Furthermore, one only has to look in the mirror to find a person who needs forgiveness for being flawed, for making wrong choices.
So as I reflect on the passing of George Voinovich and what George Voinovich meant to me, I have to own up to making a hero out of him. By September 2009, I was disenchanted. Now, I find my criticisms a bit harsh and now I find myself wondering why I didn't try to muster some forgiveness sooner. I need to look in my mirror and take a good long look at a flawed person again to cement in my mind the need for forgiveness.
I first remember Voinovich from my boyhood, when he was mayor of Cleveland. He performed two miracles. One was getting elected as mayor of Cleveland as a Republican. That he had been a Cuyahoga County commissioner some time prior to that was amazing enough, but Cleveland mayor? Republicans just don't get elected as Cleveland mayors. It just doesn't happen. At least, not anymore. There have been mayoral elections in Cleveland where Democrat primaries settled the mayoral races. The other was that he led a Cleveland economic renaissance immediately after his predecessor, Dennis Kucinich, had led the city to financial default. If only Detroit could have been so lucky as to have a person like Voinovich take over as mayor after Kwame Kilpatrick was ousted.
He went on to be Ohio's governor, and then U.S. Senator. He was the rare Republican who could sweep the vote across 88 counties.
One of the issues that I really felt close to Voinovich on was his opposition to casino gambling. His steadfast stance on the issue was perhaps the main reason I lionized him. The casino lobbyists had infested Ohio by the swarms, targeting weak and corrupt legislators of both parties. The lobbyists kept saying that casino legalization would be an easy revenue raiser. Voinovich had brought Cleveland back from financial default without resorting to gimmicks like gambling. The lobbyists were doling out campaign contributions left and right, but Voinovich wasn't having any of it. It's refreshing to see politicians who will not be bought by the agents of sleaze.
I really feel like Voinovich's star shone brightest when he held executive office. Not so much legislative office. He was better at on-the-spot and uncompromising executive decisions than the highly deliberative and compromising legislative decisions.
My first taste of government service came as a volunteer intern in the office of Governor George Voinovich. Though my tasks were menial clerical ones, I felt like I had an excellent aerial view of Ohio's political landscape from atop the Vern Riffe State Office Tower. I assisted with the filing of the "Governor's Clips." Each day, staffers combed through the print media to assemble a digest of the day's political stories. This digest kept the governor informed about the issues without occupying too much of his time. This was back in the day before internet killed print media, and back when filing cabinets held paper files rather than computers holding data files. After the governor read each day's clips, that wasn't the end of them. They had to be filed for possible future retrieval. They had to be filed according to date, according to source, according to location, according to the names of people in the news clips, according to issues, etc. I do that on this blog with tags. With paper files, tags don't quite cut it. The date, location, and source filing was easy. That was done by others before I even arrived at the office. My task was to skim through the stories, themselves, to pull out the keywords, then make as many photocopies of the clipping as I needed in order to file away each story according to each keyword.
Working with the "Governor's Clips" gave me a brief glimpse into my political future when I encountered an article outlining a state legislator's gambling expansion proposals: Some guy named Joe Koziura wanted a casino built on Lorain's lakefront. I was incensed. Years later, in 2002 and 2004, I would run against that same Joe Koziura for the office of state representative, but lose both times.
Until 2009, I had voted for Voinovich every time his name appeared on my ballot. I had handed out his campaign literature door-to-door. I had attended some of his fundraisers (which meant that some of his campaign money came from me). I had also worked phone banks getting out the vote on his behalf. But the chinks in my hero's armor had begun to show. Congress bailed out Wall Street in 2008, something it should not have done. I didn't understand Voinovich's voting patterns. When I finally paid a visit to the offices of the U.S. Senate in Washington, DC, I figured it out. Those office buildings, especially the Hart Senate Building, resembled palaces. Democracy gives way to aristocracy in the rarefied air of these Senate offices. It was the Beltway Bubble. Our Senators are too far removed from the real world, and even a man as principled as George Voinovich succumbed to the disengagement with the real world.
In the upcoming Senate race, I have no love for Ted Strickland, who reneged on his pledge against the expansion of gambling on his watch as Ohio governor. Voinovich and Strickland had touched base on the topic of casinos, and Strickland had told Voinovich that he would hold the line against them. He lied. He lied to George Voinovich. He lied to Ohio. Strickland doesn't deserve Ohio's vote. I here and now endorse Rob Portman for reelection. However, I would note that Portman has been around DC for far too long. Between a stint in the US House, and a stint in the US Senate, Portman served in the George W. Bush administration. I would urge Portman to (get reelected and) use this upcoming Senate term to groom someone else to succeed him. Make that two someone elses, for we need someone to oust and succeed Sherrod Brown, too. And I would say that we need more diverse representation than what we've had. Portman has had "listening" tours around Ohio so that he feels like he hears from folks outside the bubble, but I would say to Portman that, at some point, before he serves any additional terms in DC beyond the next one, that he needs to BE one of the folks from outside the bubble if he's to remain useful as a representative of Ohioans. This is what I learned about the bubble on my trip to DC. Even a hero like Voinovich could not make sound decisions after spending too much time in the DC bubble.
Farewell, George Voinovich. We didn't end up with quite the Ohio that we wanted. Four casinos are legal in Ohio now. The lobbyists wouldn't be denied. But as long as you were in the real world with us, outside of that bubble, no lobbyist could cross your conscience. We need a government with a conscience. Badly. And so I should have forgiven you a long time ago. I do forgive you.
Posted in endorsement, executive branch, gambling, legislative branch, Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: Cleveland, Congress, Cuyahoga County, Daniel Jack Williamson, Dennis Kucinich (D), gambling, George Voinovich (R), Joe Koziura (D), Ohio, Rob Portman (R), Ted Strickland (D). Leave a Comment »
June 6, 2016 — buckeyerino
If you've been reading Buckeye RINO since its inception, then you probably know how I feel about the gambling industry. I'm totally against it. I'm even against state lotteries. I don't even play bingo or buy raffle tickets . . . even for charity. If I feel like contributing money to a charity, I'll do it as a straight up donation rather than as an entry into a game of chance. I've written many times about how the gambling industry is a fraud industry. All the marketing for gambling tells you that you have chances to win. The truth is, the house always wins. This means, in the aggregate, gamblers lose. Right now the media is fixated on the fraud that was Trump University. It would be helpful if the media would also fixate on the even bigger fraud that the gambling industry perpetrates. Hey media! . . . want to go after Trump University? Fine. How about going after Trump casinos, too? How about going after all the casinos no matter who they're owned by? After all, the more money consumers spend on gambling, the less money they have for anything worthwhile. Gambling redistributes wealth in the wrong direction. Gambling feeds economic contraction. Gambling compromises law enforcement, especially casinos, for casinos are used for money laundering. The sad tales of those few consumers who complained about the value of their education at Trump University pale in comparison to the sad tales of those who have lost so much more at casinos. Leave it to the media to strain at gnats and swallow camels.
Why should we be surprised that Trump cannot admit that Trump University is a fraud? Why should we be astonished that Trump lashed out at a judge, any judge, for releasing information about suits being pursued against Trump University? Casino owners would never admit that they perpetrate fraud and that an important part of their business is laundering money. Deflect, deflect, deflect. Trump has called into question the bias of the judge because of the judge's Mexican heritage. Guess what? If the judge had been a white Presbyterian New York Republican male, like Trump, the strategy would still have been to deflect, deflect, deflect. The demographic background of the judge wouldn't have saved any judge from Trump's attacks so long as the judge did something that met with Trump's disapproval. Remember that casino owners are special people with special rights. Casino owners are entitled to more than the average citizen. When it comes to public servants such as judges and legislators, casino owners view them with contempt because either they are contemptible because they can be bought or they are contemptible because they can't be bought. Gambling buys politicians. Remember why Trump has donated to Hillary Clinton in the past? Because Trump buys all the politicians that he can. He finds that contemptible. Trump self-funded his primary campaign to show that he could not be bought like Hillary. But then there are other public servants, like the judge in this Trump University case, who can't be bought or persuaded, who, since they stand in Trump's way, they are also to be treated with contempt.
What is novel about this election cycle is that casino owners in the past were donors to political campaigns. They weren't politicians, themselves. Donald Trump is now a politician. He's on the ballot. A casino owner's business is a sleazy one, which makes running for office quite a dicey proposition, as it's hard to dismiss the sleaze factor when the political opposition puts a target on one's back. I think the fact that Hillary Clinton was anointed as the inevitable Democrat nominee emboldened Trump to run. I think if the undisputed Democrat frontrunner were trustworthy, ethical, and incorruptible, Trump would have stayed away from the presidential race.
My disparagement of Trump should not be mistaken for support for Clinton. I believe Ambassador Stevens is dead because someone in the administration wanted him dead. The terrorists who took him out in Benghazi acted on information. Clinton didn't safeguard information. I find it telling that at a Cheryl Mills deposition (Mills being a chief operative of Hillary Clinton's), not only did Mills have three attorneys there to help her navigate the interrogation, there were also two attorneys for the State department and two attorneys for the Justice department, meaning that a lot hinged upon what was permitted to be asked and how minimal the responses needed to be. In other words, if Cheryl Mills had been inclined to freely answer truthfully about every last detail, the integrity of the State department and the integrity of the Justice department would have been impugned just as much as the integrity of Hillary Clinton. Mills had to walk a tightrope. She wanted to keep all of the information to herself, but she had to make at least a minimal effort to appear that she was cooperating. We've only been given transcripts of the deposition, for the judge agreed that video would have been too politically damaging to the Clinton campaign. The State department is putting on a charade that they are cooperating. They allowed the inspector general report to come out (but if State were really on top of things, they would have had an inspector general in office throughout Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, but, instead, there was never an inspector general at State for the whole of Clinton's tenure there). The Justice department is putting on a charade by conducting an investigation (but if the FBI, a branch of Justice, is doing the questioning, why were two lawyers from Justice present to make certain that the FBI's inquiries were limited and make certain that Mill's responses were also limited?). Just now, the media is starting to learn that archived footage and transcripts of official press conferences at the White House and at State have been doctored so that future historians would only able to cobble together a revised history. I think Ambassador Stevens was the type of person who personally understood shady things were going on and also personally disliked that he had to put up with them. I think someone in the Obama administration figured that they'd rather have a dead Ambassador Stevens than a whistleblower Ambassador Stevens. I think Edward Snowden is convinced that the Obama administration would have preferred a dead Edward Snowden than a whistleblower Edward Snowden, because Snowden didn't blow the whistle until he was safely away. I think if Hillary Clinton is elected to office, the corruption of the federal government will only worsen. We've seen the IRS politicized, the FBI politicized, the State department politicized; and the list will go on.
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton; I guarantee that. I'm hoping that Bernie Sanders will succeed in his quest to wrest the Democrat nomination away from Hillary. I also don't plan to vote for Trump, though I see a silver lining if he were to be elected (a shake-up of the establishment). Especially if there's no Bernie in the equation (but maybe even if there is), I will probably vote for a minor party candidate, which is not unprecedented for me. I vote my conscience.
Posted in 2016 presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders (D), Donald Trump (R), executive branch, gambling, Hillary Clinton (D), International Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS. Tags: 2016 presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders (D), Daniel Jack Williamson, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, gambling, Hillary Clinton (D), International Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS. Leave a Comment »
May 29, 2016 — buckeyerino
Editor's note: James Williamson is a native and former resident of Ohio who currently lives in Nevada. He is also one of the brothers of yours truly, Daniel Jack Williamson, the owner of this blog. He has written many other guest blog articles for Buckeye RINO, and for that, I am grateful. –DJW
The Disruptor of the Disruptors
Following announcements by Ted Cruz and John Kasich that they have suspended their campaigns [and with the unofficial delegate count for Trump exceeding the 50% mark before reaching the end of May], it appears that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee. Much to the chagrin of the Republican old guard they are going to get a candidate that broke all the rules (never ran for office before, didn't spend large sums of cash in the primary, ignored political correctness… … … … list goes on) as the de facto leader of their party. You might call it a coup. You might call it a collapse. Many are heralding the end of the Republican party. I don't think it's any of those.
I've read numerous op-eds by pundits that Trump became the presumptive nominee because no one took him seriously. What precisely do they mean by "taking him seriously?" Are they suggesting that they weren't trying hard enough to get the public's attention early on in the race? All the Republican candidates were trying to get media attention and Trump sucked all the oxygen out of the room. I think they all knew that even if they thought his ideas were a joke they could not ignore his persona. Trump has spent the last 40 years in front of a camera and he knows how to get attention. I don't think they underestimated him there. I think the operative word here is frustration.
Maybe they are suggesting the other candidates should have spent more money? Some of the candidates spent much more money than Trump (most notably Jeb Bush before he bowed out) to no avail. Apparently money can't buy what Trump has to offer. Or perhaps, Trump recognized that people really don't want to see political ads for 18 months straight? Maybe Trump will start a new trend in politics: Save your money early in the campaign. Even though Trump spent very little money I don't think that was a factor in the other candidates taking him seriously.
Perhaps what these pundits mean is that they should have attacked Trump more? If negative attacks would be effective on Trump he would probably get more of them. Unfortunately that is the name of Trump's game. Even Hillary Clinton learned the hard way that Trump has an amazing ability to take a negative statement and turn it on you. (Remember what happened when she said he was sexist?) I'm not sure what taking Trump seriously would have done to change the other candidate's campaigns. Can someone help me here?
I'm also not sure how Hillary and company taking him seriously is going to make a difference.I read that Reid (who is obviously supporting Clinton) is already starting the criticism and gearing up for a fight. So what does he bring on in the first round of the fight? Trump is a sue happy tax cheat and a hater… You're going to have to come up with a better one than that Harry. Maybe you need to revisit what happened when Hillary called him sexist. If you did you'd be putting your armor on because if you get his attention you just might end up in the line of fire. Oh, and make sure you protect your whole body because Trump apparently doesn't have any issues with hitting below the belt….
I have a news flash for the Democrats: Negative attacks won't work, spending more money won't work, ideological arguments won't work, even charm won't work (if Hillary had any…).
Unfortunately for politicians you can change your views and you can change your rhetoric but you can't change who you are and that's what they would have to do to defeat Trump. People are voting for Trump because of who he is, but more importantly because of who he is not. He is not a career politician. He is not an apologist. He is not a sell-out (well so far…). He's not hiding who he is or what he believes (just changes his mind a lot). He's not a pushover and probably most important he's never been a resident of Washington DC.
I saw this coming late last year.The event that convinced me that he was going to be the nominee is when he suggested blocking all Muslim immigration and his numbers went up… his numbers went up!!!! Labeling him as a xenophobe has not worked at all. That's because I don't think he is a xenophobe. I think what is happening here is that Trump is the only one who is listening to the key swing voter constituents that are going to decide the elections. Yes, you heard that right: Trump is the only one listening. Cruz appealed to his base, not swing voters. Sanders is doing the same. Hillary is making an appeal but with the media in her back pocket she is still thinking she can shape public opinion rather than listen to it.
Let's analyze this for a minute. What has the public liked about Trump? Well, they actually like the idea that he wants to slow down immigration and more thoroughly vet immigrants. I don't think he ever intended to keep them all out and of course he won't but the bluster and outrageous promises are his style. I think that for him it's not important to be precise in what you say but to show passion when you say it. It really seems to be resonating with rust belt voters in particular. Contrast this with the open door policy of the Democrats and even some of the Republican field. The candidates think they are being reasonable but what the public hears is: "We don't care what you think!"
The public also likes it when Trump talks economics. Why? Because he, and only he, is articulating many of their frustrations. Decrying rising cost of health care, part time work, stagnant wages, dwindling manufacturing resonates with voters in key states like Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Obama is crowing about how wonderful things are and Hillary has to follow in that wake because she is, after all, the heir apparent. Voters don't like to be told that everything is rosy when they think it's not. Message to voters: "We don't have a clue what is really going on."
The last area that Trump is strong on is his America first slogan. Even I'm on the bandwagon there. Bad trade agreements, half-committed involvement in foreign conflicts, offering protection to everyone without getting reimbursement, apologizing for our history, and squandering our hegemony on goals that don't further America's best interests have been the fruits of several administrations now and Americans don't like it. In particular I think that Trump's message on national security resonates with voters. It's closely related to the issue of immigration. While I certainly don't advocate starting wars going around publicly announcing you aren't willing to get involved in one is precisely the sort of thing that invites it. I think the average American knows this and they get nervous when they hear the doves saying we need to show more love and compassion toward antagonistic nations. Message to voters: "We'll still be spouting rhetoric while the country burns, just like France in WWII."
While I certainly believe that war should be avoided, what good does a military do if it's never an option? How is a nuclear weapon a deterrent if the enemy knows you will never use it? I think Reagan proved that being willing is often all that it takes. Jimmy Carter couldn't get Iran to release hostages because they were certain he wouldn't send troops in after them. They weren't sure that Ronald Reagan wouldn't. History is rife with similar situations. Unfortunately for us, while our "leaders" have forgotten history the Russians have been learning from it. They are running amok because they know the current administration won't do anything serious. That may change if Donald Trump becomes president. He said in his America First speech that we need to be more "unpredictable." Yes, I believe Trump is a poker player. He knows that showing all your cards up front doesn't help you win. After all that's what America really wants right now: a winner. Right or wrong I think that there are enough people in the country now that believe that Trump is the winner they are looking for. Can you say, "President Trump"?
Posted in 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, guest blog, Harry Reid (D), Hillary Clinton (D), International Politics, John Kasich (R), National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, Republican Party, Ted Cruz (R). Tags: 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, Harry Reid (D), Hillary Clinton (D), International Politics, James Williamson, John Kasich (R), National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, Republican Party, Ted Cruz (R). 1 Comment »
March 11, 2016 — buckeyerino
The heyday of this blog was a few years ago when I had my hands less full of things to do, thus more time to write. I don't post new blog articles as much as I used to. Imagine my surprise to see that my blog traffic is actually on the rise despite my relative silence. I guess people are really, really, really interested in the elections this cycle. When I look to see what is driving traffic to Buckeye RINO, I see people are digging up my endorsements in past election cycles, particularly in races lower on the ballot than the race for POTUS. I'm sorry all you readers who came to Buckeye RINO only to find news about years past and very little about this year.
For this primary election, the only local endorsement I'll make is that I support Michele Silva Arredondo for Lorain County Common Pleas Court judge on the GOP ballot. I'll remain silent on all the other local and state races.
In the GOP race for POTUS, I endorse John Kasich, and in the Democrat race, I endorse Bernie Sanders.
I've been hesistant to endorse a GOP candidate for U.S. President. In a blog article much earlier on in this election cycle, I chronicled how no candidate in either party excited me, and this is still the case. It seemed to me, on the GOP side, that as soon as I pick a favorite, my favorite drops out and then I have to search out another favorite, so I hope my endorsement, at this date, is not the kiss of death for John Kasich. For a while, I favored Bobby Jindal, then Rand Paul, then Carly Fiorina, then Ben Carson. Each has exited the stage.
I've had some beefs with Kasich. If you dig through Buckeye RINO, you'll see some of my criticisms. But when I reflect upon my biggest disagreements with Kasich as governor, a number of those disagreements are about education. Education is a big issue when one is governor, but there are bigger fish to fry as President of the United States, one of which is the national debt that has our nation perched atop a crumbling economic precipice. Kasich balances budgets. Yes, it took government shutdowns during the Clinton administration to force the White House to accept the budgets, but it stuck. Ted Cruz has caused government shutdowns in the name of good fiscal policy, too, but Cruz doesn't know how to remain friends within his own caucus. With Kasich's government shutdowns, his colleagues were still his friends, which means that Kasich is better poised to identify a Congressional coalition that will help him govern as U.S. President.
Cruz actually made me angry when his staff pulled a stunt during the Iowa caucuses claiming that Ben Carson was dropping out. Cruz operatives apparently pulled the same stunt this past Tuesday in Hawaii at the expense of Marco Rubio. In these and other instances of dirty tricks, Cruz was very lawyerly in defending his campaign. How Clintonesque. What a turnoff.
See the little search window at the top of the left sidebar on Buckeye RINO? If you type in the search term "gambling," you'll see that I despise gambling. Trump, being the casino tycoon that he is, wasn't likely to get my nod for nominee, anyway. Also, I have decried religious intolerance before, so when both Cruz and Trump harp on and on against Muslims, they are not winning any points with me. As for the flap about Trump somehow being in cahoots with the KKK, I think that's all manufactured by the desperate. I fail to see past Trump conduct that fits with this seemingly manufactured narrative. If I see conduct from Trump in the future that smacks of racism, I'd be happy to call it out, but I fail to see such a pattern thus far.
Marco Rubio has revealed himself to be a candidate of the donor class, not a candidate of the grassroots.
Having said all of that, in November, I'll vote for any of the Republicans over Hillary Clinton, should she be the Democrat nominee.
Democrat voters in 2008 made the right decision in nominating Barack Obama, notwithstanding I voted against him in November of 2008 and 2012. Yes, I disagree with much (but not all) that our current POTUS has done and is trying to do. Some have said he's the worst president in history, but I'd have to disagree. There've been worse. Hillary Clinton, had she won it all in 2008, would have been worse. Bernie Sanders would be a far more ethical, far less corrupt president than Hillary Clinton would.
DOJ politicized under Obama? You bet. IRS politicized under Obama? You bet. But while Obama claimed that the IRS was a phony scandal perpetrated by a bad actor or two with no connection to the White House, I could easily envision an emboldened President Hillary Clinton issuing a charge to the DOJ and the IRS to take down the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that menaces her and the country (or at least menaces her plans for the country). With Obama, there's denial. With Clinton, she'd be justifying it.
One may wonder: How can a right-of-center blogger favor Obama and Sanders over Clinton when they are further to the political left than Clinton? My reply would be that I sense that Hillary is capable of far more heinous treachery. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren is further to the left of Clinton, too, but if I had a choice between Warren and Clinton, I'd take Warren. As for Sanders' socialism, I would just note that the political pendulum swings back and forth. Socialism won't take firm root before it is out of vogue again. In the meantime, Sanders is more honest than our current president, more honest than many of the GOP candidates, and far more honest than Clinton. We could use some cleaning up of Beltway ethics, and I think Sanders could deliver on that front. Depending on the GOP nominee, there is a possibility I could vote for Sanders in November if he were the Democrat nominee. It depends on how dirty politics looks by then and how squeaky-clean Sanders looks by comparison when election time draws near.
A Sanders presidency may clean up corruption, whereas a Clinton presidency will maintain the status quo, letting the corruption continue. You can see it in the New Hampshire Democrat primary exit poll data that showed that it is the privileged Democrats who will benefit from a Clinton presidency. The only group of Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were those who thought the country was headed in the right direction, who were not worried about the economy, who had not felt betrayed by their government or their political party, and whose annual income exceeded $200,000. Voters in subsequent primaries and caucuses should take note: If you are unhappy with the way things are right now, Hillary is not your candidate. She is there to do the bidding of the privileged Democrats who donate to her: Maintain the status quo. These privileged Clinton Democrats don't have much in common, demographically, with the rest of the Democrat Party. The Clinton Democrats are the ones who pull all the levers within the party machine (hence the "superdelegates"), they often have prestigious titles working in America's universities, liberal think tanks, non-profit organizations, and crony-capitalist businesses such as those on Wall Street. These people, if they get in trouble, they get bailed out. That's who Clinton represents. If that description doesn't fit you, then you have no business voting for her. Clinton and some media types have said what a wonderful thing the Democrat primary race where voters have two good choices and the candidates see eye-to-eye on most issues. This is a lie. The difference between who Sanders is and what he represents and who Clinton is and what she represents is huge. To me, it is the difference between broad sunlight (Sanders) and a dark alley (Clinton).
When I was a young boy (3rd grade), my career ambition was to be a U.S. Ambassador to France. With that thought in mind, I majored in international studies at Ohio State. Nowadays, my field of specialty is teaching English to speakers of other languages. When I contemplate the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, along with the deaths of three others at the hands of terrorists, it gives me chills. The terrorists acted upon information. For all I know, the information the terrorists acted upon came from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for she did not safeguard top-secret information, including information about U.S. assets and personnel abroad. Looking at events leading up to those deaths–where it seems that security vulnerabilities were deliberately overlooked–and looking at events unfold after mischief was clearly afoot in Benghazi–where it seems that the opportunity to evacuate was doable but somehow deliberately nixed–I can only arrive at the conclusion that Stevens' death was the desired outcome. Was he a man who knew too much? Even if his death were merely due to Clinton's negligence, rather than malfeasance, it is still too much for me to stomach. If I were a U.S. Ambassador to anywhere, I'd want the U.S. government to have my back.
Hillary Clinton tried to rig the elections in 2008, but Barack Obama outsmarted her. She has outdone herself this time around, with nearly every superdelegate handpicked for their loyalty to her. The election on the Democrat side is rigged. Only rank-and-flle Democrat voters have the power to throw a monkey wrench into her machine, and I hope they'll do just that.
As for a brokered GOP convention, I do not favor the pandemonium that Mitt Romney seems to invite. If Trump has the delegates, then he's the nominee. If Trump goes on to lose the election, then the establishment can engage in party-building after that (and get in touch with the grassroots) and make a push for redemption. If Trump goes on to win the election and the establishment still cannot make amends with him and thus will not allow him to be their standard-bearer going forward, then found a new political party and recruit elected Republican legislators across the country to switch to this new party starting in January. If this new party succeeds well enough at this recruitment, it could conceivably enact laws in many states that would grant major-party status to their new creation. If we're to have a falling out, let's have it then, after January, in the broad light of day. Make new rules then. Don't bend and break rules midstream this July in some smoke-filled convention backroom to thwart a vast array of voters.
I hope that Ohio will do the right thing. Kasich for the Republicans. Sanders for the Democrats. Make November a sweeter pill to swallow.
Posted in Bernie Sanders (D), endorsement, executive branch, gambling, John Kasich (R), Michele Silva Arredondo, National Politics, Political Blogosphere, State Politics. Tags: 2016 presidential campaign, Barack Obama (D), Ben Carson (R), Bernie Sanders (D), endorsement, executive branch, Hillary Clinton (D), John Kasich (R), Lorain County, Marco Rubio (R), National Politics, Ohio, POTUS, Ted Cruz (R). Leave a Comment »
January 27, 2016 — buckeyerino
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was born in Canada to an American-born mother and a Cuban-born father. That Senator Cruz is an American citizen from his birth is not a question posed here. He was a citizen at birth . . . period.
Senator Cruz is now seeking the Republican Party's nomination for President of the United States in this 2016 election cycle. Another Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has called into question whether Senator Cruz, under the US Constitution, is eligible to be President. Trump warned that if Cruz is not eligible, the Republican Party would find itself in an awkward situation if Cruz were the nominee.
The US Constitution, approximately midway through Section 1, of Article II, spells out the eligibility of presidential candidates:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The US Constitution, just by itself, in isolation from acts of Congress, confers citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. For those who may be citizens at birth not born on U.S. soil, one must look to the acts of Congress. Citizenship by parentage was not an issue tackled until the Naturalization Act of 1790, three years after the ratification of the US Constitution. See where this is headed? At the time of the writing of the US Constitution, citizenship by location of birth was fairly well defined. Birth citizenship through a parent or parents off of U.S. soil was an open question not yet taken up. Congress, not the Constitution, bestowed Ted Cruz with citizenship at birth. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution expanded upon who was to be enumerated as a citizen, but that amendment has little to no bearing upon the case of Ted Cruz.
The following passage is excerpted from the Naturalization Act of 1790:
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States [ . . . ]"
Clearly, Senator Cruz is a citizen of the United States based upon this statute. His Cuban-born father did reside in the United States for a few years in advance of Ted Cruz's birth in Canada. The phrase within the statute that reads "shall be considered as natural born citizens" seems to settle the matter of Ted Cruz's eligibility to become POTUS, does it not?
The use of the helping verb "shall" is binding upon the government, so that bodes well for Cruz, along with the phrase "natural born."
But why say "shall be considered as" rather than "are?" If the statute were to read, "And the children of citizens of the United States . . . are natural born citizens," then no question would remain about Cruz's eligibility. But "shall be considered as" might signify that a person in such circumstances is naturalized at birth, not needing to follow the same processes of naturalization that others born off of U.S. soil must go through, but it still falls under the auspices of naturalization law. Does this statute create a "naturalized at birth" citizen separate from a "natural born" citizen, with the one being "considered as" the other? Is there a distinction there? Or does "shall be considered as" equal to "are," relegating the concept of "naturalized at birth," in an instance such as this, to mythology?
Clearly, Ted Cruz is convinced that there is no "naturalized at birth" in play concerning his own citizenship. Donald Trump isn't convinced otherwise, it's just that, as he pointed out, questions might be raised. Any other time this question might have been put to the test in our presidential races, it never was. Those who might have come under questioning were never the eventual nominees of the major parties, anyway. Ted Cruz, however, stands a chance to be the Republican nominee. Though no caucuses have been conducted and no primary election votes counted, the two frontrunners of the GOP appear to be Trump and Cruz. The other GOP candidates appear to be trailing badly.
Trump's question, in a backhanded way, could be taken as a compliment, for Trump is implicitly acknowledging that Cruz could become the party's nominee. Aside from posing the question, Trump has always asserted that he, himself would be the nominee. But if Cruz does become the nominee, I think Donald Trump is absolutely right that the question over natural born citizenship will loom much larger than the so-called "birther" issue that tried to nip at Obama's heels.
You may have heard Democrats that have openly expressed a desire for either Trump or Cruz to be the GOP nominee. Why? Because they think the election of the Democrat nominee to the presidency is a slam dunk if one of those two happens to be the GOP nominee. What if the Democrats get what they wished for in a GOP nominee, but the general election picture appears to be much less of a slam dunk? What if the Democrat nominee is not faring well and the prospect of a President Trump or a President Cruz is becoming a very real one? Will the Democrats pull out all the stops? Will they seize at any straw they can? Of course, they will. If Ted Cruz is the nominee, and the matter of his eligibility has not been settled definitively, the GOP may have a real mess on its hands because if the Democrats are not faring well, they will seize at that straw. That's all Donald Trump is pointing out.
I believe that, if Cruz is nominated and stands a real chance of winning the general election, the Democrats will seize upon this, and it won't be resolved until after Election Day. If the Democrat nominee wins, then the question goes by the wayside. If Cruz wins, I think his inauguration in January will be hijacked by the Democrats and hauled into the courts. I think they will seek a court injunction barring Cruz from taking office until after the question is settled in court. If the Democrats' injunction is granted and, under that scenario, if Cruz wins in court, then how many months will it take to do so? When would Cruz be allowed to take office? Who would be acting as POTUS until that point in time?
What if Cruz loses such a suit months after winning an election? Do we reconvene the electoral college with another GOP nominee? Does the VP candidate, who won just as many electoral votes as Cruz, the winning presidential nominee, get to take office as POTUS? Would the electoral votes have to be vacated, leaving no nominee with a majority of electoral votes, and then get decided in the U.S. House of Representatives? Or, scarier still, does the electoral college reconvene without a GOP nominee? I think it's the scarier scenario that would prevail. Alternate Republican hopefuls will be bombarding electors with sales pitches while Cruz's case drags through court. But unless GOP electors uniformly embrace the VP nominee, I think the electoral college vote would be a mishmash, perhaps landing the decision in the US House, or perhaps by flipping the majority of electors over to the Democrat nominee.
If you are a staunch Cruz supporter, steel yourself, because emerging victorious will likely be a rougher ride than you'd ever imagined.
Posted in executive branch, National Politics, US Constitution. Tags: 2016 presidential campaign, Canada, citizenship, Cuba, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, National Politics, POTUS, Republican Party, Ted Cruz (R), Texas, US Constitution. 4 Comments »
December 24, 2015 — buckeyerino
Yeah, the ratings for the Republican presidential campaign debates are through the roof. Yeah, there are lots of choices this time around–and that's a good thing. That being said, I'm getting frustrated that I can't identify a candidate I'm excited about. I had a favorable opinion of Bobby Jindal based on how much less corrupt Louisiana state government is than it was before he took office. A record of reform is appealing to me. Jindal, however, is one of four GOP candidates who have dropped out of the race. Lindsey Graham dropped out very recently. Further back, Rick Perry dropped out. Scott Walker was the first to drop out (which made total sense to me). On the Democrat side (not that anybody across the aisle interests me), Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee have dropped out. That still leaves 13 Republicans and 3 Democrats in the running:
George Pataki
Jim Gilmore
Martin O'Malley
To get an idea of the lay of the land, I've listed the candidates top to bottom in each party to approximate recent polling data (not an exact science to be sure). I've linked each name in that list to the corresponding official campaign webpage. Go ahead and click on the links. See if anybody excites you.
Let me list some of the grievances that cause me to cross candidates off my list of preferences:
Crony capitalism? Support for bailouts? Ties to the gambling industry? Ties to businesses "too big to fail?" Pay-to-play politics? Manipulate markets through artificial means to predetermine winners and losers of your own choosing? More beholden to campaign donors than to voters? Sorry, not for me. Oops! I just shoveled a bunch of people off my list already!
Isolationism? Reluctant to propel our nation to lead the world? Fearful of increasing legal immigration? Hey, wake up! People are watching us all around the world. I am mindful of that. We cannot have leaders that bury their heads in the sand.
Dishonesty? Trying to be enigmatic about policy positions? Talking out of both sides of your mouth? Unwilling to be held accountable? Holding double-standards? Dodging culpability through legal technicalities and obfuscation? Lacking integrity? (I'm looking at you, Hillary Clinton. This is why you'd be the last person I'd vote for of either party.)
Lack of leadership? No executive experience? Unable to rally people to your cause? Unable to form coalitions? Unwilling to negotiate with those on the other side of the political aisle? A lone voice in the wilderness that no one cares to listen to? Ineffective administrator? Constantly making excuses for poor performance? The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing? Take credit for the good but pass blame for the bad? The buck doesn't stop at your desk? There are places in society for such people. They can be bloggers, just like me. And, just like me, they shouldn't be POTUS.
In trouble with the law? Domestic violence? Sexual harassment? Driving while intoxicated? Use of recreational drugs? Evaded taxes? Commingled personal funds with business funds, campaign funds, NGO funds, or government funds? Hired a domestic that was not eligible to work in the United States? Steered contracts for bribes and kickbacks? Hid information from FOIA requests that the public has a right to know about? Does a life of privilege protect you from reaping legal consequences that would ordinarily befall someone in less-priveleged circumstances? No one should be exempt from the law.
Utopianism? Should free markets go the way of the dinosaur? In the interests of economic egalitarianism in pursuit of a classless society through destratification, should our society and economy be centrally planned by a benevolent federal government comprised of the best thinkers within the ivory tower? Do we need to be saved from ourselves? Are we citizens irrationally prone to vote against our own best interests? Should the interests of the betterment of society trump the ambitions of individuals? Wouldn't equality guarantee happiness for everyone? Well, I don't call myself Buckeye RINO because I am okay with being herded like cattle.
Constitution allergy? Is the U.S. Constitution inconvenient? Should speech, religion, the press, and peaceable assembly be regulated? Should firearm ownership be confined to on-duty law enforcement and military personnel? Is the whole population comprised of suspects, thus seeking warrants just bothersome red tape? Do the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution intrude on the branches of government to the point that each branch needs work-arounds to circumvent the checks and balances? Are the people too subversive to be sovereign? Is it too hard to declare war before engaging in acts of war? Is due process too much to expect when the government has an interest in seizing private property? Shouldn't the Senate have the same right of introducing an appropriations bill as does the House? Should special interest groups be delegated the responsibility of writing the legislation that gets introduced in Congress? If any act of Congress, on its face, is unenforceable, should the executive branch be given carte blanche to add whatever administrative code to it deemed necessary to make it enforceable? Should the new loophole of regarding the U.S. Constitution as a "living document" render the Constitution malleable to the point at which it means whatever it is expedient to say it means at any given point in time? Should any U.S. District Court judge be permitted to strike down the laws of any state, or institute new state laws, based upon the federal government's interests and the federal government's notions of political correctness? Is holding on to power, whether for incumbents, the federal government as a whole, the two major political parties, businesses "too big to fail," or government bureaucracies (like the IRS, the Federal Reserve Board, the Bureau of Land Management, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, ICE, the FEC, the EPA, etc.) so imperative that the sovereign people, the 50 states, and the U.S. Constitution must ultimately be subjugated? I cannot abide politicians who act in this manner, and maybe that's why GOP voters have been driven toward non-politicians early on in this election cycle.
I already eliminated all the presidential candidates based on these 7 bulletpoints. Now what? Choose the least of the evils? In that case, I find myself being pushed toward Rand Paul, for the 7th bulletpoint trumps them all. I don't think of Rand Paul as a leader. I have no data from which I can extrapolate what kind of administrator he would be. Libertarians often outsource the work of government because the government is deemed too inefficient. I am not libertarian. I think many functions of government should be kept in-house. Ideally, there'd be a chain of command within government that would hold bureaucracies accountable to the chief executive and responsive to the people, thus a political leader should reform government agencies and lead them to greater efficiency. I don't agree with many tenets of libertarianism, legalization of recreational drugs being just one example of what I oppose. I worry that a libertarian running the government would be like steering a rudderless ship, for I think that libertarianism aspires to such an extreme of individualism that it interferes with a sense of community. I think having a sense of community is the essence of good government that rules by the consent of the governed. I think Rand Paul is isolationist. In foreign policy, I fear a President Rand Paul would project weakness. I fear that the U.S. would step aside as world leader, and that, in turn, would leave a vacuum that Russia or China or many other nations would like to fill. I must admit that I believe in American exceptionalism. I think we have the best nation on the planet, and I wish that other nations would emulate ours at least to the extent that their respective constitutions grant liberties to their respective populations that are equal to our own Bill of Rights.
What scares me about so many other candidates is that they want to sound so tough on the homeland security front that they are willing to part with key provisions of the Bill of Rights, whether it's gun control, the tendency to attempt to muzzle the media in the face of criticism (or script, in advance, the messages delivered by the media), and a barely concealed animosity toward religion on the left; or treating all citizens as suspects on the right. Have you heard the GOP candidates' stances on encryption? They are chilling. I believe the freedom of speech includes choosing who is and who is not the audience of any given communication. This blog is unencrypted because I hope for a wide audience for the views I state here. But if I'm talking about a sensitive personal matter, I want to communicate in complete privacy only to a specific audience of my choosing. Unfortunately, the national security hawks want every civilian communication to be a public one with plenty of ways to eavesdrop at their disposal. I never liked the so-called Patriot Act for its infringement of 4th Amendment provisions regarding warrants, or should I say the granting of policing power with either no warrants or issuance of secret warrants, thus circumventing the constitutional checks and balances upon policing power. The result is an arrangement that makes the government opaque to the people and the people transparent to the government. I think the people of this nation need to put terrorist acts in perspective. What is the ratio of terrorist-on-American crime with respect to American-on-American crime? Remember the chorus on the right side of the aisle that responded to prominent white-on-black criminal cases with the knee-jerk reaction of "What about black-on-black crime?" The casualties from terrorist-on-American crime are much fewer than non-terrorist-on-American crime. I suggest we not throw away our constitutional rights over this. Chris Christie said he puts national security first because, for hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center, he didn't know what had become of his wife. Along that same line of reasoning, if someone close to Chris Christie, heaven forbid, should be threatened by a firearm, would that make it okay, in his mind, to rescind the 2nd Amendment? I think the 2nd Amendment is one way to ensure that terrorists will never take control of our nation. Do you remember a time when military coups were ubiquitous across the Third World? In those nations, the people lacked the arms that governments and military insurgents had. What purpose do assault weapons serve in the hands of a free people? Some of the answers to that question are that we maintain a civilian-controlled military, that we deter foreign invasion, and that we prevent the formation of a totalitarian state (or that we have the power to overthrow a totalitarian state, heaven forbid). I offered Chris Christie's position as an example of the candidates' rhetoric on national security, but he really shouldn't be singled out, for candidates at the bottom of the polls, like Jim Gilmore and Martin O'Malley, all the way to the top of the polls, like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, envision a security state that must take precedence over constitutional liberties.
For the time being, I suppose I am cornered into the Rand Paul camp, and I don't like it. I'm not a happy camper. I'm hoping candidates whose leadership skills I admire will come to their senses and take the side of the US Constitution. Barring that, watching this race unfold is like channel surfing and finding nothing intriguing on TV.
Posted in executive branch, National Politics. Tags: 2016 presidential campaign, Ben Carson (R), Bernie Sanders (D), Carly Fiorina (R), Chris Christie (R), Donald Trump (R), George Pataki (R), Hillary Clinton (D), Jeb Bush (R), Jim Gilmore (R), John Kasich (R), Marco Rubio (R), Martin O'Malley (D), Mike Huckabee (R), National Politics, POTUS, Rand Paul (R), Rick Santorum (R), Ted Cruz (R), US Constitution. 2 Comments »
August 1, 2015 — buckeyerino
Sound bites from the people that matter (the candidates for the GOP nomination for the 2016 presidential election) and hours of hashing and rehashing the sound bites from the people that don't matter (media pundits): That is what we have to look forward to in the wake of the first GOP presidential candidate debates. This imbalance is the essence of my complaint.
The first GOP debates of the 2016 presidential campaign season will be held on Fox News on August 6,2015. Seventeen candidates are eligible to participate in one of two debates that evening. Originally, just one debate during two hours of primetime was scheduled to start at 9 PM Eastern Time. That primetime debate would only have allowed for the top 10 candidates in the polls to be on stage. Because of backlash, Fox News has announced an additional hour of debate for the remaining 7 candidates that starts at 5 pm Eastern Time, so all the major GOP candidates get some time on-camera.
But let's put things into perspective. Are these debates going to use all 180 minutes of those time slots on these debates? Or will their be commercial breaks? Or, at the least, station breaks? Even if they air the debates nonstop without interruption, three hours does not seem to be much time considering that Fox News is on the air 24/7. A candidate would be really lucky to total more than 10 minutes of speaking time during these debates. How much can you really learn about a candidate's platform in 10 minutes, especially if the moderator is steering conversation away from the message a candidate wants to emphasize? With such a short timeframe to work with, a moderator has to be very selective about what issues to raise and responses to elicit. Viewers will not get a chance to learn the depth and breadth of each candidacy. Therefore, there will be too little information revealed to make apples to apples comparisons between candidates' competing visions.
24-hour news networks can be boring to follow over the course of a day because so much information is repeated ad nauseum. The debates will provide a welcome break from that. Why not pre-empt all of the regularly scheduled programming that evening to give us a solid block of time to hear all the candidates more in-depth in a round robin that puts them all on stage at once? After all, this is the debut.
A debut means that it is a special occasion that comes around only once every four years, so why the stinginess on time? At any other time of the campaign season, people will have already dropped out–people who might have been worthy of further consideration, had they only been given a chance to have their say. One of the reasons that the freedom of the press is encoded into our U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is so that we can access information about these very important political matters. TV news outlets should exist for stuff such as this.
I say, start the cameras rolling at 4 pm and keep them rolling until midnight. Yes, that's a full eight-hour work shift during which the candidates need to remain engaged, but the work of the President of the United States is far more grueling than that, thus it should be no big deal. Yeah, people need to eat and people need to use the bathroom during eight hours, so seat the candidates at long tables that will allow them to be served some dinner. Since only one person can talk at a time anyway, there should be plenty of time for the other sixteen candidates to swallow a few bites and take a few swigs of their drinks as they listen in. The candidates, of course, would need to be cued when they are on-deck so that they are free to speak without food in their mouths when it becomes their turn. The candidates can grab restroom breaks during commercials. While food is being served, the debate format can be Q & A between moderator and candidate, with each taking a turn. After the food has been cleared away, the debate between candidates can begin in earnest, wherein candidates can challenge each other's positions with much less input from the moderator. At that point, the moderator would merely play traffic cop by identifying which speaker has the floor at any given point so that candidates do not talk over each other.
Who is going is going to watch an eight-hour debate in its entirety besides die-hard political junkies, you ask? Never fear, for, in the weeks following, the pundits will all pile on to rehash what was said. Therefore, if you only caught pieces of the debate, you are sure to see regurgitations of it. The difference is, instead of the pundits playing upon the same sound bites over and over again, there will actually be enough substance from the candidates' mouths that the pundits might actually say something insightful rather than knee-jerk. There will be more context within which to analyze candidates' statements.
When hours of punditry have to pick over mere seconds of sound bites, the political commentary tends to resemble tabloid TV reality shows. We have enough of that on the tube already. If the news networks made the changes I recommend, there would be more meat for the pundits to digest, and the commentary might actually become educational, and that would be refreshing.
Aren't there way too many pundits? Don't they take up way too much broadcasting time? More time should have been alloted to this debut event–specifically to the candidates. The pundits are like the poor: They will always be with us.
By the way, here's a recap of the 17 candidates, in no particular order, with links to their official websites (except for one, the latest entrant, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, who doesn't seem to have launched his website yet).
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore
Former New York Governor George Pataki
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
Former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum
U.S. Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio
U.S. Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz
U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul
U.S. Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
Pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson
Real estate tycoon Donald Trump
Ohio Governor John Kasich
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
Posted in executive branch, National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: 2016 presidential campaign, Arkansas, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal (R), campaign debate, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie (R), Daniel Jack Williamson, Donald Trump, executive branch, Florida, Fox News, George Pataki (R), Jeb Bush (R), Jim Gilmore (R), John Kasich (R), Kentucky, Lindsey Graham (R), Louisiana, Marco Rubio (R), Mike Huckabee (R), National Politics, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, Rand Paul (R), Rick Perry (R), Rick Santorum (R), Scott Walker (R), South Carolina, Ted Cruz (R), Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin. Leave a Comment »
James Williamson guest blog: Imminent Rebellion: The Perfect Storm
Editor's note: James Williamson is one of my younger brothers and is an Ohio native currently residing in Nevada. He has written a number of guest blog posts for Buckeye RINO previously. The topic he keeps revisiting is the tension between state governments and the federal government, and the phrase "Imminent Rebellion" is included in title of each blog post in the series, for he predicts that one day, several states may part ways with the federal government, which he believes might even lead to another civil war. The other posts in the Imminent Rebellion Series are linked here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
In this post, James tackles the topic of Jade Helm. I have presented a competing viewpoint on Jade Helm here on my Buckeye RINO blog titled, "The Meaning of Jade Helm 15 for the Future of the United States of America."–DJW
Imminent Rebellion: The Perfect Storm
When I first started writing about the split between the Feds and the states it was not a common topic of discussion, nor did another civil war seem imminent to many besides me. Now with the many conspiracy theories surrounding Jade Helm 15 it seems to be a little more vogue. For those that don't know, Jade Helm 15 is a series of military exercises that are to be held over the next two months in several states, with many of the exercises being conducted in populated areas. This has caused quite a stir in the states where the exercises are being conducted, most notably Texas. Even Chuck Norris felt the need to speak about it and called it "more than a military exercise".
One of the reasons there are so many conspiracy theories is because the government is not saying what the purpose of the exercises are beyond training in urban environments . . . and they are prohibiting direct coverage by the press. That, of course, is just nectar for the bees (or wasps as the case may be…) and no one should be surprised that the bees are swarming. While there are many theories about the operation the most popular are that the federal government is either 1) preparing to fight ISIS insurgents (some saying on foreign, others on domestic soil) or 2) they are getting ready to declare martial law that would be triggered by riots or some other national crisis. I suppose that you could take a third road and say it's both. If ISIS took hold here in the US, martial law might have to be declared to effectively counterattack especially if some of the ISIS fighters happen to be US citizens.
For more on the nationwide race riot conspiracy theory, you can read about an alleged race database that is being compiled by "Big Brother" here: "Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database."
If Jade Helm 15 is preparation for a foreign campaign, as the few public comments on it from the military indicate, then we have little to be concerned about, right? Well, it does't fit the rhetoric. The administration has been consistently talking about reducing the number of troops in the Middle East, not increasing them. The administration has also stated that they don't want to be involved on the ground in Syria. This could be just for Iraq to keep the hard fought gains there, but that doesn't fit the rhetoric either. We are supposed to have a smaller footprint there, not a bigger one. There is not popular support for any more military invervention in the middle-east anyway so what would the exercise be for if not there? The Ukraine? That makes even less sense. Whose side would we even be on? Aren't Obama and Putin striking a more conciliatory tone toward each other and calling for "cooperation"? There are reports that the administration is trying to get help from Russia in Syria again. It wouldn't be prudent to help the Ukrainians put down the pro-Russian movement there if we are trying to get something from Russia. Then again, this administration has never made a lot of sense regarding foreign policy unless you are a cynic. Any other possibilities? China? Not likely. North Korea? Not worth our time. Iran? In the words of Jack Sparrow, "Why fight when you can negotiate?" The ink is not even dry on the agreement with Iran. Intervention on foreign soil just doesn't make sense (unless you want to start making comparisons to the German/Soviet nonaggression pact…) so we come back to the domestic soil theory.
If Jade Helm 15 is indeed designed for a domestic operation then there is even more cause for concern. Regardless of the trigger, having live military operations on US soil means there is trouble in our own back yard. Many are saying that it's not just coincidence that Texas, Utah, and the southern tip of California are listed as "hostile" territory for the drills and that they will be targeted first. Maybe this is all just crazy talk, but why, after more than a decade of urban warfare in Iraq, do we suddenly need urban warfare training in populated areas within the United States? We didn't need them when we invaded Baghdad. Why now? One thing is for certain: Uncle Sam is not giving answers, so we are left to ponder and let our imaginations run wild. That doesn't seem like an effective way to run a public relations campaign.
If martial law were declared while President Obama is still in office it would put the liberal Democrats in a tough spot ideologically as they generally are the group that derides Abraham Lincoln for essentially imposing martial law by suspending habeus corpus after the start of the Civil War. On the other hand President Obama is a Lincoln admirer. He started his presidency by riding the train along the same route that Lincoln did on his way to Washington DC. Maybe President Obama wants to follow in Lincoln's footsteps in more ways than one?
Posted in executive branch, guest blog, International Politics, military, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, war. Tags: Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama (D), California, Chuck Norris, executive branch, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Jade Helm, James Williamson, military, National Politics, North Korea, POTUS, Russia, states vs feds, Syria, Texas, Utah, Vladimir Putin, Warren Jeffs. 2 Comments »
The Meaning of Jade Helm 15 for the Future of the United States of America
Editor's note: My brother, James Williamson, wrote a guest blog article also about Jade Helm, titled, "Imminent Rebellion: The Perfect Storm," in which he theorizes that the federal government may be conspiring to quash rebellious states and/or rioters by declaring martial law . . . or worse. Feel free to compare my post with his and post comments with your thoughts.–DJW
What is Operation Jade Helm 15?
Operation Jade Helm 15 is a joint military exercise currently underway in the southwestern United States of America that is due to wrap up on September 15, 2015. In addition to coordination between branches of the US Armed Forces, these exercises will also entail working hand-in-glove with other federal agencies not usually known for pairing with the military during combat missions—oh! . . . and I should clarify for you that these military exercises are, in fact, combat drills. Without that clarification, you might think that these are emergency preparedness drills for either civil defense or disaster relief, because several of the odd partners in these exercises are agencies within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.
In this simulation, some of the southwestern states will be designated as allied territory, i.e. staging grounds for combat missions. Other states will be designated as hostile territory, within which targets are designated for the missions launched from allied territory. Two states are considered neutral territory with one seemingly sympathetic toward the allies and the other seemingly sympathetic toward the enemy, but not otherwise actively engaged in the skirmishes between the two sides. In this scenario, California has been partitioned with the two counties that neighbor the Mexican border designated as hostile territory while the rest of California is in allied territory. The other hostile territories are Texas and Utah while the other allied territories are Nevada and Colorado. New Mexico is seen as sympathetic toward the enemy and Arizona is seen as sympathetic toward the allies.
Jade Helm 15 has become a popular topic among conspiracy theorists.
A number of skeptical individual citizens, as well as those in social circles (Tea Party?) and self-styled civilian militias who are distrustful of the federal government, are concerned that Operation Jade Helm 15 is a preparation for carrying out future military operations directed at muting government critics. They point to combat missions planned for Jade Helm wherein small special ops teams, prior to any battlefield engagement, are to quietly swoop in to capture or kill the leaders of the opposition. The FBI and the DEA, both of which are federal policing agencies that operate mostly within the United States rather than abroad, will be the ones detecting and tracking the opposition leaders in advance of the arrival of the special ops teams that will take those targets out.
Put more bluntly, the states designated as allied or hostile territory for the purposes of Operation Jade Helm 15 are not stand-ins for foreign nations, if the rumors of FBI and DEA cooperation with the military are true. The states are cast in the role of actual states of the United States. Thus, another conspiracy theory is that this is more than just eliminating self-styled civilian militias and anti-government propagandists. Instead, many of the conspiracy theorists interpret these special ops missions as preparation for the initial stages of another civil war.
The military has reached out to communities to refute conspiracy theorists.
These military exercises are mostly being conducted on private properties with permissions from property owners. Without some kind of advance public notice of these exercises, the military worried that civilians dwelling near these properties would become alarmed by the noises of helicopters and rifle fire, thereby unnecessarily swamping 911 operators with phone calls while drills were taking place. Communities near where these exercises are or will be taking place have been notified that these are only drills. No real emergencies are anticipated. In some communities, the military has held actual town hall meetings to offer reassurance that these exercises are merely tests of coordination between military branches and federal agencies to enhance military readiness for operations in other parts of the world.
Some conspiracy theorists have been in attendance at the community town hall meetings hosted by the military to confront the military officers with their suspicions of preparation for martial law and/or civil war. The military officers conducting the meetings repeatedly gave assurances that the federal government has not and is not planning for either the implementation of martial law or the onset of civil war.
The conspiracy theorists were not persuaded or placated by the assurances, and military officers privately conceded that nothing they could say would have changed the minds of the conspiracy theorists. The view of the military officers was that the conspiracy theorists would not put their minds at ease until September 16th arrived—the day after wrap-up—without the occurrence of any alarming incidents in the meantime.
In many cases, the conspiracy theorists in attendance were not local townsfolk. They traveled some distances to attend these town hall meetings. Overall, local townsfolk in the vicinity of the planned exercises were apt to believe the military officers, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Public support for our nation's troops has characteristically been very strong since 9/11, and perhaps that is why the townsfolk responded to the military in a favorable way. Theories of conspiracy apparently failed to gain traction among locals.
I think Jade Helm is a trial balloon for a contingency, not confirmation of a full-fledged conspiracy.
Perhaps I am drawing a fine distinction, but I hope readers can discern my meaning. Let me first pose a hypothetical question: What if the federal government experienced a financial meltdown? I'm not talking about a Congressional debate that failed to yield enough votes for raising the debt ceiling and thus causing a government shutdown. No, I am talking about a much worse fiscal environment, as I blogged about four-and-a-half years ago, where the value of our money or the sources of our money just evaporate.
If there is a full-fledged conspiracy afoot in the federal government, it is a conspiracy to continue government "stimulus" spending and central bank (the Federal Reserve) quantitative easing that will surely bankrupt our government.
Crony capitalism and government intervention in the private sector is at the heart of the problem, just as it was during the Wall Street bailouts of 2008. Please do not misconstrue my disdain for crony capitalism as disdain for capitalism as a whole. I very much favor free-market capitalism. For more talking points about crony capitalism—what it is and what it brings about—beyond what I share here, perhaps you should follow the 2016 presidential campaign messages of Carly Fiorina, as she has been outspoken on the matter. Big businesses within a myriad of industries have lobbied successfully over the course of decades for federal laws that provide them with distinct marketplace advantages. Incumbent politicians of both major political parties crave campaign donations to retain power. The corporate PACs have been rewarding members of Congress for favorable laws by filling campaign coffers. The Wall Street bailouts of 2008 were not only motivated by a concern that a disastrous nationwide economic meltdown would occur, but also by a concern that politicians would be biting the hands that feed them had they not approved the bailouts. Bailouts only constitute a portion of "stimulus" spending designed to lengthen the careers of professional politicians via rewards to big business political benefactors. Growth of government, for example, leads to growth of private-sector government contractors, thus providing economic "stimulus." As the government grows, so also does the power of the politicians that run it. The government has intruded on our private economy, and even our private lives, at an ever-accelerating rate. Considering government intrusion, it is no wonder that conspiracy theories abound. The conspiracy theory that I fully subscribe to is avarice. The government and the politicians that run it want money and power in the worst way.
The government's greed for money and power is unsustainable. When the fiscal system collapses, when the government defaults on debt payments, when the government can only pay its employees with IOUs, when the government can no longer reimburse doctors for Medicare and Medicaid, when no more monthly Social Security benefits can be paid out, when no more unemployment checks can be issued, when no more Temporary Assistance to Needy Families can be provided, when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation can no longer protect your bank deposits if your bank fails, when there is no longer any ability to bail out well-connected political benefactors, when U.S. Treasury bonds can no longer be redeemed (and when no one with any common sense will buy them), I predict the government will shift into confiscatory mode. Do you think the day will never come that the government is starved for money? I think we've already passed the point of no return. That day is coming. I'm convinced of it.
As the federal government becomes insolvent, forget about debt ceiling debates, the government will repeal or ignore any such ceiling in a desperate attempt to retain some kind of purchasing power. Woe unto all who may have cheated on federal taxes, owe federal loans, or otherwise committed offenses wherein laws allow for asset seizure, for private assets will be seized—forcefully, if necessary. Expect that more laws will be passed that allow for more private property forfeiture to the government. Expect the federal government to try to commandeer the resources of the states. Expect tax exemptions to evaporate. Expect federal taxes to be levied on assets that were never taxed before in American history. Does it sound far-fetched to you? If so, have you been paying attention to Greece and some of the measures the government has resorted to there? Greece hasn't resorted to all of these measures, because they still are milking the European Union for as much as they can get, but, if you've paid attention, Greece has already resorted to some of these measures. Have you noticed what the Greek government has done to the banks?
Okay, I will concede that the government has not yet conspired to resort to any such measures. The conspiracy for money and power still rings true to me. So, if you, dear readers, will at least humor me by assuming that the federal government conspires to accumulate more money and power, what might the fallout be if the government cannot sustain its efforts to do so? You don't know? You can't be sure? You have some vague ideas of what might happen, but no crystal ball to show you exactly how it all plays out? If you are not sure what might happen in such a scenario, I think you are in good company. I think the federal government, though it has some vague ideas, doesn't know exactly how such a situation plays out, either. I think they are mulling over the multitude of possible ramifications and seeing what options they can put on the table to mitigate against any negative ramifications that may arise. In other words, they are beginning to examine contingencies.
This is the distinction I am drawing. In my mind, Jade Helm is not a government conspiracy. The government has not committed itself to implementing martial law. It has not pledged to engage in civil war. It has not fully formulated plans for either of these actions. These are not the unspoken intentions behind the conception of Operation Jade Helm 15. Instead, the federal government is just brainstorming—throwing things at the wall, so to speak, and seeing what sticks—in case all hell breaks loose. The government does not yet know if they would put martial law, let alone civil war, on the table if the people and/or states revolt. Maybe there will be no revolt. Maybe citizens will pull together, help each other out, and keep the peace, giving the federal government time to regroup and conceive of a new way forward. Jade Helm, to me, is an exploratory mission to see what may be feasible in planning for the contingencies that may arise in an uncertain future.
In my opinion, the future will bring revolt and the U.S. government will act with hostility toward the people and the states.
The revolt I foresee will not be premeditated and the harsh actions of the government will not have arisen from conspiracy. It will unfold spontaneously. The federal government's unsustainable avarice for money and power will be the underlying cause of the actions that follow. People desperate for basic essentials will riot and plunder. States will want to insulate themselves from the chaos to the degree that they will assert their autonomy and move toward secession.
The United States, to my knowledge, has not set up internment camps since they forced Americans of Japanese heritage to live in such camps during World War II. It was a mistake to set up the camps in the first place. The threat posed by those detained was minor to negligible. Their constitutional rights were suspended for the purpose of security, but in my mind, civil liberty trumps the small risks to security that a few individuals may pose. Jade Helm, from my understanding (but I hope I'm wrong), includes exercises in setting up and maintaining internment camps for government dissidents. I believe that if such exercises are conducted, that it may embolden the federal government to put internment camps on the table as an option should widespread popular revolt materialize.
The supposed joint exercises involving special ops, the FBI, and the DEA may encourage the government to put another option on the table to neutralize dissidents. I believe the DEA will be active, anyway, even without revolt, because the greedy government will act aggressively to seize property in connection with suspected drug crimes. We can only hope, in such desperate times, that the actions of the DEA will be directed only at legitimate drug criminals rather than impacting innocent civilians via dragnets too broad in scope. But, if things get out of hand and there is an uprising, particularly among self-styled militias, I can easily conceive of the FBI sniffing out the leading dissidents and special ops, in turn, snuffing them out.
Secession would first be attempted by states that have already passed measures in their legislatures asserting their sovereignty over their own territory. Many states have done so. Some of these states, like South Carolina, Utah, and Texas, have planned for contingencies that anticipate the possibility of the collapse of our national currency. South Carolina has reserved for itself the right to mint coins. Utah has reserved for its people the right of the people to mint their own coins. The Texas treasury's investments include gold, held in a New York vault. The Texas legislature has garnered media attention for its call to relocate that gold to a yet-to-be-built vault on Texas' own soil. Not only would these states be among the first to move toward secession, they would also be the first targets of federal military power, were the situation to escalate, in efforts to both block secession and commandeer states' resources. Civil war may materialize. South Carolina—the last holdout in banishing the Confederate flag (not only a detestable symbol of slavery but a symbol of secession) and the first to engage in combat at the start of the Civil War, could conceivably be the starting point of a new civil war. This time, if such a scenario were to arise, instead of South Carolina's troops assaulting a federal military installation, it will be the federal government that initiates an assault against South Carolina.
Seizing state assets in Texas and Utah before those states can secure them will serve as prime motivation for the federal government to strike preemptively in those states as well. I point to Operation Jade Helm 15 as evidence of the federal government's conspiracy to obtain more wealth and power, for the whole states of Texas and Utah are designated as hostile territory in Jade Helm. You decide. Is this coincidence, or not? Is this a way to explore a contingency, or not?
As further evidence that designating Texas and Utah as hostile territory for the purposes of Jade Helm may not be coincidental, the neutrality of New Mexico and Arizona along with their supposed political leanings make little sense unless viewed through the eyes of federal avarice. After all, Arizona has had several high-profile squabbles with the federal government, so sympathizing with the federal government, as conceived of in Operation Jade Helm 15, doesn't ring true. Meanwhile, the blue-leaning state of New Mexico has very different political leanings than Texas or Utah, so why would New Mexico, though sitting on the sidelines, be leaning away from the feds? In my travel through New Mexico, the bilingual nature of the state is evident. Spanish is spoken nearly everywhere, and a large proportion of New Mexico's population speaks Spanish as its first language (which, in my mind, is not a bad thing). I am assuming that while the U.S. is reaching a point of meltdown, the nation of Mexico is still intact. I think New Mexico may seek to strengthen economic ties with Mexico as an economic stopgap measure, and though the New Mexico legislature may make no movement toward formal secession, the U.S. government may look upon New Mexico's commerce with envy and have to make a decision whether to take action against New Mexico or look the other way. Meanwhile, Arizona has already burned its bridges with the Mexican government, so expanding commerce in that direction is not an option. Could the California counties bordering Mexico take even bolder action than New Mexico in engaging commercially with Mexico by going a step further and adopting a political stance defiant of the federal government? If the designations of hostile and friendly territory for the purposes of Jade Helm are totally innocent and random, so be it. But if the federal government has an appetite for plunder, doesn't the map of Jade Helm finally make sense?
Putin is an opportunist, and Russia will swing into action if the U.S. is in disarray.
In the 2012 presidential campaign, the Obama campaign ridiculed Republican rival Mitt Romney for stating that Russia is the USA's number one geopolitical foe. Now, even President Obama's new appointee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admits the ill will and great danger the US faces from Russia. We knew Romney was right before the POTUS and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did. That ridiculous Russian relationship reset button is reason enough for me to dismiss support for Clinton's 2016 presidential bid out of hand.
Close observers of Putin say that he looks at adversarial situations through the lens of a judo martial artist. (On that note, I really like this article by Matthew Hedrick at Fortune magazine.) Martial arts are comprised of more than just rehearsed moves and strategies, for, at the highest level, they are accompanied by a mindset, a way of perceiving interactions between external entities, a way of perceiving self in society, a way of perceiving one's place in the world, a way of perceiving one's internal thoughts and emotions, and a way of perceiving the spiritual and supernatural. Putin has achieved a black belt in judo. His instinct is not to be the aggressor when his adversary is most wary and least vulnerable. His instinct is to throw his adversary to the ground when his opponent exposes a vulnerability. Often, the force of the throw is not just determined by how much muscle Putin puts into it, for it is also significantly determined by how much momentum carried the adversary in the direction of the throw. With the United States already moving in a military direction against its own states in a civil war, a direction that could potentially result in the demise of the federal government, Russia may make a grab at the opportunity and finish the job—throwing the United States government to the ground.
The Russian propagandists have been bragging to their own nation that they have refined the abilities of their nuclear arsenal through advanced technology while the U.S. has stood pat with weaponry based on the designs of yesteryears. The Russian public loves this propaganda, and recent public opinion polls show that Russians have a very dim view of America. The Russian government propagandists have gone so far as to say that it can win . . . WIN . . . a nuclear war with the United States. If Russia indeed possesses this capability, we should look upon that nation with dread, for the Russian people have the political will to see it through.
I think that while the casualties mount in the United States, Russia will choose a time and place to strike with nuclear weapons that will break the back of the federal government as we know it. For those of us old enough to remember the Reagan Administration, the U.S. military proposed the development of a neutron bomb. I believe the Russians possess such bombs. The bombs are intended to leave buildings and infrastructure largely intact while killing off all inhabitants within the blast area. The radioactive fallout decays more rapidly than the nukes in our arsenal so that, in a short number of years (maybe less), the blast area can be occupied by the victors. Instead of blasting the planet to oblivion and radioactively poisoning the planet's remains forever, Russia's nukes can allow for surgical strikes that take out the populations of much smaller targets with little worry about incurring many casualties from radioactive fallout drifting over the Russian homeland. They win and we lose.
I do not believe Russian troops will be deployed to occupy American territory (with maybe exceptions for Alaska and the very strategically placed Hawaii). I believe Russia may use proxies for that purpose. Much as we won't put boots on the ground to beat ISIS, but instead use airstrikes to enable allies such as the Kurds to occupy liberated territory, I think Russia will do likewise with their long-range military strikes while enabling an occupying invasion from elsewhere in the Americas. I believe Canada will not be able to maintain its territorial integrity as the invaders will not respect Canada's borders and the Russians, coveting the whole of the Arctic Ocean basin, will strike our ally to the north, as well. The Russians will then turn toward reaching military objectives in their own hemisphere without any worry of intervention emanating from the United States.
If Jade Helm convinces the federal government that resorting to civil war is an option to put on the table as a response to widespread revolt over the government's strong arm tactics in the wake of a fiscal emergency, then woe to the United States as we know it, for Russia will strike a crippling blow and America will be overthrown.
I believe there will be a rebirth of the nation, but it will take perhaps a decade for it to happen.
The new occupants of this region of North America will have swept in seeking the riches and the abundant life that was characteristic of the United States in its heyday and will not find it. Feeble regional governments will dot the landscape. They will totter until they find the right formula for governance. At some point, one of those governments will adopt principles contained in the U.S. Constitution and enjoy some prosperity as a result. Peoples of other regions will discover that the prosperity of the United States of the past proceeded not from an abundance of natural resources, but from the checks and balances upon government that the Constitution affords a sovereign people. Other regions will then seek to participate in a republic governed by that Constitution and will seek to have their territory annexed to that republic. In time, even peoples in distant parts of the Americas will seek the advantages of governance according to the principles of the Constitution. After all the destruction and chaos, a new American power will arise and immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere will start to swell.
If these events unfold, I project the onset to be quite soon, but I've been wrong before.
As mentioned in a blog post written in December 2010, I projected an utter economic collapse far worse than the one experienced in the fall of 2008. I said at that time that I could not envision, with our government's fiscal condition so out of order, that the smoke and mirrors supporting the illusion of a strong fiat currency could be maintained for more than four years into the future. I was wrong. I am glad to be wrong. I hope to continue to be wrong. I hope our national debt turns out to be a mirage. I hope crony capitalism yields to free markets. I hope Americans can find meaningful employment that allows them to support their families. I hope that American prosperity leads to diminished demand upon government resources for family survival. I hope that economic growth yields sufficient growth in the tax base that we can trim tax rates. I hope that the working population grows so much and makes so much money that the money paid into Social Security and Medicare will help provide for the nation's retirees and disabled. But I cannot see a turning point in our future that allows us to merrily proceed toward that utopia.
The crumbling of Greece may very well cause the European Union to crumble. Japan has never really recovered from its economic crisis dating back to the mid 1990's. China has overextended itself with massive infrastructure projects, a number of which are underutilized even after completion. The Middle East has discovered that oil is becoming a common commodity. Russia sees the economic writing on the wall and is working feverishly to insulate themselves from the coming crisis as best they can. At least Russia has a jump on attempts to stay on its feet in relation to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. South America is likely to escape the full brunt of the coming crisis, though Venezuela is already deluged in its own crisis. Much of this I rehearsed in that 2010 blog post. I see no reason to retreat from this falling domino scenario. The United States will not be able to withstand the economic blows reverberating around the world.
From what I can piece together, first shoe falls this fall. It is summer, already. I believe Jade Helm will wrap up on September the 15th without incident. It will be in the weeks after that during which the foundation shakes. I think many of us will still be leading normal lives through the end of this year, but we will no longer be so naïve about what might transpire. Perhaps Social Security payments will be suspended sometime in 2016 and the federal government finally shows its desperation for all to see.
I think that we might not have a federal election in November 2016. I think that is how calamitous the turn of events may turn out to be and how soon things might become unraveled. We will still exist in the fall of 2016, I think, but be too dysfunctional to carry through with the election. Or perhaps the elections take place, but quickly deteriorate in the aftermath so that the transition to a new Congress and POTUS is rocky and highly disputed, with states perhaps not sending their full delegations to Congress in a show of real intent to assert their own sovereignty. I think the majority of the states will be embroiled in violence in 2017, with an invading force from elsewhere in the Americas already mustering. I think the Russians will strike by 2018, the invasion will ensue, and we will hit the nadir and stay there for two or three years. I think worldwide recognition of a renewed America does not occur until 2025. I think it may take until 2030 before the renewed America encompasses as much territory as it does now (though I think the borders are not likely to be located where they are now).
The rapid onset of these events, I believe, will cause the federal government to revert to the playbook scripted for Jade Helm. Following the Jade Helm script will not be directly due to a conspiracy, but will merely unfold that way because the federal government will have little time to formulate a better response to an uprising that the government will feel it cannot ignore.
Posted in economy, executive branch, International Politics, military, National Politics, war. Tags: 2012 presidential race, 2016 presidential campaign, Alaska, Arctic Ocean, Arizona, Barack Obama (D), California, Canada, Carly Fiorina (R), China, Colorado, Congress, Daniel Jack Williamson, Eastern Hemisphere, economy, European Union, executive branch, Greece, Hawaii, Hillary Clinton (D), International Politics, ISIS, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Kurds, Mexico, military, Mitt Romney (R), National Politics, Nevada, New Mexico, North America, Northern Hemisphere, Operation Jade Helm, POTUS, Ronald Reagan (R), Russia, South America, South Carolina, Southern Hemisphere, states vs feds, Texas, US Constitution, Utah, Venezuela, Vladimir Putin, war, Western Hemisphere. 4 Comments »